Computers and Android devices don't employ predatory code signing and can run anything without the manufacturer having a say, yet somehow the hell didn't break loose. Also, if you don't let people make mistakes or see someone else make them, they won't learn. In effect, one might say that this scheme makes people dumber.

What do you mean? Hell does break lose. The malware situation on PCs might be better than it was 15 years ago, but it’s still ubiquitous. Removing malware from PCs is still an entire industry and career path.

At this point I am convinced HN commenters have a blind spot when it comes to how easily non-technical users get infected with malware. The latest statistics[1] show iOS has significantly fewer malware infections compared to Android and Windows devices:

iOS: 1.72% Android: 26.64% Windows: 38.92% IoT: 32.72%

[1] https://www.nokia.com/networks/portfolio/cyber-security/thre...

Android and Windows devices don’t necessarily have the same OS-level security provisions, so this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s probably true that iOS as an operating system has had stronger security from the start, but that’s not related to the app distribution channel.

Those are not malware infection rates, they're OS "marketshare" of all infected devices.

I'll modify my wording but that doesn't change the overall point.

If you’re working in a company, I suggest you go and tell them that it’s fine and malware is not a problem and that the users need to learn from their mistakes. They should be quite relieved to learn that.

Same for the companies who lose regularly millions of dollars to ransomware.

This is the point that people keep missing. The most common argument is “just let people install whatever software they want and if they install something bad that’s their fault.” But the point is that, if Apple does allow sideloading apps, customer satisfaction with iPhones will almost certainly go down. Can you argue that those new unsatisfied customers are to blame? Sure. But Apple probably actually cares about how satisfied their customers are with their products.

And if you allow cars to be repaired some cars might eventually be fixed the wrong way and crash. Same with my home appliances. Yet that doesn't seem to be an argument.

People still call the gamebox under the TV a "nintendo" even if it's a PS5 or an X cube, or the browser internet explorer when it's a little fox-ish looking thing...

Tech literacy is in the toilet, and the lack of physicality (seeing Rob the mechanic was you hand over your Toyota for a service) doesn't help with association of whose responsible..

Also typically cars and appliances have warranties and some times the terms call out unauthorized/untrained 3rd party repair.

The sub-text is that the customer does not know what’s good for them, and that they should be grateful because competition. Who cares about the actual users or their satisfaction, when there is money to be made?

You might have less average negative experiences in the home if everyone were only allowed to buy new Ikea furniture and appliances directly from Ikea. But there are a lot of reasons people would find that level of restrictiveness unacceptable.

Indeed, and no one is suggesting that everyone should only be allowed to buy iPhones.

Indeed, they are suggesting that Apple comply with the current legal frameworks

That's a false premise because consumers have endured the Microsoft ecosystem for decades and the risk vs choice is one that consumers have accepted. The only way Apple would have an argument for that aspect of their ecosystem, is that if all similar vendors operated the same way. This case is about consumer choice and it's the better consumer choice argument that is going to win.

Apple has made a ton of money from people utterly dissatisfied with the windows ecosystem, so I disagree people have accepted this. (I certainly haven't, and put my parents on an iPad 10 years ago and haven't heard barely a peep out of them since.)

I think more technical HN-type users aren't aware or have forgotten how terribad the Windows download scene was in the 2000s. It was almost impossible to install anything without getting some toolbar or adware bundle, if not outright malware.

You literally just used the word “endured” to describe the relationship between customers and Microsoft. That’s hardly a glowing endorsement or a strong argument that Apple should follow Microsoft’s lead!

These replies to my comment are completely missing the point. The debate isn't about what is the better system, which is arbitrary, it is about whether you have a choice, period. If you didn't want to use Windows, you had a choice; you could use Apple, Unix, or Linux. You do not have a choice on iOS, you use the App store, or you can't get apps. That's the anti-competitive behavior under review.

Microsoft making certain choices regarding to safety and how open their platform is has no relevance to what choices Apple makes. Apple happens to choose for a less permissive system and it has been going well for them and their users. I don’t see how that has anything to do with how other vendors choose to operate.

They never accepted that. They had no choice really. They do have a choice here. Use Apple or don't and go with Android.

I don't know if the appropriate standard for technology is that it has to be completely safe for grandpa. In general we don't design society for the lowest-common-denominator.

The argument is that this isn't a great goal. The argument is that Apple has chosen a solution that doesn't conform to our legal framework.

It is also possible to trick grandpa into buying another iphone because that's the only way of preserving his text messages from the grandkids when his iphone filled up.

This need might be better handled by allowing delegation of approval to a trusted contact.

Apple definitely needs to keep working on the sandbox both for defense in depth and so that sideloaded apps (if the court forces it) can be secure enough.

It's possible to trick grandpa into sending money to Nigeria, too, but we don't use that as an excuse for forcing him to do business with a particular bank.

Nobody sane would argue that our current approach to banking security is fine, though. There definitely is money to be made with more secure and convenient money transfer, as proved by the quite large number of start-ups in the field. Among these, quite a lot work only among users of the same app without anybody being outraged about it.

Startups, Banking, Secure?

Wirecard and Theranos called, they want their fraud back.