> the difference is not whether it’s theoretically possible but whether it’s easy and thus widespread. That’s the important distinction and it deserves more car

> the difference is not whether it’s theoretically possible but whether it’s easy and thus widespread. That’s the important distinction and it deserves more careful thought when you’re talking about devices large percentages of the population trust heavily. Apple can allow sideloading without making it easy. This whole discussion is about whether or not Apple can craft a user experience that carefully balances between permitting users to use a powerful and potentially insecure ability, and carefully warning them against it, warning off those who are not savvy. I believe they can. > Similarly, this deserves more careful thought: is the difference the color or the fact that one which isn’t controlled by the phone companies is faster, more capable, more secure and cost less for years? I believe it's self-evident. The appearance of the different UI itself, which clashes against Apple's otherwise uniform design scheme, presents its own inherent psychological friction. Certainly, non-Messages apps come with certain poorer performances in Messages. The way group chats get broken up. The inability to respond to Messages. None of that has anything to do with phones being faster, more capable, or more secure. The difference in of itself is created by the users drawing the distinction in their own minds. Similarly, I believe if Apple was to curate the sideloading experience, the majority of iPhone users can simply be guided away from that. And it will remain safely the province of developers and power users. Apple is simply too good at crafting user experiences to not be able to do that.