Until you will be able to install an alternative marketplace without an Apple account (a la browser-downloaded F-Droid .apk) I cannot find a purpose to this, especially since you cannot publish the same app on multiple marketplaces
On the other hand, it would be very cool to also be able to avoid companies like DJI forcing sideloading of their heavily obfuscated app [0], as is currently the deal on Android.
Is there a way to accomplish both?
I don’t like the situation with Apple, but I also am concerned about the ability for alternatives to be … a net positive for the user.
Understandably we think of some good examples of folks acting in good faith but a lot of the people offering apps… won’t.
Ultimately users need to be able to deny apps permissions, based on what an app needs to do and how much a user wants to trust a company (by default, very little). Permissions need to be implemented such that apps are unaware they're being denied so they're unable to coerce users into enabling them. For example, "location access" needs to have the option of returning a virtual location that was set from a map.
> Is there a way to accomplish both?
I think so, but this sounds like a different problem. The problem here is a app that is required to operate a device bought by a EU consumer. EU can have additional regulations on such apps that are required for using all the capabilities of a purchased device that focuses on security and data governance.
None of this is currently possible. They pretended to have tackled some of it, but in reality it's gonna create just some very niche marketplace and say "hey look, you see, we made it possible". This is one of the biggest vendor lockins existing (for an app developer).
Big companies won't spend several billion $ just to make you download their free app (and let's not forget that reinstalling or updates count as a new download).