Breaking Down Apple’s Walled Garden With Open Source Software

Matthew Feroz

John Horgan

5/4/2024

Breaking Down Apple’s Walled Garden With Open Source Software

In a time where our lives are dominated by tech giants lying atop the clouds of the digital landscape, Apple stands tallest as the biggest shareholder in the smartphone market. Yet, beneath its mask of sleek innovation and all-in-one platforms, Apple not only stifles innovation but also utilizes monopolistic tactics and consumer manipulation. Their actions serve to lock users in their ecosystem and create a "walled garden" in which nothing else in the market can survive. Because of this, Apple is being sued in a landmark monopoly case and will hopefully receive justice for its actions.

As a consumer, it is important to understand why things cost the way that they do and why things are the way that they are. This is because we spend thousands of dollars on technologies, specifically smartphones, which make up a large portion of our lives. According to research conducted on the connection between university students and cellphone usage, the first thing most people do in the morning is check their phone and on average most students use their phone for up to six and a half hours per day (Daniyal). I’m not here to tell you that is a bad thing, I’m sure everyone hears that enough. All that I’m here to tell you is if you’re spending so much time and money on something, at least make sure you’re getting the full picture of what is going on behind the curtain.

For me, a computer is a computer, is a computer, is a computer. Unless you want to get specific about the architecture of a smart device, the internal components of one phone and another aren’t all too different. This means that one should never have to put up with capable technology not communicating with one another due to a company’s intolerance for sharing the digital space. 

This is most easily recognizable in the green vs blue bubble debacle that everyone who doesn’t have an iPhone must deal with daily. For example, if you were to send a text message as an Android user to an iPhone user, the iPhone user would receive a green SMS message. This text looks different and functions differently from iMessage, Apple’s proprietary messaging technology. iMessage being Apple’s own proprietary technology means that if you’re not using Apple hardware, you’re losing the ability to communicate with end-to-end encryption. Without end-to-end encryption, your messages are prone to be intercepted by hackers leaving them vulnerable. Further, there are a myriad of features that are lost while texting with SMS. The list of features that are limited to Apple’s iMessage which could be integrated but are currently not integrated with other smartphones goes as follows:

End-to-end encryption, Priority messages, Priority delivery, Large file size support for attachments, Delivery and read receipts, Encrypted voice messages, Encrypted group chat, Read receipts, Typing indicators, Message effects, Multimedia quality, Group chat customization, Message reactions, Message effects, iCloud sync for messages, Message forwarding and sync across devices, App integrations, Animoji/Memoji, iMessage apps and games, Shared photo albums, Direct links to web content, Built-in GIF search, Contact cards with photos, Contact availability status, Location sharing, Message filtering and sorting options, Digital Touch interactions, Shared lists and collaborative notes, Message reactions with animations, Suggested replies and smart suggestions, Do Not Disturb for individual conversations, Message effects for special occasions, Handwritten messages, Live photos sharing, Screen sharing, Siri integration for voice commands, Message pinning, Smart inline link previews, Integrated Digital Touch features, Parental controls and screen time management, Send without disturbing, Archive conversations, Threaded conversations view, and Contact blocking and reporting options.

Now if I were to tell the average person that they would lose out on all of these features with anyone who has an iPhone, even though Android phones have very similar features, one would automatically assume that the Android phone is of poorer quality. In fact, I have personally tried purchasing a pair of Apple AirPod Pros for my girlfriend who owns a Samsung phone and was told by the clerk that her 2023 smartphone isn't capable of adjusting the noise cancellation feature on the headphones. I didn't leave the store with the headphones that day, I instead left with the understanding that Apple really does deserve to be sued.

It’s comical how adept Apple is at making it seem that experiences such as mine are just the status quo. The greatest technology can only be accessed once Apple develops it! There are countless examples, the Apple Watch only completely functions with iPhones, making it so that any other smartphone user with an Apple Watch essentially has a brick attached to their arm. Innovative "super apps" that hold multiple apps within them are blocked on the App Store probably because Apple hasn't developed one of their own yet. Also, there are no third-party digital wallet apps because Apple already developed one. It gets worse as game developers who want to improve mobile gaming functionality by bringing, cloud-based gaming to the App Store cannot utilize single applications to cloud-stream their games. Instead, Apple makes it so that each time a game is created, the game studio needs to make a completely separate app for the game, making the cloud-based technology pointless to use in the first place. This is probably because Apple already has an Apple Arcade app, and don’t forget about the 30% transaction fee that Apple on all app store purchases and subscriptions.

It’s almost as if Apple is scared that their technology can’t stand on its legs and needs to be supported by this conquest of ensuring that Apple users only use Apple.

Again, you may think that these problems are solely because Apple is just better, but it's not hardware compatibility that is limiting Apple, it’s Apple’s closed ecosystem. A closed ecosystem means control over every aspect, including hardware, software, and services. It is truly a restriction of competition just as every other historical monopoly outlined in the past. Yet, consumers are willing to deal with this fact so long as their technology works and is up to the status quo. To be clear, I am in no way proposing that this line of reasoning is incorrect nor is it unjustified for one to feel this way about the products they purchase. For me, as someone who values transparency and fair practices, wouldn’t you want to know what other options are available?

This is what brings me to the topic of free open-source software. Open-source software is best characterized by its accessibility as users and developers can access, view, and modify the underlying source code of software, fostering a culture of transparency and peer review. This collaborative approach empowers developers and users to collectively improve the software, address bugs, and introduce new features, ultimately resulting in high-quality, adaptable solutions that cater to any user’s needs. 

