Can you imagine a scenario where Apple releases a fully-fledged laptop locked down like the iPhone or iPad? A fully fledged computer on which the only way to install software is through Apple’s built in App Store?

To borrow an overused phrase, it’s more likely than you think.

Would you buy it? Would other people buy it?

Package management can be awesome

I’ve written about package management before. I believe that locking down a package manager such that the user can’t change the available software channels is unethical and flies in the face of years of innovation. We’ve always treated computers as though they were owned by their users, and I see the popularization of devices like the iPhone and iPad as a disturbing precedent. Might Apple be emboldened to try locking down full computers the same way?

We live in an age in which the technology is powerful enough to implement such a thing. Apple is certainly capable of running the servers necessary for supplying its users with all their software, and it would certainly be lucrative, given how successful the iPhone’s app store is and how much 3rd party pay software exists for Macs right now (which Apple would then be able to take a cut of the profits on). There is thus a clear financial incentive for Apple to set up such a system, and for developers to continue to target it (and submit to their harsh developer restrictions).

And let’s face it: such a system would be amazing for users who don’t care. They would enjoy Apple’s rigorous testing process for all their software, and thus enjoy machines that almost never become bogged down by slow or unstable apps. They’d have an easy way of finding and installing all the software they could ever want–even simpler than what they currently have on Macs, and that’s saying something–along with Apple’s approval of all of it, which carries all the quality control that their name has become synonymous with.

I can imagine other possible models. Maybe they’d offer people “simple” or “advanced” options when purchasing computers, the former being cheaper and locked down for the “I really don’t know how to use computers” crowd. Such a thing doesn’t seem like them though, given how well they’ve avoided fragmenting their product ecosystem. Or perhaps they’d simply release their own blessed way to jailbreak the system if a user cares enough.

Right, jailbreaking! Can’t you just jailbreak it?

A cursory glance at the history of the iPhone would make one all but certain that if Apple released such a system without offering a way to unlock it, their users would find a way (as they will undoubtedly with the iPad).

I find this scenario similarly unpleasant, for two reasons. One is that if your enjoyment of a machine depends on an unauthorized hack, you are entirely dependent on those hackers to keep it jailbroken the next time Apple pushes out a system update that invariably locks you down again–the ease of which is never a certainty. It’s a cat-and-mouse game that some users appear more than happy to play, but in the long run it definitely doesn’t seem worth the effort to me.

The other is that you’re ignoring the device’s biggest selling point. If a device is locked down, it’s locked down as a genuine means of quality control, which Apple has shown itself to be superb at. To my mind, jailbreaking an Apple device invalidates everything good about it–Apple’s assurance that you’re getting the best you can get.

This argument may seem self-contradictory–suddenly a device being locked down is a good thing? It’s important to remember that the reasons for locking down a device in the first place are, in order:

1. Making a cut off of lucrative third-party software sales.
2. Making sure that 3rd-party software enriches the platform rather than makes it look bad.
3. Making the system easy to use.
4. Making the system stable, secure and fast.

For most users, a locked down system is protection from systems they don’t care about knowing how to use, and from software that might harm their systems. To users who care about customization, it’s a heavy-handed restriction on something they want to use that just gets in their way. Users in the former category genuinely benefit from a locked down system, and users in the latter category don’t.

So how likely is it?

I’ve always felt that Apple’s primary market is the former category, and that’s why I think this scenario is so likely. It worries me, because I’ve always clung to the idealistic notion that someone who uses a computer has a responsibility to know how to make changes to how it functions. An Apple user might counter that all Apple’s lockdowns do is simplify the method for those changes so more people have access to them. I would counter that such a thing is worthless if more fine-grained customizability is lost in the process.

But then, I suppose that’s why I’m an Ubuntu user. I have the tools I need to change where my software is coming from, and I use them. I just wish more people noticed or cared.

No matter how secure your system is, there’s never a replacement for a well-educated user who knows to at least be wary of untrusted software packages. While a smart security framework can make a user pause before making a mistake, it’s ultimately still at the user’s mercy. (Though having such a system in place is certainly much better than not having one, or providing a false sense of security.) A Linux user who joyfully installs every package offered is really in no safer a position than… well, the majority of Windows users.

Except in this case it clearly isn’t healthy. The App Store has attracted quite a bit of negative press in recent months for its seemingly arbitrary, bizarre, anticompetitive and possibly even politically motivated submission rejections.

These rejections represent a fatal flaw of the system that dooms it to always being a subpar and unethically managed package manager.

Let’s step back.

For years in the Linux world, we’ve relied on package management to handle software installation and removal. We install our OS as a distribution from some sort of organization, which could be an actual company that makes money or just a hacker releasing software in their spare time. The important thing about installing software in Linux is that without some form of automation, it’s a pain–you would have to compile your software yourself after looking up all of its dependencies, a time-consuming process that really doesn’t make sampling software easy or fun.

So, to ease that process, the distributor of the OS runs servers that your machine can download software from, automatically handling dependencies and keeping track of what’s installed where on your system and what software uses what assets. Package management has only improved over the years, as software libraries expanded and user demand grew. Today, it couldn’t be easier to install a program in Ubuntu; all you have to do is fire up the Ubuntu Software Center, browse, click install, and enter your password.

But package management does have its drawbacks. There’s a bit of a security risk–while it’s pretty easy to use cryptography to reasonably guarantee that no one’s breaking into the server and sending you malicious software, you can’t know for certain that the distributor isn’t doing nasty things (and while I’m willing to bet there aren’t many users who audit all the source code of everything they install on their machines, releasing everything as source code still gives you the ability to do so, which there’s a lot to be said for). But by far the biggest one is that you’re completely dependent on the distributor for software availability. If something you want isn’t in there, or if it’s not up to date enough, there’s not much you can do besides try to manually install it, which tends to muck things up.

The App Store’s fatal flaw is refusing to allow independent distribution channels. Allowing them instantaneously removes the biggest issue package managers have by freeing developers to distribute their products their own way, instead of having to go through Apple. If such a thing were allowed, Apple could further create incentives for developers to produce software for them by not taking a cut of the profits (or maybe even taking it anyway through licensing agreements), thus enriching the platform. It’s how Microsoft became successful–by allowing developers tremendous freedom with their development frameworks and leaving the market open to grow according to demand. It would even force Apple to clean up their own act in order to compete with them (though that can hardly be seen as a good reason from their perspective).

But the iPhone is a very heavily locked down platform, which only ever gained the App Store to quell demand that was being satisfied by jailbreaking, before it became one of Apple’s main moneymakers when it proved enormously popular and lucrative. It’s fundamentally changed an industry, and yet it remains a painful symbol of exactly how unfair it is to have a single entity acting as the entire channel through which users can install software. Some users still jailbreak, but others continue to use only what Apple makes available, and that’s not good for anyone–not for Apple’s users, not for developers hoping to make money off of them, and not for Apple’s reputation.

If I were an iPhone user or programmer, I wouldn’t be happy. I’d be demanding that Apple open up the platform immediately to 3rd party distributors, not just developers. That, to me, is a prerequisite for software development. I don’t want to be at the mercy of a company that gets to decide what software I use on a machine that I purchased–especially if I hope to make money off of selling software for it. The Linux world figured it out years ago, and there’s no reason why Apple can’t. Even other mobile OS developers figured it out–Android and Palm both allow it.

Is it just too lucrative for Apple to give up? Maybe. It’s still more than enough to dissuade me from ever wanting to touch their development platform. I can do better. And until Apple cleans up their act, so can you.