And yet, we do no such thing when it comes to home and property security, financial security or medical records security. So, why when it comes to a phone which clearly has less overall value than these items, is it suddenly necessary to throw in the towel and allow an unnatural monopoly to form?
You're describing an unregulated market where the FTC and DOJ didn't seem particularly interested in policing. I would suggest that's a bigger reason for the state of the market then thinking it's a natural phenomenon endemic to this particular case.
And finally.. the giant disconnect here is that "you should worry about state level actors" but "you're too unsophisticated to do anything other than beg Apple for help." Mostly, I was trying to point out the absurdity of this position while at the same time taking a dig at Apple for their "cute friendly monopoly" tactics.
Does your phone company let you configure their spam filter? Do your medical providers let you secure their EMR systems? It sure looks like there is precedent for regulating companies to require them to provide secure services.
> Mostly, I was trying to point out the absurdity of this position while at the same time taking a dig at Apple for their "cute friendly monopoly" tactics.
Yes, and you let the desire for a quick jibe lead to oversimplification. The level of access which is needed to implement things like this also allows very powerful attacks. It’s not unsophisticated but realistic to recognize that allowing that level of access would have some benefits but would also reliably produce a large number of victims who trusted the wrong vendor. Reducing the number of parties who have to get it right to keep you secure has a significant benefit, especially if you’re familiar with the long history of companies which were acting in bad faith or compromised.
> And yet, we do no such thing when it comes to home and property security, financial security or medical records security. So, why when it comes to a phone which clearly has less overall value than these items, is it suddenly necessary to throw in the towel and allow an unnatural monopoly to form?
I think that there's a practical reason. For all your examples, the companies operating the solutions can be held to US laws and regulations. But purchasing (or downloading for free!) software from anywhere in the world cannot be regulated effectively (at all?).
So as a consumer, there is base level trust I have in companies providing me home & property security, financial security, and medical records security because they can be constrained by US laws & regulations, such as minimum standards. Not so for random software that I download for free or buy from some overseas (or basement somewhere in the US) location.
You're describing an unregulated market where the FTC and DOJ didn't seem particularly interested in policing. I would suggest that's a bigger reason for the state of the market then thinking it's a natural phenomenon endemic to this particular case.
And finally.. the giant disconnect here is that "you should worry about state level actors" but "you're too unsophisticated to do anything other than beg Apple for help." Mostly, I was trying to point out the absurdity of this position while at the same time taking a dig at Apple for their "cute friendly monopoly" tactics.