> Anyways, at least Google allows sideloading so devs can live without Google Play. When Apple pulls something like that we have no choice.

Being able to sideload apps is the single issue that has kept me on android my entire life. Not being able to install the apps that I want to install on my own phone is a no-negotiation deal breaker for me. I really wish Apple would loosen their white knuckle grip on their precious iOS devices so that I could have options, but they obviously don't respect their users enough to give them that choice.

Ironically, it was the walled garden that kept me on Apple for so long. Having at least the illusion that apps were safe and secure gave me some confidence that most of the apps are reasonably safe does remove stress and means I don't have to vet things too closely. In truth there are nasties in the Apple world too, but I'm sure it's nowhere near as wild as installing random .apk files.

What made me leave Apple was for a real headphone socket, an SD card slot, and especially USB-C charging. Those were the non-negotiables for me.

> Ironically, it was the walled garden that kept me on Apple for so long.

Ideally Apple can keep it's walled garden for regular users and also let power users unlock their device to side-load apps if they so choose.

I mean, we know what happens when it's possible. Us techies can handle it, but wave $20 in front of teens with no money and they'll click through any warning or "are you sure" prompt they're told to. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

i dont have google logged into my moto android phone. i haven't changed the stock messages/dialer which regularly nag me about "connected features" and "sign in" and i always reject that... point is, they "keep nagging" until you accept and then say "well the user accepted".

why should location require sharing data with google? why? why should i not be able to stop google location sharing and continue using location based apps?

I don't want to be prevented from using my device to its full potential because of what some teenagers might do. Sure, throw up some scary warnings to try to save the kids, but in the end I want control over the device I'm physically holding in my hands. I'm not going to spend $99/year to install apps any more than I'll spend $18/mo on heated seats.

s/device/gun

I agree.

Not a relevant comparison and makes me wonder why I even comment here

- phones cannot be used as weapons during a shooting

- guns don't require a monthly subscription to use bullets not approved by the manufacturer

etc

>phones cannot be used as weapons during a shooting

Theoretically, a phone can absolutely be used as a component of the triggering mechanism of a rigged up firearm.

Yes, there are even extant regulations around that.

The ATF will consider anything that meets the definition of a firearm rigged with an electrically actuated trigger a machine gun by default due to being readily convertible to being fully automatic.

That you don't have the creativity or will to go down these rabbit holes does not in any way mitigate their existence.

More so if you swap change device to gun.

I mean, I agree with you, but that's kind of a non-sequitur? The reason I want control over my software/hardware is not the same as the reason I want to own a firearm.

that's not why Apple locks down the iPhone. They lock it down to make more money through the app store by not facing competition. They say they lock it down to protect users to distract attention from their rent seeking behavior.

Banning side loading for everyone is hardly the solution here.

Then i'm not sure what the solution is.

I would say that we can have different devices for different peoples' needs; I personally want the ability to purchase a device with an absolutely locked-down state where no unauthorized or unaudited code can be ran, and currently iOS gets pretty close to that for me. But that is being taken away by laws like the EU's new sideloading law. Even if, after this is passed, I go out and make my own phone that serves my interests, I am forced to limit how many I sell if I want to keep it operational.

> I personally want the ability to purchase a device with an absolutely locked-down state where no unauthorized or unaudited code can be ran, and currently iOS gets pretty close to that for me.

No one is forcing you to run any "unauthorised" code. What you suggest is that, because you don't want to side load stuff, no one should be allowed to? Doesn't make much sense to me, to be honest.

My threat model is an evil maid attack, ie. someone watches over your shoulder as you enter your passcode, then steals your phone from your hotel room and sideloads malware (that hides the fact that it's been sideloaded).

I'm sure it's possible on Android to install enterprise management or MAM solution that locks down side-loading, locked behind some custom password (not the regular password that the maid would see)

Agree. If Apple allowed it, I think I would switch.

Android used to be clearly better for a lot of what I wanted my phone to do: more customizable, better app integration ecosystem, less vendor lock in for default apps.

Apple has slowly shored up its software weaknesses, and Android has slowly gotten worse at this (e.g. Google appears to have no plans to make RCS APIs available - they whitelist client APKs - so you're stuck with the stock messenger app). The single thing holding me back now is the walled garden for app installation.

> my phone to do: more customizable, better app integration ecosystem, less vendor lock in for default apps.

