I really don't understand the argument here. That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.
Yes, this has the side effect of making them more money and allowing a walled garden to form, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect.
The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more. And it's really easy to steal people's phones on the subway. This isn't about freedom of computing, this is about the fact that an iPhone in BFU is nearly as secure as a GrapheneOS phone.
There are many problems with Apple software. It's buggy, uses proprietary formats that you can't export, and interoperable with open standards. It's bad, and is the primary reason why I won't buy another iPhone, but Macs have that same problem. On the other hand, being cryptographically locked-down is an optional feature. If you don't like it, buy a computer without that feature. It's harmful to us, to tinkerers and people who want to see how things work, but the average person does not care at all and just wants to be able to open LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs without having their 401k get drained.
If you make a bootloader unlock require a full wipe/rekey of the device, and make unlock status visible at boot, most of the "someone might unlock my bootloader maliciously" concerns go away.
If you put the icloud-lockout stuff early enough in the boot chain (which I believe is the case on apple silicon macs already?), that seems like a solvable problem too. I can understand why apple hasn't put the engineering effort into making something like this happen, but I don't think it's because they can't make it happen.
I still remember the era when jailbreaking Android and iPhones was gaining popularity among less technical people. It was eye opening to watch how many people I knew would search for a random web page and then unquestioningly follow instructions on the screen to install software from the first link they clicked.
All of this to get custom fonts in their messaging app or some other little feature they saw on someoneâs phone.
I started getting a lot of requests for help from people who had broken key functions on their phones or even bricked them entirely.
Even today thereâs a culture of downloading Android builds from long forum threads on XDA developers and other forums and hoping theyâre not compromised.
I understood this stance more 10 years ago, but now we have many layers of fairly well documented exploit tactics and none of them rely on the app store. However forcing users to use an app store was supposed to benefit us has clearly failed.
And, somehow, the indignity of being forced into paying apple a 30% tax for a market they wholly own never comes up alongside other paternalistic arguments....
Can you elaborate on "fairly well documented exploit tactics"? My impression is that most of these are either social engineering, for which we need to hire better designers, or complicated chains of hard-to-find primitives only accessible to state actors.
There's definitely problems but the solution isn't to make the iPhone a general purpose computer. We definitely need to defend the existence of general purpose computing at a time where regulation is likely to begin encroaching on it, but the promise of the App Store is "pay a 30% tax and any app you download here will be safe." In my mind, at least, that's the promise, and perhaps one solution to the situation would be to erect consequences to breaking that promise.
A 30% tax and no freedom to install what you want better come with protection from state actors lmaooo. Otherwise what could be worth such a heavy-handed (and under a rational state, illegal) method?
Especially when the app store is nos filled with gambling apps and social media built to exploit children....
> The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more.
And so is their god damn computer!
The ONLY reason why we treat phones differently from computers has no relationship at all with what's at stake, it's purely because Apple felt they could get away with it for phone, while they estimated that people would stop buying macs right away if they did the same thing for computers. It's literally that simple.
And yet, try getting a full backup of your Google phone onto your own computer. (Without rooting/wiping the whole thing.) Heck, try getting just your text messages off (without a separate app)!
You can't. (Last time I checked.) The backup is encrypted in the cloud, and the only way to download it is to restore it to a phone.
Whereas I can just plug in my iPhone and get a full backup, complete with sqlite manifest, completely accessible. Text messages, photo library, everything.
The iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product.
Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?
Many people here says that it's locked up by design, and while I agree, we could have an alternative firmware (not iOS or even GUI) that gives full control and complete access through ssh and repurpose it as we want.
I have a pile of iphones without battery sitting in a drawer and It would be a really cheap way to run fun stuff.
The only thing that could be worrying is device theft, but a simple CLI tool for the initial device registration after firmware flash might do it.
This is sooo true. I have multiple computing ideas that I want to do just for fun but I am not doing because each requires buying a mini-pc, sometimes with a screen too, and put Linux + my app on it.
At the same time I have multiple old phones laying around, Pixels, iPhones, Galaxy that are out of date, have cracked screens or worn out batteries.
Each one of these old phones have same or more computing power than a $300 mini-pc, but I can't use them because I can't just ssh into them and install an app...
Just nitpicking: unlockable bootloaders. The bootloader is locked by default. But you can unlock it without needing Google.
Additionally, Pixels support a Linux VM and has a desktop mode (I'm running GrapheneOS, it may still be that these features have to be enabled through the developer settings).
I recently turned my unused Google Pixel 8 into a server for my personal site and various side projects. It's super satisfying to spin things up in a couple hours, point a cloudflare tunnel at it, and share it with the world.
A few days ago I cracked the edge of my smartphone's screen at just the right spot to shut its display off entirely, though it still works. Using the USB-C dongle meant for my laptop, the phone pops into a desktop view which basically is the same experience as a Chromebook (for better or worse).
In the meantime before its repair, I shoved my SIM card into an old flipphone I had in the tech graveyard drawer. I've actually really liked the limited flipphone experience. It's a mental breath of fresh air to not have a time/focus black hole in my pocket at all times. It made me realize that I've had a pretty bad relationship with my smartphone in terms of how much time I wasted on it. I'm considering keeping the flipphone as my primary phone. Maybe smartphones do too much.
as someone who did this for a week, it's nice until you need to install an app to check your bank statements or manage your insurance. Maybe that will get better as agents do, however
I use the Pixel, but the point is the same. Recently Google added the "Dex" like feature where I can plug in the phone to a monitor and use it as my "entire computer" - at first I was excited, I can go to a coffee shop and leave my laptop behind, but then I looked at getting a bluetooth keyboard, mouse, monitor - with battery, and it's now a worse experience. There are monitor/battery/trackpad combination products for this exact scenario but they are nowhere near the quality of just buying a Macbook - doubly so the Neo.
A laptop is more than the sum of its parts. Your phone overlaps with it on a technical level, but format is important.
I had a similar experience where I tried out a Z Fold 7 with a kickstand and foldable bluetooth keyboard. I was curious about the feasibility of an all-in-one computing experience; it was clunky but surprisingly somewhat productive.
Then when confronted with scenarios where I had no stable surfaces I realized why the LAPtop form factor reigns supreme.
Peripheral add-ons like the NexDock are very nifty, but at that point you are suffering from the same physical constraints of a phone + laptop lifestyle. All with zero of the benefits of a locally accessible, more mature, and capable OS.
There's nothing much special about phone silicon. They generally run a bit slower than their desktop/laptop counterparts because of power and heat limitations.
At the top end on a desktop power usage doubles for lower double-digit percentage gains. You can shave that off and not lose much. Laptops are a lot closer to phones than they are to desktops when it comes to power and thermal limitations*, so re-using a "phone" chip really isn't crazy.
* 100W power usage on a laptop is entering silly territory, but on a desktop that's the bottom of entry-level rigs.
There is and there isn't. Your phone, almost certainly, with a shorter list of exceptions than not, has a locked bootloader and consequently cannot run unsigned software with full permissions without additional work. Sometimes that work is impossible to do. In terms of capabilities, sure, your phone is as capable, if not more capable than a desktop computer from a decade or two ago. The phone in my hand that I'm writing this from is 100 times more powerful than the computer I had as a kid. So that's an important point to make. However the specialness of phone silicon is the locked down bootloader and the downstream effects of that. You can point out exceptions where you can unlock the bootloader, but those are exceptions. The vast majority of phones you aren't going to get root on. So in that dimension, that's what's special about phone silicon. The signed chain-of-trust that is baked in and prevents you from running unsigned binaries with full permissions on phone silicon.
You are conflating many things here. A locked bootloader does not imply you cannot run unsigned software in user space. There are also many phones that do allow you to unlock the bootloader. I have a drawer full of them.
Finally, the ability to allow you to unlock your phone bootloader or to run custom firmware has nothing to do with the silicon. It's a software choice. The trusted software could most certainly decide to disable these safeguards.
I was talking with someone solidly in Gen X that described their desire to write out longer form documents by hand on paper rather than typing them up. The process of typing helped them work through the content better than typing.
