The iPhone is a personal device but it's not a computer. It merely has a computer inside it. What sets it apart from a real computer is the fact it only does what manufacturer designed it to do. They're the ones programming the computer, not the users. So the iPhone is just a device that does cool things. Like one of those nice electronic watches with a ton of cool functions but you get to download new features from Apple's store.
It's not about being a personal computer. An iPhone may be personal, but it's hardly a computer.
I mean, technically it is, but then so is the microwave timer controller.
In terms of user interaction, an iPhone does its best to be an appliance, not a general-purpose computer. So do Android smartphones - lest one thing it's an Apple problem, it's not. It's a modern computing problem.
At least you get to run arbitrary software on them as a standard feature. And on many, the bootloader is unlockable, so you could root the thing and/or tinker with the OS.
The modern computing problem isn't this particular thing, it lies higher. It's presuming that the user is stupid and can't possibly be trusted with figuring stuff out and making their own informed decisions. Won't be surprised if people who design software like this consider every setting a liability.
> The modern computing problem isn't this particular thing, it lies higher. It's presuming that the user is stupid and can't possibly be trusted with figuring stuff out and making their own informed decisions.
I agree with that. It's pretty much an unquestioned axiom in the industry. You can see it mentioned in almost every article or book about writing software, doing UI design or UX work. The user is stupid. They're incapable of thinking for themselves, figuring things out, having their own goals. They have to be carefully guided so they follow the exact path the software prescribes for them, and incentivized along the way with "engagement patterns", lest they get bored mid way.
> Won't be surprised if people who design software like this consider every setting a liability.
Which is funny, because the first thing every single piece of software on this planet does, is disclaiming any and all liability for anything.
So the kind of liability they feel, I believe, is just that of getting bad press over some reviewers deciding something is too confusing, leading to reduced sales.
> It's presuming that the user is stupid and can't possibly be trusted with figuring stuff out and making their own informed decisions.
It's even more malicious than that. The corporations and governments are hostile towards users. They lock the computer down so we can't do anything that harms business and government interests. Can't copy or share files. Can't use strong cryptography the government can't crack.
These people believe computers are too subversive to allow the masses unrestricted access to them. They would rather we have nothing but restricted appliances that obey them instead of us. The computer doesn't serve us, it serves them as a tool to control us.
An Android phone is primarily a device for media consumption and the collection of your personal data, but it can be tricked into being more than that. Without rooting it you can install a terminal and use it to learn some perl or python. There's no reason why you couldn't do that with an iphone except Apple not wanting you to. The capabilities are there, but it's not what those devices are for any more than a toaster is a gaming PC just because you can hack it enough to get Doom to run. If someone is going to develop creativity and tech skills using a smartphone it'll be despite their device not because of it.
Though unlocking the bootloader isn't what I would call hacking. It's a feature deliberately built into many devices. Jailbreaking iOS, on the other hand, is hacking, because it inevitably involves exploiting a vulnerability to take over the system.
