For some reason every Linux user assumes everyone is as smart as they are and anyone who doesn't take the time to learn whatever esoteric config file to manage their DE is a child that can't tell left from right. Somehow the decade of directed scams and proliferation of malware and spyware isn't a problem and it's the developers "right" to be able to turn on your microphone and send that data to the cloud.
When Facebook mandates that to install Instagram you must sideload it from the Facebook store and your entire's family's location is being tracked 24/7 I hope you will thank Zuckerberg for all the freedom hes giving you
>Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.
You could just not buy from Apple. I never understand how the anti-Apple crowd is convinced that Apple is run by Satan himself, but cannot compel themselves from buying Apple products.
2. Who said spam isn't a problem or that this act allows or even enforce to circumvent the strong privacy rules that the EU (not Apple) actually guarantees for their biggest single market in the world?
News flash: you can combat spam and scams while keeping open and exchangeable basic infrastructure, without any walled garden. Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly, as those can be used to transport spam and exchange openly information.
People rather argue that the safety excuse is BS and people do not require being a Linux expert to detect spam, that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.
>Otherwise, following your logic Apple would need to ban access to protocols like IP instantly
But they _did_. The browser engine is another walled garden. HTTP is one of those "open protocols" that has been rife with spyware, but for some reasons people don't tend to cry as loudly when Apple banned third party cookies.
>that they can also get over the landline or in person knocking on the door, for that one needs common sense and some not completely bad education.
I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram. I don't know why people continue to assume the bad guys are blackhats or script kiddies. The company that stands to benefit the most from this is the company that lost nearly 400 billion dollars when Apple decided to curb fingerprinting.
That is 400 billion reasons they have to push you to sideload. You really think you can just tell people to exercise "common sense" against someone who stands to gain $400B?
Again, to circle back to Linux, you are displaying the same kind of hubris that developers have when it comes to software. It's a refusal to have any empathy for actual users - telling people not to install Instagram from the FB App Store because it's "common sense" is asinine. FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer; how is a normal person supposed to combat that with "common sense".
> I enjoy looking forward to you educating people not install Instagram.
Rather, think common sense with a sexy lady offering their hot single friends to you, or some person offering you 10 million bucks as long as you can cover the small transaction fee of $1000, independent of the medium its send over (whatsapp, instagram, telegram, fb, irc, matrix, mail, ...)
And w.r.t your general suggestion that all devs just don't care about their users, it's anecdotal but personally I actually care a lot about UX and to offer users the information to allow them to make the right decision, that's one of main things I look out when reviewing UI or also API (as API users, even if developers themselves, are user too) patches, and I know quite a few other devs that try to do the same, not all "hate" their users.
> FB will spend $1B convincing your doctor that the FB App Store will cure cancer
Besides the point that they don't, that's again a complete straw man, nobody talked about that the FB app itself is a scam or evil or whatnot, it may even be, but that's not the point of the whole EU Act and your defense of Apples walled garden mechanisms like banning other payment providers, which still can and must be vetted to be even legal in the EU, or virtually breaking sharing of your data to other apps, that they can still vet and ensure basic security on.
>nobody talked about that the FB app itself is a scam or evil or whatnot
You are continuing to miss the point. It's not a strawman if you are ignoring my concern. Instagram _is_ the concern. I don't care about confidence scams; my problem is Facebook, and the rest of adtech in general building massive databases on everyone else. The EU has been toothless in preventing this; and adtech is so entrenched that this will likely remain the case.
"Opening" the platform is only good for developers, not for users. Opening the platform just means more ways for users to track me and others around me. This is not a strawman; this is literally apple's marketing on what a platform like their offers. For you to just ignore the problem that platforms like Meta propose is naive. Again I don't care about nigerian prince scams; that is not why I tell people to buy an iPhone.
The thread you're responding to used the Instagram app and a probable "Facebook App Store" as examples. You can't ignore a point of contention and just say "well no one said anything about that".
This ignores human nature and reality. People are easily manipulated at scale, and the proof is that the scams and spam calls continue. If it was a matter of "common sense" then those things wouldn't be as prevalent as they are.
