[netdevnet]

Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues, more users using tech support resources because a dodgy app downloaded from a 3rd party app store they installed broke their phone in odd ways and will likely increase expenses without increasing revenue.

Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search. If Chrome only allowed you to use Google Search as the search engine, most people wouldn't complain. This is the same. As long as they can download their [insert Big Tech Company here] walled garden app, most will not complain. But if their phone starts misbehaving because of a rogue app from a dodgy app store or phones suddenly get more expensive to compensate for higher costs incurred by Apple for their development and support of third party app stores and browsers most will complain.

UPDATE: getting downvoted for pointing out the reality. Most people are not hackers. They don't want customisation options. They are happy with a default store or browser as long as it is good enough. If you want options, Android is there

[isodev]

> Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues

This is a false argument because even the first party offerings have security and privacy issues. Apple has redefined what "privacy" and "security" means to imply "only things we make" as a sort of selling point. Yes, they make OK things, but who is to say someone can't make something better? Cooler? Funkier?

Also, what happens when the entire planet is vulnerable to the same flaws? It's rhetorical - you get security companies offering services to unlock and decrypt devices for anyone willing to pay them. And what happens when Apple decides to say... remove XX category of apps by a government request? You end up with people owning very expensive slabs of glass and titanium because they weren't allowed to look for apps elsewhere. Apple's way is not the way.

[netdevnet]

Yes, they do. And allowing third party app stores and browsers only leads to more security and privacy issues.

No one is saying that Apple apps don't have issues. The point is that allowing more entities to make and run these apps on iOs will just make it worse. And having security issues in app store or in a browser is a far more problematic thing than a security issue in a random app. Especially if the app store or browser is run by someone that is not Apple.

[greazy]

> Yes, they do. And allowing third party app stores and browsers only leads to more security and privacy issues.

There is no evidence beyond second hand anecdotes.

[0x073]

So you say macos has more security and privacy issues than ios?

[withinboredom]

Weird. I can run alternative app stores and browsers on my computer just fine.

[vmfunction]

App store is NOT needed! It is another AOL type of walled garden. There is no reason why PWA can't replace most apps.

[withinboredom]

There’s even less of a reason to need to ask apple for permission to make my own custom app.

[netdevnet]

There are more phone users than PC users though. Stats estimate a 4 billion difference. Can you imagine the costs of having just an increase of 400k users flooding your shops and online forums for help because of one of these third party stores/browsers? It makes sense if you could do this in the very beginning (as it was the case for PCs) but for smartphones that were closed since the beginning (it is downhill in the cost/revenue world)

[tuyiown]

Yes, and it does come with its lot of problems. I've never heard of ransomware attacks on phones, for example.

[Aachen]

There are plenty of vulnerabilities for old versions and plenty of people that don't install updates or have out-of-support phones. I need look no further than my immediate family to have multiple examples of both (yes I help them manage this). Yet I've never heard of anyone experiencing negative consequences from not updating a phone. (At least, not beyond some high-profile people that made the news.) Computers, sure. But why not phones? Is the data on there not valuable enough? Too often sync'd to a server?

I don't know but there's something here beyond the ability to install software like you've always been able to do on Android

[withinboredom]

Does it though? iPhones enjoy a nice isolation model, installing a browser shouldn’t break that.

[medo-bear]

> Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search.

I think you should show more respect for your users. Walled garden should be an opt in/out. Not long ago most of the population didnt know how to use a PC beyond turning it on, and lots of people thought Windows 95/98/2000 as equivalent to their PC.

[netdevnet]

Why? Companies owe you nothing beyond their actual contractual and legal obligations.

It would be wonderful if they did and they were more transparent and open to dialogue in a more democratic way. But it's not happening

[medo-bear]

> Companies owe you nothing beyond their actual contractual and legal obligations

Companies have social responsibility

[rahkiin]

You opt-in by buying an iPhone. You could get a Fairphone instead

[netdevnet]

Totally! There are plenty of open options if you want customisation and more choice but nerds want to have their cake and eat it. Ain't hapening

[medo-bear]

Its an opt in for Apple to be part of a market that has its own rules.

[radiKal07]

What you're saying is not happening on macOS so what is your argument really?

[netdevnet]

Not sure how is this relevant. The mobile market is just on another level in terms of users and money. Apple is a business not a charity. It makes sense that they don't want to incur in expenses that don't increase revenue. Tech nerds have this idea that tech businesses should do stuff just because. Do you ask your milk provider to incur in more expenses just because?

It would be different if Apple had made some pledges or commitments towards this. But it hasn't. Its only commitment is to make money for the shareholders. Everything else is secondary

[happymellon]

> Do you ask your milk provider to incur in more expenses just because?

Oh but pasteurisation costs money.

So? Tech nerds seem to have this idea that tech businesses should be able to do whatever they want just because.

[nolist_policy]

> Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues, more users using tech support resources because a dodgy app downloaded from a 3rd party app store they installed broke their phone in odd ways and will likely increase expenses without increasing revenue.

I commented this already, but I would expect iOS sandboxes apps in such a way that it doesn't have any impact on other parts of the phone even if the app is hacked for example.

[netdevnet]

Sandboxed app stores would likely involve more efforts to keep it performant, functional and secure. Efforts that don't result in more revenue

[nolist_policy]

Wait, are you implying that apps are not sandboxed already on iOS? Big if true.

[fsflover]

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41163022