In an analogous way, I feel like I'm in that part of the millennial generation that is more comfortable doing things on a PC than on a phone. Sure I can informally browse airline tickets and cars on my phone, or upload some docs for my , but when things get serious, I'm switching to a PC to complete it.
There's something about doing things on a phone that just does not feel... robust? Maybe I am just too accustomed to the phone experience being minimal, or minimized in some way compared to the desktop experience.
It's very clear that the consumer is getting a worse experience than what is technically possible. There is no good phone-slash-laptop, purely because it's less profitable than locking down the devices and selling them separately.
The reason the iPhone is so successful is because Apple don't let us use it as a "entire" computer.
I am just glad, that we can still run a proper OS on a proper computer. If they made a modified iPad OS for their baby laptop it could have been an ominous sign.
I remember the period of 1998-2008 or so when Windows seemed to be in absolute crisis because the average Windows user was not qualified to be using a computer connected to the internet.
I'd go visit my family in New England (more than one group) and they'd have a 640x480 screen and be doing all their web browsing through 70 vertical pixels because they'd installed 30 toolbars -- and they thought there was nothing wrong with this!
The world was reeling from a cyber war between two German teens who were trying to outdo each other with viral "love letter" programs because people would just click on... anything!
Plenty of us were looking for some platform, any platform, that would deliver us from that nightmare. It wasn't going to be the Sun Ray, it wasn't going to be Linux (talk about frying pan to the fire), it was going to be the iPhone.
The argument here is valid, if I read this correctly. Why canât Apple simply allow your iPhone SIMPLY be just a transportable PC, that you can connect a keyboard, mouse, and monitor and do anything else you can do with Echo or any Apple computer? [EDIT]Provided that some functionalities (the phone) be walled off for security.
Why would you allow your phone to be a computer if you can sell a computer AND a phone? Allowing "random" OS to be installed on your phone would mean loosing control over your phone (including spying, gathering statistical data to influence major decisions, ability to paralyze communication of your country etc etc)
Android phones are nothing but linux phones and video output (DP over USB-C, earlier MHL) is for many years already included in many phones. I would love to carry one device with everything on it. I would be very happy if that device was like a laptop with detachable core, that acts as phone.
Why not just get a Linux phone running Ubuntu Touch or postmarketOS. You'd have full root access, sideloading etc and none of that corporate control, likely for half the price of an iPHone. Sure you'd lose all the Apple look/feel but at least you can do what you want with the phone.
Microsoft has been SO successful with trying to converge devices </s> I'll agree that Apple has business reasons for keeping device classes separate. But I also think that keeping at least phones and laptops separate makes a lot of sense. I CAN use my phone as a full computer, but having done so traveling, it's not the best experience.
I seem to recall the Carriers having some pretty strict requirements on the devices that can connect to the mobile networks. Anyone know if that's (still) the case?
I'm not trying to defend Apple here, I'm just curious if there would be some kind of carrier validation issues if you slapped a full desktop OS on a phone.
I doubt that's the issue. Phones already have a baseband processor and OS in control of the modem. Also evidence if viability is all the Windows laptops with WWAN.
Is this news to anyone? of course it is! The reason that they don't let you run MacOS is absolutely arbitrary, in support of you buying another device. It also allows them to avoid the cost of supporting MacOS in another form-factor.
This feels more like a facebook post that would shock my mom then a HN article...
Arbitrary is doing a lot of work. With MacOS you can use an iPad as a touchscreen external monitor. Try it and youâll learn that itâs not a touchscreen OS. Itâs not as simple as ânot letting youâ.
They could have a lean version of the macOS desktop on every iPhone where it would switch to the macOS desktop once you plug it into a display. Include iWork on both sides with shared storage and you could switch between the phone interface and macOS.
I mean Samsung DeX has done something similar, but Apple could make a much more powerful version, since they have a real fully-developed desktop and they have apps for both platforms that use a single code base.
They will, of course, never do this, because it would result in losing Mac sales. Though I think less than one would initially think, because a laptop is much handier on the go than carrying a separate display, keyboard, and mouse and the lapdocks or whatever they are called have much worse displays and keyboards.
Maybe it doesn't have a touchscreen interface, but i take issue with it being a touchscreen OS. I suspect most people who would want to run MacOS on an ipad would attach the appropriate user interface devices.
or...plug into usb and use the ipad battery. the ipad already has a battery. Just don't limit what software you could load, that's all that's being asked here.
Samsung DEX isn't far off from this, it's just that you're limited to Android instead of Linux, MacOS etc.
But Apple will surely never allow such a thing since their main interest is in selling as many pieces of hardware to each of the Apple Faithful as possible. So they with a straight face suggest that a single human needs an iPad Pro (which easily tops $1500 with the eye-wateringly-expensive keyboard and a storage upgrade) and a laptop. Nevermind that they may have the same chip inside.
I own too many Apple devices, so I may unintentionally qualify as one of those Apple Faithful, but even so I can't really find a place for the iPad in my life. I've tried, I do own an old iPad Pro, but it is semi-permanently mounted to my treadmill as the only use case I've ever had that sticks. As a practical matter I either want my phone, or a real desktop computer.
Something like that Samsung DEX with a real Linux OS and maybe I'm getting a new phone.
I do that with my Pinephone (a powered USB-C hub with ethernet, HDMI, keyboard and mouse; I also plug a proper set of speakers+subwoofer into headphone jack).
Both Phosh and PlasmaMobile turn into a "proper" desktop when "docked" (Gnome-like and KDE-like, respectively).
The problem is Mac. They've always locked things down citing safety or user experience, but it is profit and walled garden. Samsung Dex has been doing this for years.
In before someone explains it's not "exactly" the same. Dex has shown this phone/computer ability in practice long before.
You can connect keyboard, mouse, and video, but you just get screen mirroring on the screen (or it can properly display a full-screen video in some apps, I think... though DRM video may refuse), so, it's pretty limiting.
It's always funny to watch hackernews slam apple for user experience decisions based off what's best for their average customer as if every person purchasing an apple device is a hackernews.
It seems like the viability of running a computer from an A16 really just came to fruition. There's heat, performance, battery life, etc implications that the average consumer can't quite articulate but it matters to them.
Apple's goal seemed to be to decimate the Cheap Plastic Intel Laptop space, and I think they succeeded at catching the industry with their tails between their legs.
Iâve been hoping Apple would allow this for years, although it doesnât seem like something they would do.
The fact that iPadOS now has windowing seems like it would only make it work better. iPads can already do everything necessary, so why not the iPhone?
Unfortunately I suspect that if this was ever going to happen, which I wouldâve bet against, itâs now letâs likely. I suspect current Apple would rather sell me a Neo then let me use my phone. In other words I think the existence of the product might rule it out under current leadership.
If the rumored folding phone with a close-to-iPad-mini UI handles USB monitor connections the same as the iPad, that would give the basic version right there, albeit at a huge base price.
I hadnât thought of that. In my mind I think Apple will say ânot an iPad, you donât get itâ but the distinction (hardware UI wise) would be much much fuzzier than today.
Maybe I'm alone in this camp, but I really value the idea that my phone is an ultra-stable bedrock experience that, sure, I have to sacrifice some freedoms on but ultimately they're not exactly freedoms I care to express on a 5.8" display whose more critical purpose is things like "my car keys", "my door keys", "maintaining contact with family" etc. Versus, my linux desktop feels like its always in a state of nearly falling apart, and that's what makes it fun. I'm constantly pushing it to the edge, installing 550gb LLMs, four different package managers, right now its got a totally dissected USB cable coming out the front that's attached to a small circuit board for some project, all that's ok because that's what I want out of it. I don't want that out of my phone. I want my phone to ALWAYS turn on and ALWAYS be able to get EVERY text or phone call that's sent to me.
