It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Respond without reading, much?
Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?
Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.
If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
Google Play doesn't require apps to disclose their data tracking practices and give consumers the option to decline.
Oh, but it does much of it already, and will improve even more with this years Android 12. Search Privacy Dashboard.
There's no app now that gets installed on my Pixel without disclosing every permission and why, and my express agreement to each or none of them on an individual basis. That's been true for a few years now. Already in progress this year, Google is implementing rules that require developers to disclose data collection practices in a similar move to Apple's (Thank you Apple). That's active now and becomes mandatory within about 10 months. https://siliconangle.com/2021/05/06/google-will-require-android-apps-disclose-data-collection-practices/
Were you aware that just four years ago AppStore execs were advocating app vetting tools based on what Google's Play Store developed? Until you become more informed about Android, its security practices, and device privacy options you'll continue to misunderstand but comment as thought you "know".
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Respond without reading, much?
Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Again, you could keep your device safe, with the same locked environment Apple have today by using the App Store, while other customer could device to take security risks and side load apps.
Regarding developers, based from what I have seen in Android, I haven't seen any major developer, apart from Epic, leaving the app store, even though you can side load apps. Why would be different with iOS devices?
If Apple’s devices were restricted to the over 18 crowd, then perhaps, there could be a valid discussion here. But in addition to Apple maintaining the security of their bottom line (which they have every right to do as a revenue-generating company), it appears most of their decisions are ensuring the safety of a key and constantly growing market…the under 18 audience.
Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society, where parents and politicians are more apt to blame and sue Apple (and like companies) for making direct and indirect decisions that may allow “strangers” to freely walk into their front doors.
Adults know what they are getting themselves into when making a product purchase. If you are not happy with the advertised experience, use your hard earned dollars to invest in a product that does meet your needs. Apple did not force you to buy into their products and ecosystem.
This argument has been raised before and it will come up again in the future.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
No I don't think that -- and never said or implied that the App Store was good for developers. Obviously you had no rebuttal -- so you change what I said and then rebutted that! (Shakes head...)
As I said, and you ignored, once sideloading is allowed, why would a developer go through the hassle and expense of going through the App Store? We would see a flood of developers out of the App Store and complete loss of the stability and security that the App Store helps assure.
(And Apple already addressed your concerns about the Mac. Go read that)
Read my comment again. It said that Apple tell us the their App Store is good for customers and developers. And agree with that. And if that's the case, I think most developers will stay in the App Store if Apple decide to open iOS devices for side loading apps.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
When you go into a restaurant, there is generally only one place to buy apps for consumption in that restaurant, too. You have the freedom to go to another restaurant to get their apps at any point, but it is not a generally accepted practice to be allowed to buy third party appetizers in a restaurant.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps).
Apple chose to use the console model for software distribution for iOS. The console model is not a violation of antitrust laws. For example, Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the U.S. where the judge ruled that Nintendo's total control of software on the platform did not constitute an antitrust violation. Apple also won a major lawsuit against Psystar in the U.S. where part of the ruling said that Apple's computer hardware could not be considered a monopoly in and of itself. The judge cited Apple's extensive use of advertising for its hardware products as proof that it was part of a competitive market.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices. Apple. This does not make it a monopoly.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
As soon as you side load then your warranty is voided and you lose access to Apple Services?
Why would the hardware warranty need to be voided unless it can be shown that some third-party software damages the hardware? As far as losing access to any Apple Services I can't see them cutting off their nose to spite their face. Apple makes a LOT of money from services. An occasional side-loaded app is less than a drop in a bucket.
Apps that are used for cryptocurrency mining can reduce the life of your battery and storage.
And if side loaded apps provide back doors to other side loaded apps that access your iCloud account and start writing shortcuts that access your family account … then it stops being occasional.
As soon as you side load then your warranty is voided and you lose access to Apple Services?
As today, Apple don't void the warranty or block access to their services when customers download applications outside of the macOS App Store. Why they would do that in iOS?
