In the EU, Apple is attempting to superficially comply (I don't think it's really even complying with the letter of the law but I guess it thinks it's worth a shot) while keeping the ability to unilaterally block apps from third party stores, but that will likely get rejected by regulators, and it might end up being forced to allow anyone to operate an app store and having to give up any control over apps distributed that way.

I haven't read the text of the Japanese lawbyet, however, so I'm not sure how much control apple will be able to exercise over third party app stores in Japan.

I guess from the perspective of user control of devices it would be better if you could at least just enter a URL for an arbitrary self hosted "app store" and that seems unlikely since the laws are coming more from the perspective of antitrust law, but it still may be able to get closer to that.

This would be awesome to have!

F-Droid proves it can be done without much money.

It'd be cool for people like you and me though. Aka nerds who know how this stuff works.

I'd say the opposite. The people concerned about the cut that Apple and Google are taking from developers, and that they have to write a privacy policy for a screensaver app rather than using it as a trojan to exfiltrate user data are "people like you and me."

Normal people just don't want for people who are not them to be able to overrule them about whatever they want to do with their own phone. Multiplying the number of gatekeepers just gives opportunities to "people like you and me" who are equipped to become (and often dream of becoming) little bourgeois gatekeepers ourselves.

"Sideloading" (aka loading, made a subclass of itself), is an answer to the general question, while "alternative app stores" is simply an answer to potential competitors being locked out of the market.

The internet used to be cool for people like you and me, nerds who know how this stuff works.

I'm a developer and the only time I'd want to do it myself is to avoid some silly Apple policy.

Third party app stores wrest control from a single entity and still have some vested interest in doing the security and quality control that most people aren't capable of.

I would wager that 90% of people or more, are incapable of doing a sufficiently good job at this.

The OECD has done research on computer skills and even email is difficult to manage for most people.

Sideloading becoming too accessible can be a major attack vector and there aren't good mechanisms for preventing this. Even with various protections there are a wide array of Windows scams that funnel millions and millions of dollars from luddites to scammers.

Yet nobody actively prevents them from doing it, or even running their own e-mail servers. There are many things in our lives which are dangerous and fairly difficult for average people yet are and should be left unregulated and unsurveilled.

There are ways to protect the user from making dangerous choices without proper judgement, also to counter the threats as they materialize.

I don't object recognizing the danger though. I've read border security services of some countries happen to install spyware on travelers Android devices this way.

I believe there just should be a not-too-easy (while perfectly legal, not ridiculously complex and not breaking anything itself) way to unlock certain policies, lock them back and see what's set for people who know what are they doing. Making the whole system more transparent can also help to notice and sanitize it when it is compromised.

Everybody buying into Apple's FUD needs to take a step back and look at the greater context; Apple themselves already sell devices and an OS which permits that which they and you claim is too dangerous to exist.

Security? Well, shouldn't the OS/sandboxing be handing that for me?

Malicious apps or scam lookalike apps? Surely a similar system to ssl certs can be used.