I think anyone who has devoted their life to computing, in all its forms, over the past 20 years should agree: There doesn't exist an operating system that I feel adequately does all of that under one roof. The closest is Android. And that's what I don't get out of posts like this: Android does exist. What do you want out of Android that Google/etc are keeping from you? Samsung has Dex. It kinda sucks. Google allows free-range application installations (and fortunately that recent effort to block it is dead); that's great. I guess there's no real/root UNIX terminal? Bro, I struggle to envision a world where any device I have that has a root shell is also one that I don't inevitably fuck up, even if only temporarily, its ability to receive phone calls from my doctor about the results of a colonoscopy.
The bigger problem that I see right now is that, at least from the perspective of the iPhone: Apple is dropping the ball on their stewardship of this bedrock experience.
Desktop computers being as open as they are is an anomaly. It only came to be because the systems originated from research labs and hacker cultures rather than rent-seeking corporations. And even though corporations (like IBM and Microsoft) did push them, there was a lot more emphasis on business rather than consumer use at the time.
Vendors keep them open today only because there is a historical exception, but make no mistake if the laptop computer was first introduced to the masses in 2008 you would be downloading apps through official stores and paying a 30% fee on all transactions and would only be able to do a tiny fraction of what is possible on them today.
To me the surprise isn't that the phone is locked down, but that Apple allows MacBook Neo to do so much. Just look at its iPad counterpart.
I built a few native iPhone apps 15 years ago, but these days do my tinkering in web tech and "Save to Homescreen." Probably couldn't do this if I wanted functionality like photo/video editing or heavy 3D, but for my relatively simple use case, Webkit is fine. This has the benefit of completely bypassing the App Store, and lets me share apps by just linking to them.
> As a US citizen, I must go through the Apple-approved App Store to download / install third-party software. Smells like freedom.
If youâre a U.S. citizen, itâs worth studying what this countryâs foundational freedom means specifically, why and why not something else, such as consumer rights.
Anyone have a theory why Apple hasn't done this yet? They release an 'iBook' which is basically a wired or even wireless lapdock for your iPhone running OSX in a partition. Seems like that would decimate the entire Windows, laptop, even desktop market in short order.
Everyone with an iPhone, no longer needs their laptop/desktop. Just buy a cheap iBook and there's a good chance it'll already be better than most consumer PCs.
There isn't much demand for using phone as computer. If you are at home or work, you can buy a desktop computers for cheap. If you are traveling, you need to find a monitor and keyboard. You could carry small monitor and wireless keyboard, but then you are carrying as much as laptop. People who need to work on the road get a laptop. People who need to send email get iPad and keyboard.
Good example of the economics is that Macbook Neo or iPad Air are cheaper than new iPhone.
iPhone should export display, but more for showing videos or presentations. My Pixel 10 has USB-C display and I haven't used it, but I have computers for all purposes.
Apple should spend more effort making the iPad usable for work. It would be good candidate for USB-C display, but with iPadOS.
On an upcoming trip I'm actually going to give an iPad with magnetic keyboard I bought a couple years back, assuming different travel patterns than I've had, a try. It seems to work fine. An iPad is also great for plane/train entertainment without a keyboard. But, honestly, it's no lighter than a MacBook Air would be and if my ancient MacBook Pro dies--have a newer one up in my office--that's what I'll probably buy.
I have traveled with just my iPhone and can get by but don't really love it.
FWIW, you can plug your iPhone into an external monitor to do a Keynote presentation. You need a USB-C (or Lightning) to HDMI dongle in most cases, but it works fine.
I'm always reluctant to do non-standard stuff for presentations. There's enough that can go wrong even with a direct HDMI out. I've done it in a pinch but pretty much always carry a laptop with me when I'm presenting along with local copies of my presentations. I've actually gotten a text in the middle of the night asking me if I can fill in for another speaker who forgot and are in a different country :-)
Imagine an executive placing their phone on a magnetic dock as they sit down, which automagically connects to the screen and gives them access to everything they were doing before. Also easy to imagine a university computer lab where everyone brings their own compute and IT doesn't have to manage physical desktops.
I'm skeptical that there's "no demand" for that kind of functionality rather than a lack of good implementations. Look at how popular wireless CarPlay and Android Auto are. They're essentially the same functionality, but tailored to an in-car experience instead of desktop.
How can there be demand for something that doesn't exist?
If Apple releases a $300 lapdock tomorrow, basically a screen, keyboard, battery, that allows using your iPhone as a normal general purpose computer with OSX - why would anyone buy a laptop/desktop?
Why would Apple want to sell a lapdock when they could instead sell you the same thing + a redundant SOC (aka, a MacBook) and then high-margin cloud services to sync all of your data between your two differently-shaped computers?
Because most people with iPhones are buying Windows computers, but give them a cheap entry lapdock into the Mac ecosystem and maybe their next more powerful system will be a Mac.
Mac is a niche right now, iPhone with OSX could level the playing field.
I think Apple is just really careful about how they segment their product line for each use case, and would never go for a "jack of all trades" solution like this.
This. The more locked down, the less in control we are, the higher margins they command. This is why app stores exist - it has nothing to do with safety or security, and everything to do with monopolizing the distribution supply chain from soup to nuts. Donât like it? Too bad, itâs fully locked down and cracking it is a (potentially) criminal offense, so whaddayagonnadoaboutit?!
Why would it decimate the Windows market? From my experience, there's a strong correlation between iPhone and Mac usage.
Looking at the stats, the Win:Mac ratio is 4:1 but Android:iPhone only 2:1 so it might hurt Windows. But if iPhone users are more likely to use Mac or don't use computers much already, then expanding iPhone capabilities would cannibalize Apple business.
Because then most people with an iPhone wouldn't need to buy a separate laptop/desktop. I'm sure Android as well would follow in short order (not the half hearted attempts they've made so far). Sales would plummet. Windows decimated.
It would explode sales of Mac. OSX on iPhone, people wouldn't need the separate Windows laptops they're used to. OSX on iPhone is the gateway for consumers into the OSX ecosystem.
And when those consumers want more powerful hardware, instead of buying a more powerful Windows laptop/desktop - they buy a Mac instead.
I feel like Apple knows this as well, so I can't figure out why they haven't pulled the trigger. Anti-trust risk? lol
The general public thinks phones and computers are fundamentally different. Heck, I remember arguing this point even on HN back when smart phones were first coming out and being generally on the losing side as people got very excited about "app stores" and such. I see no practical path to getting to the point that enough of us realize that there is simply no reason for our phones to be locked down the way they are that the companies are forced to undo it, especially with our elites pushing with all they are worth to lock things down harder.
The companies take that confusion to the bank.
There have been numerous attempts at making phone/laptop crossovers, where you can plug your phone into a dock and get a computer, or slide your phone into a laptop case, etc. Some of them are even still around, but they're all definitely second-class citizens. There's a variety of problems that I think they've had in the market, not least of which is the fact that the average person still sees "phones" and "computers" as fundamentally different so the product makes no sense to them, but another issue that I think has held them back is that the product inevitably work by porting the limitations of the phone into the computer, rather than porting the freedom of the computer into the phone.
In the USB-C era, there is no excuse for every phone not having a mode where you can plug it into any ol' USB-C hub/dock and be able to get a desktop environment, even down to the "middle-of-the-line" phones. It would require in most cases no extra hardware. They just don't.
Money? You don't think Apple would make a killing on OSX licenses and lapdock sales if they allowed OSX on iPhone tomorrow?
Mac is a tiny slice of revenue for apple. OSX on iPhone would blow it out of the water. Apple would turn the PC market upside down, taking a sizeable chunk from Windows. As there'd be no point for most people to have a separate laptop/desktop at that point.
People also thought that phones needed keyboards before Apple showed them a better way. This is all on Apple to make a reality, no one else can bring general purpose computing to iPhone except them. It's their choice to make.
Other than UI and other surface differences, the fundamental distinction between a Mac and an iDevice is... what it is.
A Mac is a real computer. I can run any code I want on it. I have root.
An iDevice is like a game console. I can only run App Store apps (without jumping through a lot of hoops). I do not have root (without again jumping through many hoops or ugly hacks).
