[strawberrypuree]

I think I've come up with a reasonable solution for Apple to implement that MacOS style of openness: the iPhone Developer Edition. "Developer" is being used here as a byword for "power user", since "Pro" has been diluted.

The Developer Edition requires you to register for a now-free developer account. There's big friendly letters that say, "Welcome, developer! We know that you'll enjoy getting the most of your hardware and not clogging up our forums and support lines with complaints about things that are broken due to the unreviewed apps, because you're a developer, and you know how to fix things when they break. Here's your unwalled garden. Enjoy."

Then there can be that Dev Store where Advanced stuff goes, and if there's ever any hacks / vulnerabilities / bad stuff Apple can point to the Dev Edition and say "That's what they signed up for, but for normal folks the walled garden awaits."

iPhone Developer Edition and iPhone Customer Editions are identical in hardware. You can buy a Customer Edition and convert it to a Developer Edition phone by simply registering as a developer and signing away your right to bitch and moan if apps contain spam, porn, scams, or brick your device. iPhone Developer Edition can be turned back into a Customer edition through a setting, all ready to be sold.

[osrec]

I know you're being sarcastic, but I don't understand why. Were the OP's suggestions/observations really that outlandish?!

Also, using your argument, why is there no strict walled garden for macs?

[strawberrypuree]

>Were the OP's suggestions/observations really that outlandish?!

I wouldn't call them outlandish. I think there's merit in the ability to install whatever software you want. But I also think there's merit in making sure there's a robust, unfragmented market of apps that work with the last 6 years of iPhones, and restrictions that Apple has in place ensure that.

I think the Dev Store is a reasonable compromise to ensure that average users don't have to run AVG AntiVirus on their phones. That situation is absurdly anti-user.

>why is there no strict walled garden for Macs?

There is, and it's annoying: GateKeeper, which if I recall correctly requires you to basically outsmart your OS to install software using the GUI.

This is why I'm happy the iPad Pro is getting more desktop-like, hopefully bridging the gap between people who want a laptop to do weird stuff and people who want a device that will work no matter what you do to it.

[chipotle_coyote]

> which if I recall correctly requires you to basically outsmart your OS to install software using the GUI.

This feels a little overstated to me; the first time I run a GUI app that was downloaded from somewhere other than the App Store, I get asked "this was downloaded from foobar.com, are you sure you want to run it?" and click "Yes". I definitely wouldn't call that a "strict walled garden" comparable to the iOS App Store; if anything, I wish Gatekeeper existed on iOS the way it does on the Mac. (A few years ago I was half-expecting that to happen, as naive as it might sound: it seemed like it was a great solution to allowing sideloading while still letting Apple maintain some level of control, but it's become clear Apple still looks at iOS devices as more like game consoles than general purpose computers. It's possible it might yet happen to stave off antitrust concerns, I suppose.)

[easton]

There is a developer mode on macOS to disable that though, you just boot into recovery and do “csrutil disable”. And even without that I can still install binaries I get from outside the App Store as long as the developer self signed them at some point (and the signature lasts for as long as they want). We need that on the iPad at least, and maybe the iPhone, as you mention.