Well, I have access in Files to a lot of content from my apps - that’s a decision of the app creator to not use this and keep the content created in the locked area of the app.

For example, the apps from Omni do this, as do obsidian, Linea…

Let’s assign the blame where it should be here.

> Let’s assign the blame where it should be here.

Obviously the blame lies on Apple for locking away your device's contents from you. Developers should not be able to have more control over what you can access on your device than you do. Even if they make bad choices (like making accessing the files hard) it should be you who has the final say, not them.

Apple making it possible for developers to make bad choices and go against users' control over their own devices is to blame.

But all other platforms also make it possible for developers to make bad choices, so I’m not sure why Apple is being singled out here?

Because Apple invented this kind of walled gardens.

Try to hide the files on GNU/Linux.

That's easy, just store all the user-generated data in an encrypted file. You might be able to copy the blob but the vast majority of users won't be able to extract the files within.

This is much harder and can't be done accidentally, unlike on Android.

An iPhone is a very non-typical device. Apple is a non-typical company which builds lock-in to every step of the process.

If you chose to use iAnything then it's a bit late to start complaining about lock in now.

When ‘not typical’ is actually the norm for a huge swath of users, perhaps non-typical is not the right term?

In a pile of devices, Apples are non-typical. The number of users is not terribly relevant.

However, sure, lots of users chose Apple knowing exactly what it is. Apple's not going to change since their model clearly appeals to lots of people.

If you don't like Apple's model, then don't choose Apple devices. What everyone else chooses is somewhat irrelevant to you. (Other than network effects noted earlier.)

The two things you brush over are the most important though - and feed into each other: network effects are relevant (and very much so because they affect all sorts of things you can do with something) and they are directly influenced by the number of users, which makes them incredibly relevant. What others choose are also relevant because of these network effects.

I can hack up a "device" with a raspberry pi zero or whatever and call it "HaxyDeck" and claim it is all open to anyone who wants to tinker with it, but at the end it'd be irrelevant because only me (and perhaps a couple other people) would have it. The aspects you want to ignore (number of users, be something other than Apple, what others are using) would actually affect my use of HaxyDeck directly: since i'd be the only one (or one among a tiny number) using it, i'd be the only one having to make it do things i want, it wont have software from others, it wont support software other people may want to use for communication, software some services that theoretically have nothing to do with phones or computers (e.g. banks) wont work because HaxyDeck's userbase is irrelevant for them, etc. All of these have to do exactly with what others are doing.

Basically see how all the non-Android Linux phones (like PinePhone) are faring. You can't just ignore what effect having a large user base some platform (be it a device, an OS or even service) has and say "just use something different".

They’re roughly 18% of the phone market (as percent of users), but 68% of the market as a share of revenue.

They are hardly irrelevant, especially if you like money.

Non-typical compared to what? It's not any better on Android, unless you root it. Google has been going out of its way to deny users access to data stored on their phone, by allowing and encouraging apps to claim sole ownership on data, as well as removing interoperability features (around which Android OS was initially designed), all in name of sekhurity.

That's not iOS fault. Apps can store their files in a folder visible in the Files app, or can ask the user to open a file or folder from a file provider (also visible in Files app), or to save a file or folder in a file provider (always visible in the Files app).

It's not the 2011 iOS anymore, if an app today hides its video projects from the user, it's entirely the app fault.

Arguably this is still on Apple, because they don’t let you access the full filesystem as you can on other operating systems, and in particular because an app developer may rightfully want to create a class of internal-use files that are not explicitly exposed to the typical user, but would be available to users seeking them out.

I imagine, for example, that if the internal project files for a popular video editing app were accessible, we’d see competing and/or open source apps emerge that could parse them, were the original app to become suddenly unavailable. Instead they’re just lost because your phone won’t let you access them.

Well, you can access them by using something like iMazing. I agree that there should be a way to see the entire file system, even if read-only.

Blame can be shared. The OS vendor for providing a way for applications to hide files on the user's filesystem from the user, and the application for using it instead of making the user's documents available to the user. They are both working together in unison against the user.

imo it's the platform's choice to have default-visible or default-sandboxed program outputs and data.

while possible, it is fairly non-trivial for iOS apps to have read/write access to a shared folder where they can drop arbitrary files, which can then be accessed by other apps, or be discovered by the user. it often requires copious permission negotiation handling codepaths by the developer, and a fearlessness of scary permission-warning dialogs by the end-user.

even on modern (commercially popular flavors of) Android which no longer imbibes the "free software" ethos of the linux core the OS was built around, you can't access formerly accessible application sandbox folders without installing third party browsing tools or plugging into a desktop computer to mount the storage, and cross-application sandbox access is similar to iOS.

in the "personal computing way" mentioned by the article (even today on desktop environments, less so on MacOS) program outputs are default-visible, and developers have to go out of their way to firewall or obscure or encrypt it from being accessible by the user or other programs using OS-provided pathways.

i think this is 100% on the OS + hardware + application platform provider (with Apple as all three on iOS).