Because the average MacOS computer user who doesn’t stick to the App Store is a lot more savvy than your average iOS user. And if Apple found that some piece of software you were running had damaged the machine … not sure they would cover it.
More ridiculous FUD from Apple. I don't need Apple to provide guard rails. I suppose some do, but there certainly must be a way of providing power users with the ability to sideload apps, while keeping average users within the guard rails.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
You can't know that. What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)? What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
“Apple explains why getting iPhone apps outside the App Store is a bad idea for share-holder valuation and their monopoly on the App Store”
Anyway…
Just allow side-loading in a secure container, which iOS can already offer. Add a warning when installing, but don’t work against my intentional action to side-load.
When a side-loaded app wants access to an OS-level API, it can trigger the same user permission requester as normal. Just add a big warning there that the app has been side-loaded.
I need to be in control of the device that I own. Apple’s arguments are heavily orchestrated PR events.
If they do their job right, my incentive to side-load should be minimal, because if they do, I want the App Store to where I download my stuff.
The problem with that is once sideloading is available most apps will leave the App Store. Then we’ll have a less secure system by default. No way I’m buying an app through some guy in his garage. I trust Apple this long with the App Store not going back to the 90s.
As soon as you side load then your warranty is voided and you lose access to Apple Services?
As today, Apple don't void the warranty or block access to their services when customers download applications outside of the macOS App Store. Why they would do that in iOS?
Because the average MacOS computer user who doesn’t stick to the App Store is a lot more savvy than your average iOS user. And if Apple found that some piece of software you were running had damaged the machine … not sure they would cover it.
Since when a warranty is based if the end user is tech savvy or not? If Apple decides to void warranty because some app for software was installed, they would have to prove that. And I don't see any relation to the example you gave of crypto mining and the type of apps we see today in the App Store.
“Apple explains why getting iPhone apps outside the App Store is a bad idea for share-holder valuation and their monopoly on the App Store”
I need to be in control of the device that I own. Apple’s arguments are heavily orchestrated PR events.
Then go buy an Android phone! If people want iOS to be like Android, why not just by Android?
This claim that people should have control over the device they own makes sense if iOS is the only game in town. It's not! In fact Android sells more phones than iOS so no one can claim that Apple monopolizes the smart phone market.
What Apple monopolizes is the market for iPhones. Just as BMW monopolizes the market for BMW cars. It is an unstintingly stupid, economically illogical argument.
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
On the upside Apple could have a control panel setting like “Enforce Apple Security” which prevents any of the nonsense from ever getting on your phone.
Comments
There's no app now that gets installed on my Pixel without disclosing every permission and why, and my express agreement to each or none of them on an individual basis. That's been true for a few years now. Already in progress this year, Google is implementing rules that require developers to disclose data collection practices in a similar move to Apple's (Thank you Apple). That's active now and becomes mandatory within about 10 months.
https://siliconangle.com/2021/05/06/google-will-require-android-apps-disclose-data-collection-practices/
Were you aware that just four years ago AppStore execs were advocating app vetting tools based on what Google's Play Store developed? Until you become more informed about Android, its security practices, and device privacy options you'll continue to misunderstand but comment as thought you "know".
Regarding developers, based from what I have seen in Android, I haven't seen any major developer, apart from Epic, leaving the app store, even though you can side load apps. Why would be different with iOS devices?
Unfortunately, we live in a very litigious society, where parents and politicians are more apt to blame and sue Apple (and like companies) for making direct and indirect decisions that may allow “strangers” to freely walk into their front doors.
Adults know what they are getting themselves into when making a product purchase. If you are not happy with the advertised experience, use your hard earned dollars to invest in a product that does meet your needs. Apple did not force you to buy into their products and ecosystem.
This argument has been raised before and it will come up again in the future.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
This claim that people should have control over the device they own makes sense if iOS is the only game in town. It's not! In fact Android sells more phones than iOS so no one can claim that Apple monopolizes the smart phone market.
What Apple monopolizes is the market for iPhones. Just as BMW monopolizes the market for BMW cars. It is an unstintingly stupid, economically illogical argument.