Tim Cook rails against """bad privacy regulation & sideloading""" in keynote speech

[Elijah Kamski]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Do I believe that there will be exploding iphones because someone's grandchild sideloaded a pirate copy of something? No. The problem is when that same device "is trusted" and then it controls something like the HVAC, or worse, medical devices.

I think this is where I have to point out that this is a possibility with all devices and there will always be risks.

The best thing we should do is not to limit functionality that could be used for good like side loading, but instead proactive steps should be taken to mitigate those potential issues from happening.

[Elijah Kamski]

3 hours ago, jaypro said:

 

Here is an example why you would fight against it even if you were not planning on ever side-loading.

 

Side load allowed.  Someone makes a modified Candy Crush app with unlimited lives.  Impacts their bottom line, since some people will stop paying micro transaction for extra lives.  Their solution? Lives are now stored server side, and Candy Crush is now an always-online game.

If side-loading becomes mainstream, I can see many games with shift towards always-online DRM methods to combat this.  You can see all the DRM on desktop.

 

This now impacts people who never intended on side loading anything.

 

Sideload blocking is kind of a universal DRM in that way.

 

Note that, I am still overall indecisive on my overall stance on this, just thought I'd add a non-security related example.

Not really, online hacks exist for games that are server sided already.

It would just be a matter of time really before those hacks are developed.

[RejZoR]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

We already do talk about this, don't pretend or act like people do not do this. There can be many conversations about many different things, different conversations don't make the other ones not exist.

 

If it's ultimately inconsequential then why fight against it? Why would Apple fight against it? If you have to go in to a sub menu of a menu, enable side-loading, accept security prompt then what is it to you, 99% of other iPhone users or Apple that you can do this? What's the actual issue? You just said there isn't one so then what is the justification to prevent it? It requires more effort from Apple to prevent it than it does to allow it.

 

Something cannot be inconsequential if there is a consequence of allowing it, pick only one stance on this. You can't have it both ways.

 

Point to any legal president set in any jurisdiction where Microsoft has ever been liable to malware or viruses...

 

These made up things are very silly, problems like this don't exist because one says they could or do. Microsoft would be dead and buried if this were real, which it isn't.

I wasn't referring to malware, I was referring to piracy. Currently, piracy on iPhones is basically non existent and you're assured that all that you sell on App Store will be a sale, high Apple cuts or not (which aren't that high compared to everyone else to begin with). Good luck with that once sideloading is a thing. So, you're going to take high cuts and allow sideloading? People will pirate, especially countries like India where people are notorious for pirating everything possible and it's why they love Android so much. I don't care about any of it and iOS has been excellent tool to work with even in its current "limited" form. Which really isn't that limiting unless you want piracy and flashing fuck tons of really bad custom ROM's. I've left that far behind me and don't miss any of it when company supports devices for 3x longer than any Android phone brand anyway...

 

And then also malware. When did you last seen one on an iPhone? And it build a reputation around that and it's not a made up one.

[Elijah Kamski]

1 hour ago, jaypro said:

but the phone doesn't come out the box with side loading enabled.

I think Android has Google Play Protect, making it seem scary to disable in the eyes of the average non-tech savvy consumer.

2 hours ago, jaypro said:

the company obviously won't sit around and do nothing about it.

Competition will occur in the market.

 

2 hours ago, jaypro said:

So I think anyone that wants to benefit from the economical advantages of sideloading, should want side-loading to stay where it is.. Niche, but not impossible.  So that if you really want to, you can do it, but its not stupid-easy where now its popular and companies work against it.

Ummm... side loading would always be beneficial really. The benefit is to us of course.

[RejZoR]

GooglePlay Protect is a garbage joke. It has been tested numerous times and it performed horrendously badly. We're talking 30% detection rate where dedicated antiviruses for Android scored 99-100%...

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

I cant believe  someone is actually pulling the "thats different" card unironically…

And also everything (99%) is "piracy"?

 

So lets check, here are my sideloaded apps:

 

AppGallery

NHK World

BookWalker

bilibili

.

 

… absolutely nothing to do with "piracy" but all with "availability"… 

 

I'm absolutely sure you have some emulator on that device, because everyone with an unlocked device always touts how they can play SNES games on them. Just look at what happens with, at all the "gaming" devices that Anthony reviews.

