Let's be real, it's not even that the changes will lose corporations money, it's that the changes will lower their disgustingly bloated earnings by a marginal amount that makes them panic.
Or the shareholders consider every potential ¢ left on the table (no matter why) the same as losing that money, no matter how much money they're already making. Que that song from The Greatest Showman:
I don't know if I like this change. Not allowing for sideloading means a reduction in user freedom, sure, but how much freedom does the average user care to have anyway? With the state of Apple products as it is today, I would definitely recommend them to someone who isn't technologically savvy over something that grants more freedoms because of how fool-proof it is. For the rest of us who know our way around this stuff, we have Linux. The lack of freedom in Apple products doesn't take away from the freedoms of Linux users.
i mean TECHNICALLY it is more secure to not be able to sideload apps... at the cost of major user freedom and loss of control over your own device you paid money for.
its the equivalent of saying "you should never use the internet at all because there's a chance you could get a virus", its an extremely flawed logic. i think the user should always be given a choice.
apple will definitely lose money from this and i think that's their concern with having to allow sideloading, definitely moreso than privacy or security lol. apple previously has been able to monopolize and take a commission on every single app purchase or microtransaction thanks to the app store. if people sideload or use alternate app stores, apple will lose this. + some advertising revenue will be lost if sideloaded apps aren't using apple's advertising platform, etc.
Add comment