In most cases it’s a valid reason - the app is malicious, poorly made or somehow in conflict with local law. Also imagine if you are an app developer an suddenly your project (on which you’ve spent countless hours of hard work) is unexpectedly leaked as freely available for download and side-loading. I’m not talking big Corps like epic and blizzard … but people like you and me.

Open source apps can be loaded easily, so developers who really want to make their stuff available can still do so and users won’t need to hack their phones to get such apps. But of course this can’t happen en masse.

Interesting, I do the opposite. When something is available in the Mac App Store or through other means, I will generally buy it in the App Store. Why? Application sandboxing is mandatory for Mac App Store apps and I strongly prefer that applications are sandboxed by default.

The second, less important, reason is that I can just install the applications with just one click and don't have to download them from different places, look up their serial numbers, etc.

That said, I‘m struggling with the constraints Apple puts on the business models of developers, for example when it comes to upgrade pricing. While I have a fair amount of software Mac/iOS subscriptions running (8 by my current count) there‘s definitely software I passed on because it moved to a subscription model.

Factually wrong. You can run apps on iOS without jailbreaking that weren’t approved by Apple, or even ones banned by Apple. This has been true for years. Yes, the required resigning of the app every seven days is a major hindrance, but it is still something you very much CAN do.

It is a kludge designed to make the process as unpleasant as possible but just so enough that Apple can claim they don't block sideloading.

It's disingenuous.

You don’t need an Apple system to codesign. Two results on first page of search results:

https://github.com/zhlynn/zsign

https://weisser-zwerg.dev/posts/ios-app-without-mac/

> make the process as unpleasant as possible but just so enough that Apple can claim they don't block sideloading

Apple doesn’t claim they don’t block side-loading. Actually I believe they claim the opposite in the Epic case (even though it is possible via a supported process) because it was “necessary to ensure the safety of their user base” or something like that.

> It's disingenuous

Shifting goal posts from “you can’t” to “you can’t without X” once someone points out the first was factually incorrect is considered disingenuous by many too.

(Edit for formatting and provide links)

First off, you're making a huge assumption here.

Second, the only goalpost shifting here is your attempt to pass off complex and temporary workarounds intended for developers as resulting in a device that is somehow the same as jailbroken devices. This is incorrect for the obvious reasons pointed out already.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with jailbreak and didn't know apps installed via jailbreak don't need to be constantly renewed and resigned? Installing apps long term is still something you can't do, as I originally said.

Attempting to pass off a lesser solution that doesn't come close to matching what I originally mentioned and pretending it is the same is dishonest and disingenuous.

> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with jailbreak

Considering I wrote one of the first high traffic'd jailbreaking guides for iOS and have been involved in the JB scene in various capacities (never a key role admittedly) since the very beginning, I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. ;)

> your attempt to pass off complex and temporary workarounds

> apps installed via jailbreak don't need to be constantly renewed and resigned?

I'm surprised someone who claims to be involved in the scene so long would overlook such an obvious difference.

Pure anecdata, but the vast majority of folks I see talking about AltStore outside HN are not developers. YMMV!