To your second point: Apple exerts influence far beyond their consumers. Even though I'm sure this isn't news to you, I'll still point you toward some interesting articles:
https://proton.me/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
Much of this is invisible to the typical resident of the walled garden, but they actually cause a lot of harm to society because of their market dominance. Anybody with a small child is probably aware of the harmful effects of the "dreaded green bubbles" (I'm sure people will try to counter this point with claims that iMessage is somehow more secure / more functional than other protocols. I invite those people to do some research first. I think you'd be surprised at the gulf between your own understanding of iMessage's security vs. reality).
This assumes my problem is with Facebook and Facebook alone. My problem is with ad-tech and more generally all other developers. I know Apple exersts influence beyond their customers and I'm not sympathetic to developers who cry about Apple not letting them run $program.
What the web has shown is that given a free-for-all platform, users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web. Apple has provided an option that, sure is a walled garden, but I can be reasonably confident isn't doing something I'm not interested in.
I'm not sure what "harmful effects" of green bubbles are but I'm sure envy isn't as bad as every ad tech company having an NSA style citizen database.
You don't have to be sympathetic to developers. By sympathetic to yourself. Apple stifling competition and charging exorbitant rents absolutely harms you as a consumer.
Yes, Apple is fricking expensive. Yes, I'd prefer if they would offer something at cheaper price points. Yes, I'd prefer if they were forced to provide better-than-mediocre software. Yes, I'd prefer if there would be access in case things don't work, for me to fix stuff myself and not just shrug and try again. BUT they are still without a reasonable competitor that manages to even meet their bar in quality. And yes, that makes them comfortable enough to behave stupidly and in (more or less) open ignorance of anticompetitive regulations. However making their offering _worse_ is not helping _me_! Demonstrate a similar amount of customer safety and we can talk about mandating that also for Apple. But thanks but no thanks if the best we can hope for is AndroidII
Please point to me where these harms are.
It's not about the user - it's about developers getting to do whatever they want. It's about _developers_ complaining that they can't use whatever APIs to track me. This is the same thing Facebook says when Apple rolled out opt in tracking. It was stifling facebook and it harms the facebook user experience. Can you give me an example how as a _user_ I am harmed? Replace facebook for anyone of your favorite DMPs.
Where is this competition on Android? Surely on Android there is a robust market of apps that aren't an exercise in how much fingerprintable data can they siphon off? Is the harm that I can no longer sell my data for a free flashlight app? Or is it just handwaving "harms"? It just seems on Android, there is no stifling of important industries like mobile location data.
No its not. Dont just make up stuff.
Perhaps without Apple taking the 30% cut, and with the possibility of new app stores that are designed differently from the current App Store, the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front.
Rather than the current situation that is a race to the bottom as the majority apps are free or freemium, supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.
> users lose and any new technology is used to fingerprint people on the web
User data tracking is also of great concern to regulators. I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data. Those app stores will still be subject to regulation, even if it's not Apple's own oversight.
>supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes.
This is like some cruel joke. Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous and some future system will have some pass savings onto consumers. Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. In fact what I do see are developers, like Epic, pushing their stores so they can charge you whenever you want for vbucks. Like where is this software utopia on Android if it's so important? Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.
Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
>I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data.
My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
Please provide your own proofs that the future would not be in this way. Prior to this change, the 30% cut was mandatory. Tomorrow, it won't be only the game in town. That alone shows that the future is at least one step towards a different app economy from the status quo. That alone changes things.
> 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about.
But it opens up the opportunity for such a thing to arise. Someone can choose to create an app discovery platform like AppGratis or Chomp, to create new app catalog perhaps more targeted and organized than the current sprawl that is the existing App Store. The point is this change allows the possibility to arise, as well as the economics to shift. At the very least, this will lead to disruption of the status quo. That will breed opportunity and innovation.
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile.
How have third party app stores made things any more hostile on Android? There is literally no competing Meta user data collection ap store there.
> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
Users need developers, as much as developers need users. Anti-developer sentiment is puzzling. If you want Apple to build everything themselves, then close the platform entirely, allow only web apps (as Jobs intended), and let Apple Sherlock the entire App Store.
> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
GDPR was just the start, and further regulation on both sides of the Atlantic is in progress. Do you really think of all of this was meant to attack Apple specifically? Big Tech is under the crossfires by multiple regions, multiple nations, multiple political parties.
This one is honestly difficult to respond to. I encourage you to donate 30% of your next paycheck to charity. It would be a good deed and would illustrate for you how much 30% is in a better way than I ever could.
> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way
Another stumper. I don't usually claim to have proof about the future. I suppose you'll just have to use common sense here.
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile
This I just find confusing. Where is the hostility in offering users choice? If your whole point is that nobody would use a 3rd-party app store, then why does this regulation even concern you in the first place? You don't have to use one! Just stick to the App Store and let other people do what they want, then thank them for providing the competition that ends up forcing Apple to lower their fees.
> Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them.
Actually, it's about competition, which is indeed something long considered essential to a healthy economy.
> My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this.
Ok, I'll come clean. I work for a big tech company. We had to overhaul a ton of services to comply with GDPR and I honestly believe our customers are better off because of it. GDPR did not magically fix all the problems in tech, but it's a big improvement.
> the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy
This level of cynicism is just so difficult to navigate. Are you saying Apple can or cannot be trusted? I much prefer to enable fair competition so that the best platform can actually emerge. Whether that's Apple or not, if users value privacy and the market is fair, they will be able to find it.
More than a decade using Android, and another decade using the then-free Internet before that, I have never thought that having more choice was ever, ever user-hostile.
The proposition is so delirious for anyone who lived the early phases of the Internet that it defies interpretation.
Build operating system level controls that function regardless of app source?
"Better with the app" shows in a bunch of places alongside a "accidentally broken" suggestion bar whose "X" doesn't work.
Messenger refuses to work on the web and requires you to download the app, unless you pretend to be a desktop browser.
Source: I refused to install Facebook's app while on Android and had to use the intentionally slowed-down and crashy web version. (on a flagship processor)
Can you please show me how you managed to make this happen? I just browsed to Facebook and the top banner takes me to the Play store.
I would be VERY surprised if facebook forced users to go into the special apps access settings page and enable installing apks. That's a power user feature.
No idea what they're doing with the data but there's no other way to fly your drone.
Notably, most of the non-technical users I am acquainted with manage to use Windows, which will also let you install any software package you want if you click continue on the warning.
We are not in 2010s. That does not happen. And when that happens, its because the users explicitly chose to do it in order to access certain things.
For example, it’s possible to modify the Mach-O link loader on a compiled app like DoorDash to use a fake Apple Pay API that steals credit card numbers. But it’s very difficult to get that scammy app installed on an unsuspecting victim’s device. And it’s impossible to upload to the App Store. Third party App Store? No problem.
More unsubstantiated claims
> Third party App Store? No problem.
Nonsense.
Giving people choice does not mean opening the floodgates to malware. You can disable sideloading apps by default, but also enable them upon explicit user request. You can call it a "I'm a responsible adult" button.
You don't need walled gardens for this. A sensible safe default with a pathway to disabling it is sufficient.
You can't restrict choice for everyone just because a couple of tech-illiterate folks might make bad choices. It's silly and soon also illegal.
And despite repeated claims of the loud and ignorant, you can side load to an iPhone without jail break. it does require a mere $100 a year and handful of terminal commands, but possible if you’re determined.
I’m willing to belabor your last point: the floodgates can open if all the restrictions are relaxed. One very dangerous system call[0] stands between Webkit and your choice of any browser engine. It’s not clear to me on a technical level if allowing that freedom to exploit by one app prevents any app from exploiting.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Sy...
Now provide the statistics for it.
You have not demonstrated that this is a serious and widespread problem. People have been sideloading for years without getting overrun with malware.
I use both platforms daily. I’ve been working on smartphones since they’ve existed. I live and breathe them. Android has some great upsides, but security is definitely not one of them. Six years ago at a previous employer we had cardboard boxes full of completely bricked android phones from the Triada Trojan.[0] I have never seen anything like that on an iPhone. I can’t even recall witnessing a bricked iPhone (sans hw failure), but I won’t deny the possibility.
