> We're OK with the phrase because the alternative was people's phones being infested with malware and viruses.

Exactly! Next, I hope Apple will apply the same curation and registration requirements to websites if they want to be browse-able on Safari. Internet is a dark place full of scams, fake news, and privacy pitfalls. It's time to replace the open web with a curated premium web. /s

The Apple store does not replace any open standards, it is merely an alternative. Apple cannot and does not you from using or paying for open hardware and software.

When a market becomes a requirement for society to operate it no longer is allowed to hide behind that veil. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the issue at hand and instead excuse it with a "well no one forces you". Markets are a force that shape how people can live.

This market became a “requirement” (which is a bit BS since Android ecosystem is still much larger than iOS, but anyhow...) because people voted for this system consistently over many years (again and again). They voted with their wallets for it when the iPhone was a tiny newborn dream and RIM/Nokia were king, they continued to vote for it year on year after Android was released, and they are still voting for it... as is.

With this in mind: It’s arguably also intellectually dishonest to pretend that we all woke up today in some kind of “iOS only world” and should now regulate it. a) It’s not, and b) you would be killing the very thing that made everyone want this ecosystem in the first place.

If all the “regulate them!” and “open the store!” people win, then history says most will eventually move on to a new ecosystem that works like the old one (which people evidently like). Android has been open the whole time and the money gravitates away from it... If highly regulated and fully open phones worked so well then iOS would be a footnote in history books, and not the powerhouse that you want to squash.

That's black and white argument. Products change markets over time, not instantly. There does not have to be a singular event.

"Voting with your wallet" entirely ignores what actual voting is. Whatever the original reason no longer applies, now the devices are an expectation for livelihood, safety, and overall communication. It becomes a public problem.

Having two choices is not choice. Google deserves the same regulation apple does. Real choice would be dozens of competitive and entirely independent choices. The nature of markets of scale prevent this from happening.

>> the alternative was people's phones being infested with malware and viruses.

That's a very weak argument. Actually this is a part of Apple's marketing for ignorant people.

I have been using various Linux distros and Android phones for years and never got a malware and virus because: - I install software from trusted sources or compile from the source - I keep SW, OS and kernels up-to-date - It is getting harder and harder to exploit modern systems thanks to improved sandboxes in browsers, namespaces, ASLR and other techs

What people just need is a bit of training on how to use a computer. They don't need Apple.

Multiple app stores are no less secure than singular app stores everything else being the same.

Plenty of people aren't okay with Apple's actions but there aren't exactly great alternatives.

Nothing is stopping Apple from allowing other stores other than control and in app purchase profits.

I think this construction is not so simple.

How would Apple let other app stores and make sure they are secure?

Will they review apps stores? Will it be rules for what an app store should do? If so, the is this the kind of app stores that people want as alternatives: app stores which follow Apple rules?

If Apple will not review app stores and let them be installed than how are they secure? What stops a malware to be presented as an alternative store and then allow installation of a messenger while saving user and password from users?

Hmm, like disallow them in the AppStore but allow sideloading apps, even an alternative app store - and then put a large banner that it is insecure blabla that the user can ignore if he/she so chooses. Or allow it only with some developer mode for which a user would have to touch something n times , like it is on Android. So those who don’t know what is it all about can stay in their walled garden, while the rest can use their goddamn 1000 dollar phone the way they want

Who says Apple has to vet anything.

The user purchased a device which per the law in most countries gives them the right to use it as they like.

There's still malware on the app store, Apple only removes things that look like malware. They don't instrument the code during reviews.

The security of the iPhone comes entirely from the sandbox and not app curation.

No matter how I count, I see only two viable platforms for everyday use in a mobile device. Please enlighten me with the other options (and yeah, I do know about pinephones, and I even own one, but it needs quite a bit of love (not talking about it having an inferior hardware - since I would like to use my phone as a portable camera as well))

Yet despite this, more Apple users have been infected with malware (Xcodeghost) than users of Amazon and Google Android devices combined, despite there being far more Amazon and Google Android users than Apple users.

I'm not sure that's true... Xcodeghost was a single attack that affected ~4000 apps and got it contained comparatively quickly, whereas Android devices get infected with virus-laden with quite regularly.

https://www.androidcentral.com/nearly-impossible-remove-andr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/07/10/25-mi...

https://in.pcmag.com/security/138196/android-users-need-to-m...

https://www.foolproofme.org/articles/169-over-1-million-andr...

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-malicious-apps-infect-million-...

And this is just five articles I found from a superficial search.

Now don't get me wrong. I absolutely abhor the Apple's App Store and their overzealous security policies, but they work. I just don't think they're necessary to keep our devices safe.

Xcodeghost alone infected hundreds of millions of people (including all Wechat users). Let's add up your examples.

The first one infected a few thousand. The second one spread on Chinese phones, not Google or Amazon phones. The third infected about 120k users. The fourth infected 1 million users. The fifth infected 10 million users.

So the Apple App Store infected at least an order of magnitude more users despite having an order of magnitude fewer users total. Why at least? Apple does not allow third party security apps on its devices, so there are likely to be way more infections that we just haven't heard of.