> For example, an inexperienced end user should not be able to freely reprogram the firmware on a robotics system used for surgery. A system like that is very intentionally shipped with guardrails that prevent the owner of the device from making dangerous modifications.
Comparing an iPad to a device that controls matters of life or death is almost as ridiculous as pretending these "guardrails" exist to serve the user.
The guardrails exist to prevent the user from exiting Apple's garden. It is there to protect a monopoly, not to protect the user.
Can you not pretend that my argument had zero nuance?
I specifically mentioned in my reply that Apple should be forced by consumer regulations to remove guardrails like disallowing competing app stores, and they should be forced to have more interoperability with competing standards and products (e.g., iMessage/FaceTime should be an open protocol where other vendors could make compatible communication apps).
But they shouldn't be forced to allow you to gain full root or dump the secure enclave's private keys.
Comparing an iPad to a device that controls matters of life or death is almost as ridiculous as pretending these "guardrails" exist to serve the user.
The guardrails exist to prevent the user from exiting Apple's garden. It is there to protect a monopoly, not to protect the user.
Can we stop pretending it's anything else?