Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want?
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
I'm not proposing that any user experience be extinguished. I'm fine with the Apple App Store being the default app store, and users being able to continue getting apps only through them and making all payments through them if they want to. I just don't think it should be forced even on people who don't want it.
Removing the requirement for app store review will extinguish the option for a curated user experience, as major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted. You literally are arguing for something with the immediately foreseeable consequence of removing the choice for a curated experience with applications required to undergo app review.
Again, you already have the choice for your user-freedom oriented experience on the dominant market platform with 85% global smartphone marketshare. Stop arguing to deny us the choice for this user experience.
But for you it's not enough to merely choose the experience you desire, you have to force it on me too.
The global split of 85% Android and 15% iOS is super misleading, since a lot of companies' primary customer base is Americans, and among Americans it's basically a 50/50 split.
And there's no reason that fixing this problem would allow bypassing permissioning systems. On Android, apps installed from third-party sources still need to have a list of permissions and request them the same way apps from the Play Store do.
> major apps will explicitly use sideloading/third party app stores to bypass the app review process and permissioning systems, just as they have already attempted.
And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Is it misleading, or inconvenient to your argument?
50/50 still means you have a major choice that implements the user-freedom model that you desire, while you're arguing to extinguish the user-privacy model.
> And if this were true, then why do so many apps still use the Play Store on Android? Why haven't they all switched exclusively to third-party stores?
Play Store doesn't have an app review process, and yes, permissioning is a major problem there, the "flashlight app that wants network access and your contacts list" was a very real thing (until Android finally implemented a flashlight app) and continues to be a thing for other types of applications.
That's the thing app store review prevents on iOS, and the changes you're suggesting fundamentally undermine that process. When facebook removes themselves from the app store and creates their own so they can demand full permissions, the choice will become "give the permissions or stop using facebook" and that's a degradation of the iOS user experience, all for a nebulous argument that the app store cut is too much.
50% of all customers is way too much for most developers to be able to give up. And your arguments that gaining freedom will require losing privacy still haven't been convincing.
Whether or not you are personally convinced is irrelevant, the facts are that Facebook literally already has tried to do this and gotten their hand slapped for it.
The facts don't care about your feelings here - facebook and others have already attempted to exploit the limited mechanisms of sideloading available to violate user privacy, and they will do so again if given broader permissions.
You are directly arguing for the removal of the mechanism that was used to slap their hand.
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.