But having a system that accepts non-genuine parts leads to a more complicated system. Apple's system is simple. Android's system is more complicated because it has multiple app stores. I don't want that complexity.
That's an interesting way of thinking which I've not really encountered outside of Soviet-style centrally controlled economy advocates and the like.
Do you feel the same way about all other things in life where you are presented with a choice? Would you prefer there to only be a single grocery store you get your groceries from, for example?
I just don't understand. I really try hard to understand, but I physically can't I think.
Let's say that hypothetically, there was another store present on iOS. Does that stop you(or anyone) from only ever using the Apple App Store?? On Android, there are several other stores available, yet I have never felt the need to use any of them - they exist, they have their own customers.....but....that's it.
It's like if you already have one shop in your village, so you prevent others from opening even though literally nothing would force you to go to these other shops and you can still enjoy the original shop as much as you did before. Literally nothing changes in your life, but you want to prevent others from having a choice, even if you yourself don't appreciate the choice. That's mindboggling to me.
Reading through the replies you got for this post is really quite interesting. I feel like what it boils down to is that there are a decent amount of people that prefer life under an authoritarian regime (whether governmental or corporate). A regime where someone they trust decides for them how they should enjoy their life and protects them from bad choices. Merely allowing a different party from offering a competing choice would undermine the whole premise.
It's a bit like the cruise ship industry where you forgo choice (compared to traveling outside of a tour) but gain safety and the benefit of not having to research or make decisions. If anyone could open up a restaurant or organise an outing on a cruise ship, then that perceived safety disappears and the need to make conscious decisions arises.
As this seems to be a reasonably common theme in these posts I wonder if there's a market for more products that follow a similar purchase incentive, like a fridge that only allows you to insert groceries you've bought from the trusted supermarket.
Apple would have to do the work to modify their software to support multiple stores, and they’d have to support the code for that going forward.
They’d be doing that instead of something else productive that I could use.
So it’s a loss to me and other Apple users who appreciate the curated system at the moment.
Your analogy is ‘prevent’ but really it’s ‘not want to do the work to enable’. See how that’s not the same thing? Instead of 'not preventing someone opening a new shop in the village' you're asking them to cut a hole in the side of their store so someone in a greasy food cart can connect up to it and sell smelly burgers with poor food hygiene standards in the middle of their boutique, and then maintain that hole going forward.
They don't want to do that! Many of their customers don't want that! Those customers that do want it can go somewhere else, like Android!
It would be a negative for me, because I would need to train my parents to never use this other store. Then their friends will get them to use it, because a sketchy app will be in that store that offers free money, or some other scam. My parents will then breach the secure containment of their phone, without really understanding what they're doing.
It would harm Apple, because when users try the third party app store and have problems, they will expect Apple to support it. If Apple doesn't do the support, it tarnishes their brand to that user.