Locking people out of choices to protect some supposed interest is paternalistic, especially considering Apple already has a horse in the race (its fat %30 cut) and has almost no incentive to consider what is right for the consumer. If you don't want the government have a say on content you consume (like, Apple and porn/erotica), decisions you make and products you buy, why would you let Apple do those things?
Either way, simple act of allowing users to unlock their devices does not immediately mean Aunt Ethel would care to do that. In another topic here it was recently discussed that a large potion of users likely don't even open Settings app, and even the most enthusiastic aunts will likely be happy with a few trustworthy stores like, say Steam and Kindle, and that'd be all.
btw,
> ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway
that sounds like a policy/enforcement failure to me.
Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...
>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.
Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp