The fact I had to use iTunes to put music on my phone and the lack of access to the filesystem were extreme deal breakers for me. There is also the impossible hoops you had to jump through to change ownership of a phone. I gave my mother my old iPhone when I changed to Android and it was impossible to scrub my account from it, even with a factory reset.
The environment felt way too sterile for my liking. It treated me, a legitimate tech savvy user, like a malicious imbecile.
I think they mean the iPhone. I love my MPB, but I still have no interest in iPhones due to lack of filesystem access, interface for the deranged, and not being able to customize it the way I want.
I still don’t know what that means. You can access the filesystem. You can even install a terminal if you want. And if that isn’t enough you can always jailbreak.
It treated me, a legitimate tech savvy user, like a malicious imbecile.
So it’s doing security correctly.
I hate this take. That is not how security should look on consumer devices at all and it’s one of the ways the security industry is being co-opted to ruin consumer devices. The user is not the attacker on a consumer device. Consumer devices should provide tools to enable strict protections and allow the user to choose. It should be easy to put the device into the fully locked down state at instal/initial provisioning, likely even the default, but it should also be easy to deviate from that during provisioning. After provisioning it should, of course, be incredibly hard or impossible to go from the locked-down state to the nonlocked-down state without wiping data.