If Apple wanted to unify the platform they have two choices. The first is to abandon the "real computer" market entirely. The second is to make iDevices real computers by unlocking them.
I suspect they'd rather keep two platforms.
Under the hood they both share a lot of code, so it's not two totally distinct platforms. It's more like two sets of defaults and two "skins."
I think the friction of using a keyboard/pointing device with a touchscreen, or fingers with a desktop interface, is too high to unify them. I know it's been done, I'm unconvinced it's been done well.
That was already the case with the M-series chips, which are shared between Macs and higher-end iPads. The Neo just extends it to the A-series as well.
Yep I know, and now using a last gen A chip, I feel they are really rubbing our faces in it.
Like Apple is saying, "Nice iPhone 17 Pro w/ A19 w/ vapor cooling chip you have there; you know you run a full general purpose OS on it, but we're not gonna let you, nanananana :p"
No exactly, Apple is playing in our faces, all while people continue to defend the âdifferencesâ of device categories and the subsequent justification of shipping iPhones and iPads with locked bootloaders.
HNers are significantly more technical than the median consumer and are used to text and keyboard interfaces - a large portion of humanity isn't. You see this with Foundation Models as well - most have started to shift away from only concentrating on text to TTS and STT usecases.
Also, DeX style monitor screen share with a Bluetooth keyboard has been supported since iOS 15.
Additionally, a major portion of Apple's desktop revenue is coming from poweruser and specialist demand - IT departments bulk purchasing developer laptops, designers having their entire design workflow within the MacOS environment, and video editors heavily dependent on MacOS.
Furthermore, arguments about how Apple has an incentive not to cannibalize revenue are dumb, given how open Apple is to cannibalizing revenue where PMF exists (eg. the iPad Pro versus lower tier MacBooks or the MacBook Neo versus lower tier iPads).
The entire Mac line is a teeny tiny slice of revenue compared to iPhone. Allowing OSX on iPhone would increase the utility of iPhone, leading to more sales.
> Allowing OSX on iPhone would increase the utility of iPhone, leading to more sales
That assumption is not necessarily true.
What this implies is that there is a market of existing consumers that would not buy an iPhone because it lacks OSX support.
The iPhone portion of Apple's business generates around $144B in YoY revenue in Q1FY27 [0].
Whenever an organization contemplates building a net new capability like the one you mentioned, a quick test is whether it would be able to generate and sustain at minimum the equivalent of 1% of yearly revenue.
If this was a $1B revenue opportunity it would have been implemented, but it's not.
Nor is it a feature that can actively or dramatically increase Apple's market share in most markets.
A good proxy of such demand would have been a sudden increase in iOS users using USB-C screen share and a Bluetooth keyboard to interface with an iPhone in a desktop form factor (something which has been enabled since iOS 15), but such an increase has not happened.
Apple did patent a design for a dock in a monitor for a portable device to slot into. Itâs gotta be getting close to expiration now. I think the trick is heat dissipation.
My friend who is a macOS programmer years ago had an idea for a startup mode for iMacs where instead of just being a screen, the storage and video card would also be accessible over the thunderbolt bus, so you could plug a laptop in and have multiple video cards at your disposal.
> I'm bothered, as I have been since the original iPad introduction 16 years ago, by the unnecessary restrictions placed by corporate powers to run third-party software and operating systems on devices we own.
It's not unnecessary, they do it because they make money as gatekeeper.
A big factor in the success of the iPad and maybe just some degree the iPhone, but especially the iPad, is that itâs âunbreakableâ. All out restrictions mean itâs computer people donât worry will suddenly stop working because they clicked to the wrong link. It wonât get a weird virus from their email.
They could allow unlocking the phone by burying that option deep in the settings with scary warnings etc. Most people could use the device with the restrictions. The fact that this is not possible at all is greed.
If they did that, every influencer would make youtube videos and tik toks telling people how they should enable that setting to make their phone better or more powerful "for free", and everyone would just do it, especially the people who really shouldn't because they don't know any better.
I feel like that same reason is why you see a lot of seriously tech-savvy people try to use iPads as laptop substitutes over and over even though they're obviously still not suitable for it for technical tasks. There's a lot of latent appeal in "okay, what if I just didn't have to worry about any of that ambient technical crap?".
Just wanting to be a gatekeeper doesn't cover measures like SIP that don't make them anything and presumably took immense man-hours to implement.
I think the more accurate view would be an intersection of some of the company wanting to make money off gatekeeping and some of the company wanting to make quality devices that stay functional and malware-free even after you give to a deeply gullible grandparent for a while, and the former using the latter as a transparent excuse much of the time.
It's also because U.S. carriers don't like people hooking up arbitrary devices that can run arbitrary software to their network. In the civilized world, you have a device that talks GSM/LTE, you're golden as long as you don't violate any transmission laws. But in the USA carriers are still doing device allowlisting because I guess they want to bin QoS and don't want pro-grade traffic going over consumer accounts, nor the added expense of support for consumer accounts with exotic hardware that "might" break the network.
My contention is that the definition of said product and its inherent capabilities is being gatekept by a corporation that would love you to buy both an iPhone and Mac, and treat them as separate. In fact, I do have both already! But I still want rights to modify my iPhone as the computer it is.
The MacBook Neo is a great example of just how fungible these categories are, at least as far as the SoC that runs them is concerned. I paid for my iPhone in full, there is no reasonable justification for why I canât repurpose it / modify it as I see fit.
I really don't understand the argument here. That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.
Yes, this has the side effect of making them more money and allowing a walled garden to form, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect.
The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more. And it's really easy to steal people's phones on the subway. This isn't about freedom of computing, this is about the fact that an iPhone in BFU is nearly as secure as a GrapheneOS phone.
There are many problems with Apple software. It's buggy, uses proprietary formats that you can't export, and interoperable with open standards. It's bad, and is the primary reason why I won't buy another iPhone, but Macs have that same problem. On the other hand, being cryptographically locked-down is an optional feature. If you don't like it, buy a computer without that feature. It's harmful to us, to tinkerers and people who want to see how things work, but the average person does not care at all and just wants to be able to open LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs without having their 401k get drained.
If you make a bootloader unlock require a full wipe/rekey of the device, and make unlock status visible at boot, most of the "someone might unlock my bootloader maliciously" concerns go away.
Fair point, but that solution doesn't address the market for theft, so there's a tradeoff there.
If you put the icloud-lockout stuff early enough in the boot chain (which I believe is the case on apple silicon macs already?), that seems like a solvable problem too. I can understand why apple hasn't put the engineering effort into making something like this happen, but I don't think it's because they can't make it happen.
I still remember the era when jailbreaking Android and iPhones was gaining popularity among less technical people. It was eye opening to watch how many people I knew would search for a random web page and then unquestioningly follow instructions on the screen to install software from the first link they clicked.
All of this to get custom fonts in their messaging app or some other little feature they saw on someoneâs phone.
I started getting a lot of requests for help from people who had broken key functions on their phones or even bricked them entirely.
Even today thereâs a culture of downloading Android builds from long forum threads on XDA developers and other forums and hoping theyâre not compromised.
If you steal someones phone on the subway its not going to be BFU.
I understood this stance more 10 years ago, but now we have many layers of fairly well documented exploit tactics and none of them rely on the app store. However forcing users to use an app store was supposed to benefit us has clearly failed.
And, somehow, the indignity of being forced into paying apple a 30% tax for a market they wholly own never comes up alongside other paternalistic arguments....
Can you elaborate on "fairly well documented exploit tactics"? My impression is that most of these are either social engineering, for which we need to hire better designers, or complicated chains of hard-to-find primitives only accessible to state actors.
There's definitely problems but the solution isn't to make the iPhone a general purpose computer. We definitely need to defend the existence of general purpose computing at a time where regulation is likely to begin encroaching on it, but the promise of the App Store is "pay a 30% tax and any app you download here will be safe." In my mind, at least, that's the promise, and perhaps one solution to the situation would be to erect consequences to breaking that promise.
