Back when Android had very strict permission controls I think this argument was quite valid since there was a market competitor without a locked down store but with a similar level of control. Control of the phone can't only be achieved by curating a store - it can also be achieved by allowing clear user controls and a phone without the locked down store but with the controls doesn't exist... So I can't go anywhere.

I'll quote another guy from this thread:

"I like that TrueCaller on my iOS device works for most features without getting any permission from me, while on Android it refuses to buzz from the splash screen unless you give it every permission - including full contact access and phone.

I like that on iOS a famous payment app from India (PhonePe) works flawlessly with zero permissions but on Android? It needs both location and contacts to even function - neither of these are mandatory for their functioning but still they do and can get away with that.

You know WhatsApp doesn't let you use "Status" feature unless you provide Storage permission to it on Android (I doubt they need it just to shows those images, videos, and texts)."

I think it's important to note that the mere existence of controls, i.e buttons that do a thing, don't actually end up achieving their goal of improving user privacy unless there's also enforcement of usage patterns. You can't get away with stuff like this on iOS, and it's clear by these accounts that the same companies would do the same on iOS if they could.

Apple doesn't have to change it's policies when (not if) it is forced to allow people to install alternative stores. Those companies will still have to play nice with apples terms if they want to remain on Apple's app store.

>I’m sorry but it an astonishingly stupid take.

To you.

>Apple and android DO have a duopoly, and it is bad for every phone owner.

Google owns over 85% of the worldwide smartphone market. I agree that we need more competition. This competition should come from breaking Google/Android into 4 pieces, and then we'll have 5 companies with 15-25% market.

In the US, iOS has 52.4% of the mobile OS marketshare, and Android has 47%[1].

In the US, Apple's App Store makes more than 100% more revenue than Google's Play store does[2].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

[2] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

And the reason that’s the case is precisely because of these restrictions. Not in spite of them!

Citation badly needed.

That would be great, but it will not happen. There is an optimal number for phone platforms that can exist at the same time and for which companies will develop apps for. And that number seems to be 2. I really hope linux phones can provide an alternative but their only chance for even a most minimal success is perfect interop with existing Android applications.

Wait, why would having a non-Apple store being allowed in iOS affect you? If people want to install non-Apple approved apps from their own devices, it doesn't imply you have to do the same.

I want both.

I would be completely happy if IOS by default did not allow all the things it doesn't allow, but you could add a setting to allow 3rd party app stores with a list that apple curated themselves (similar to search engine preferences in a browser).

Apple can make it all scary about how the apps on the 3rd party applications could be doing more nefarious things. I would even be ok with apple having the ability to simply refuse to install specific apps from these 3rd party app stores for things that are egregious violations of ethics.

but I've just read too many stories about Apple rejecting apps over very innocuous things, and apple rejecting smaller apps but allowing the same thing in larger apps (anti-competitive).

It's a legitimate problem.