[brisance]

>Does not make their argument right or correct.<

It makes it tiresome to reply.

>Proactive censorship, company policies or business interests do not align to local laws 1:1. Porn, BitTorrent, gab.ai or countless other banned applications are not illegal, yet you are not going to be able to install them on your Apple device.<

"Banned applications are not illegal"; that's an oxymoron.

Side loading has been done on iOS. Refer to Apple Developer Enterprise Program. [1] Cardiogram has also successfully side-loaded apps on iOS. [2] But it seems I won't be able to convince you since you cannot agree that a curated marketplace has value and that people desire this.

>We are not talking about development, but about loading a binary on the device and running it. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.<

Refer to the two links cited below.

>On Android devices with Play Store (aka Google proprietary app) installed. And they apologized for that, and are removing it.<

That's a SEPARATE Google tracking issue (hur hur) in April 2017. Did you even read the link I posted? It was discovered 2 days ago now.

Ultimately, Apple has to obey the law in China. The "wisdom" of allowing side-loading to sidestep public policy issues exposes a wide target that is prone to abuse and leads to bad outcomes.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/

[2] https://cardiogr.am/

[vetinari]

> "Banned applications are not illegal"; that's an oxymoron.

I don't follow your logic there, care to elaborate? Banning is done by Apple; legality is determined by courts, based on laws. Has any of these apps ruled illegal by court? Of course not. As I already wrote, company policies are not 1:1 map to laws, there's much more that goes into them, especially things like business interests and partnerships, but also things like ideology or subjective moral judgement.

> Refer to Apple Developer Enterprise Program. [1]

You can't be serious. So your grandmother is going to found a company, then get a DUNS number, so she can sideload an app?

The second link says exactly nothing about sideloading. On contrary, it has big Apple Store button.

> But it seems I won't be able to convince you since you cannot agree that a curated marketplace has value and that people desire this.

For convincing, it helps to have valid, logical arguments.

You don't seem to understand, that curated marketplace and sideloading are not mutually exclusive. Those, who want that marketplace, can choose from curated selection. Those, who want to sideload, can. In your model, where the curation is enforced on everyone, it is being turned into control for what's allowed and what is not.

> Ultimately, Apple has to obey the law in China. The "wisdom" of allowing side-loading to sidestep public policy issues exposes a wide target that is prone to abuse and leads to bad outcomes.

Ultimately, by allowing side-loading they are not responsible for whatever the user side loads at all, because they do not control this distribution channel. Just like Microsoft is not responsible for whatever you run on your Windows machine and Linus Torvalds is not responsible for whatever you run on your Linux machine.

[brisance]

>I don't follow your logic there, care to elaborate? Banning is done by Apple; legality is determined by courts, based on laws. Has any of these apps ruled illegal by court? Of course not. As I already wrote, company policies are not 1:1 map to laws, there's much more that goes into them, especially things like business interests and partnerships, but also things like ideology or subjective moral judgement.<

This is literally the third line of the article: "We have been notified by the Ministry of Public Security that a number of voice over internet protocol apps do not comply with local law. Therefore these apps have been removed from the app store in China."

>You can't be serious. So your grandmother is going to found a company, then get a DUNS number, so she can sideload an app?<

You said you can't side-load apps and that's the proof that you can. This is how companies deploy apps that are not on the App Store. And this has nothing to do with grandparents, it's two separate things. I remain unconvinced that it's easier to sideload an app from dubious sources than downloading from a sanctioned App Store.

>The second link says exactly nothing about sideloading. On contrary, it has big Apple Store button.<

The App Store is the official way to get into the Cardiaogram program. You can join the mRhythm study which is not offered on the App Store. They send you an email link and you tap on the link. Then you download the profile and the app. And that's how you sideload apps.

So I've provided 2 real-life examples of how side-loading is done on iOS.

>You don't seem to understand, that curated marketplace and sideloading are not mutually exclusive. Those, who want that marketplace, can choose from curated selection. Those, who want to sideload, can. In your model, where the curation is enforced on everyone, it is being turned into control for what's allowed and what is not.<

I agree that in an ideal world, having both a curated marketplace/walled garden and the option to sideload would be good. In practice, the closest to this idealized model is actually iOS and not Android, because Android even in its most "official" form is sponsored by a company whose business is to spy on its users (refer to earlier citation about being busted by Quartz). We can keep arguing in circles about "open source" and "code audits" but Ken Thompson pretty much shut that down with his Turing award lecture. [1] As of a few days ago, Google has consistently been shown to be untrustworthy.

[1] https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thomp...

[vetinari]

> This is literally the third line of the article: "We have been notified by the Ministry of Public Security that a number of voice over internet protocol apps do not comply with local law. Therefore these apps have been removed from the app store in China."

Meanwhile, we moved the discussion from a narrower issue of the article to a wider issue of sideloading in general.

> You said you can't side-load apps and that's the proof that you can. This is how companies deploy apps that are not on the App Store. And this has nothing to do with grandparents, it's two separate things. I remain unconvinced that it's easier to sideload an app from dubious sources than downloading from a sanctioned App Store.

You still can't in general. Only in very specific, narrow situations, blessed by Apple. Your feelings about ease of side loading vs. app store are irrelevant, as we are talking about running software that Apple for various reasons might not approve of.

> In practice, the closest to this idealized model is actually iOS

In practice, you can run only things that Apple approves. Not good enough.

[brisance]

>Meanwhile, we moved the discussion from a narrower issue of the article to a wider issue of sideloading in general.<

Refer to earlier explanation of tiresome.

>You still can't in general. Only in very specific, narrow situations, blessed by Apple. Your feelings about ease of side loading vs. app store are irrelevant, as we are talking about running software that Apple for various reasons might not approve of.<

What are these "narrow" and "specific" situations you speak of? If you wish to distribute apps in jurisdictions where they are banned, I don't see why Apple is obliged to help you break the law. As for the side-loading capability, I have yet to encounter anyone who has had problems with Apple restricting their ability to side-load while enrolled under their enterprise program. Hell you can even use TestFlight to push your "beta" apps to "beta-testers" in perpetuity.

>In practice, you can run only things that Apple approves. Not good enough.<

Besides the links provided earlier, you can also have your own runtimes on iOS. e.g. Filemaker, Wolfram are doing this. [1] Python has been on iOS for at least 5 years. [2]

[1] http://blog.wolfram.com/2017/10/04/notebooks-in-your-pocket-...

[2] http://omz-software.com/pythonista/