A 30% tax and no freedom to install what you want better come with protection from state actors lmaooo. Otherwise what could be worth such a heavy-handed (and under a rational state, illegal) method?
Especially when the app store is nos filled with gambling apps and social media built to exploit children....
> The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more.
And so is their god damn computer!
The ONLY reason why we treat phones differently from computers has no relationship at all with what's at stake, it's purely because Apple felt they could get away with it for phone, while they estimated that people would stop buying macs right away if they did the same thing for computers. It's literally that simple.
And yet, try getting a full backup of your Google phone onto your own computer. (Without rooting/wiping the whole thing.) Heck, try getting just your text messages off (without a separate app)!
You can't. (Last time I checked.) The backup is encrypted in the cloud, and the only way to download it is to restore it to a phone.
Whereas I can just plug in my iPhone and get a full backup, complete with sqlite manifest, completely accessible. Text messages, photo library, everything.
Itâs only about the right to use your device as you see fit.
It is kind of silly that people buy raspberry pis to run their NAS, while they trash ther infinitely more capable iphone every couple of years.
The iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product.
Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?
Many people here says that it's locked up by design, and while I agree, we could have an alternative firmware (not iOS or even GUI) that gives full control and complete access through ssh and repurpose it as we want.
I have a pile of iphones without battery sitting in a drawer and It would be a really cheap way to run fun stuff.
The only thing that could be worrying is device theft, but a simple CLI tool for the initial device registration after firmware flash might do it.
This is sooo true. I have multiple computing ideas that I want to do just for fun but I am not doing because each requires buying a mini-pc, sometimes with a screen too, and put Linux + my app on it.
At the same time I have multiple old phones laying around, Pixels, iPhones, Galaxy that are out of date, have cracked screens or worn out batteries.
Each one of these old phones have same or more computing power than a $300 mini-pc, but I can't use them because I can't just ssh into them and install an app...
Sad, really.
The pixels all ship with unlocked bootloaders.
Just nitpicking: unlockable bootloaders. The bootloader is locked by default. But you can unlock it without needing Google.
Additionally, Pixels support a Linux VM and has a desktop mode (I'm running GrapheneOS, it may still be that these features have to be enabled through the developer settings).
I recently turned my unused Google Pixel 8 into a server for my personal site and various side projects. It's super satisfying to spin things up in a couple hours, point a cloudflare tunnel at it, and share it with the world.
In Android you can use termux and run them as a servers I have done it that way
I'm using a Nexus 5 with postmarketOS as an SMS gateway connected to the internet! So glad old phones were a bit more open
Same, the computing capacity and redundancy you could achieve with your spare devices...
A few days ago I cracked the edge of my smartphone's screen at just the right spot to shut its display off entirely, though it still works. Using the USB-C dongle meant for my laptop, the phone pops into a desktop view which basically is the same experience as a Chromebook (for better or worse).
In the meantime before its repair, I shoved my SIM card into an old flipphone I had in the tech graveyard drawer. I've actually really liked the limited flipphone experience. It's a mental breath of fresh air to not have a time/focus black hole in my pocket at all times. It made me realize that I've had a pretty bad relationship with my smartphone in terms of how much time I wasted on it. I'm considering keeping the flipphone as my primary phone. Maybe smartphones do too much.
as someone who did this for a week, it's nice until you need to install an app to check your bank statements or manage your insurance. Maybe that will get better as agents do, however
I use the Pixel, but the point is the same. Recently Google added the "Dex" like feature where I can plug in the phone to a monitor and use it as my "entire computer" - at first I was excited, I can go to a coffee shop and leave my laptop behind, but then I looked at getting a bluetooth keyboard, mouse, monitor - with battery, and it's now a worse experience. There are monitor/battery/trackpad combination products for this exact scenario but they are nowhere near the quality of just buying a Macbook - doubly so the Neo.
A laptop is more than the sum of its parts. Your phone overlaps with it on a technical level, but format is important.
I had a similar experience where I tried out a Z Fold 7 with a kickstand and foldable bluetooth keyboard. I was curious about the feasibility of an all-in-one computing experience; it was clunky but surprisingly somewhat productive.
Then when confronted with scenarios where I had no stable surfaces I realized why the LAPtop form factor reigns supreme.
Peripheral add-ons like the NexDock are very nifty, but at that point you are suffering from the same physical constraints of a phone + laptop lifestyle. All with zero of the benefits of a locally accessible, more mature, and capable OS.
There's nothing much special about phone silicon. They generally run a bit slower than their desktop/laptop counterparts because of power and heat limitations.
At the top end on a desktop power usage doubles for lower double-digit percentage gains. You can shave that off and not lose much. Laptops are a lot closer to phones than they are to desktops when it comes to power and thermal limitations*, so re-using a "phone" chip really isn't crazy.
* 100W power usage on a laptop is entering silly territory, but on a desktop that's the bottom of entry-level rigs.
> Laptops are a lot closer to phones than they are to desktops
Introducing the MacBook Neo.
And here I am with a laptop with a 450W brick next to it to make it functionâŚ
There is and there isn't. Your phone, almost certainly, with a shorter list of exceptions than not, has a locked bootloader and consequently cannot run unsigned software with full permissions without additional work. Sometimes that work is impossible to do. In terms of capabilities, sure, your phone is as capable, if not more capable than a desktop computer from a decade or two ago. The phone in my hand that I'm writing this from is 100 times more powerful than the computer I had as a kid. So that's an important point to make. However the specialness of phone silicon is the locked down bootloader and the downstream effects of that. You can point out exceptions where you can unlock the bootloader, but those are exceptions. The vast majority of phones you aren't going to get root on. So in that dimension, that's what's special about phone silicon. The signed chain-of-trust that is baked in and prevents you from running unsigned binaries with full permissions on phone silicon.
You are conflating many things here. A locked bootloader does not imply you cannot run unsigned software in user space. There are also many phones that do allow you to unlock the bootloader. I have a drawer full of them.
Finally, the ability to allow you to unlock your phone bootloader or to run custom firmware has nothing to do with the silicon. It's a software choice. The trusted software could most certainly decide to disable these safeguards.
Apple's latest monitor is more powerful than the NEO, it has:
* A19 Pro CPU (the NEO only has the A18 Pro)
* 12GB of RAM (the NEO only has 8GB of RAM)
* 128GB of NAND storage for iOS (ok this is less than the NEO)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Studio_Display#Technical...
You didn't mention the part that it costs five times as much.
I was talking with someone solidly in Gen X that described their desire to write out longer form documents by hand on paper rather than typing them up. The process of typing helped them work through the content better than typing.
In an analogous way, I feel like I'm in that part of the millennial generation that is more comfortable doing things on a PC than on a phone. Sure I can informally browse airline tickets and cars on my phone, or upload some docs for my , but when things get serious, I'm switching to a PC to complete it.
There's something about doing things on a phone that just does not feel... robust? Maybe I am just too accustomed to the phone experience being minimal, or minimized in some way compared to the desktop experience.
I don't think it's generational at all, doing things on a phone is pretty objectively less comfortable.
It's very clear that the consumer is getting a worse experience than what is technically possible. There is no good phone-slash-laptop, purely because it's less profitable than locking down the devices and selling them separately.
> There is no good phone-slash-laptop
There is: https://puri.sm/posts/my-first-year-of-librem-5-convergence/
Looking at the price vs what's inside - sorry but I'll pass.
I'm still waiting for a display that I can simply dock my iPhone into, and use it exactly like an iMac.
Ideally it would be a 40-50 inch 4/5K screen that doubles as a desk of some sorts, but I'll take the monitor/iMac form factor.
The reason the iPhone is so successful is because Apple don't let us use it as a "entire" computer.
I am just glad, that we can still run a proper OS on a proper computer. If they made a modified iPad OS for their baby laptop it could have been an ominous sign.
I remember the period of 1998-2008 or so when Windows seemed to be in absolute crisis because the average Windows user was not qualified to be using a computer connected to the internet.