> Apple has slowly shored up its software weaknesses

Every time i think about this, i check and see that there is still no way to customise the "desktop", all installed apps are just plastered on it and the best you can do is folders. Having used Nova launcher for like 10 years now i shudder at the thought of that chaos.

Also having to use a work-provided MacBook Pro, I've discovered that Apple's UIs are nice, but UX has a lot of hidden stuff (aka poor UX) and weird rough edges (you're holding it wrong). (If anyone wants examples, having different scroll directions between mouse/touchpad, having DP chaining work over USB-C, customising keys/key combos without installing a keylogger, etc etc etc.). I doubt iOS is different in that regard, so Android it is, imperfect as it is.

There are few unorthodox ways to side-load apps on iOS that don't require a jailbreak:

- AltStore and AltServer

Apple lets every user "side-load" 3 apps, but the caveat is that they expire in 7 days if not renewed on time. AltStore uses a mail plug-in on Mac to sign those apps in the background so you can keep using them indefinitely

- $99/year Apple Developer Program

You can "side-load" apps and they don't expire for 1 year. This is supposed to be for developers to test their app, but Apple may restrict this to stop side-loading in the future

> but they obviously know their users well enough to know most of them don't want that choice, and that the results would not be a net positive.

FIFY.

If you want choice of software to run (sideloaded or not), you are correct, Apple does not make the device for you. They've always been transparent about this. You are buying an Apple phone with apple software, and the option to install some apple-approved third party apps.

soon enough the digital markets will force them to

> they obviously don't respect their users enough to give them that choice.

This is not necessary. Apple has sold millions of iPhones. If Apple customers did not feel respected they would not buy the product.

Just because a product doesn't have a feature YOU want doesn't mean the rest of us don't appreciate the added layer of security and simplicity.

Freedom to choose is well under the umbrella of respect.

For example, if you respect your girlfriend or wife, you give her the freedom to choose her own clothing at the store and don't force her to wear only what you've bought for her.

Feeling respected is not the same as being respected.

I agree with your premise, but I am curious what apps are you side loading. Are these important apps? I value this freedom as well but I have only needed to install blokada. I am a working professional and do not tinker with android as much as I used too.

If you install apps from F-Droid (an alt app store on Android), they are all open source and built by F-Droid themselves. The benefit of this is, zero malware. And much better privacy. It's a nice peace of mind. The Play Store and App Store don't have such a good track record. And there's a lot of great apps on F-Droid (like clients for Twitter, Reddit, Hacker News, etc)

> This is getting posted again and again and I don’t understand why.

It is a click-bait (upvote-bait)?

TFA: ... we've been closely following the situation of the Google Play Policy changes and the company has now entered into the next phase ...

Yeah, they've got inside information. Sure.

> There are no news here. Ad blockers were never allowed to Play store

This comment is absolutely unacceptable. I understand this isn't your decision, but its a decision I disagree with in the strongest possible terms. Ad blocking is the number one extension I use above all others. So if someone finds some excuse to bring attention to that fact, I say, let them do it.

If my comment makes you think that I support this rule in any way, maybe I should’ve explicitly stated that I do not.

What I am saying is that the title is misleading as it tries to represent an old rule as if it is something new.

Btw: OP is CTO at AdGuard, has built and contributed to a slew of FOSS content blockers. Probably the last person who would support Google's policies on this.

> This is getting posted again and again and I don’t understand why

Maybe because we're majorly affected by this whims of this supranational corporation and the only power we have to respond is to have as-visible-as-possible discussions about it.

At this point I don’t believe that public discussion can change anything. Antitrust can, though, and in my opinion it would be better if the discussion was steered that way.

I agree. I'd go further and say nothing will change it. IMHO companies like this own our (and international) government+the justice system and our votes are meaningless. The same interests control both parties, but I digress.

The EU seems to exercise some control in limited cases, or that privacy law that somehow got passed in California, but those actions are the exception by far.

I wouldn’t say that these are exceptions or that they’re meaningless. EU and US antitrusts are just very slow, but we’ve already seen examples how antitrust authorities in other countries change the situation (see South Korea vs Apple, but there are more). These cases usually affect rules in a single country, but they contribute to the big ones (EU and US) too.

I would say slow is a charitable characterization of US antitrust enforcement, just because I consistently see these huge mergers go through that the Justice department or FTC should have prevented in the first place. We had that case against Microsoft but it was a very long time ago and basically had no effect.

If Justice approves Adobe-Figma you can be sure our antitrust teeth are gone.