The original complaint was that you can't run your own unapproved code on your iDevice. I explained why this was false, and then the goalposts were moved to to some other concern.
This is not a realistic scenario, but even if it was there's a trivial workaround: sign up for a new account.
And at the end of the day, what made you buy that iDevice? Raw hardware? You can buy any old ARM tablet if that's what you want. You probably bought that iDevice because you want the secure device, with a full stack and ecosystem, which includes ongoing work from Apple to provide OS patches for security holes and OS bugs. I don't get the pearl-clutching over the limitations for a fundamentally secure computing appliance by design (which is a major selling point of the device in the first place).
If a comet hits CA tomorrow and the company collapses, do you think I would still be able to "control" my device? What about patching it up or installing a new system?
People who buy iOS devices don't control them. Full stop.
Apple has multiple regional data centers, if they’re all wiped out it probably means the collapse of civilization anyway. So another implausible scenario.
Just saying “you don’t control your device” doesn’t make it true, and regardless: the limitations have been a known quantity for a long time, and most people are fine with them. Apple’s secure, locked-down device experience is so popular that we’re complaining about their monopoly.
That's not what I said. It's fine for devices to only run signed code. It only becomes bad when the owner isn't in control of whose code signatures are trusted.