[0]https://www.google.com/amp/s/usa.kaspersky.com/blog/triada-t...
Just a cursory search shows things haven’t improved much since:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32154294
Apple even have the copy for it signed off by Steve Jobs.
“Are you sure you want to open the application ‘Monkey Ball’ from the developer ‘Sega’?”
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/21043913-2008-may-...
https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...
How will the Instagram app evade iOS's security measures if it's sideloaded?
I know it's a complicated concept to understand, but we have multiple sets of laws that are aimed at punishing exactly what you're saying. The DMA passing doesn't mean ePrivacy or GDPR is gone.
The hardware scene is, in practice, quite monopolistic. This is especially true nowadays that Apple’s chips are vastly outcompeting others. I don’t know if this is because of some nefarious schemes or not, but even if it is a natural monopoly, it’s still a monopoly that might take years to be undone.
There is no reason to extend this hardware monopoly to software as well though. Apple can enjoy their great margin on their hardware, without also controlling everyone’s most intimate devices.
But in the specific case of iphones, the argument is made that giving rational level-headed adults the freedom to associate with the software they wish would imperil children and the elderly, and you don't have to look far to find somebody arguing that that risk outweigh any other consideration. If this belief were likely to be limited to iphones I wouldn't really care, I'd simply not buy an iphone. But I fear special-case exceptions don't stay that way forever, and I fear Apple's style of paternalism (which is very profitable) will inevitably spread and become difficult if not impossible to avoid unless stomped out soon.
Societies have long accepted that things like medical treatments have to be prescribed by an expert, and some societies have even decided that healthy people can be forced to have medical treatments even against their will (i.e. vaccines).
My hope is that we are just in a temporary phase, where society has learnt how to transmit information freely but not how to reliably transmit trust. If the reputations of software developers and medical practitioners could be established without corporate or government monopolies, then society might get past this local minimum and into a more stable state.
Then we should apply the regulator brakes immediately, as hard as possible. If the threat new technology poses to society is so great as that, then we should regulate those technologies, possibly to the point of strangulation.
Ancient Roman urban legend: An inventor came to the Emperor to show off a new material, unbreakable glass. He showed the Emperor a glass chalice and threw it to the floor. Instead of shattering it merely bent, and the inventor bent it back into shape with a hammer. The emperor was very impressed, then ordered for the inventor to be killed. Unshatterable glass was very nice, but it wasn't worth the social and economic disruption it might cause.
I am not that Roman emperor. What I support is the regulation of business practices, not technology itself. But if you (and Ted Kaczynski, for he has argued the same) are right and the threat to society comes from the technology, then we can regulate the technology as well.
Regulation of technology to reduce risk to society will just make competing part of society you have no influence on to dominate. And you lose on both fronts - technology domination, and ability to control it in the future.
You'll have to dig deep into nth order effects to justify such regulation imperiling national defense, essentially tea leaf reading.
If we reach a point as a society that we decide we have too much freedom, we should absolutely never let it be regulated by corps with such a perverse incentive.
It is a difficult conundrum as freedom is definitely something I value, but I think freedom may not be the best solution in a world without legal consequences for those abusing that freedom to take advantage of others.
Freedom with no guidelines to prevent use of that freedom to abuse others is not real freedom
I don't understand how people didn't realize this over the last couple of years.
We are not qualified to have opinions on a lot of things we do have opinions on.
One day I'm reading in my room and the lights flicker and I hear a yalp from the living room. I go out to investigate and I can smell the magic smoke (not weed, electrical) and the roomie is standing there with a screwdriver and a spooked look on her face.
It transpires that she wanted to move a certain bookshelf to a certain spot and have it flush against the wall, but it was blocked by a little external electrical outlet. It was an old house, you see, (old for the West Coast that is) and when it was electrified they didn't both to run the wires through the walls. Instead they ran little conduits along the baseboards and mounted external socket blocks so we could plug in lamps, etc. One of these external electric sockets boxes was in the way of the bookshelf.
You can see where this is going?
She got a screwdriver and tried to remove the electric socket box without turning off the circuit. The flickering lights were when she shorted the circuit with the screwdriver and made the magic smoke come out.
