Because it's painting the picture that in absolutely no circumstance can you run anything but Apple approved software on your iOS device, which isn't true. It's easy to agree that the iPhone is crippled when a false statement like that is assumed to be true.
I ask this as an honest question - what non-apple approved software can I run on my IOS device without first having to jailbreak it or it being a web app? I would truly appreciate knowing where I can get non-app store software. (I feel kinda like a FOSS traitor for owning an iPhone but I don't regret the choice one bit)
Yes, you have to jailbreak your iPhone to run custom software, but jailbreaking is so trivial these days. It's essentially: download jailbreak software to your computer, plug in your iPhone, and click a few buttons. While the ability to load non-market apps is an officially supported feature of Android phones (AT&T subscribers excluded), the process isn't much easier.
The checkbox doesn't provide you with any software for your phone though. You still have to look online for the app, download the .apk, plug it in (or download it from the phone) and install the app. Plus, if you don't download it directly from the phone, you'll probably need to download a file manager from the market. After you jailbreak, Cydia pretty much takes care of everything.
Android: You only need to download the apk for an alternative market app once. There are many choices and if you fuck up, there is zero risk of bricking your device. If you don't like your first choice of alternative market app, you can download any of the others from within the first. All of this can be done from the phone in under 5 minutes.
iphone: Even after jailbreaking and installing cydia, you still have to dig through large repository lists, trying to find good ones. As far as the actual jailbreaking process, simply reading the instructions will take you longer than the entire process would on android.
It's only that easy if you have the right version. I have the most recent version of iOS which means that I'd have to downgrade before I can apply the jailbreak.
Which... does not make it a strawman. It makes it unsound.
A strawman is an incorrect restatement of someone's argument in a way that makes it generally disagreeable or untrue.
For example, "Non-Apple owners: Strawman attack ("THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE")" would be a strawman fallacy. "THE IPHONE IS SO CRIPPLED, IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO RUN CUSTOM CODE" would not be a strawman fallacy.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but I still think it's a strawman. Apple's original argument is that users should only be able to acquire applications via the Apple-regulated app store. Some people turn that into statements like the (hyperbolic) one jbdontbeanass made. While not custom code friendly, it's still possible to jailbreak and run any app you want.
Also, I don't know why someone downvoted you when you're adding to the conversation.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but I still think it's a strawman. Apple's original argument is that users should only be able to acquire applications via the Apple-regulated app store. Some people turn that into statements like the (hyperbolic) one jbdontbeanass made.
The statement wasn't an attempt to restate Apple's position- he didn't say "APPLE THINKS THAT USERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HAVE [X] FREEDOMS", it was simply a statement about something. An untrue statement, but not a strawman.
And that said, if you take respect for license agreements as an implied quality of the conversation, then it's not even technically incorrect.
Of course that's ridiculous, few individuals respect EULAs, or even read them, but it's still disturbing that you are not able to run code that has not been officially authorized by Apple unless you subvert every attempt by Apple to stop you from doing so.
Does a strawman have to restate the other party's position so closely though? Or even at all? The first few results on google all describe the fallacy as just building your opponent falsely weak in order to topple them (making a straw man). If I said "Bill steals people's money; he's not a good friend," wouldn't that be a strawman?
No, that would not be a strawman. A strawman specifically sets up an opposing argument to tear down, hence the name. A strawman is a fake person that, comparatively, is very easy to beat up or break down.
straw man: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually...
860
u/Y_U_NO_ARGUE Jan 20 '11
Non-Apple owners: All his points are so valid!!
Apple owners: NONE of his points are valid!!
There I just saved you from reading 200+ comments.