Is it possible to allow sideloading and keep users safe?

The owner of a device should have the final say. The way a lot of this is set up basically deprives the owner of one of their core property rights, in particular the right of exclusion. Instead, in many systems the decision about what software to include or exclude is made cryptographically by a third party rather than by the device’s owner. I don’t think we should support limiting people’s property rights for “safety” or other reasons. iOS is probably one the worst in this regard and it sad to see android moving more and more towards this direction.

I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39349288

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39236853

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35067455

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727203

> The owner of a device

That may be the crux of the misunderstanding. The 'licensing' of music, movies, TV shows when you "purchase" them is coming / has come to hardware.

The owner of the device is who controls what you can do with it, not necessarily who paid to keep it in their pocket.

> I have posted multiple times before that this effectively limits people’s property rights. Here are some other posts I have made on the subject:

This is crazy long and not directly about the iPhone, but this is the most comprehensive explaination I've heard of why your plea will probably never be heard:

https://youtu.be/ZK742uBTywA?si=poDXl3Mz7lYwdUxa0

(TLDR: international treaties)

There are two reasons to install an app: I personally want to install it or a powerful third party will bring down a wildly disproportionate punishment if I don’t. Nowadays the vast majority of app installs are in the second category, and in this category, being able to make it common knowledge that I physically can’t install your (parking app / apartment app / course selection app /banking app) as root with unlimited privileges even if you (tow my car / evict me / expell me / close my bank account) is super valuable. This value skyrockets further if a large section of the population has this same inability to root themselves, which apple coordinates. This is why people buy apple! ask anyone who buys an iphone for grandma. I would be quite pissed off if the government steps in and takes away this coordination mechanism.

>a powerful third party will bring down a wildly disproportionate punishment

That's the problem to attack - not user freedom. "Mandatory app" is an anti-accessibility anti-feature.

Your coordination mechanism is to just to rely on the good will of a single company. How long do you expect it to last before apple starts cooperating with invasive parking apps, banking apps, etc?

What I am saying is the way the cryptography is implemented on locked devices such as iPhone your property rights are being trampled upon via cryptography. By using cryptography, the manufacturer reserves for itself; rather than the owner; the fundamental right to exclude or include what software can run on the CPU, even after the hardware is sold. The cryptography is not a legal agreement either like a lease/loan ect... So this being done via extra-legal means.

For example, let’s say you buy an iDevice and do not even intend to run iOS, but instead want to install/port Linux, or run some bare-metal code. You would have to ask apple to sign that code with their private key, which they won't do. The problem is a sale should have transferred all rights of property rights to you as part of the sale. The clue is you have to ask a third party to even hope to do this points to the fact your being limited on the full enjoyment of your property rights. This cryptography is not a contract or legal instrument either and you don't even have to agree to anything for it to be in effect. You could buy the device and have no intention to use the preinstalled software, and it's in effect before you even open the box.

The problem is the right of exclusion is very important, and can even derive most other property rights for example this paper "Property and the Right to Exclude" [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33139498.pdf]. The fact such an important property right is being blatantly impeded is the problem.

It is a little rough. On reflection, the scenario when apple would sell you a locked down phone and google would sell you a side-loadable phone was ideal- the locked down phone was in my opinion better for phone tasks, but apple couldn’t abuse that too much or I’d just switch to android. A scenario where everyone is selling locked phones could remove that necessary check.