Fortunately she wasn't hurt, just startled.
Now this person was in her fifties! How the hell to you get to be fifty years old and not know how electricity works!? And yet she felt confident that she knew how cities and countries should be run.
I think there are at least two points here:
1.) We have already made the world more complicated than the average person can understand. Computers are like pouring fuel on that fire, but it's been burning for a while now.
2.) People can be really stupid and ignorant and yet feel like they know what's going on and what to do about it.
I think the obvious though perhaps unpleasant conclusion is that we should look to radical simplification in all areas, and treat complexity as something that should be budgeted, treated as an expense and necessary evil.
Shtty American education system? Which so gimps anything that is non-profitable and makes anything that is worth studying so expensive that people live without access to knowledge?
The US is the only country where it is needed to put 'dont microwave your cat' on Microwaves and other dumb sht.
So no.
The 'dumb sh't is not that actual Marxist is doing. Trying to change that situation in which education costs an arm and a leg and people have to struggle.
The dumb sht is people like you talking as if her being a Marxist was a bad thing all the way at the start of your 'arguments', giving an example from something which should be a damning condemnation of your system and the mentality that you espouse. Because those are what keep you still mired in knee-deep sh*t - reaching all the way to a point where you have an entire population segment that believes the earth is flat and plans on taking your country 200 years back.
But hey. Suit yourself. Its natural selection.
I'm not going to defend the US education system, it's been BS ever since I was forced to attend as a child and it hasn't gotten better from what I hear.
This person wasn't dumb because she wanted to make things better. The actual strategies employed were dumb, just ego-aggrandizement, and ineffective.
In re: Marx and Marxists I don't actually know much about it, but I also don't think much of economics in general.
I pointed out her political affiliation not to pick on Marxists per se but to illustrate that this person had strident beliefs about social/economic/political organization despite not understanding that one must turn off the circuit breaker before re-wiring the house.
Have a good day friend.
RIP Democracy.
That doesn't happen.
WordPress have an open development ecosystem through themes and plugins. It runs up to 50% of all web sites on the planet right now, including many gigantic ones. (various CNN, Reuters services included).
That did not lead to such an environment as you speak. Instead, there materialized many independent theme and plugin developer outfits, rising into prominence just for providing good software and having good reputation. And they have been half of the reason why WordPress now constitutes 50% of all web sites.
Open Source has been similar in general too - various high-reputation outfits dominate each field without curbing choice.
I find the EU imposing these conditions, under threat of force, on Apple that sells a product that people are free to buy or not buy, much more paternalistic than anything Apple does.
The 'paternalistic Eu' is at least comprised of officials appointed through democratically elected parliamentarians.
What kind of democratic powre does the public have in the decisions that Apple takes?
What has the result of 'free market' mechanics been, other than increasingly dominate people's lives to maximize profit all the way to reducing their phone's performance just at the right time when a new version is going out to force them to upgrade?
There are 27 countries you can freely move between. If you work in one and move to another your pension gets rerouted when you retire.
There are only two phone ecosystems. If you buy something in the Apple ecosystem, you don't suddenly have it rerouted to Android if you move.
The EU isn't threatening force. It's a civil issue. Apple can just not sell in Europe. And even if Apple can't use force, it's a lot more authoritarian.
By whom? You are the first person I heard this from.
Anyway, this isn't really relevant to this regulation. People already get scammed on iPhones all the time. It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA.
> People already get scammed on iPhones all the time.
I disagree with this assertion. It's certainly far less than those getting scammed on Mac/PC.
> It's silly to think that anybody would be more vulnerable as a result of the DMA.
There's a failure in imagination here in all the ways that companies will take advantage of this to the severe detriment of users, often with the user being clueless on how much they're compromised. What's undeniable is that this regulation dramatically increases the surface area of ways to scam people.
Apple was enforcing some baseline of good behavior that developers no longer need to abide by. Apples subscription management is actually pretty consumer friendly, for example and I have to imagine plenty of companies are chomping at the bit to extract more money from shady tactics once they are no longer forced into decent behavior
Part of the regulation appears to require third-party apps to have the ability to use any APIs. Therefore, any malicious app will be able to present system dialogs that are (possibly) indistinguishable from official OS dialogs. This seems bad.