I'd go visit my family in New England (more than one group) and they'd have a 640x480 screen and be doing all their web browsing through 70 vertical pixels because they'd installed 30 toolbars -- and they thought there was nothing wrong with this!
The world was reeling from a cyber war between two German teens who were trying to outdo each other with viral "love letter" programs because people would just click on... anything!
Plenty of us were looking for some platform, any platform, that would deliver us from that nightmare. It wasn't going to be the Sun Ray, it wasn't going to be Linux (talk about frying pan to the fire), it was going to be the iPhone.
That's nonsense. Just have a way to unlock the OS like how getting developer tools work on android.
The argument here is valid, if I read this correctly. Why canât Apple simply allow your iPhone SIMPLY be just a transportable PC, that you can connect a keyboard, mouse, and monitor and do anything else you can do with Echo or any Apple computer? [EDIT]Provided that some functionalities (the phone) be walled off for security.
Why would you allow your phone to be a computer if you can sell a computer AND a phone? Allowing "random" OS to be installed on your phone would mean loosing control over your phone (including spying, gathering statistical data to influence major decisions, ability to paralyze communication of your country etc etc)
Android phones are nothing but linux phones and video output (DP over USB-C, earlier MHL) is for many years already included in many phones. I would love to carry one device with everything on it. I would be very happy if that device was like a laptop with detachable core, that acts as phone.
Why not just get a Linux phone running Ubuntu Touch or postmarketOS. You'd have full root access, sideloading etc and none of that corporate control, likely for half the price of an iPHone. Sure you'd lose all the Apple look/feel but at least you can do what you want with the phone.
I think the author goes more towards repurposing the device after its EoL.
Microsoft has been SO successful with trying to converge devices </s> I'll agree that Apple has business reasons for keeping device classes separate. But I also think that keeping at least phones and laptops separate makes a lot of sense. I CAN use my phone as a full computer, but having done so traveling, it's not the best experience.
I seem to recall the Carriers having some pretty strict requirements on the devices that can connect to the mobile networks. Anyone know if that's (still) the case?
I'm not trying to defend Apple here, I'm just curious if there would be some kind of carrier validation issues if you slapped a full desktop OS on a phone.
I doubt that's the issue. Phones already have a baseband processor and OS in control of the modem. Also evidence if viability is all the Windows laptops with WWAN.
Is this news to anyone? of course it is! The reason that they don't let you run MacOS is absolutely arbitrary, in support of you buying another device. It also allows them to avoid the cost of supporting MacOS in another form-factor.
This feels more like a facebook post that would shock my mom then a HN article...
Arbitrary is doing a lot of work. With MacOS you can use an iPad as a touchscreen external monitor. Try it and youâll learn that itâs not a touchscreen OS. Itâs not as simple as ânot letting youâ.
They could have a lean version of the macOS desktop on every iPhone where it would switch to the macOS desktop once you plug it into a display. Include iWork on both sides with shared storage and you could switch between the phone interface and macOS.
I mean Samsung DeX has done something similar, but Apple could make a much more powerful version, since they have a real fully-developed desktop and they have apps for both platforms that use a single code base.
They will, of course, never do this, because it would result in losing Mac sales. Though I think less than one would initially think, because a laptop is much handier on the go than carrying a separate display, keyboard, and mouse and the lapdocks or whatever they are called have much worse displays and keyboards.
Maybe it doesn't have a touchscreen interface, but i take issue with it being a touchscreen OS. I suspect most people who would want to run MacOS on an ipad would attach the appropriate user interface devices.
Like a keyboard and trackpad, yes, and the battery would be in the base, andâŚ
or...plug into usb and use the ipad battery. the ipad already has a battery. Just don't limit what software you could load, that's all that's being asked here.
uhuh except ipad keyboards with trackpads are an existing accessory
I have long wished for a future when I could just plug my phone into a KVM and have a full desktop experience.
Samsung DEX isn't far off from this, it's just that you're limited to Android instead of Linux, MacOS etc.
But Apple will surely never allow such a thing since their main interest is in selling as many pieces of hardware to each of the Apple Faithful as possible. So they with a straight face suggest that a single human needs an iPad Pro (which easily tops $1500 with the eye-wateringly-expensive keyboard and a storage upgrade) and a laptop. Nevermind that they may have the same chip inside.
I own too many Apple devices, so I may unintentionally qualify as one of those Apple Faithful, but even so I can't really find a place for the iPad in my life. I've tried, I do own an old iPad Pro, but it is semi-permanently mounted to my treadmill as the only use case I've ever had that sticks. As a practical matter I either want my phone, or a real desktop computer.
Something like that Samsung DEX with a real Linux OS and maybe I'm getting a new phone.
>"Samsung DEX isn't far off from this"
I have the latest and greatest and can attest that the experience is atrocious
Microsoft tried to sell it as a promise of Windows Phone 10. It mostly worked just around the time that Microsoft killed Windows Phone.
I do that with my Pinephone (a powered USB-C hub with ethernet, HDMI, keyboard and mouse; I also plug a proper set of speakers+subwoofer into headphone jack).
Both Phosh and PlasmaMobile turn into a "proper" desktop when "docked" (Gnome-like and KDE-like, respectively).
I don't want the phone os on a screen but the phone is powerful enough to run a full linux VM and work well-enough as a good desktop.
The fun thing for me is that we are now having the same argument about iPhones that we've always had about iPads.
For me, the iPad would have died if the Neo had a 12" screen. Only the iPad mini remains a useful form factor.
The problem is Mac. They've always locked things down citing safety or user experience, but it is profit and walled garden. Samsung Dex has been doing this for years.
In before someone explains it's not "exactly" the same. Dex has shown this phone/computer ability in practice long before.
Isnât Dex similar to connecting a monitor to an M-powered iPad? Perhaps that will one day come to iPhone.
I thought i saw there was similar functionality as dex available on usb c ported iphones (and ipads)?
You can hook up a mouse and keyboard, maybe even a monitor? I thought I saw it in passing⌠I still have a lightning iPhone
You can connect keyboard, mouse, and video, but you just get screen mirroring on the screen (or it can properly display a full-screen video in some apps, I think... though DRM video may refuse), so, it's pretty limiting.
It's always funny to watch hackernews slam apple for user experience decisions based off what's best for their average customer as if every person purchasing an apple device is a hackernews.
It seems like the viability of running a computer from an A16 really just came to fruition. There's heat, performance, battery life, etc implications that the average consumer can't quite articulate but it matters to them.
Apple's goal seemed to be to decimate the Cheap Plastic Intel Laptop space, and I think they succeeded at catching the industry with their tails between their legs.
Iâve been hoping Apple would allow this for years, although it doesnât seem like something they would do.
The fact that iPadOS now has windowing seems like it would only make it work better. iPads can already do everything necessary, so why not the iPhone?
Unfortunately I suspect that if this was ever going to happen, which I wouldâve bet against, itâs now letâs likely. I suspect current Apple would rather sell me a Neo then let me use my phone. In other words I think the existence of the product might rule it out under current leadership.
Who knows. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.
If the rumored folding phone with a close-to-iPad-mini UI handles USB monitor connections the same as the iPad, that would give the basic version right there, albeit at a huge base price.
I hadnât thought of that. In my mind I think Apple will say ânot an iPad, you donât get itâ but the distinction (hardware UI wise) would be much much fuzzier than today.
Maybe I'm alone in this camp, but I really value the idea that my phone is an ultra-stable bedrock experience that, sure, I have to sacrifice some freedoms on but ultimately they're not exactly freedoms I care to express on a 5.8" display whose more critical purpose is things like "my car keys", "my door keys", "maintaining contact with family" etc. Versus, my linux desktop feels like its always in a state of nearly falling apart, and that's what makes it fun. I'm constantly pushing it to the edge, installing 550gb LLMs, four different package managers, right now its got a totally dissected USB cable coming out the front that's attached to a small circuit board for some project, all that's ok because that's what I want out of it. I don't want that out of my phone. I want my phone to ALWAYS turn on and ALWAYS be able to get EVERY text or phone call that's sent to me.
