[wil421]

I had an Android a few years ago and #2 was a big issue. AT&T installed all types of apps including an automatic WiFi connecting app. I had to flash a google image to get rid of it. I’d be driving down the road and my maps or other apps would lose connections. Turns out I was being forced to connect to AT&T stores and Starbucks at red lights (anywhere attwifi was detected).

Not to mention all the Samsung bloatware.

[Wowfunhappy]

Two points:

1. Granting more permissions to third party apps won't cause the iPhone to ship with Samsung bloatware.

2. I'm not necessarily advocating for 3rd party app privileges to be significantly expanded. However, Apple's own apps should mostly play by the same rules. If they can't, that's a sign the rules are too restrictive.

[kitsunesoba]

New app permissions must be added judiciously, as it’s been proven time and time again that developers can and will abuse them in whatever ways they can, including training and desensitizing users if necessary.

Apple tends to open capabilities up once they’re confident they’ve been able to make them reasonably airtight against abuse. That seems like a very sensible policy to me, even if it means that certain features come at a glacial pace.

[Wowfunhappy]

Okay, but then Apple shouldn't use them in their own apps either.

[kitsunesoba]

But then Apple is not only putting themselves at a disadvantage against other platforms for long stretches of time (“iOS can do that with Apple stuff” is better than “iOS can’t do that”), but also giving up their ability to dogfood new APIs and test them in a much larger capacity than even a public beta would allow.

In order to remain competitive, they’d be forced to release half-baked/under-tested APIs, which is never good. That’s exactly how the Android developer story got as bad as it did at its lowest points.