[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It is hard for me to disagree, because I understand that use case. The issue, however, appears to be that there is no 'version' that allows for it for users that accept the risks involved.

It is not completely unlikely the conversation with cops. In their perfect world, everyone would sit quietly at home with hands on the table. Life is more messy than that though for obvious reasons. In other words, I understand the need to have some level of control, but some balance is necessary.

[elzbardico]

For those cases, there is Android. My youngest one has an android phone, and everyone else in our family has an iPhone. It is not like you are forced to buy an iPhone. Those restrictions are actually part of its market differentiator.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).

[elzbardico]

An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any. Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< An oligopoly is not a monopoly.

No argument from me.

What did I say though >> "We have an effective oligopoly"

I did not argue we have a monopoly. I argued we have an oligopoly at best ( if you count Pine and similar as viable candidates ) and duopoly at worst, which somehow manages to be worse than a monopoly for one reason and one reason only.. monopolies are more tightly regulated. Try talking about regulating current batch of market leaders and you will only hear 'private enterprise','if you don't like it, start your own', which completely manages to ignore the problem to begin with.

<< Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android.

Hmm. Why is that statement somehow appear axiomatic why and does each sentence fragment logically follows one another? Why is it not 'some people want to use their purchase as they see fit so any device they pick they can do what they please with including "sideload"'?

<< some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings,

I would argue with that.

One. Not all users know it is an option. Two. Existence of various workaround to allow sideloading suggests otherwise.

<< the uniformity it brings

If there is one thing world needs now, it is not uniformity.

<< other perceived positive side-effects they see.

Would you be willing to elaborate?