 

Like sure Anthony might actually be one of the few people who just owns this stuff because it's neat when it works, but the average person who buys these these are only looking to play pirated games. After all, where are you going to get new games from? At least Analogue has the pretense for that these devices are aren't meant to play pirated games, they also don't try to stop you from using flash carts either. Everyone else? They basically put pirated games in their marketing.

 

That's the selling point of sideloading. It's primarily for piracy, and if a device platform is "easy" to sideload software that the user themselves has not written, then it's going to be abused for that purpose, and you'll see more games run entirely server-sided a-la Stadia, and software like Office require always-on internet access because they can't rely on the users to be honest.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Now that's just a contradiction right there. You pointed to Apple's success as an indicator that the walled garden approach is good. And you and others have said that the reason they point people towards iOS is the walled garden and its better security and smaller possibility of user-induced headaches thanks to the heavy reliance on guardrails that prohibit massive problems due to user error (as the guy in charge of our company iPhones, let me tell you, I still have plenty of headaches thanks to our users, but that's a story for another time).

 

And yet conversely, Windows is somehow successful and great exactly because of the absence of those very same guardrails? You simply can't have it both ways, which is why I'm continuing to ask people about this discrepancy. You can't say Windows is great for giving users a lot of freedom and allowing them to run any code they want and iOS is great for restricting users and not allowing them to run any code they want. Why does pointing out this ideological inconsistency baffle you?

 

DRM is already at 100% on iOS. Don't pretend the App store isn't DRM, that'd be disingenuous.

I don't see how Windows being successful and ios being successful is contradictory. They are clearly different products and people value different things about them. It's like a console vs gaming PC. A gaming PC is objectively way more open than a console that is locked down but as a result a gaming pc is much more complicated than a console. With a console you can essentially just put in the game and start playing without having to mess with any of the settings and you should get decent performance. This is possible because it's locked down and the settings are mostly locked down. But some like to have more options so they would rather have a gaming PC and be able mess with the settings to get the exact settings they like. So you can see how one platform is locked down while another is fairly open yet both are successful but for opposite reasons. 

[HRD]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

If it's ultimately inconsequential then why fight against it? Why would Apple fight against it? If you have to go in to a sub menu of a menu, enable side-loading, accept security prompt then what is it to you, 99% of other iPhone users or Apple that you can do this? What's the actual issue? You just said there isn't one so then what is the justification to prevent it? It requires more effort from Apple to prevent it than it does to allow it.

 

 I think it is a consumer choice. Every business model has its pros and cons. By changing iOS we will have only one choice. Making side-loading optional doesn’t really work. companies like Facebook will force you to go to their website and download instagram from their so they can bypass the privacy features. + we will have to deal with exclusives. If you want the new game or app turn on that option and download our store. you cannot have all the apps for your phone on one safe store. if I want side-loading, I would go with android.

 

 

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's entirely fine by me. I don't care if a device manufacturer cuts off access to their services if I decided I want to enable side-loading on my device. But that is predicated on the fact that I have the ability to enable it in the first place. Which I don't have in many instances. And no, just because there are exploits that enable you to hack a device to run unsigned code doesn't count, this stuff needs to be available by the manufacturer itself. Mind you, not enabled by default, just available. 

why did you buy a device that doesn't support a feature that you want/need in the first place?

don't make it like apple just changed how the iPhone works and you bought it thinking it allows side-loading. iOS has been a walled garden from the start for 14+ years and people buy it. in fact, it has the highest loyalty rate so iPhone users either don't want or care about side-loading.

 

 

 

 

source

https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/28/iphone-loyalty-rate-data-switchers/

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, HRD said:

 Making side-loading optional doesn’t really work. companies like Facebook will force you to go to their website and download instagram from their so they can bypass the privacy features.

 

 

It's facebook's platform therefore if they want you to side load it rather than use the official app store version then you can still decide if you want to use it or not.  

 

Oh wait a minute, the "their platform their rules" only applies to apple.

