JBSlough

I love the look of the camera. But DX? Seriously Nikon? 

CheeseFreeze said:

“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. 

All kidding aside, I really think Apple’s plan B is to use the Gatekeeper model that’s on macOS. App Store only; Certified Apps; and anything you want. Apple will obviously flash warnings when downloading off the web but maybe with Certified Apps Apple can have the developer use Apple Pay as way to gain trust (biggest issue for me is when I buy apps out of the App Store who am I giving my credit card info to?) This should calm down those who feel Apple has a monopoly on its store. I’m sure Apple can spin this model in its favor as far as privacy goes. If this doesn’t fly maybe they should go back to Jobs original idea: build web apps. 

22july2013 said:

This is exactly why I've been arguing for years that Apple should allow users to install Android at initial setup. If a user has the choice of Android at setup, then they are free from Apple's default apps. This whole issue will go away because Apple's apps will not be "preinstalled" until the user chooses to install iOS. The whole "App Store monopoly argument" also withers.

And exactly how would that work? Would Google have to write a version of Android to work on Apple’s A series chips? Or would Apple have to? Or maybe Apple shouldn’t be allowed to use their own chips anymore because Android doesn’t run on them. 

muthuk_vanalingam said:

JBSlough said:

hydrogen said:

avon b7 said:

gilly33 said:

NOTHING should tie a user to a given platform. Moving to another platform should be a painless, transparent operation on every level and be undertaken within a time framework. 

I am sure Apple would not mind making sure this is possible ...... if the competitor does it, too ....

In reality, wouldn’t this be up to the app developers? If Apple and Google decided that all app developers have to be able to help users switch platforms, then the developers would be angry, no? 

Why would the developers be angry? They are going to get their money from the same user in either of the platforms and cross-platform development tools are available to make this easier for the developers. Not sure I understand your point in this case.

My point was if we can switch from say iOS to Android and take our apps with us the developers would lose out. Right now we have to “rebuy” all those apps. Part of the argument I’m hearing is it’s too difficult to change platforms because of the walled garden approach.