I think the point is that Android's marketplace functions as a gatekeeper. Apple's marketplace functions as a prison warden. The difference is whether you on the inside are allowed to make exceptions for who can come through, or even pass through yourself. If you have no control, what you've been told is a protective wall is actually restraining wall.
That said, as to your original point, perhaps some people do need their devices imprisoned for the benefit of the rest of us. I'm not sure I believe that, but I will readily admit that a vast number of people are either unable or unwilling to detect and rectify the problem of their digital devices being hacked, and that ends up affecting us all.
IMHO what closed systems like Apple propose is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why Apple couldn't allow sideloading apps and aggressively curate it's own store. The average user will use Apple certified apps and the power users who need more will sideload uncertified apps.
If gatekeepers are as genuinely beneficial to end users as people claim, then there's no reason to force anyone to use them or to block off unofficial channels. If your claim is true then ordinary people will stick to the certified App store of their own volition because it makes them feel safe.
Unless Android phones have an extra side-channel I don't know about, I just can't imagine someone sideloading an app on one of them unless they explicitly have decided the benefits outweigh the risks.
And if an average consumer is going into their settings and explicitly turning off a security measure, then at what point does it become reasonable to say that they're doing it because the official app store is not good enough on its own for the average consumer?
I get the whole "consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them" argument that people make sometimes, but I think that's a very tricky line to walk - especially when a company has a huge amount of profit tied up in deciding that individual freedom is a net negative.
I agree with you that it's a tricky line to walk, but the UX issue can't be dismissed as a triviality.
You can go through the process now with Amazon Underground, Prime Video, and several other Amazon apps for Android. The user is prompted to sideload Amazon's apps that contain functionality disallowed in Google's app store. Amazon shows step-by-step dialogs teaching users how to do it. It would be really interesting to know how many "non-power-user" users have actually stepped through that process at Amazon's behest.
It feels circular to me: "Most users are better served by a gatekeeper" -> "Because if users had a choice to go outside the system they would" -> "Therefore the gatekeeper must be mandatory" -> "Because most users are better served by a gatekeeper".
At what point do we have to step back and say, "maybe users just don't want gatekeepers?" Especially bearing in mind that, again, anyone who actually did want a gatekeeper could still use one and be fully protected.
We're assuming that every casual user who sideloads an app on Android is doing it because they're uneducated. What if they're not? What if they just feel like it's an acceptable risk?
What if the reason we can't trust the average user to stay in a moderated system is that moderated systems are not scalable, adaptable, or reliable enough to meet the needs of even an average user?
This is because it is actually pretty reasonable to make the judgement that Amazon is trustworthy enough to sideload their applications despite the dire warnings, so what you really want to find out is how many people are making unreasonable judgements on what is trustworthy enough to sideload.
Hah. Does the tech crowd never learn?
What we expect the "many users" to see:
+-------------------+
| This is dangerous |
| you'll be on your |
| own, so take care |
| |
| [cancel] [ok] |
+-------------------+
+-------------------+
| This is a mildly |
| annoying message |
| only made to |
| delay access to |
| instant happinness|
| and BTW blah blah |
| blah blah blah |
| blah blah blah |
| |
| [meh] [buzz off and giev me teh warez]
+-------------------+
<at your regular party>
"Hey I hear from <insert {relative,friend,whatever} here> that you work with, uh, computers and stuff, and, I think my phone is somehow, uh, broken, and I know zilch about computers, so could you help me with it pleeeease?"
I've been astounded with spectacular consistency over the years at how much people can achieve (however unsafely) to get stuff for free even if they openly claim to be tech illiterate. That includes jailbreaking and installing "alternative" app stores. Basically some kind of goal-oriented BOFH's dummy mode on steroids.
For over a year, Minecraft shipped for the Mac without being properly signed for Gatekeeper. Their official support article said the only way to get it to work is to turn the feature off (disable binary signatures system-wide) - probably because they didn't want to explain to people what right-clicking was.
I'm unsure if this was due to lethargy, lack of wanting to pay $99/yr to have their $2.5 bil product have a proper software signing key, or an ongoing technical issue. But they in no way explained to users what the ramifications of this change was, and the typical user making the change was likely a kid.
If Apple provides a way for a company (I'll pick on Spotify here as a likely example) to ship their app without having to play by the rules of the App Store, it will quickly become the only way to get the app. The only way the users will be able to get the functionality they want on their phone would be to disable the security protections and side-load. And historically, companies have dismissed the ramifications to the user of doing this ("Hit 'Ok' on the dialog which is displayed")
Companies like Amazon has a whole third party store based on exploiting what is often referred to in Android as a "developer mode". I see zero likelihood Apple will make it possible for a side loading feature compatible with mass distribution without government pressure. If you don't care about distribution but just want to build and load an app on your personal phone, thats already possible and does not require any fees or paid tools (assuming you have a Mac).
Of course, this App Store is also the central authority which would allow Telegram to take down fake apps which are there to confuse users and potentially provide vectors for things like ransomware and surveillance by state actors.
If you believe that's the case the bigger problem is the lack of education that leads to some people who are incapable of understanding the risks associated with doing so and not that they have access to do so.
Usually it's stuff like sketchy webpages that say "your Flash Player is out of date. Click here to install lates version." and they just do it.
Malware makers will always find a way to trick people into installing their stuff.
(That system on macOS is, for those who don't remember, called Gatekeeper!)
But then I can sign a jailbreak with my developer certificate and pass it around. Now, you're going to say that such a thing has never happened on macOS, but the fact that it could happen because you've opened the door to it is something that should be considered.
They also state they are continuing to work with Valve to get it published (presumably with only the feature to play existing purchased and free content, like say the Kindle app)
Wait, what? The desktop experience is wonderful in this regard - choose any number of app stores if you want, or don't, if you don't want.
I've never, ever thought of this as a problem.
Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?
If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?
That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security.
> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?
Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing.
> If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?
I dunno man, this seems like a very dangerous argument to me. It's like you're saying that there's a huge silent majority that is not qualified to be the sovereign over the machines in their life, and that's not my world view.
I acknowledge that malware is a huge issue, but I think it's reasonably clear that the best ways of mitigating it do not include disempowering people or cutting their free speech at the knees.
I squarely blame developers/designers. Not just Microsoft, but Netscape with SSL, Android with app permissions and side-loading, etc.
There is this terrible historical concept that we can solve security issues with user education and work around design/deployment problems with security through obtuse user prompts.
>> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?
> Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing.
Sure, just as long as you keep in mind that Firefox extensions and Ubuntu snaps/universe/multiverse aren't vetted for malware. Plus Firefox extensions (like those toolbars of days past) can inspect all traffic and capture things like credit cards and passwords.
But hey, the user was notified that there was a risk and blindly hit OK - because it was the way to get the computer to do what they said they wanted the computer to do.
One of the problems that I think we technical people have not been able to solve yet is giving the user appropriate signals of the relative danger of the action they are about to engage in.
If all the dialog boxes look very similar, and any app can create one, you have yourself a dangerous system.
Is this an actual fact-based observation or just personal memories rooted in a time that Windows 98 was the best that many people got?
It often seems like people who hold your position are arguing against a caricature. As in, you can't do it this way because people used to have problems, or people might...