I think anyone who has devoted their life to computing, in all its forms, over the past 20 years should agree: There doesn't exist an operating system that I feel adequately does all of that under one roof. The closest is Android. And that's what I don't get out of posts like this: Android does exist. What do you want out of Android that Google/etc are keeping from you? Samsung has Dex. It kinda sucks. Google allows free-range application installations (and fortunately that recent effort to block it is dead); that's great. I guess there's no real/root UNIX terminal? Bro, I struggle to envision a world where any device I have that has a root shell is also one that I don't inevitably fuck up, even if only temporarily, its ability to receive phone calls from my doctor about the results of a colonoscopy.
The bigger problem that I see right now is that, at least from the perspective of the iPhone: Apple is dropping the ball on their stewardship of this bedrock experience.
Desktop computers being as open as they are is an anomaly. It only came to be because the systems originated from research labs and hacker cultures rather than rent-seeking corporations. And even though corporations (like IBM and Microsoft) did push them, there was a lot more emphasis on business rather than consumer use at the time.
Vendors keep them open today only because there is a historical exception, but make no mistake if the laptop computer was first introduced to the masses in 2008 you would be downloading apps through official stores and paying a 30% fee on all transactions and would only be able to do a tiny fraction of what is possible on them today.
To me the surprise isn't that the phone is locked down, but that Apple allows MacBook Neo to do so much. Just look at its iPad counterpart.
Progressive Web Apps Exist. You can download any app. And build them too. I build my own apps that send me notifications from my AI Buddy :)
Try saving my side project to your home screen : Habit.am - works really nicely once you're logged in.
I built a few native iPhone apps 15 years ago, but these days do my tinkering in web tech and "Save to Homescreen." Probably couldn't do this if I wanted functionality like photo/video editing or heavy 3D, but for my relatively simple use case, Webkit is fine. This has the benefit of completely bypassing the App Store, and lets me share apps by just linking to them.
> As a US citizen, I must go through the Apple-approved App Store to download / install third-party software. Smells like freedom.
If youâre a U.S. citizen, itâs worth studying what this countryâs foundational freedom means specifically, why and why not something else, such as consumer rights.
Anyone have a theory why Apple hasn't done this yet? They release an 'iBook' which is basically a wired or even wireless lapdock for your iPhone running OSX in a partition. Seems like that would decimate the entire Windows, laptop, even desktop market in short order.
Everyone with an iPhone, no longer needs their laptop/desktop. Just buy a cheap iBook and there's a good chance it'll already be better than most consumer PCs.
There isn't much demand for using phone as computer. If you are at home or work, you can buy a desktop computers for cheap. If you are traveling, you need to find a monitor and keyboard. You could carry small monitor and wireless keyboard, but then you are carrying as much as laptop. People who need to work on the road get a laptop. People who need to send email get iPad and keyboard.
Good example of the economics is that Macbook Neo or iPad Air are cheaper than new iPhone.
iPhone should export display, but more for showing videos or presentations. My Pixel 10 has USB-C display and I haven't used it, but I have computers for all purposes.
Apple should spend more effort making the iPad usable for work. It would be good candidate for USB-C display, but with iPadOS.
On an upcoming trip I'm actually going to give an iPad with magnetic keyboard I bought a couple years back, assuming different travel patterns than I've had, a try. It seems to work fine. An iPad is also great for plane/train entertainment without a keyboard. But, honestly, it's no lighter than a MacBook Air would be and if my ancient MacBook Pro dies--have a newer one up in my office--that's what I'll probably buy.
I have traveled with just my iPhone and can get by but don't really love it.
FWIW, you can plug your iPhone into an external monitor to do a Keynote presentation. You need a USB-C (or Lightning) to HDMI dongle in most cases, but it works fine.
- https://support.apple.com/guide/keynote-iphone/present-on-a-...
I'm always reluctant to do non-standard stuff for presentations. There's enough that can go wrong even with a direct HDMI out. I've done it in a pinch but pretty much always carry a laptop with me when I'm presenting along with local copies of my presentations. I've actually gotten a text in the middle of the night asking me if I can fill in for another speaker who forgot and are in a different country :-)
Imagine an executive placing their phone on a magnetic dock as they sit down, which automagically connects to the screen and gives them access to everything they were doing before. Also easy to imagine a university computer lab where everyone brings their own compute and IT doesn't have to manage physical desktops.
I'm skeptical that there's "no demand" for that kind of functionality rather than a lack of good implementations. Look at how popular wireless CarPlay and Android Auto are. They're essentially the same functionality, but tailored to an in-car experience instead of desktop.
How can there be demand for something that doesn't exist?
If Apple releases a $300 lapdock tomorrow, basically a screen, keyboard, battery, that allows using your iPhone as a normal general purpose computer with OSX - why would anyone buy a laptop/desktop?
Why would Apple want to sell a lapdock when they could instead sell you the same thing + a redundant SOC (aka, a MacBook) and then high-margin cloud services to sync all of your data between your two differently-shaped computers?
Because most people with iPhones are buying Windows computers, but give them a cheap entry lapdock into the Mac ecosystem and maybe their next more powerful system will be a Mac.
Mac is a niche right now, iPhone with OSX could level the playing field.
I think Apple is just really careful about how they segment their product line for each use case, and would never go for a "jack of all trades" solution like this.
It would decimate their own business.
This. The more locked down, the less in control we are, the higher margins they command. This is why app stores exist - it has nothing to do with safety or security, and everything to do with monopolizing the distribution supply chain from soup to nuts. Donât like it? Too bad, itâs fully locked down and cracking it is a (potentially) criminal offense, so whaddayagonnadoaboutit?!
Because people like TFA pay them not to. It doesn't matter how much you hope Apple changes course - you vote with your wallet.
Why would it decimate the Windows market? From my experience, there's a strong correlation between iPhone and Mac usage.
Looking at the stats, the Win:Mac ratio is 4:1 but Android:iPhone only 2:1 so it might hurt Windows. But if iPhone users are more likely to use Mac or don't use computers much already, then expanding iPhone capabilities would cannibalize Apple business.
Because then most people with an iPhone wouldn't need to buy a separate laptop/desktop. I'm sure Android as well would follow in short order (not the half hearted attempts they've made so far). Sales would plummet. Windows decimated.
No, the iPhone has over 50% market share in the US, macOS is nowhere near that.
That would also seriously hurt the sales of Macs. Even more so now that the Neo exists.
It would explode sales of Mac. OSX on iPhone, people wouldn't need the separate Windows laptops they're used to. OSX on iPhone is the gateway for consumers into the OSX ecosystem.
And when those consumers want more powerful hardware, instead of buying a more powerful Windows laptop/desktop - they buy a Mac instead.
I feel like Apple knows this as well, so I can't figure out why they haven't pulled the trigger. Anti-trust risk? lol
Money.
The general public thinks phones and computers are fundamentally different. Heck, I remember arguing this point even on HN back when smart phones were first coming out and being generally on the losing side as people got very excited about "app stores" and such. I see no practical path to getting to the point that enough of us realize that there is simply no reason for our phones to be locked down the way they are that the companies are forced to undo it, especially with our elites pushing with all they are worth to lock things down harder.
The companies take that confusion to the bank.
There have been numerous attempts at making phone/laptop crossovers, where you can plug your phone into a dock and get a computer, or slide your phone into a laptop case, etc. Some of them are even still around, but they're all definitely second-class citizens. There's a variety of problems that I think they've had in the market, not least of which is the fact that the average person still sees "phones" and "computers" as fundamentally different so the product makes no sense to them, but another issue that I think has held them back is that the product inevitably work by porting the limitations of the phone into the computer, rather than porting the freedom of the computer into the phone.
In the USB-C era, there is no excuse for every phone not having a mode where you can plug it into any ol' USB-C hub/dock and be able to get a desktop environment, even down to the "middle-of-the-line" phones. It would require in most cases no extra hardware. They just don't.
Money? You don't think Apple would make a killing on OSX licenses and lapdock sales if they allowed OSX on iPhone tomorrow?
