This doesn’t work.

It’s not content filtering that I care about, it’s the ability for Apple to enforce standards around usability and features that are better for their users.

Without control of the store they lose that leverage.

App devs will just ship outside of it and include all the tracking they want. It’ll also block Apple from being able to require things like Apple ID or Apple Pay support which provide direct benefits to users, but can run counter to what app devs want.

I just don't find this very compelling. It's fine for me if the "default mode" of use for Apple's products is a filtered, curated experience. If users have to jump through even a few hoops to side-load apps, 99% of casual users will not do it.

We already see this on PCs with competing game distributors (Steam, Origin, Epic) - we'd see the same on iOS too.

This idea that having a separate App Store would completely render the ecosystem a Wild West of standards like Linux is something I never understood. If they allow side loading developers will still stick with the App Store and their standard if they want to sell, like it happens on android where devs stick with the play store . If people massively reject the App Store if alternative ways of installing an app become available then maybe it wasn’t that valued of a feature in the first place by the users ...

It’s valued by the users, not by the app devs.

It wouldn’t be an “alternative choice” app devs with leverage would ship outside of the store to bypass policy and force users to install shitty versions.

You might have to do this because of network effects.

You as a user has absolute right to choose whatever app that fulfill your own standards around usability and features, w/wo any app stores.

When incentives are not aligned it's effectively moloch [0].

The choice I want won't exist in that world and I don't have the leverage to require it to exist.

Apple does and that's why I choose their products.

[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

50 years of worse-is-better ruling the software world suggests otherwise.

Some people prefer the safety of Disney World.

Others like to go base jumping from some mountain in the Alps.

Shouldn't both be possible? Or do we want a Mickey Mouse in the Alps telling us to go back for our own safety?

Yeah, but that’s what Android is for. I have absolutely no faith that developers won’t pick the easiest, cheapest, least restrictive distribution channel available. And I have every inclination they will sacrifice every user desire for privacy and integrity to get there.

Yet I have no such problems on Linux.

Do you actually think that’s a reasonable comparison? GNU Linux is not a consumer operating system used by billions of people on their phones.

Glad we’ve entered the year of the Linux desktop.

It is hardly impossible to install third-party software on your phone if you're up for base jump levels of risk.

It's getting more difficult every day.

And I don't want to punch Mickey Mouse every time I go climbing.

Honest question - why do you have to climb this mountain?

I’m genuinely curious, because to me that’s the equivalent of telling Ford that you want a Ferrari engine in your mustang.

Maybe if someone could help me understand this I would be more open to those kinds of ideas.

> It doesn't need to be like the current situation, with Apple in full control over everything.

Yes it does. Because otherwise you will need to install tons of app stores to install all the apps you currently use.

For instance, I would have to install the Epic store to install Fortnite. Now that’s two apps (the store app plus Fortnite app) and then I’d be less confident about the level of quality and security that the added store provides.

It is this particular situation that seems very hard to overcome from a regulatory perspective. So one you allow multiple app stores, the specialness that people like me have for our trusted devices disappears.