Android is not perfect, but at least I am able to, you know, use my phone as I see fit.
I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.
If I want a hackable pocket computer, I’ll buy a device specifically for that purpose. Or pay the rather minimal fee. (Edit: If needed.)
2. OP was talking about loading apps on his/her OWN phone. Apple could offer some “OS variant” or some settings for people like OP while the default is closed for people like you. This doesn’t seem mutually exclusive technically — it’s probably just not in apple business best interests.
It's not increasing the surface area in terms of system complexity; the OS is already checking signatures to create this barrier to general purpose computing in the first place.
If you don't want the additional key, you skip the step, to be never asked again until you factory wipe+reset the device.
Your listed wants and the freedom to run your own software are not mutually exclusive.
This basically prevents any user friendly third party app store, but also allows users to, you know, use the device like they own it.
But I thought there was some ability to load apps without a developer account? Am I wrong? I've always just purchased the account because I was getting paid and wanted to show some professionalism but I thought there was a workaround.
For most people, they couldn’t care what happens to their computer. Not everyone is the same, but it’s not an uncommon situation.
So security for the phone is more important for some people than computer security.
For a lot of humans, their phone is their ‘computer’. Especially for services like banks and government agencies. It’s important for them to be secure in a way that pcs have a hard time being
And that is precisely why you need control of your device, and not hand it over to some third-party, especially a corporate who has a vested interest to make as much money as possible from you, with the very data that you seek to protect! Would you really even be happy if some other third-party, like your government, took over this role of acting as your device's protectorate and let them decide on locking / controlling your device to "protect" you?
This argument of "it's for your own good, because people are stupid" is quite weak even if we ignore how this so called "high security" offered by locking down hasn't prevented new jailbreaking techniques to keep surfacing. If you understand security concepts and attack surfaces, then you do know there are technical ways to lock down a device and still give complete control over this to the user.
Apple today has the ability to remote delete and wipe out all your personal data and lock you out of your device. There are no laws or regulations to prevent this. How is that in any way acceptable?
People don't understand that our right to privacy protects us from becoming easy and vulnerable political targets. It is essential to provide us a sense of security that is essential for our mental well-being ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as the US constitution puts it very simply). You may be a minority - a gay person or ethnic / religious / linguistic etc - and even if you live in a healthy democracy, you can be subject to light prejudice. Can you really feel secure if a Google search or a facial recognition software reveals everything about your identity to a stranger or a person in authority who can politically abuse it? Obviously, No. And this is not just confined to minorities. Even the majority community does experience anxiety and insecurity in a foreign or multi-cultural environment (a popular political saying in India is that everyone becomes a minority when they step out of their community). That sense of personal security and belonging can only come if you have a right of privacy and are in control of how much of your personal identity you want to reveal to someone. Democracies exist to protect minority rights. And everyone of us, sometime feel like a vulnerable minority because of some part of our identity. Without a right to privacy, our democracy fails us.
It wasn't (and isn't) well publicized. But "side load to your phone is hard" is a way to lock it away from your grandparents and to power users only.
Thing is, I use the app a lot. It's very unique and has no competition because it fills an extremely narrow niche. Side loading it has worked for several years on several increasingly newer phones.
I'm not sure if that's exactly what your question is about, but I think it might be.
When we reach 128-bit architecture, that app will fail. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.
And don’t mind re-installing the app every 7 days by connecting your phone to Xcode and installing again or it will expire and stop working… And yes there is wireless connectivity to Xcode, but it’s still extra work, especially if the app itself can deploy using JS in-app updates.
So yep, you can do it. Technically. But the first time my app “expired”, I went and bought the subscription again. It’s waaaay too annoying if you actually want to use an app to use the free edition. The free edition is for, like, class projects maybe. Not apps you actually want to build and use.
Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.
I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad company.
I believe I have a good balance. A free for all on one hand and a locked down device on the other. I personally like this balance and don’t see a compelling reason as to why I should change anything.
P.S. I know the iPhone and the review process won’t eliminate the risks all together. It just needs to improve my chances which it does for me effectively.
The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down.
Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it?
It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.
What if I copy my data to two portable devices? Do you now see the flaw in your reasoning?