Because "security" is a great marketing point and they've bought into that completely, thinking that trusting Apple and having it control your life is a good thing.
Random example: the fuss about the facebook advertising/tracking SDKs back in the day. When apple started giving unique device IDs to each app, this cross-app tracking mesh imploded and they were screaming about lost revenue. Maybe you find billions of dollars worth of tracking to be creepy, maybe not. But if facebook had the option of getting that functionality and revenue back via an easy sideloading or some other frictionless alternative mechanism then the entire app ecosystem that was even remotely related to facebook tracking would have been off the app store in a heartbeat. Instead of being at the mercy of apple, you, and your extended tech-support family would have been at the mercy of facebook.
Apple is no angel, but the potential downsides are limitless. Instead of the facebook tracking example, consider partially or overtly malicious apps that your parents are now installing on their phones (as well as their malware-ridden PCs).
On the other hand, sideloading is a fairly low barrier for technically competent folks. Stuff like iResign and other tools have been around forever. You can grab any pirated/hacked/etc app package, sign it yourself, and sideload it via your dev credentials. But at least you don't have to worry about your parents doing that. Or facebook telling your parents to do that.
Anyway, that's a "for some reason" example. The readership of HN are not the target audience that the app store gatekeeping is there for.
(But don't get me started on fees/commissions/etc - that's indefensible IMO)
A very specific type of VPN, which is easily blocked.
I don't know if it's monopolistic as the comment you replied to says, but in the context of the thread, the build-in support doesn't fix the problem banning apps from the app store creates.
It's not like the App Store review process is particularly trustworthy either. There have been plenty of stories here and elsewhere of that.
Almost no app developers had your best interests at heart
Neither does Apple nor the developers of apps in the App Store. In fact, given the fees, they have even less incentive to avoid greed.
What about Android, which lets you sideload apps? How many people do you know that sideload apps or have installed a malicious app from outside the Play Store?
Yes, the App Store was and is important, but you need to look at other platforms if you really think that Apple allowing app sideloading (proper sideloading, not that shit they're doing in the EU) is going to take us back to the days of browser toolbars. iOS is not Windows XP.
Just because the app store is closed it doesn't mean it's not full of crapware?
All the "games" are IAP fests. Every time you search for some big name app you get the app (if available) and a bunch of results that are named so deceptively that you're afraid to click on them.
Every week there's another story about a flashlight app that charges a 50/month or 9.99/week subscription.
So tell me how Apple's app curation helps?
> If that risk seems remote now
Maybe to you? I haven't looked at iOS games since the days of the iPad 1, when Apple hadn't pushed all game devs into IAPs yet.
And the few apps I bought, they were mentioned on forums not connected to Apple. And as you said yourself, there's always the chance the app gets sold and the terms change, and the walled garden won't help a single bit.
This is why a malware app on an iPhone can only do limited damage. It can't access all files, it can't encrypt the storage, it can't launch a DDoS in the background because the OS doesn't let it run, etc. iOS or Android are not Windows.
If you want to know how it works in practice, look at Android. It has supported sideloading for a long, long time. People do install a lot of crap, but that's from the app store. My parents are really bad with tech and never sideloaded anything.
And there are other layers of security too. If you go to a store, buy a Samsung, a Google Pixel, a OnePlus, Nokia, etc, they all come with Google Services, which includes Google Play Protect... essentially an anti-virus that looks at your apps and flags anything that is known to be malicious.
Are there any downsides? Yes. Are they as bad as some say? The Android example tells us that it doesn't have to be that bad.
There are downsides for Apple to the rate of their 30% cut. That is why they are doing their best to keep sideloading off their devices. Not to protect users - as you already stated there are many other layers of protection in place for that - but to protect their revenue.
Sandbox escapes are incredibly common, Apple still controls eliminating your business from iphones if you attempt to use an exploit to pull user data when you distribute through the App Store.
If you can do distribution via your own site, it becomes a whack-a-mole game with Apple - where data exfiltration exploits are found, Apple fixes them in a new update, then we have to wait for people to update.
And until most users update, the at-fault company is busy siphoning data from any user who can't update (e.g. no wifi / limited data plan) or any user who is slow to approve the update dialog. Eventually the company's app will grow to contain an exploit for the last dozen iOS versions that conditionally execute based on the iOS version/feature detection/probing for exploit availability.
If iOS' sandbox is that insecure, then they have a problem on their hands.
You are right, and neither Apple does.
The difference between Apple's response and Twitter's response[0] to internet censorship efforts by the Brazilian government also shows why privately owned companies are more likely to stand on principle than publicly traded (i.e. stock market owned) companies which mainly answer to the pension funds and gamblers who control the stock market.
It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.
You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates.
But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations.
You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made.
Guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
In any case, what I struggle to understand is the position some have when it comes to install apps on iOS. I understand the security angle, but you can do it right (with Apple always in control of the OS and the permissions apps get), still be in the Apple ecosystem, and having the option to install a VPN app after Apple receives a court order to block said app.
Oh right, the mobile Linux experience is so bad only the most devoted will subject themselves to it.
I get that a lot of nerds long for the day when "desktop computer janitor" was a well-paid job and normal people couldn't use a computer effectively for any length of time. But that doesn't mean it was a good time.