Because these restrictions on iOS are legitimately valuable security controls. Apple decides what functionality is exposed to applications, decides who is allowed to publish applications, screens the applications they do publish, and ensures that I have the ability to consent to the permissions they are required to explicitly and in clear language request. I can safely install any application I want off the App Store, and barely put any thought into the security implications of doing so. The only thing I have to consider is whether I want to grant the publisher the permissions they’re requesting.
If Apple created a methodology for circumventing this process, all of a sudden it is something that I have to worry about, and it creates an attack surface that I’d rather not have to consider. It also weakens my ability to demand these standards from publishers. If a publisher has the ability to say “this app is only available outside the walled garden”, then they may refuse to publish it via the system that is designed to ensure my interests are upheld.
If the Apple curated experience happened to curtail the way I wished to use my device, then I would have more to think about. But it doesn’t, I can do everything on my iPhone that I want to do.
I do have sympathy for the developers who sometimes find themselves stuck in a Kafkaesque review process. But I consider my own interests to be much more important than theirs.
I have very little sympathy for the businesses who object to the revenue model. Apple’s system asserts my interests as a consumer above interests of business who frequently engage in anti-consumer behaviour. I don’t care if they have to pay to access me as a customer, this is something I’m intentionally opting into as an Apple user.
The only time I do object to Apple’s curation, is when they use it in a way that I view as prioritising some other agenda above my interests. Such as when Apple pulls and app, or refuses to publish one, for reasons such as it containing “objectionable” content. I view this entirely as them subverting my interests. If that started to interfere with they way I wanted to use my device, I would start to consider an alternative. But so far it hasn’t.
I know there won't be any convincing you, but these types of thoughtless comments are why sensible discussion on this topic doesn't happen very often. Thoughtless anit-Apple comments are no more insightful than thoughtless Apple fanboy comments.
My preference is to have a device where there are no technical means to side load apps (as that is a security control), and to have a device where a publisher cannot attempt to force me to use a side-loaded app store. I explained my reasons for having those preferences, and if you'd like you can respond to that. But this comment simply ignores all of that. You say "my choice", while ignoring all of the reasons I provided for why these changes could potentially undermine my ability to choose entirely.
The parent's comments aren't anti-Apple in the slightest. Please refrain from ad hominem.
The logic is simple: if you don't want sideloaded apps on your device, don't install them. There's no argument against this, which is why the the endless parade of facile handwringing about security is so preposterous.
Your logic is wrong, for the reasons I’ve explained. It creates an attack surface that never existed before. It allows the possibility of an entire category of evil maid attacks that were never possible before. It allows vendors to attempt to force users who don’t want to use 3rd party app stores, to use 3rd party app stores.
You either didn’t read my comment, or you simply don’t understand how these security controls work.
> It allows the possibility of an entire category of evil maid attacks that were never possible before.
No, if an adversary has physical access to your phone and can unlock it, you've already lost.
> It allows vendors to attempt to force users who don’t want to use 3rd party app stores, to use 3rd party app stores.
The refrain from defenders of this policy up until has been "just use a different device". Thus, I'm giddy that I get to turn this around: "just use a different app".
Think about what website you're on, and realize that you're fighting a lost battle.
I’m aware that the prevailing opinions on hacker news support side loading, just as I’m aware the the prevailing opinion among the general public is they don’t care about it, and likely don’t even know what it is.
However these opinions have no influence over the factual compromises that these changes make to security controls. Currently if I gave you my iPhone and my PIN code, and asked you to install malware on it, you wouldn’t be able to. The fact that you’re making some appeal to the opinions of the community rather than engage with these facts shows the strength of your argument (in addition to the general childishness of your comments).
If Apple created a methodology for circumventing this process, all of a sudden it is something that I have to worry about, and it creates an attack surface that I’d rather not have to consider. It also weakens my ability to demand these standards from publishers. If a publisher has the ability to say “this app is only available outside the walled garden”, then they may refuse to publish it via the system that is designed to ensure my interests are upheld.
If the Apple curated experience happened to curtail the way I wished to use my device, then I would have more to think about. But it doesn’t, I can do everything on my iPhone that I want to do.
I do have sympathy for the developers who sometimes find themselves stuck in a Kafkaesque review process. But I consider my own interests to be much more important than theirs.
I have very little sympathy for the businesses who object to the revenue model. Apple’s system asserts my interests as a consumer above interests of business who frequently engage in anti-consumer behaviour. I don’t care if they have to pay to access me as a customer, this is something I’m intentionally opting into as an Apple user.
The only time I do object to Apple’s curation, is when they use it in a way that I view as prioritising some other agenda above my interests. Such as when Apple pulls and app, or refuses to publish one, for reasons such as it containing “objectionable” content. I view this entirely as them subverting my interests. If that started to interfere with they way I wanted to use my device, I would start to consider an alternative. But so far it hasn’t.