[Avocado Diaboli]

24 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I don't see how Windows being successful and ios being successful is contradictory. They are clearly different products and people value different things about them. It's like a console vs gaming PC. A gaming PC is objectively way more open than a console that is locked down but as a result a gaming pc is much more complicated than a console. With a console you can essentially just put in the game and start playing without having to mess with any of the settings and you should get decent performance. This is possible because it's locked down and the settings are mostly locked down. But some like to have more options so they would rather have a gaming PC and be able mess with the settings to get the exact settings they like. So you can see how one platform is locked down while another is fairly open yet both are successful but for opposite reasons. 

It's contradictory because you tried to insinuate that Apple's walled garden approach is justified by its popularity. You can't then turn around and claim Windows' popularity is justified by its lack thereof. You can't prove both things with diametrically opposed reasoning, regardless of form factor or use case. This ties into my next point.

 

24 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are clearly different products and people value different things about them. It's like a console vs gaming PC. A gaming PC is objectively way more open than a console that is locked down but as a result a gaming pc is much more complicated than a console. With a console you can essentially just put in the game and start playing without having to mess with any of the settings and you should get decent performance. This is possible because it's locked down and the settings are mostly locked down. But some like to have more options so they would rather have a gaming PC and be able mess with the settings to get the exact settings they like. So you can see how one platform is locked down while another is fairly open yet both are successful but for opposite reasons. 

And I would still argue that I have the right to run whatever I want on a console that is legally mine.

 

Here's the thing, I'm not arguing from a real-world practical standpoint of how well the App store, the Google Play store or the Microsoft store, side-loading or installing software on Windows work as they are now, I'm arguing from how things should be. If I own a device, I should be able to run whatever I want on it. You can argue that most users would be better off with a locked down phone with curated content that prohibits users from running whatever they want. And I would agree, with the caveat that the option should still be ultimately left to the user. But as long as you don't follow through logically and also conclude that Windows and even Linux would be better off with a curated store that disallows users to run whatever they want in the name of security and combating piracy, you are not being ideologically consistent and you're making arbitrary distinctions where there are none. My belief on the other hand is consistent, I don't mind curated app stores and a default experience but I also want to have the ability to do whatever I want with any device I own. You decide on a whim where you want to reserve the ability to do what you want or cede control to your OS manufacturer and you seem to be making up reasons and defenses as you go along. And you or anybody else arguing from that position have yet to explain your reasoning beyond "it's different, one's a phone, one's a PC" without actually meaningfully elaborating why that distinction matters. Ultimately, they're both computers in every sense of the word. 

 

18 minutes ago, HRD said:

why did you buy a device that doesn't support a feature that you want/need in the first place?

don't make it like apple just changed how the iPhone works and you bought it thinking it allows side-loading. iOS has been a walled garden from the start for 14+ years and people buy it. in fact, it has the highest loyalty rate so iPhone users either don't want or care about side-loading.

First off, I didn't buy one. I own one because my work mandates it and paid for it. Second, don't put words into my mouth. I never implied that this is a recent change by Apple. You're arguing from a status quo as if that was a decent explanation for why side-loading shouldn't be a thing on iOS at all. You're not making a compelling case. I'm just saying that fundamentally I believe Apple and everybody else should open up their devices and let users decide what they want to run on them. For one, I paid for that computing ability and I damn well reserve the right to use it however I see fit. For two, even with Apple's excellent track record of keeping their devices alive for longer than everybody else, it's still a route that would allow for further use of these devices if the manufacturer decides to end official support. 

[Kroon]

16 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy. Saying "Apple bad because no let me steal" is stupid at best, even with a larger vocabulary.

 

If there is two different program with same functionality where one of them is free to use it must be piracy? 

 

If sideloading on iPhone was a thing I might actually buy one next time.  But if I change today I would loose a lot of functionality on my headset, I would be forced to start using the remote controller to my TV and stop flying my drones.  This are just a few quick things I know of right now.  I also _think_ there is some problem with remote connect to wifi storage to directly/live save drone footage to drive. This might have been fixed since last time I checked.

 

So yes there is a lot of examples where normal users would benefit from sideloading without being pirates.

[HRD]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's facebook's platform therefore if they want you to side load it rather than use the official app store version then you can still decide if you want to use it or not.  

 

Oh wait a minute, the "their platform their rules" only applies to apple.

It is Facebook’s platform and they can choose to remove their app from the store. If you want them you have to use a browser.

