> It is, if one of your highest use cases is “Parler we an app on my phone”
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.
I didn’t mean you specifically. But for those super motivated to use a Parler app the ability to sideload probably trumps the factors you listed.
I agree they’re not fungible. I like being on iphone for all the ecosystem aspects you describe. But if android worked for some key feature I’d switch, and keep a secondary iphone for my apple watch, imessage etc.
I like that your position offends both iPhone users and Android users equally. (I really do.)
Ultimately, is there anything that can be done? If you had to pick one specific world-changing action, what would it be, in detail? Your original premise was interesting, but perhaps difficult to codify.
If I could change anything, I would codify interoperability and access equality into law. If you have an API on your device and any app has access to it (1st party or not) than all parties should have access to it. It's fine if you want to have private system APIs, but if you're publishing apps for your platform than all apps should have access to the same APIs.
Maybe even specially call out that anyone can install any app they want on their mobile device, and this must be made accessible. You could even add in some weasel words like "after reasonable precautions have been taken" so that Apple can make you jump through some hoops to install an "unapproved" app. Let the courts sort out what is reasonable or not.
If a user is willing to go through the hoops to get exposed, I'm not sure anyone should stop them. Also, this is an old and tired argument. Computers have been this way forever. And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.
“And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.“
What examples do you have in mind and what has ‘usability’ got to do with this?
Also - as soon as one reputable App requires users to ‘go through the hoops to get exposed’, any app that can fool users into thinking it is reputable will be able to do so.
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.