Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions on apps that you could install. It was a security nightmare and became a cesspool of malware. You just had to trick people into opening a .exe and you could compromise the machine. Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.
>Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions on apps that you could install.
I can do the same thing on linux yet my computer's not a cesspool of malware.
>Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.
No, most users are uneducated and don't care and expect computers to be safe the way other things are. This doesn't make them dumb, this doesn't mean they need to be treated like children. This means the information needs to be communicated to them more effectively'
Most users are adults capable of dealing with the myriad of dangerous things life brings. This is because most things come with adequate instructions and warnings.
Operating systems follow two extremes, they give no fucks and let you do what you want with minimal instruction or they lock you up and tell you what to do. Both of these are inadequate for average people and don't reflect the way most things worked, up until relatively recently when businesses decided people needed to be treated like children.
Computers are heavily integrated with daily life. Treating users like a bunch of kids that need safety padding is insulting and ridiculous. If there's a failing at the general public in understanding these concepts, it's a failing both in education and honestly, a collective elitism that places people who know technology above regular people, reflected both among regular people in the tech community and large tech companies that results in either them being taken advantage of or manipulated, or again being treated as invalids incable of looking after themselves.
> Most users are adults capable of dealing with the myriad of dangerous things life brings.
While I'd like to believe that, injury and death statistics from things like road accidents, smoking, alcohol, etc.; the number of machines owned in botnets; and the overall response to COVID-19 is not convincing evidence of this.
Yet the general population also wakes up every day, exists on a rock hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds, exist for years on end doing all kinds of things. They wake up and do things you or I are incapable of.
You can look at all the dumb shit humanity does and scorn it all you want then stop and think about the fact that, you me and everyone else is here with all the things around us. This shit didn't come from nowhere. Humanity, for all it's faults and weaknesses did this and you exist because of this.
The average person, as much as that implies, is capable of some pretty impressive things and to dismiss them is pretty arrogant and I bet if you took a look at your life you've done some pretty dumb shit...and if not I salute you, you are truly above all others.
> Operating systems follow two extremes, they give no fucks and let you do what you want with minimal instruction or they lock you up and tell you what to do
Android actually does it decently well. Apps are pretty well sandboxed with quite clear interfaces and side loading can be enabled in the settings (even as a side loading fan I think it's a bit easy, considering the consequences).
And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS, and desktop PCs with more open OSes have capabilities that even iPads with keyboard docks can't touch. Plus, there are about a million things you could do to improve the security of an OS that don't require a gatekeeper. Windows specifically has many problems but that shouldn't condemn the entire concept of a computer that the user actually has control over.
> And yet, it is still the most popular desktop OS
"most popular" in the sense of "most widely installed and tolerated", perhaps, but definitely not "most popular because people actively chose it where there are other viable options" because, for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers).
> for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers).
There's an increasing feeling that Linux is getting there for gamers too. There are already mainstream narratives [0] that Linux may be better for gaming than Windows!
My 18 year old step-son does not care about OSS, or Linux. Yesterday his just received a new laptop. He said, "well, I'm going to install Linux on it, you know, for games". By which he means minecraft, which ran much better on Linux than on the native windows 10 his last laptop came with. Higher fps, more terrain loaded....yadayada ...... I shot soda out my nose.
That seems a false dichotomy, macOS had an app store for many years while still allowing you to install random apps.
An average consumer might get most of their apps from the vetted store while still able to install transmission or VLC directly.
The problem with windows was that there where no properly implemented permission systems and there were a ton of bugs that malware could exploit, the situation seems to have improved significantly from Windows 98.
You are describing a lack of sandboxing, not an open platform.
We are talking on the web right now. Your browser executes arbitrary code. Should we ask someone to approve every single website before it can be accessed?
The problem is, the App Store conflates security review with "curating". The question, whether "Hey" offers in-app purchases or not is not a security question, the app was rejected because Apple requires in-app purchases (from which they take 30%).