 

Oh wait a minute, Facebook is afraid they gonna lose their market dominance as alternative native apps will fill the gap quickly.

 

 

[darknessblade]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's facebook's platform therefore if they want you to side load it rather than use the official app store version then you can still decide if you want to use it or not.  

 

Oh wait a minute, the "their platform their rules" only applies to apple.

 

Well let me give you the ultimate nuke That nobody seems to have mentioned yet In anything Negative about APPLE.

 

MY DEVICE, MY RULES.

------

Not forgetting, the DMA regulations, which will force Manufactures to allow things like Sideloading:

 

The EU Legislators will also LOVE to tear Tim Cook a new one for his statements about "Sideloading".

 

[jaypro]

2 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

Not really, online hacks exist for games that are server sided already.

It would just be a matter of time really before those hacks are developed.

That’s not the point.

 

It’s the slight inconvenience or hurdle that they rely on.

 

I’m pretty sure right now, you can just change your system clock for to refill lives…but that’s too annoying enough to users that they will just pay $ for more lives.

 

Infinite life mod candy crush is already a thing.  It’s the first result on a google search.

https://apkmody.io/games/candy-crush-saga

 

If this becomes too commonplace/mainstream.. They will kill it.  One way or another.  Just like YT Vanced.

 

Consoles and smartphones right now mainly rely on controlled system environment DRM.

PCs and Macs and other desktops have a heavier reliance of individual app based DRM.

 

I don’t think this is enough of a reason to block all side loading, but it is a valid argument against it nonetheless.

 

[HRD]

43 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

First off, I didn't buy one. I own one because my work mandates it and paid for it. Second, don't put words into my mouth. I never implied that this is a recent change by Apple. You're arguing from a status quo as if that was a decent explanation for why side-loading shouldn't be a thing on iOS at all. You're not making a compelling case. I'm just saying that fundamentally I believe Apple and everybody else should open up their devices and let users decide what they want to run on them. For one, I paid for that computing ability and I damn well reserve the right to use it however I see fit. For two, even with Apple's excellent track record of keeping their devices alive for longer than everybody else, it's still a route that would allow for further use of these devices if the manufacturer decides to end official support. 

“Here, centralized app distribution and the “walled garden” approach differentiates Apple from Google. That distinction ultimately increases consumer choice by allowing users who value open distribution to purchase Android devices, while those who value security and the protection of a “walled garden” to purchase iOS devices. This, too, is a legitimate procompetitive justification.”

“Since then, security and privacy have remained a competitive differentiator for Apple. Mr. Cook testified that privacy is “a very key factor, one of the top factors who people choose Apple.” The documents bear this out: internal surveys show that security and privacy was an important aspect of an iPhone purchasing decision for 50% to 62% of users in most countriesand over 70% in India and Brazil—and an important part of an iPad purchasing decision for 76% to 89% of users. Indeed, Mr. Sweeney himself owns an iPhone in part because of its better security and privacy than Android. Second, there is evidence that Apple’s restrictions benefit users. As noted above, many users value their iOS devices for their privacy and security. As the result of having a trusted app environment, users make greater use of their devices, including by storing sensitive data and downloading new apps. The witnesses are unanimous that user security and privacy are valid procompetitive justifications.”

 

epic v apple decision 

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, HRD said:

“Here, centralized app distribution and the “walled garden” approach differentiates Apple from Google. That distinction ultimately increases consumer choice by allowing users who value open distribution to purchase Android devices, while those who value security and the protection of a “walled garden” to purchase iOS devices. This, too, is a legitimate procompetitive justification.”

“Since then, security and privacy have remained a competitive differentiator for Apple. Mr. Cook testified that privacy is “a very key factor, one of the top factors who people choose Apple.” The documents bear this out: internal surveys show that security and privacy was an important aspect of an iPhone purchasing decision for 50% to 62% of users in most countriesand over 70% in India and Brazil—and an important part of an iPad purchasing decision for 76% to 89% of users. Indeed, Mr. Sweeney himself owns an iPhone in part because of its better security and privacy than Android. Second, there is evidence that Apple’s restrictions benefit users. As noted above, many users value their iOS devices for their privacy and security. As the result of having a trusted app environment, users make greater use of their devices, including by storing sensitive data and downloading new apps. The witnesses are unanimous that user security and privacy are valid procompetitive justifications.”

