An insurer/ health insurer, employer, government, etc will require it, and just like that the "just don't use them" crowd will hold up their hands and pretend that no one could have imagined this disaster.
If the problem is truly Apple exhibiting favouritism or limiting competition through their app approval process: then the EU should have just forced them to spin it out into an independent entity for the EU stores, or even take control of it themselves - but they didn't and 2024/25 is going to be a shitshow for it.
Legislating for side loading and multiple app stores is the least imaginative and most obviously flawed approach to the competition problem and the sole reason why Android's share of malware is staggering in comparison to iOS.
You’re making a very simple issue way more complicated than it needs to be. Having Apple spin out EU specific new corporate entities with unclear relationships to its parent company sounds extremely complex.
Requiring Apple to allow people to install apps they want on their own device is pretty simple and should be a fundamental expectation of a free society.
If normal user wants the walled garden Apple experience, that’s fine. Make it unintuitive to install third party apps. Require checking a big red disclaimer that you might brick your phone. But just have some sort of path where if party A made an app and party B wants it on the device they paid a lot of money for, they can do that without some unqualified drone in Cupertino blocking it .
Countless examples of the App Store review being broken , and just on principle, Apple has what’s effectively a monopoly on mobile phones in that you can’t make a mobile app and ignore iPhone and for them to unilaterally decide all software that’s allowed is way too much power.
Somehow Microsoft went to the Supreme Court for putting IE on the desktop but Apple is off the hook for a complete lockdown. At least you could download Netscape on Windows 95! What Apple is doing is like if AOL and AOL keywords became the only entry point to the web. Then you go on Hacker News and people say that’s s good thing because AOL only allows quality websites and otherwise people make malware and scam websites. It doesn’t matter, it’s too much power for one company and mobile phones are more critical to society in 2023 than the web was in the 90s. Mobile phones are not appliances.
It’s still unfathomable to me this is even a conversation on this website. Apples complete lockdown of the most important computing devices is plainly bad for consumers and society.
It's interesting to me that your core argument is about making a choice whether or not to embrace side-loading and 3rd party app stores. However aren't users making this choice when they buy the phone to begin with. Side loading and 3rd party app stores aren't a secret, many Android manufacturers use this as a selling point and include their own stores baked-in.
I'm somehow to believe that users are simultaneously clever and dumb - and I'm not buying it.
Or how else do you claim there is two sides here?
Pretending that Apple is protecting consumers is silly, they have repeatedly said internally the lock is for revenue alone. No claim of security protection has lasted past "wouldn't sideloaded apps be sandboxed the same as App Store apps and thus have the same security overall"? (Apple failed to counter that point)
That's clearly not what is written, don't invent a false narrative with your lack of comprehension skills.
Also going to need a citation for this beauty:
>"they [apple] have repeatedly said internally the lock is for revenue alone"
But judging from your reading skills earlier, I don't have confidence in it being forthcoming.
The reality is the author dismissed Apple supporting side loading as fundamentally impossible in a thread talking about how Apple should offer more choices.
Calling users dumb for wanting side loading on Apple is ridiculous on its face. Users didn't choose Apple to side load they might have sacrificed side loading to get Apple but calling them dumb for making a choice is ridiculous.
Apple makes $86 billion from the App Store a year. That is a quarter of their revenue from iPhone sales. No shot a 25% increase in revenue with phenomenally higher margins isn't of extreme importance to Apple.
They got in their head that users were stupid for choosing Apple when they wanted side loading but that isn't stupid in the context of "should Apple allow sideloading".
I'll support any sideloading regulation that includes all of these protections. As it stands this is only a law in some countries/regions and certainly not something everyone will be protected by if they happen to be outside of EU (and maybe US) jurisdiction.
If my company is mandating the installation of software on my devices, I'll request a corporate device and assume the company has root access on said device.
Employer installed apps is a use case Apple officially support.
On Android where alternate storefronts are a possibility, I have yet to be made aware of a single instance of this happening. Not even Epic in their crusade against established mobile stores made its' own platform.
1. You're not looking very hard, surveillance ware exists for employment, examinations and so on. It's not available on iOS, but is available on Android via side loading. Both Facebook and Google used iOS certificates to side load tracking apps onto iOS for regular consumers. Even rental cars brands have utilised surveillance software to track speed and apply fines. The more you dig here the more you find: it's not some outlandish concept.
2. The inability to run such types of software on iOS prevents these approaches from moving forward across the industry. Much the same way that QR codes weren't widely utilised until both Android and iOS supported it.