[valuearb]

A mass of insecure side-loads damages platform security.

99.9% of users have no clue how their phone works, they won’t know how their iPhone got hacked, and they will blame Apple.

It will reduce a big differentiator between iPhone and Android costing sales.

For developers bad publicity from these events will make their customers more gun shy about buying and installing apps.

[efreak]

So make the sideload toggle like Android's bootloader--when you toggle it, wipe user data. Anyone who wants to side load will have to reinstall all their apps. There's other annoying things you can do too: require the user to wait for a delayed email; require unlocking through a website; require one if the above actions to be performed to toggle the state, and again for each side-load install (for example, require waiting for a 5 minute delayed prompt to turn on sideloading, and a 30-second delay for installing). If the side-loaded app requires sensitive permissions, only save them for a limited amount of time (ie, if it asks for access to your contacts, re-request every 2 weeks, or on every update). Pop up a long EULA-style description that needs to be scrolled to the bottom to continue.

There's dozens of ways to make doing things extremely inconvenient, to the point that people won't do them without a good reason, without being _overly_ bothersome to those that do want it. (Unless you're installing/updating dozens of side-loaded apps simultaneously, a delayed prompt shouldn't bother you much)

[anfilt]

If that was case people would quit buying apple devices because people who jail break their device downloaded malware... However, that is not the case. If anything those jail breaks lead to an increase of users.

[valuearb]

Jail breaking is so difficult that it’s always been a tiny percent of the installed base, esp since iOS 7.

It’s night and day between it and what would happen if other app stores were allowed to install unvetted Apps. Having a significant percentage of your installed base with malware is bad for them, bad for Apple, and bad for other devs.

Apple could enable side loading and alternate app stores in exchange for a revenue share right now without costing them any profits. They don’t because they truly believe the benefits of the walled garden are hugely important to their customers.

Who should I believe? The company that spends all their time trying to understand their customer needs, or a bunch of developers frustrated with the revenue share percentage?

[rpdillon]

> It’s night and day between it and what would happen if other app stores were allowed to install unvetted Apps.

I don't see it, and I'm more skeptical because this statement treats speculation as fact.

Anecdotally, I'm a potential (and once!) Apple customer that will never consider using an iPhone or iPad solely because Apple has created and enforced rules that elevate their judgment over mine when it comes to what software I am allowed to install on a device I purchased. That is just completely unacceptable to me. The argument that restricting what I can do with my device somehow has value to their other customers with a similar model of device seems far-fetched. I suspect it has value to Apple because they want the 30% cut, not because they think customers would leave if they offered it.

I agree with you that Apple disallows other stores because they truly believe in their walled garden. But I believe in giving customers the ability to choose for themselves, knowing that some customers will make bad decisions, but also knowing some customers will do amazing stuff because they were given the freedom to do so. Perhaps I'm just not a customer that Apple cares about serving. It's a shame, because it leaves me stuck with Android and Google's ever-invasive Google Play Services.

[valuearb]

Apple makes tough decisions about who they want as customers for good reasons.

Most customers don’t understand how their phone works, or the benefits of alternate app stores. Android is proof of that, alternate app stores are nearly microscopic.

They don’t understand how they get malware or a virus, and frankly they don’t care to know. Understanding the inner workings of their phone isn’t important to them, it’s just a tool.

So if Apple allows side loading on iPhone, their friends or some social media d-bag will convince them or their friends to side-load something containing malware. Whether it wipes, ransoms or monitors their phone won’t matter.

What will matter is who they blame. Hint: not themselves. They may blame the evil actor or person who sent them the link, but they are most likely to blame Apple, or even worse, iPhone.

But by bit, bad experiences will degrade the iPhone brand of privacy and security. It will be no different than Android, and iPhone will lose its premium.

Because iPhone is designed to serve exactly those types of customers, of course Apple does everything possible to lock down security and privacy. And that includes no side loading, no alternate stores. This was true even when App Store revenues were microscopic, in fact Jobs never even wanted native app developers, he wanted web apps because he thought they would be secure.

Apple doesn’t want you as a customer. They should have the right to be opinionated about what makes a great iPhone, and who they want to sell to. Otherwise the entire experience gets watered down to Android level.

[_qulr]

> Apple doesn’t want you as a customer.

Funny, that's not what Apple has been saying to me.

Also, the Mac has allowed "sideloading" by default since 1984, as did the Apple II before that.

Maybe Apple should screen your phone calls too. The iPhone can only answer calls from people that Apple approves, because scammers can call your grandma on the phone.

Maybe iPhone should only play music that Apple approves. None of that devil worship heavy metal, only good clean church hymns.

[tries to buy candy bar with Apple Pay] Nope, bad nutrition!