 

epic v apple decision 

How does any of that relate to anything I've written? Quoting random sections from a court ruling doesn't address a single thing I've argued up to this point.

[jaypro]

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

DRM is already at 100% on iOS. Don't pretend the App store isn't DRM, that'd be disingenuous.

Yeah its 100% DRM. 

 

Some App Store DRM benefits:

Developers don’t need to program their own into their apps.

Users don’t have to deal apps requiring always on connection.

 

Duolingo is another example of micro transaction for extra ‘lives’.

Obviously its not impossible to work around this.  But if it was super simple to install 

an infinite life mod for Duolingo, and becomes mainstream, it would certainly impact their revenue.

I would expect them to implement some DRM on their end, like a server-sided life counter.

Which would mean you could no longer use the app when you don’t have signal, like in a subway ride.

 

It’s just like the Xbox One original announcement.  With the always online DRM.  It’s not like discs aren’t a form of DRM.  They are, but they are different form with different restrictions, some better some worse.

 

[HRD]

56 minutes ago, HRD said:

I'm just saying that fundamentally I believe Apple and everybody else should open up their devices and let users decide

"Apple and everybody else should open up" I was responding to this. it will eliminate choices for consumers

[suicidalfranco]

Apple: "we focus on privacy"

Also Apple: removes privacy focused apps in select markets like China and gives access to it's server to governments like the Chinese one

 

Apple fanboys: "sideloading bad"

Also Apple fanboys: "jailbreak good"

[Avocado Diaboli]

27 minutes ago, HRD said:

"Apple and everybody else should open up" I was responding to this. it will eliminate choices for consumers

It doesn't, since side-loading is not mandatory. You still have the choice of only using the app store exclusively and never touch side-loading at all. You know, like that majority of people on Android do. If you value your security and want to minimize risks, stay within the ecosystem. You'd have to prove that allowing me to side-load an app puts you in an immediate increased risk, otherwise your argument doesn't hold any water.

[jaypro]

8 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It doesn't, since side-loading is not mandatory. You still have the choice of only using the app store exclusively and never touch side-loading at all. You know, like that majority of people on Android do. If you value your security and want to minimize risks, stay within the ecosystem. You'd have to prove that allowing me to side-load an app puts you in an immediate increased risk, otherwise your argument doesn't hold any water.

You may not only have the choice of using App Store.

The next big game could be a side load exclusive. And if you really want to play it, I don’t think many would be like .. “nah I won’t play it, I care too much about my security”

 

It doesn’t even have to be exclusive.  Companies would probably just offer a free skin or something if you side load versus thru the App Store.

 

And security is not limited to just your own phone.  Everyone who has your phone number in their contacts is a potential security risk to you. An unsecured phone can leak all their saved contact info.  Phone numbers, addresses, and more.

 

Anyone you talk to or communicate with, who has a compromised phone is a security risk to you.  Linus just went over a real world case with his wire transfer fraud.  His email wasn’t compromised, but the guy on the other end’s was.

[DANK_AS_gay]

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

if you do not wish to sideload no one is forcing you at gun point to do so…!

gain unauthorized access to a computer system

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, jaypro said:

You may not only have the choice of using App Store.

The next big game could be a side load exclusive. And if you really want to play it, I don’t think many would be like .. “nah I won’t play it, I care too much about my security”

 

It doesn’t even have to be exclusive.  Companies would probably just offer a free skin or something if you side load versus thru the App Store.

Funny how it's Apple's "their platform, their rules", but as soon as someone else gets to exert their rules for their games, that constitutes a problem.

 

3 minutes ago, jaypro said:

And security is not limited to just your own phone.  Everyone who has your phone number in their contacts is a potential security risk to you. An unsecured phone can leak all their saved contact info.  Phone numbers, addresses, and more.

 

Anyone you talk to or communicate with, who has a compromised phone is a security risk to you.  Linus just went over a real world case with his wire transfer fraud.  His email wasn’t compromised, but the guy on the other end’s was.

