Legacy decision? Would they do the same starting a new desktop OS today? Much more high risk personal data on an iPhone (e.g. health data, biometrics) requiring stricter security? Many more sensors which could be abused by nefarious actors on iOS (GPS, lots of mics, lidar, cameras, etc) and these are always with us?

They could easily ban these third party applications on MacOS too. So it is more likely that it's simply anti-competitive reasons.

Performance is less of an issue on computers because battery life isn’t as much of a concern. Also, they allow other messaging and payments on iOS just like they do on MacOS. They just don’t offer the unique payment chip access on iOS to third parties.

If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. Especially since the phone itself is considered a two factor authentication device by several services and my employer.

And the attack vectors are more numerous. I have ten times as many apps on my phones, it’s always on, always connected, and may frequently connect to wifi networks I don’t fully trust.

The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.

I’m on the side of wanting Apple to open up a bit more. But I it’s absolutely valid to want the iPhone to be more secure than a laptop. And I seriously hope Apple isn’t forced to let people install apps that aren’t signed and reviewed. I can guarantee you that critical services in your life will force you to install insecure and straight up dangerous apps. The banking sector in some countries is a prime example of that, especially back in the ActiveX era.

> If a hacker got full remote access to my phone it’d be a complete and utter disaster. (...) The consequences and the attack vectors for a hacker to attack my laptop are fewer.

I don't buy that argument. I have more important files on my laptop than on my phone.

Is there a wave of people being hacked with full remote access to their phones due to shoddy Android banking apps?