And yet we're consistently reminded that iOS's marketshare is globally small and that the macOS share is vanishingly small. Which is it?
You can then add a regulation that all popular social apps need a web version that is fully functional. If the OS should support the necessary web APIs for a good app experience, people can choose that instead.
Considering the app permissions are still controllable via the OS, I don’t see how the app can become “intrusive” anyway. Just deny it the unnecessary permissions.
Just like banks telling people they would never ask for their password/social security number. Works very well! /s
You’re not, even today. You can of course choose not to use an iPhone
How will that elderly and less tech savvy find and install another app store into their iPhone.
If they are not tech savvy enough to be able to decide something is scammy, they are not tech savvy enough to install a freaking app store in their phone.
> No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security.
No, Apple restricting your freedom does not afford you greater security.
You don't know anything about me. How can you possibly make the call on what makes me secure or not? Not being able to install malware... that is by definition more secure than being able to install malware.
> If you're not confident in your ability to tell shady from legit, just stick to the App Store.
No, you believe that other people who are not confident in their ability to tell shady from legit, can just stick to the App Store.
...but that's not true for some people. Some people make bad decisions. Lots of people make bad decisions. What you believe other people should be capable of, is your choice, but it's (clearly) wrong for a certain cohort of people.
> Don't demand that Apple treat the rest of us like children just because that's how you would like to be treated.
You may feel like you're being treated like a child because you are being prevented from doing what you consider to be something you should be entitled to do.
...but, other people feel differently.
You don't represent everyone. Your opinions are not shared by everyone.
> It blows my mind
...that other people have opinions. I know, it's astonishing.
Just because you (and I) personally will be positively affected by this change, doesn't mean everyone one will be. Does the positive benefit to us few outweigh the negative benefit to many others?
I don't know. I'm pretty worried about it. I think it's gonna to end up with a lot of bad things, for a lot of people, who aren't good at making decisions, especially when it relates to computers and other technical stuff.
Not being able to drive is also much safer than being able to drive.
Not having internet access is also much safer than having it.
Not getting out is also much safer than getting out.
Not being able to install malware is safer.
Maybe you should be able to, as an adult, decide to install it, or, as you say, decide to drive dangerously.
…but you can’t argue you aren’t safer if you choose not to drive (or install malware).
Driving is dangerous.
It’s safer to not be able to drive.
The argument the parent post made was that you are no safer not being able to drive.
Which is wrong. Categorically.
I, for one, don't want to waste my time being IT support for my entire family. That's the whole reason most of us prefer the walled garden of iOS. I don't care if it is as powerful a computer as a server from some 15 years ago, I WANT to treat it like an appliance, a friggin consumer device, I want to standardize it across my home and have some peace of mind.
If I want to hack, I have plenty of other devices at home or that I can buy that are far more adequate to this end.
For whatever reason, my dad cannot choose to not install shady software. Keeping him in iOS land is the only thing that has worked at keeping his devices clean.
You assume that everyone is as smart as you in figuring out which software is "shady software". Majority of the population have no clue and if the path to complying with this regulation is to drop the stance on security (regardless of existing issues with default security, as implemented today) further, well... good luck. Me and you maybe will not get tricked into installing some "shady app" but I'm looking forward to reading more about how people got hacked via their phone because they have installed "a bank app" from "appstore x" thinking that it was from "appstore y".
But apparently you, as an adult, can't choose to not buy Apple if you don't like their policies? Strange.
Interestingly, I think this can be used to argue either side.
You clearly do not play tech support to elderly family members, or have kids
Defenders have to win every time. Attackers only have to win once. That gives the attackers the advantage.
And it may not even directly be your fault. All you need is a flaw in any communications system that allows privilege escalation and code execution. Then you can be compromised by someone who just happens to be in the same room.
Now while this is true even now. It's even worse when every user can download and install whatever sketchware promises to mine dogecoins while the phone is idle for guaranteed returns of 100%. Because every other phone becomes a potential attack vector.