So what you want is to remove the option of safety from those that want it because you personally do not see the need for it.

iOS is not close to a monopoly. People are perfectly free to have Android devices and side load apps on to them. It is curious that the campaigning focuses so strongly on destroying the high trust part that exists and not on promoting a trusted setup on Android.

Erm, what? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

It's perfectly reasonable for the default setting of a phone to forbid sideloading apps. And anyone who doesn't want to can leave it that way. That's the 'option of safety'.

Until such time as a big player like Epic or Facebook decides that the only way you’re getting their apps is by using a store they control and can bypass all permission controls on. When that happens it’s going to become 2000’s browser toolbars all over again

That hasn't yet happened on Android. While it might happen on iOS, it's not reasonable to assume that it will happen.

It has already happened on android in the case of Epic. They require that you side load their launcher/store in order to play games such as Fortnite. There was a big lawsuit about google’s fees which precipitated this.

https://www.fortnite.com/mobile/android/new-device?lang=en-U...

My hypothesis is that it’ll happen to both iOS and Android once iOS has been forced to allow third party app stores in most major markets.

Why? Because historically, iOS has been the more profitable platform for mobile developers by a large margin. The payoff for building and maintaining an alternative app store for Android only is questionable, but improves significantly if the store can exist on iOS too.

You don't have to use their apps. I never understood this argument. Why would you even want to use the apps of companies that you don't trust?

Oh no! People will have to install a store from a developer they trust which contains products from that developer they trust in order to install those products from that developer they trust! How unsafe! This is absolutely removing options from the user!

Sheesh...

> People are perfectly free to have Android devices and side load apps on to them.

And people who do not like "unsafe" technology are perfectly free to not use it at all.

If you make something idiot-proof, they will simply provide a better idiot.

> And people who do not like "unsafe" technology are perfectly free to not use it at all.

Not if legislators make it illegal to sell an alternative…

Grandma doesn't have to install an alternate app store or sideload apps, and she can sill rely on the same "high trust" environment that allows for apps like "LassPass" to scam her in the Apple App Store.

Hell, when she is scammed, Apple apologists will tell her it's not really that bad, and to get off Apple's case about it...

Gruber:

> Instead, the scam LassPass app tries to steer you to creating a “pro” account subscription for $2/month, $10/year, or a $50 lifetime purchase. Those are actually low prices for a scam app — a lot of scammy apps try to charge like $10/week.

(emphasis mine)

Lucky people, I guess? They could have been scammed for more?

He also claims, without any way to know, that "it doesn't look like this was made to steal LastPass credentials".

The whole article is very much a "yeah it sucks and shouldn't happen, but this is no big deal, really, why are you getting all up in Apple's face about it?" vibe.

That's like talking about "removing the option" of slavery. Nobody is proposing keeping you from working for free, or from strictly using apps approved by and distributed from Apple.

> So what you want is to remove the option of safety from those that want it because you personally do not see the need for it

Huh? No one's forcing them to install F-Droid for crying out loud. If you want what Apple does, then use Apple's store.

So to extrapolate, you're fine with your grandma being scammed via a new avenue because she's already being scammed in other ways?

I think the GP regards the scams as an acceptable price to pay for additional user choice, which is a reasonable position.

Scams exist because the scamming industry is a large fraction of gdp in some countries and the byzantine financial system doesn't allow for reversing charges.

It is also possible to keep safe guard in. You have to explicitly enable side loading side loading for instance.

Sure, if you only focus on that one piece of their comment, but who wants to be that pedantic?

My grandma has an android phone and I'm fine with her having a phone that could permit her to sideload an app. Having a phone number at all is a far more serious threat, and I presume you are fine with your grandmother having one even though a scammer could talk her into giving up her bank details or buying dozens of gift cards and reading out the codes.

The solution to the grandmother scenarios is to have a trusted relative that works closely with them, who they trust to copilot or handle completely all business dealings. If that's not possible, then they're at risk whether they have an iphone or android.

Or I don't think computing freedom has to be completely abandoned to protect someone's grandma.

Put tight controls in place. You can make it extremely difficult to bypass. You could have a recovery mode like Android and bury the setting in there. I think that makes it sufficiently hard that you don't have to worry about a grandma being tricked into rebooting her phone while holding down a specific button combination and then navigating through a bunch of arcane menus without touch controls to enable side loading. But its enough that someone that is technically inclined and who wants that control over their device can have it.

So to extrapolate, you're fine with your grandma being scammed by Apple so long as she can't (but actually can) be scammed in other ways?

> Grandma is getting scammed over regular phonecalls already anyway.

This is not a good argument. Yes things aren't perfect in many areas of technology, but that doesn't mean we should give up.

The better version of this argument acknowledges that there are tradeoffs: allowing side loading may introduce risk but the risk is low relative to the other risks users face and the benefits outweigh the costs.