Yeah duh no real jail involved. That misses my point. Its called jailbreaking for a reason. Out the box its metaphorically in jail. Its restricted and limited in a bunch of ways that you have to break it out of.
You paid to own it, Apple puts in rules as if you're renting it. It doesn't matter that you can hack it. You shouldn't have to hack your own hardware.
Apple made it work in a certain way and it’s clear about it, if you want it to work in a different way I don’t think Apple obligated in helping you. If you’re surprised that they don’t support software installation beyond the AppStore, you can modify your device and make it do that(jailbreak), you can return your device or sell it.
It’s ridiculous to say expect that Apple is obligated in helping you use the device in ways not designed to work. Would you expect Apple also to make it possible to run PlayStation games?
Would you buy a car that only goes on Ford^TM approved roads and only takes Ffuel from Ford approved stations? Sorry, you can't drive here. That's a GM road.
No, of course not. We all know that the ability to run on unapproved roads isn't a "feature", but rather the inability to run on an unapproved road is an anti-feature that they built in the first place. For that matter, the inability to run playstation games outside a playstation is also an anti-feature which had to be engineered by Sony. For that matter, do you buy razors that only fit Gillette approved blade designs? So why restrictions on computing devices then?
I will give credit where its due in that Apple is upfront about the nature of the walled garden. Who knows, maybe there really is a market for cars that only go to approved places.
This is such a terribly flawed analogy. Roads are a shared utility that are usually built with public money. They are not a matter of personal choice. In addition, roads are largely a commodity, with few points of differentiation beyond fodder for office small talk. Drawing the comparison, even without referring to these specific attributes, is manipulative and misleading.
Most people that argue for your desired outcome can at least see that there are non-zero user-facing benefits to a walled garden. Do you really not have anyone in your life that isn’t an idealistic tech savvy power user? Apple obviously has financial incentive to maintain its 30% transaction cut, and it’s made some silly arguments to try to maintain that. However it’s also raised some very legitimate and well thought-out downsides.
At this point, the conversation has evolved so far beyond the “it’s a road!” analogy that continuing with that line of reasoning feels either ignorant or acting in bad faith, not because of any “won ground” by the pro walled garden lot, but because all that are interested in a legitimate debate know that these misleading comparisons help nobody.
You can pontificate all you want, but the law is pretty clear that what Apple is doing violates antitrust law, and is thus illegal. See the precedent set in US v. Microsoft.
Your Ford comes with a particular operating system and performance parameters. If you want to run something else, you have to jump through a few hoops to change that. Those hoops might be more or less difficult to clear than jailbreaking iOS, but the option/requirement is there in both cases.
Everything intelligent comes with a set of software. You can replace that software (on almost everything?), but then it's up to you to maintain the setup how you like. That's not unique to iOS.
Well, lots of people seem to like using Apple products in the way Apple intended to - adhering to your example, driving on the vast Ford network that covers most of the world and gets ford drivers pretty much everywhere.
You paid to own it, Apple puts in rules as if you're renting it. It doesn't matter that you can hack it. You shouldn't have to hack your own hardware.