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).
You either didn’t read my comment, or you simply don’t understand how these security controls work.