If we just look at Linux, there is the push to hide more things from users not the other way around as more people use it.

Perhaps in the case of design mad developers like the GNOME team. But even on distros like Ubuntu, it's miles from Apple where any such capabilities are removed entirely.

That's why people dislike Ubuntu and power developers use Arch Linux.

And in the Apple world, there are no alternatives. No real options. All or nothing. Their way or the highway. Thankfully we have competition against them, but we just had a nice FUD article yesterday that said "OMG NEW ANDROID VIRUS" that no one can actually claim is in the wild and requires back flips to install.

And how many support cases would they get saying: "Well you let me install from another site other than the Apple store, what do you mean you don't support your product?" Try explaining to an end user the difference.

There is no evidence this would be the case yet you assume it would be a given!

Apple only pocketed $1.2B in revenue

Only!

However, in the following days I have begun to doubt my position and wonder if we don't have some responsibility to artificially 'cripple' the solution and in doing so protect the user from themselves (build a car that stays on the ground).

I suppose this is the rationalization that Apple uses internally to justify their walled garden. Gotta protect users from themselves whether they want it or not.

Rather than being assholes like Apple, perhaps you could make this configurable in some fashion? Whatever the hell "this" is?

That's an irrelevant angle to argue because Apple has negated it completely. I suspect that having to check a box to load non-Play Store apps is just as effective in curtailing the sources of infection.

I love the fear mongering. Do you own Apple stock?

I see we're going to get all secret agent style here. Except that people spreading malware are low-impact criminals, so I don't see this happening either.

But standing at a bus stop and spotting someone sharply-dressed, I could ask to use their phone to make a quick call for [insert excuse here], and in a few seconds, install similar malware.

You could? Don't you think they'd notice when you're opening the browser and typing URLs rather than making a phone call?

Since the one of the main talking point about android is the ability to side install apps.

It's a talking point because on Apple devices it isn't even an option at all. I'm highly doubtful that malware could spread effectively via sideloading.

The fees aren't what's important. It's the licensing terms and rules they seek to impose as a condition of access. The goal isn't money, it's using the rights granted by patent protection as a club to control others.

Did anyone really expect the MPEG-LA to offer license terms that were amenable to FOSS goals? That would eliminate their ability to exert and enforce control over the market.

Patents have no value in conveying knowledge these days, they are simply artillery for court battles and chains you can yank to control the actions of others.

I think he's referring to the fixation some "conservatives" have on Obama's association with Bill Ayers.

Still, that might be what is going on here.

Yeah, and Ancient Aliens might not be entirely fabricated.

Ok, so no one can say. Good to see that posting unsubstantiated, politically biased bullshit is now a staple of Slashdot comments.

They now have a mandate to have EVERYBODY's.

Really now? Where in the legislation does it say that the IRS has the right to access health records?

I take it then that it didn't, and probably never would, occur to you that they might simply be conducting reconnaissance to see if an attack is feasible?

Because we must always assume the worst, and therefore we should overreact and assume a state of perpetual paranoia?

You do know that Al Qaida agents have been caught more than once doing that?

Really? Got anything to back that up?

May I assume then that you don't bother to check both ways before crossing the street since that would be "giving in to fear" of being hit by a car?

Ah yes, because driving oneself into a state of paranoia such that we must live in constant suspicion of our neighbors is equivalent to making no cars are traveling down the street.

perhaps drinking water from the toilet wouldn't bother you because you refuse to "live in fear" of disease? And insurance? Doesn't that just show you are living in fear of an accident? Apparently in your world, people don't do things that are prudent, they only act out of fear. Pity that.

You're completely fucking off base.

Nonsense.

Apple and Microsoft will happily comply. After all, they've already take away the end-user's control of their mobile devices.