Yet somehow all of those things preexisted consumer devices that prevent sideloading.
In fact it still works on Android, Windows, Linux desktop, etc.
In fact it still works on Android, Windows, Linux desktop, etc.
Why does the existence of a competing alternative need to force the company in question to adopt the alternative strategy?
Your original claim was that a device owner downloading an application from elsewhere somehow means that Apple could not afford to provide basic development tools. This is demonstrably false.
In any case, most of these outside apps have tended to be free, so if anything sideloading should reduce burden on their servers, which seemed to have been part of your concern.
“Afford to provide basic development tools” is a conniving way to put it. Forcing a company via legislation to fund, and develop tools is more like what’s happening.
What’s happening here is a couple of greedy app developers want to skimp out on paying for the nitty gritty details of making a customer experience actually work.
So, yeah, pardon me for inaccurately categorizing them all as “server costs” — I definitely misused that word — but there’s no way in hell you can expect all of the other tech to come for free or even at a price that the _developers demand the tool maker to set_
All this litigation, back-and-forth is going to tarnish the user experience.
Microsoft: Onedrive, VS, VScode, C#, Visual Basic, .NET (upto and including core), windbg, MSVC, Windows, Windows app stores, etc
Google: Dart, Go, Android Studio, Android, Google Drive, Google Play store & services, etc
Apple: xcode, objective-c, cocoa, llvm, lldb etc all preexist the iphone as well
The facts are: 1. Device owners should be able to install programs onto their phone without any interference from Apple. 2. Apple allowing this will not significantly affect their ability to remain profitable. 3. Most smartphone devices (Android) already do allow this.