Projects like Linux and Framework have shown how open-source environments can lead to revolutionary innovations in software and hardware, influencing everything from current server technologies to lightweight operating systems to technology you use every day. In an interview with my software engineering professor, Dr. Ying Wang, Dr. Wang explained to me that software engineers in the business, academic, and research fields all use open-source software to their collective advantage. By fostering a culture of shared knowledge and community-based problem solving, open-source software ensures that innovations are not confined to the business interests of a single company, such as Apple, but are instead propelled forward by the collective effort and ingenuity of a global community of developers. This approach not only hastens technological development but also ensures that software can be catered exactly to the needs and values of a specific user base. 

As a former employee of Apple, Dr. Wang detailed how Apple’s closed ecosystem tightly controls all dependencies within its development environment. By meticulously managing both the hardware and software, Apple ensures every part of an Apple product is robust and well-maintained, reducing the risk of breakdowns that might occur in more openly interconnected systems. This control comes at the cost of reduced efficiency, transparency, and flexibility, as users and developers are confined to the dependencies that Apple chooses to support. This balancing act can be quite difficult, and while I do not have sympathy for Apple’s tactics, their business plan of keeping everything closed source is quite brilliant.

If you could control and own every aspect of your product then why wouldn't you? It’s like owning a part of the internet, things that should be accessible to everyone can be controlled solely by you, overtly justified by “safety and security reasons” but also for increasing profits. The fact of the matter is that companies such as Apple bow down to the dollar of their authoritarian shareholders, as they remove VPN applications from the App Store within countries such as China (Ingram) and support poor business conditions in their manufacturing warehouses in China (See chinalaborwatch.org for more details). This means that lots of the misdoings that the company does can be justified with the closed system approach, it’s just what the status quo is and is why consumers need to pry more into the products that they purchase.

This doesn’t mean that open-source software has its own fair share of issues, but nothing as bad as what Apple is doing. It's just that anything open source requires greater vigilance and participation from the average consumer, which is a hard ask in this day and age. For example, the frequent updates and modifications that are inherent to open-source projects can sometimes lead to stability issues if not maintained carefully, although some projects get around this with automatic updates, it's still an issue. Additionally, users might find themselves troubleshooting issues that arise from conflicting versions of software or from newly introduced bugs in the latest updates. This level of involvement can be daunting for those who are not tech-savvy or those who prefer a simpler albeit more restricted level of technology. Furthermore, open-source projects often rely on the community for maintenance and development. This can lead to problems with sustainability specifically if the community's interest wanes or if there's a lack of funding. This means that critical security updates and bug fixes might not be addressed as swiftly as they would be in a commercial environment, potentially exposing the average user to cybersecurity risks. This contrasts heavily with closed software ecosystems, where updates and support are regularly provided, ensuring a higher standard of security and functionality. Again, there is nothing wrong with using Apple products, or any other product for that matter, it's just an issue of awareness and the understanding that society relies on open source.

Dependency - xkcd

"Dependency" is a cartoon that underscores an often overlooked reality of the current digital landscape. It depicts a structure being supported by a single pillar that’s been maintained by “some random person” thanklessly since 2003. This image serves as a metaphor for multiple things, maybe the digital tools we used to depend on are bound to crumble underneath new technological advances, maybe we have an overreliance on open-source technology, or maybe as consumers, we need to be more cognizant of what the true picture of the systems we use are.

This reliance on open-source software, while a little problematic, is also fundamentally beneficial to all consumers. It democratizes technology by making it accessible and modifiable by anyone, promoting innovation and collaboration across global communities. These projects drive much of the internet and various technologies, contributing to advancements and efficiencies in countless sectors. Hence, being more cognizant of these dependencies means recognizing the balance between benefiting from rich, interconnected systems and the need for sustainable support and robust security measures. Consumers should advocate for and support practices that secure the long-term viability and security of the software they depend on. This can be either through financially supporting open-source projects or better understanding the inner workings of the technology we use every day. Awareness leads to better-informed decisions about the technology products one chooses to rely on, fostering a healthier, more secure, and overall enhanced digital environment.

Therefore, while open-source software provides an antithesis to the closed ecosystem of Apple, it brings an entirely different set of advantages and challenges. It promotes a culture of transparency and collective development that champions transparency, collaboration, and user empowerment driving innovation at a pace and direction controlled by community needs rather than corporate needs. Yet, it also requires users to be more proactive and involved in managing their tech solutions, which can be a significant hurdle for those accustomed to the simplicity of platforms like those offered by Apple. Ultimately, the choice between these two paradigms depends on the user’s priorities, as control, customization, and transparency or convenience, consistency, and security shouldn't be mutually exclusive. As technology consumers, it's crucial to be more cognizant of these underlying issues and choose to support the software that aligns with one's values most. Whether advocating for more open practices within closed ecosystems or contributing to the development of open-source platforms, our choices can help shape a more equitable and innovative digital future.

Citations:

1. Daniyal M, Javaid SF, Hassan A, Khan MAB. The Relationship between Cellphone Usage on the Physical and Mental Wellbeing of University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 30;19(15):9352. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159352. PMID: 35954709; PMCID: PMC9368281.

2. Ingram, Mathew. "Apple’s censorship in China is just the tip of the iceberg." Columbia Journalism Review. April 25, 2024. https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_censorship.php.

3. Munroe, Randall. "Dependency." XKCD, 6 July 2020, https://xkcd.com/2347/. Accessed April 25, 2024.

4. Dr. Ying Wang - Stevens Institute of Technology