Mac is a tiny slice of revenue for apple. OSX on iPhone would blow it out of the water. Apple would turn the PC market upside down, taking a sizeable chunk from Windows. As there'd be no point for most people to have a separate laptop/desktop at that point.
People also thought that phones needed keyboards before Apple showed them a better way. This is all on Apple to make a reality, no one else can bring general purpose computing to iPhone except them. It's their choice to make.
Other than UI and other surface differences, the fundamental distinction between a Mac and an iDevice is... what it is.
A Mac is a real computer. I can run any code I want on it. I have root.
An iDevice is like a game console. I can only run App Store apps (without jumping through a lot of hoops). I do not have root (without again jumping through many hoops or ugly hacks).
If Apple wanted to unify the platform they have two choices. The first is to abandon the "real computer" market entirely. The second is to make iDevices real computers by unlocking them.
I suspect they'd rather keep two platforms.
Under the hood they both share a lot of code, so it's not two totally distinct platforms. It's more like two sets of defaults and two "skins."
I think the friction of using a keyboard/pointing device with a touchscreen, or fingers with a desktop interface, is too high to unify them. I know it's been done, I'm unconvinced it's been done well.
MacBook Neo has in a way unified the platforms. The only difference is essentially what OS is booted up with the chip.
That was already the case with the M-series chips, which are shared between Macs and higher-end iPads. The Neo just extends it to the A-series as well.
Yep I know, and now using a last gen A chip, I feel they are really rubbing our faces in it.
Like Apple is saying, "Nice iPhone 17 Pro w/ A19 w/ vapor cooling chip you have there; you know you run a full general purpose OS on it, but we're not gonna let you, nanananana :p"
No exactly, Apple is playing in our faces, all while people continue to defend the âdifferencesâ of device categories and the subsequent justification of shipping iPhones and iPads with locked bootloaders.
Unless you work for Apple or hold significant stock then I donât see the logic in defending this choice to hamstring the iPhone.
But even as an investor, I think Apple could bring a lot of people/money to the Mac ecosystem by getting them in with an iPhone lapdock.
The form factor is a major difference.
HNers are significantly more technical than the median consumer and are used to text and keyboard interfaces - a large portion of humanity isn't. You see this with Foundation Models as well - most have started to shift away from only concentrating on text to TTS and STT usecases.
Also, DeX style monitor screen share with a Bluetooth keyboard has been supported since iOS 15.
Additionally, a major portion of Apple's desktop revenue is coming from poweruser and specialist demand - IT departments bulk purchasing developer laptops, designers having their entire design workflow within the MacOS environment, and video editors heavily dependent on MacOS.
Furthermore, arguments about how Apple has an incentive not to cannibalize revenue are dumb, given how open Apple is to cannibalizing revenue where PMF exists (eg. the iPad Pro versus lower tier MacBooks or the MacBook Neo versus lower tier iPads).
The entire Mac line is a teeny tiny slice of revenue compared to iPhone. Allowing OSX on iPhone would increase the utility of iPhone, leading to more sales.
> Allowing OSX on iPhone would increase the utility of iPhone, leading to more sales
That assumption is not necessarily true.
What this implies is that there is a market of existing consumers that would not buy an iPhone because it lacks OSX support.
The iPhone portion of Apple's business generates around $144B in YoY revenue in Q1FY27 [0].
Whenever an organization contemplates building a net new capability like the one you mentioned, a quick test is whether it would be able to generate and sustain at minimum the equivalent of 1% of yearly revenue.
If this was a $1B revenue opportunity it would have been implemented, but it's not.
Nor is it a feature that can actively or dramatically increase Apple's market share in most markets.
A good proxy of such demand would have been a sudden increase in iOS users using USB-C screen share and a Bluetooth keyboard to interface with an iPhone in a desktop form factor (something which has been enabled since iOS 15), but such an increase has not happened.
[0] - https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/apple-reaches-a...
I think the reason is pretty obvious; what really goes on inside of our mobile phones, is not for the faint of heart.
They're all supercomputers that would have ranked on the TOP500 in the 90s.
The original iPhone ran OS X: https://youtu.be/x7qPAY9JqE4?t=522
It still does, they just call it iOS.
iPhone users just now discovering Samsung Dex... cute
It would be cool if iPhone could double as a laptop by just adding a monitor and keyboard/mouse and switch over to macOS.
Thermals and the interconnection speed would be a drag, but it would be nice to have a target display mode on a mac for iPhone
Tim Apple wants you to pay thrice, once for a phone, once again for a tablet and finally one last time for a laptop.
Thatâs basically the Neo.
Apple did patent a design for a dock in a monitor for a portable device to slot into. Itâs gotta be getting close to expiration now. I think the trick is heat dissipation.
My friend who is a macOS programmer years ago had an idea for a startup mode for iMacs where instead of just being a screen, the storage and video card would also be accessible over the thunderbolt bus, so you could plug a laptop in and have multiple video cards at your disposal.
Isnât my Apple Watch faster than a Cray 1?
Wow everything computer
Android now has a desktop mode (as Samsung has supported for years with Dex), and it also works on degoogled variants like GrapheneOS.
> I'm bothered, as I have been since the original iPad introduction 16 years ago, by the unnecessary restrictions placed by corporate powers to run third-party software and operating systems on devices we own.
It's not unnecessary, they do it because they make money as gatekeeper.
There are other reasons.
A big factor in the success of the iPad and maybe just some degree the iPhone, but especially the iPad, is that itâs âunbreakableâ. All out restrictions mean itâs computer people donât worry will suddenly stop working because they clicked to the wrong link. It wonât get a weird virus from their email.
That is a serious upside for a lot of consumers.
They could allow unlocking the phone by burying that option deep in the settings with scary warnings etc. Most people could use the device with the restrictions. The fact that this is not possible at all is greed.
If they did that, every influencer would make youtube videos and tik toks telling people how they should enable that setting to make their phone better or more powerful "for free", and everyone would just do it, especially the people who really shouldn't because they don't know any better.
One of the first things help desk scammers do is convince people to turn off antivirus and/or Windows Defender on their computers.
You can still have that. Make unbreakable the default, and add an "admin mode" toggle.
As I noted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47369155 that wouldn't stop the people that need the protection.
The last 25 years of Apple has made it pretty clear thatâs not âthe Apple wayâ.
Yeah they could. They could do a lot of things people constantly ask about, like upgradable RAM. But there is no reason to think they will.
I feel like that same reason is why you see a lot of seriously tech-savvy people try to use iPads as laptop substitutes over and over even though they're obviously still not suitable for it for technical tasks. There's a lot of latent appeal in "okay, what if I just didn't have to worry about any of that ambient technical crap?".
Just wanting to be a gatekeeper doesn't cover measures like SIP that don't make them anything and presumably took immense man-hours to implement.
I think the more accurate view would be an intersection of some of the company wanting to make money off gatekeeping and some of the company wanting to make quality devices that stay functional and malware-free even after you give to a deeply gullible grandparent for a while, and the former using the latter as a transparent excuse much of the time.
It's also because U.S. carriers don't like people hooking up arbitrary devices that can run arbitrary software to their network. In the civilized world, you have a device that talks GSM/LTE, you're golden as long as you don't violate any transmission laws. But in the USA carriers are still doing device allowlisting because I guess they want to bin QoS and don't want pro-grade traffic going over consumer accounts, nor the added expense of support for consumer accounts with exotic hardware that "might" break the network.
Some people insist there is no difference between a product and a capability and I honestly don't know to communicate to those people.
My contention is that the definition of said product and its inherent capabilities is being gatekept by a corporation that would love you to buy both an iPhone and Mac, and treat them as separate. In fact, I do have both already! But I still want rights to modify my iPhone as the computer it is.
The MacBook Neo is a great example of just how fungible these categories are, at least as far as the SoC that runs them is concerned. I paid for my iPhone in full, there is no reasonable justification for why I canât repurpose it / modify it as I see fit.
Because those people reject the principles that uphold that distinction, and so do I.