[foobarian]

You know how we got here? It used to be a free-for-all where grandma could download any software off the Internet on her Windows computer. You know how the rest went. I honestly don't mind it. It's so easy to recommend an iPhone to non-technical users, knowing the app store is still not compromised with low quality/malicious garbage. (Sure it requires a bit of expectation attenuation but the Android app stores are worse yet).

[johnecheck]

This is an argument for gating the free-for-all behind a setting technical users can find, not demanding 30% of revenue if a dev would like access to apple users. The security aspect is real, but this is really about maximizing profits by monopolizing access to anyone with an iPhone.

[ryandrake]

When a normal user is highly motivated to install software, there is no such distinction from a "technical user". He wants to install AnimeWallpapersTotallyNotATrojan.app. The operating system disallows it. Then he just does a search for how to install AnimeWallpapersTotallyNotATrojan.app on iOS, and finds 20 tutorials walking him through the steps to ungate the install.

You can make the expert mode dialog say "Clicking this button will erase your hard drive, drain your bank account, and give your dog cancer" and people will still click it.

[foobarian]

Grandma: Help me, Joey! After the neighborhood kid helped me install the coupon code app (he said something about expert mode, he is very smart!) my phone runs slow and crashes. :-(

Me: ...

[mrandish]

There are many ways to deal with any scenario like this, all of which don't involve the device manufacturer locking ALL device owners out of ANY control over the hardware they own.

For example, you can be the administrator on Grandma's device and block access to third-party app stores which cannot be overridden by anyone (including the device manufacturer) without your credentials. Alternatively, you could delegate that authority to a provider you trust. No one is saying you can't keep choosing Apple's walled-garden app store as the only store provider or that you shouldn't be able to block any or even all app stores. Options like that can even be locked by one-time hardware fuses so they can never be changed - even by the owner. The only issue here is Apple forcing a sole monopoly on that control for themselves because it's worth billions of dollars - instead of device owners having a choice.

[labcomputer]

> No one is saying you can't keep choosing Apple's walled-garden app store as the only store provider or that you shouldn't be able to block any or even all app stores

Err.. Isn’t that exactly what the EU is saying?

[mrandish]

Well... no, it's not. As long as device owners can choose which and how many app stores are on their device, regulators and courts will be satisfied. If users then choose number_of_app-stores == 1 and app_store_provider == "Apple", that's the user's choice - and for many users, like Grandma, that may be the right choice.

Regulators have never ruled that Apple can't have an app store or that the number of enabled App Stores MUST be more than 1 - only that the legal owner of the device have an opportunity to choose. Scenarios like "Oh no, the EU wants to take away Grandma's one safe, simple walled-garden app store so she's left to fend for herself on the dark web" is a disingenuous straw man exaggeration by Apple and their apologists to protect Apple's multi-billion dollar app store monopoly.

Once there's owner choice, even Grandma who chooses Apple as her only app store will pay lower prices and very likely gain other safe options like a full featured Firefox with Ublock Origin ad blocking. Just the existence of competitive choice is beneficial - even to users who choose "no competition". Plus Apple will finally have a real incentive to be more responsive and reasonable with app developers regarding app store prices and policies - which will help solo and small startup app developers.

[kelnos]

I love how the threat of Grandma installing malware on her phone is the new "think of the children!"

And I love how the response to shit mobile security is to lock down devices so the people who buy them don't actually own them. Instead of, y'know, actually cleaning up the security posture of these devices.

[nsagent]

Then those people deserve what they get as a result. People should have autonomy to make less than optimal decisions if they want.

And to provide a counterpoint, my dad can barely navigate his iPhone. I literally spent an hour on the phone with him when he was lost and needed directions; it took 20 minutes to guide him to open the messages app so he could read the address I sent. Someone that clueless isn't searching the internet to figure out workarounds for installing anything.

[_carbyau_]

> When a normal user is highly motivated...

...they reap the consequences of their actions.

A warning lets a person know it is getting deeper. It is up to the person to realise if they are out of their depth.

If a person lacks the self reflection to realise their capabilities then they need a guardian. Children and the elderly routinely have this for other aspects of life. Why not a phone?

Why can't I delegate such authority to others when I become old and infirm?

[rpdillon]

> knowing the app store is still not compromised with low quality/malicious garbage.

It absolutely is, the only argument is about to what degree.

[SheinhardtWigCo]

Now we have strong sandboxing by default and many other platform security advances to mitigate that risk. You can download any software off the Internet on macOS, so why not on iOS?

[mathiaspoint]

This is more than doable with app stores. The review process never instruments the apps or reads the source, it's trivial and common to hide malware in apps and then use modals/ads to push them on people.