[dirkgently]

> Why shouldn’t I expect it?

Why should I, as a consumer? I don't understand this argument from Apple apologists.

> Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005.

So if it wasn't called out then, it should never be called out ever?

[BurritoAlPastor]

“Called out”? Sure. It was called out when Microsoft rolled it out and it’s been called out persistently for ten years, to the point that I’m used to being called an “apologist”. But public criticism is orders of magnitude different from a legal injunction. I simply don’t see how the definitions and aims of a theory of monopoly can be usefully applied to this case.

[rickycook]

plenty of reasons. the difference between android and apple is pretty stark, and they both have merit but dont dismiss the arguments against the more closed ecosystem

the apple method allows a really easy UX for every single purchase and install on ios; if you allow a developer to decide that they’re only releasing on NewOpenAppStore, a user has to go ahead and somehow install that, which is a mess. apple don’t want that, because it just looks bad for the whole ecosystem

the security implications are obvious; if a user wants a pirated app, they will follow the “technical instructions” to click through menus and allow 3rd party installs so they can download their package from legitnotmalware.com

there are plenty more in the same kinda thinking, but overall they are different approaches but the walled garden should not be dismissed. you can argue that the down sides outweigh the upsides, but don’t just dismiss anyone that decides the upsides are worth it as “apple apologists” in an effort to condescend and shut down conversation

[dirkgently]

You must be joking if your argument is that a closed system is in any way superior to an open one.

Android lets you install apps outside of play store, without any hard tech knowledge. That's not possible on Apple devices unless you are tech savvy and can go through a 10 step process.

Whatever upside you think they have flies in the face of openness.

[dwaite]

Side-loading apps used to require switching the phone to a developer mode which disabled certain security restrictions in Android. They made it so any user could do it, including users without the technical chops to understand the ramifications.

Likewise, rather than having Apple review entitlements and for entitlements to privacy-impacting features like location or the camera be approved by the user at runtime, Google put a screen that asked users without the proper technical knowledge to make an evaluation a decision - either allow things that sound scary, or abort running the app.

The App Store review process is an abstraction that allows normal users to decide they trust the system to limit abuse so that they don't have to learn how to evaluate entitlement policies. Putting roadblocks to side loading apps (as you seem to know, still possible on iOS, but harder) means you don't have third parties convincing users to agree to security changes they don't understand.

This is not an open vs closed argument, since it is theoretically possible to build an open system with such features exposed opt-out with sufficient gymnastics. But that is a lot harder, and there is no financial motivation by Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or any of the console vendors) for doing so.