Well then you best delete the number and email contacts of everyone you know who isn't exclusively on Apple devices and if you're that paranoid maybe tell your friends to stop having your contact information saved somewhere altogether. Never mind that iOS has been the root cause of a number of user data leaks over the years. So yeah, not really feeling like that line is all that convincing either.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It's contradictory because you tried to insinuate that Apple's walled garden approach is justified by its popularity. You can't then turn around and claim Windows' popularity is justified by its lack thereof. You can't prove both things with diametrically opposed reasoning, regardless of form factor or use case. This ties into my next point.

 

And I would still argue that I have the right to run whatever I want on a console that is legally mine.

 

Here's the thing, I'm not arguing from a real-world practical standpoint of how well the App store, the Google Play store or the Microsoft store, side-loading or installing software on Windows work as they are now, I'm arguing from how things should be. If I own a device, I should be able to run whatever I want on it. You can argue that most users would be better off with a locked down phone with curated content that prohibits users from running whatever they want. And I would agree, with the caveat that the option should still be ultimately left to the user. But as long as you don't follow through logically and also conclude that Windows and even Linux would be better off with a curated store that disallows users to run whatever they want in the name of security and combating piracy, you are not being ideologically consistent and you're making arbitrary distinctions where there are none. My belief on the other hand is consistent, I don't mind curated app stores and a default experience but I also want to have the ability to do whatever I want with any device I own. You decide on a whim where you want to reserve the ability to do what you want or cede control to your OS manufacturer and you seem to be making up reasons and defenses as you go along. And you or anybody else arguing from that position have yet to explain your reasoning beyond "it's different, one's a phone, one's a PC" without actually meaningfully elaborating why that distinction matters. Ultimately, they're both computers in every sense of the word. 

 

First off, I didn't buy one. I own one because my work mandates it and paid for it. Second, don't put words into my mouth. I never implied that this is a recent change by Apple. You're arguing from a status quo as if that was a decent explanation for why side-loading shouldn't be a thing on iOS at all. You're not making a compelling case. I'm just saying that fundamentally I believe Apple and everybody else should open up their devices and let users decide what they want to run on them. For one, I paid for that computing ability and I damn well reserve the right to use it however I see fit. For two, even with Apple's excellent track record of keeping their devices alive for longer than everybody else, it's still a route that would allow for further use of these devices if the manufacturer decides to end official support. 

I think the difference is I believe we can have products that target different audiences. Both gaming pcs and consoles are successful and have a decent size market share while being diametrically opposed to each other in terms of how closed or open the platform is so no there is no inconsistencies it's just different strokes for different folks. Not everyone is the same and not everyone wants the same thing. You want to have a more open platform for your phone then go android and alot of people do for that very reason while there are others that prefer the way apple does things with I walled garden. Just because I think people can have platforms that target different audiences with different levels of openness doesn't mean I am inconsistent lol. I think it's more unreasonable to assume that all platforms now have to conform to be open because you prefer it that way. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think the difference is I believe we can have products that target different audiences. Both gaming pcs and consoles are successful and have a decent size market share while being diametrically opposed to each other in terms of how closed or open the platform is so no there is no inconsistencies it's just different strokes for different folks. Not everyone is the same and not everyone wants the same thing. You want to have a more open platform for your phone then go android and alot of people do for that very reason while there are others that prefer the way apple does things with I walled garden. Just because I think people can have platforms that target different audiences with different levels of openness doesn't mean I am inconsistent lol. I think it's more unreasonable to assume that all platforms now have to conform to be open because you prefer it that way. 

I think you're conflating two concepts and making a few biased assumptions. Gaming consoles and iPhones wouldn't be less successful if they allowed you to also run unsigned code. That'd be quite a claim to make, but again, it's implicitly put out there as if success somehow is tied to their closed nature in and of itself. They wouldn't have to put the ability to side-load front and center or even mention it to their users that they have the ability to run any program written for their hardware. Android also doesn't do that. The target audience is largely irrelevant for what I'm talking about because you can offer the ability of side-loading and still target the audience that wants the walled garden.

 

As pointed out before, my choice to use side-loading doesn't actively put you at any greater risk than you would reasonably already be given the nature of your private information floating around with people who are well beyond your reach and control. So privacy isn't the matter and if you don't engage with it yourself, you won't get malware on your system either way.