[Fargren]

> I want an ecosystem that works and I can rely on including knowing that little to no one can side load a malicious application onto the device.

I don't understand this, can you explain why? As long as you don't sideload on your own phone, why would having the option be a problem?

[ascagnel_]

When you're stuck being the "computer person" in a family, it means you need to manage things like people's laptops that have somehow associated .exe files with MS Word or a game suddenly starting in the background and making a bunch of noise on Android (I've dealt with these first-hand). There's a market for devices that give power users some access, but not so much they can cause problems. Right now, I somewhat selfishly suggest iPhones/iPads to family members, because they live near enough to Apple stores that I don't have to be the one supporting them, and that the devices are harder to put into a state where the unpredictable starts happening.

[Barrin92]

>When you're stuck being the "computer person" in a family, it means you need to manage things like people's laptops that have somehow associated .exe files with MS Word or a game suddenly starting in the background and making a bunch of noise on Android (I've dealt with these first-hand).

The things you can do with the phone are already more dangerous and hazardous than say, manually approved, developer-mode sideloading.

Following this logic, why is the phone even allowed to get phone calls from non-Apple approved numbers?, or mail from non-Apple approved email addresses?

Like at what point does this logic actually stop, because for someone who somehow manages to install malware after having to tap on some arcane menu seven times in a row every service on that phone is a minefield

[Wowfunhappy]

Chromebooks also seem to fill this need fairly well—I know a lot of people in your situation choose them for family members. This appears to work despite the fact that you can unlock a Chromebook's bootloader and do whatever you like.

[pb7]

Presumably because app developers might choose not to go through the curated App Store route and in turn, cut corners or do shady things just because they can. Imagine if Tik Tok was only available to side load -- they'll scrape whatever they want/can and teens aren't going to risk FOMOing for that alone.

[Fargren]

I don't think that would happen. You can sideload into Android but as far as I know no one sideloads Tik Tok, you just get it through the store. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I just don't see it as a reason for not owning a device that allows sideloading (unless you mean that one could oppose sideloading in principle and boycott devices that allow it?)

[pb7]

Well yeah, there's no current reason to sideload it because it's available on the store. But imagine they wanted to do something that Google wouldn't allow -- now they can do that thing and offer the app for sideloading only.

If the US ban reasons are valid and Google is forced to remove it from the store for those reasons, then sideloading TikTok would be this exact situation I'm describing.

--

Let me restate it like this. Company A wants access to iOS app market. Their app does X, Y, and Z. Z is frowned upon but X and Y are pretty valuable. In a world with no rules (i.e. sideloading), they'll do X, Y, and Z and consumers will have to put up with Z. In a world with rules (i.e. App Store), they will have to omit Z even though it's good for business because that's the only way they can do business in X and Y.

[tomp]

TikTok already scrapes whatever they want. How does Apple’s review process help?

Also, sideloading doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no access controls or permissions on iOS any more. Though Apple might have to step up security and fixore bugs.

[dogma1138]

Because having that options undermines the trust model of the device I am using and more importantly of the devices of others I communicate with.

And yes I do have different policies for sharing info with people on Android vs iPhones.