[jodrellblank]

The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS.

Why should they? You don't get to easily put any ingredient of your choice in packaged food, or any instrument of your choice in finished songs, or any cloth of your choice in premade clothing, or any engine you like in a car.

[mikeash]

Your analogies are highly broken.

You can mix packaged food with whatever you want. You can choose to eat only the left half of your TV dinner. In short, once it's yours, you can do what you like.

You can take a song and remix it to your heart's content. That is, unless the song contains DRM which prevents you from extracting the raw audio data. This is something most people around here frown upon rather strongly.

Nothing prevents me from taking pre-made clothing and using it in ways the manufacturer didn't envision and doesn't desire. I can use store-bought pants to make rope or filter water or anything I wish.

As for putting any engine you like in a car, I don't know where that came from. Of course you can put any engine you like in a car, as long as you have the resources and the skills.

Nobody is saying Apple must explicitly support third-party stuff like this. They shouldn't go out of their way for it. All we want is for them to stop going out of their way to prevent it.

It's not just a matter of Apple not inviting third-party OSes and bootloaders. The problem is that Apple locks down the platform using digital signatures so that the only way to use anything but an Apple OS or bootloader is to find and exploit a bug in Apple's lockdown code. There is no similar situation in the world of packaged food, music (except for DRM, which is generally considered bad), clothing, or cars.

[jodrellblank]

Your analogies are highly broken.

That's because computing is a new thing in human history. There isn't anything quite like it. But there is matter, and matter is sold with lots of disparate bits built into one product all the time. Things which could be reconfigured by a skilled person, but it's widely accepted that people don't/can't/shouldn't do that.

Your arguments are similarly broken. You can mix your iOS device with any pair of glasses, 3.5mm audio device, wifi AP, or cover, or choose to use only part of it. You can't have a TV dinner without the gravy browning and you can't get an iOS device without the Apple firmware.

The problem is that Apple locks down the platform using digital signatures so that the only way to use anything but an Apple OS or bootloader is to find and exploit a bug in Apple's lockdown code.

And one of the reasons they do that is so they can provide a curated, malware free, beginner-unbreakable, trustable-updating, partly-sandboxed-app experience for their paying customers.

You have complained about my analogies, but you haven't said why "they should" do that, just that "you want them to".

[mikeash]

Apple can easily provide the curated experience without locking the device down. Sideloading can be available while still off by default.

The reason Apple has the App Store and restricts distribution channels is to provide a good experience. The reason Apple locks down the platform so hard that the only way even an expert can customize the OS is to exploit bugs is to retain control of the platform, nothing to do with a good experience for users.

As for why they should do it, it's because I want them to, and because I think the walled garden approach is frighteningly dangerous for computing in general. Everybody is following suit. In a couple of decades it's not inconceivable that it will be impossible to publish any software without permission from a big corporation.

[jodrellblank]

It's pretty likely that the moment sideloading is "available but off by default" is the moment phishing messages take off seriously. "Just go to settings, then enable sideloading!". Most people won't know what it means, but will use it if told to.

That's not something I can cite peer reviewed evidence for, but from the number of people with unwanted toolbars and junkware on desktops, it seems likely.

So I disagree that it has "nothing to do with a good experience for users".

the walled garden approach is frighteningly dangerous for computing in general.

It has made something widely regarded as the best non-technical computing experience of the decade. It's not 'frighteningly dangerous' while there are still lots of ways to get computation you want done, done. (Albeit not as slickly).

[mikeash]

Sideloaded apps could still be sandboxed. It is the sandboxing which helps against malware, not the App Store approval process (which is not at all thorough and not equipped to detect malware at all).

[beedogs]

This may be the worst argument I've seen on HN in weeks.

[jodrellblank]

Someone asking a question is the worst argument you've seen in weeks? Leave the hyperbole at the door, would you?

[a3d6g2f7]

What is the product? Is it the hardware? Or the software? Are you saying they are one product, not two?

We've been through this countless times. Microsoft and the OEM's. Apple and their locked down hardware. Consumers are not fools. They know the difference between a software company and a hardware company.

Does your packaged food come with silverware?

Do your finished songs come with an mp3 player?

Does your premade clothing come with laundry detergent?

I find these type of comparsions (e.g. of computers and software to food, music, clothing) very strange. We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.

[dpark]

Should Honda be obliged to support installing custom engine control software? Overwriting the radio firmware? Reprogramming the odometer?

Should GE obligated to support installing new firmware on your dishwasher?

There's a long history of integrated devices. It may be the case that consumers know the difference between hardware and software. It's also the case, though, that they often do not care, and don't want to see with the difference.

[jodrellblank]

What is the product? Is it the hardware? Or the software? Are you saying they are one product, not two?

Yes I'm saying they are one product not two. They are made as one product, advertised as one product, sold as one thing for one price, supported as one product. Where do you get the idea that they could reasonably be thought of as two products?

We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.

No we aren't. We are talking about dozens of components, both software and hardware, put together into one product which is not sold as "programmable electronics" anymore than a dishwasher is sold as "reconfigurable matter". It's a nonsense idea that you want to be the case but you haven't justified why it "should" be the case at all.