As long as the iOS model exists, the sideload store model is only viable on Android, and vendors are forced to support the first-party store model anyway. If both ecosystems allow sideloading, you could easily imagine Microsoft or Epic switching to sideload-only and branding their own stores across Android and iOS. As it is now, if you can get something first-party on iOS but are forced to sideload on Android, it just makes the Android experience for Fortnite (or whatever) seem janky.
This is a good point, though the lack of auto-updates from non-Play stores on non-rooted phones does add enough friction to updating that e.g. Signal won't even distribute via f-droid because of update latency. At least that's my reading of Moxie's reasoning. It seems likely this would dissuade some companies from making their own app stores, though obviously not all.
Google's privacy requirements on the Play Store are a lot less developer-hostile than Apple's. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Android and the Play Store are owned by one of the data-harvesting tech giants that Apple's rules just so happen to impact.
I tend to agree with you. Side loading on iOS would be much more lucrative for, say, Facebook who reportedly just lost $200B due to Apple's privacy restrictions. They're likely more happy with Android's play store than Apple's.
If both iOS and Android allowed sideloading this would be a much more attractive option. As it stands something like that isn't really worth while because most high-value consumers of mobile apps use iOS.
One difference: Apple is far more developer-hostile (or end-user friendly depending on your perspective) than Google, so someone like Facebook would be heavily incentivized to open their own iOS App Store and tell their users they must install that app from their store, in order to bypass constraints Apple enforces via their store.
Why is that a problem, though? If we assume that the Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp apps all have some levels of good behavior and bad behavior, then we can probably assume that the "Meta App Store" would be similar. So what's the big deal if they require you to install it?
They could also just offer direct app downloads from facebook.com, instagram.com, etc.
So what? This feels like a nothingburger to me. Given how sideloading is a much less pleasant experience on even Android (and we can expect Apple to do worse), Facebook wouldn't leave the main App Store without an earth-shattering reason.
Apple’s App Store has very strict privacy rules. Last year Apple implemented the App Tracking Transparency requirements, which Facebook says will cost them $10B in lost revenue this year [0]. If sideloading becomes a thing, I can definitely see Facebook requiring it in order to get around these privacy rules.
That's a dangerous gamble. The data tracking and privacy concerns aside, users are going to be mad at the additional friction that involves. They might get mad at Apple for making the enablement of sideloading an uneasy process (lots of disclaimers about how insecure it is, etc.), but they'll also get mad at Meta for pulling their apps off of the store for no discernible reason. Meta would have to offer more than the existing service they're getting from their current apps, to convince users to do this without losing goodwill.
One would argue that the app stores provides a benefit to the consumer that would not be implemented anywhere else since these benefits are not lucrative. One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source, App Privacy Reports, seeing when an app is reading from the clipboard etc.
And no, entitlements mean nothing without enforcement.
> One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source
You pay 40% extra for that. The creator gets $100, Apple gets 40, you see $140 sticker price. It is a nice feature, but how many would pay 40% extra for that? And if many wanted to pay 40% extra for subscriptions to have them cancellable, I'm sure there would already be companies doing that.
Developers creates things users wants, developer hostile is ultimately being user hostile when you are large enough. Being developer hostile can create gains short term, but that is mostly when you are a fringe, when dominant parties starts being developer hostile it starts hurting everyone as the tech sector as a whole becomes less effective.
Developers create things users wants, of course, but they also create things they want. Things like user tracking or data harvesting.
There's an inherent trade off here where adding safeguards to protect users will make the life of developers more difficult. Balancing these two concerns is hard.
I find that Apple mostly strikes the balance right, and so I choose to be their customer. People who disagree have other options available on the market today.