> Like everything in technology, you have a choice. If you want openness [...] you can purchase an Android or Windows device. Windows Phone is dead. And what h

> Like everything in technology, you have a choice. If you want openness [...] you can purchase an Android or Windows device. Windows Phone is dead. And what happens if Android decides to be like Apple and lock down sideloading more? There is nothing forcing them to continue allowing this "freedom of choice" for consumers if they decide it would be better for their bottom line. So, what would be the next best choice after Android in that scenario? Basically nothing, because smartphone operating systems are a duopoly. > So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market. I know many people (including Apple) prefer the iPhone ecosystem to be more locked down, but given the market realities (monopoly) it seems like a compromise would make more sense than forcing everyone to pay 30% and lose out on things like cloud gaming, emulation, "objectionable" content, etc. to cater to the lowest common denominator. A few possible compromises that Apple likely will never agree to without being forced to via regulation: - Apple could probably keep the singular App Store model, but lower their fee to closer to cost, add more types of parental controls and/or special "expert only" areas of the store. This way they are more of a neutral hosting platform that still enforces security via app review (frankly, if they had done this to begin with, people probably would have let the whole singular App Store thing slide). - Apple could allow alternate payment processors and let the user decide if they want the convenience of Apple Pay vs alternatives. This would let the market dictate the real value of their IAP infra. (Hell - at least let subscription apps link to their web site to purchase if they don't want to do IAP! This seems highly anti-competitive.) - Apple could allow federated third party app stores to enforce certain levels of spam and security prevention (even off the App Store) - if one of these trusted third party app stores falls short in terms of security they get removed. - Apple could just go the Android route and allow sideloading, but put it behind a ton of warnings etc. Continued investment in app sandboxing and permission prompts for each and every app would already do a lot to cut down on straight-up malware. Phishing, scams, etc. are already an issue for iPhone users in the browser or email clients (plus we've seen these kinds of things on the App Store as well), so user education on how to deal with these things is already unavoidable. I think it's fair for us as consumers to demand more from Apple and want both security and freedom with reasonable tradeoffs.