If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that their choice, not yours? If apps are trying to steal information without informing the users, those could be blacklisted outside of the App Store just as well as they can be blacklisted inside it if Apple requires centrally managed signing certificates... but I would still favor an option of allowing unsigned software to be installed. The user's choice should be their choice.
Being outside of the App Store wouldn't necessarily be carte blanche, although it would hopefully enable developers to do more and better stuff, as well as make development more accessible to hobbyists who don't want to pay to distribute their stuff on the App Store.
They also give up the information of anybody they communicate with.
I don't want my personal data leaked because my landlord wanted to cash in a $20 gift card.
My perspective - NO. When I choose to share something personal with someone, there is obviously an implicit understanding that I don't want it shared with others.
Yes, you have the right to share your data. But you do not have the right to share my (or other people's data) without their consent.
(Side note: This is why privacy conscious email providers, like Tutanota and Protonmail, provide you an option to send a password protected email to parasitic providers like Gmail, so that Google / Gmail can't "read" it and create a profile on you even if you don't use their service).
It's not quite a non-issue, but it's a small one, mostly due to the small userbase and Apple's efforts to quickly blacklist malware.
> they have a clean slate to design a security model "the right way" for apps distributed outside of the App Store
Apple's solution is very clearly "don't distribute outside the App Store".
> If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that kind of their choice?
One argument that I have heard (and am presenting without attaching my views on its validity) is that if anything goes wrong with someone's iPhone, they will blame Apple for their messed-up device rather than themselves. So it's in Apple's best interest to prevent people from being able to do stupid things.
If developers do sign theirs Apps Apple have no issue with side loading as they’ll have a mean to nuke theses Apps via cert revocation if one of theses App turn out to be a malware.
Maybe it’s that middle ground that is currently missing from iOS.
However one could rightly argue that for the sake of overall system performance on a mobile device preemptive curation is a better choice. It’s would be perceived equally (if not more) harsh is Apple nuked side loaded signed Apps for the reason of "Impairing performance". On MacOS they’re resorted to nuke only for security reason which is more acceptable.
Is Apple's best interest something it's customers should be striving for, or is freedom (even to shoot yourself in the foot) the higher priority one?