> Because if iOS didn't prohibit installation of apps from anywhere but it's app store then this would be much less problematic.
I love Android and I love the fact that I can sideload apps from f-droid or elsewhere. But I've seen firsthand that (by children, e.g.) sideloading apps can result in a cascade of horrible device security problems.
We can blame the user or we can save them from themselves. shrug this seems like a genuinely hard problem and I wish there was an android-but-requires-several-command-line-adb-steps-to-permit-sideloading.
In any case, I don't think Apple's decision is strictly motivated by "being able to take a 30% cut". Apple has shown a commitment to security in their public statements and their devices' design. However, I'll grant that profit was certainly part of the motivation.
> We can blame the user or we can save them from themselves. shrug this seems like a genuinely hard problem and I wish there was an android-but-requires-several-command-line-adb-steps-to-permit-sideloading.
Or we could just take the time tested solution from the desktop world and you could give your kids non-admin accounts that doesn't let them install random stuff. The android security model is nothing but security theater in practice.
> We can blame the user or we can save them from themselves. shrug this seems like a genuinely hard problem and I wish there was an android-but-requires-several-command-line-adb-steps-to-permit-sideloading.
I don't. It should be available to non-technical users. It needs to be available to non-technical users. If anything, Android is too complex already.
>I don't. It should be available to non-technical users. It needs to be available to non-technical users.
Why should it be available to non-technical users? What will they possibly gain from being able to be tricked into installing a keylogger on their phone?
I don't think it's a given that full permissions on a device imply that a user will be able to run their device the way they want to. Permissions are necessary but insufficient. The other part is knowledge and ability. With permission but not knowledge, the user experience gets worse not better.
No, but the user will be able to run their device in the way that they want to. I'm not supporting no protections, but you should always let the user override those protections at the end of the day if they so choose.
I love Android and I love the fact that I can sideload apps from f-droid or elsewhere. But I've seen firsthand that (by children, e.g.) sideloading apps can result in a cascade of horrible device security problems.
We can blame the user or we can save them from themselves. shrug this seems like a genuinely hard problem and I wish there was an android-but-requires-several-command-line-adb-steps-to-permit-sideloading.
In any case, I don't think Apple's decision is strictly motivated by "being able to take a 30% cut". Apple has shown a commitment to security in their public statements and their devices' design. However, I'll grant that profit was certainly part of the motivation.