Apple released a new white paper today on why they fuck you by preventing sideloading

[Robin Goodfellow]

Apple put out a new white paper on why they fuck the loyal iOS customer.
<https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>

Apple always fucks its loyal customers - "to protect you" - of course.
They compare themselves directly to Android - which allows sideloading.

This is a direct quote:
"Users also may have no choice other than sideloading an app that they need
to connect with family and friends because the app is not made available
on the App Store. For example, if sideloading were permitted, some
companies may choose to distribute their apps solely outside of the
App Store."

Apple's strategy has clearly always been to fuck you (for profit)...
And then tell you that fucking you is good for you... (not Apple)...

The ignorant admittedly loyal (yet supremely gullible) customers, eat it up!
By all accounts, the ignorati openly _love_ being fucked by Apple marketing.

Apologists even gloat about how much profit Apple makes fucking customers.
Here's the latest Apple excuse for why Apple fucks you for profit.
*Apple is making its latest case against sideloading*
<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>

Amid growing pressure from private companies and governments to allow
sideloading on iOS, Apple marketing is out today with a new security paper
explaining why Apple fucks the customer by not allowing any sideloading.

Notice only the Apple customer is scared shitless by the threat of
sideloading, as nobody on Android, Windows, Linux, or even macOS is denied
sideloading.

It's only iOS that denies sideloading.
Why?

Notice Apple's arguments are patently ridiculous, as this direct quote shows
"Cybercriminals may trick users into sideloading apps by mimicking
the appearance of the App Store, or by touting free or expanded access
to services or exclusive features."

You have to wonder why Apple thinks its own customers are _that_ stupid.
--
Nobody on Android, Linux, Windows, or even macOS is afraid of sideloading.

[lew]

apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.
Probably why it will take so long to have the Hyndai app for the
car as apple wanted 30% of the price of making an actual key, not the
app.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 12:01 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> Apple put out a new white paper on why they fuck the loyal iOS customer.
> <https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>
>
> Apple always fucks its loyal customers - "to protect you" - of course.
> They compare themselves directly to Android - which allows sideloading.
>
> This is a direct quote:
> "Users also may have no choice other than sideloading an app that they need
> to connect with family and friends because the app is not made available
> on the App Store. For example, if sideloading were permitted, some
> companies may choose to distribute their apps solely outside of the
> App Store."
>
> Apple's strategy has clearly always been to fuck you (for profit)...
> And then tell you that fucking you is good for you... (not Apple)...
>
> The ignorant admittedly loyal (yet supremely gullible) customers, eat it up!
> By all accounts, the ignorati openly _love_ being fucked by Apple marketing.
>
> Apologists even gloat about how much profit Apple makes fucking customers.
> Here's the latest Apple excuse for why Apple fucks you for profit.
> *Apple is making its latest case against sideloading*
> <https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>

'The first page also highlights reports from Nokia in 2019 and 2020 that
showed malware on Android (which supports sideloading) was between 15 to
47 times greater over the last four years than it was on iPhone.'

And:

'Android devices are the most common malware targets. Android devices
are responsible for 26.64% of infections across all platforms, but this
is down from 47.15% in 2019. While this change is due in part to
improved security in Android device, it is mostly the result of the
increase in IoTrelated infections.'

And page 8.

'Figure 3 provides a breakdown of infections by device type in 2020.
Among smartphones, Android devices are the most commonly targeted by
malware. Android devices were responsible for 26.64% of all infections,
Windows/PCs for 38.92%, IoT devices for 32.72% and only 1.72% for iPhones. '

<https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/210088>
Facts.

>
> Amid growing pressure from private companies and governments to allow
> sideloading on iOS, Apple marketing is out today with a new security paper
> explaining why Apple fucks the customer by not allowing any sideloading.
>
> Notice only the Apple customer is scared shitless by the threat of
> sideloading, as nobody on Android, Windows, Linux, or even macOS is denied
> sideloading.
>
> It's only iOS that denies sideloading.
> Why?
>
> Notice Apple's arguments are patently ridiculous, as this direct quote shows
> "Cybercriminals may trick users into sideloading apps by mimicking
> the appearance of the App Store, or by touting free or expanded access
> to services or exclusive features."

Why would you imagine that that is "patently ridiculous".

Spoofing the appearance of legitimate sites in order to phish for data
is a well-known phenomenon.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 12:37 p.m., lew wrote:
> On 2021-10-13, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:
>> Apple put out a new white paper on why they fuck the loyal iOS customer.
>> <https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>
>>

<snip>

>> Notice Apple's arguments are patently ridiculous, as this direct quote shows
>> "Cybercriminals may trick users into sideloading apps by mimicking
>> the appearance of the App Store, or by touting free or expanded access
>> to services or exclusive features."
>>
>> You have to wonder why Apple thinks its own customers are _that_ stupid.
>
> apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.
> Probably why it will take so long to have the Hyndai app for the
> car as apple wanted 30% of the price of making an actual key, not the
> app.
>

Bullshit.

The Hyundai app is already in the App Store, twit boy.

[nospam]

In article <sk7ci5$7qb$1...@dont-email.me>, lew

<citrus...@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

>
> apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.

as does google, microsoft and other online stores. there are also 15%
tiers.

> Probably why it will take so long to have the Hyndai app for the
> car as apple wanted 30% of the price of making an actual key, not the
> app.

nope.

[Robin Goodfellow]

lew <citrus...@google.mailer.company.invalid> asked

> apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.
> Probably why it will take so long to have the Hyndai app for the
> car as apple wanted 30% of the price of making an actual key, not the
> app.

Both Apple and Google get rather high fees for their App Store downloads.

However...

The recent court decision (which Apple & Epic each already appealed) may
change that dynamic _if_ (yes, that's an "if") if Apple is forced to allow
apps that are in the app store to send customers to another payment method.

BTW...

Is there another common consumer operating system locking out sideloading?

I don't use Chrome OS. Does the Chrome OS allow sideloading?

I've bought a few Windows S laptops (because they're about $50 cheaper than
Windows Home laptops) as gifts for college kids - but before I gave the
laptops to the kids I converted them to Windows Home (which is easy to do).

Are there any other operating systems other than iOS that block sideloading?

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>> apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.
>
> as does google, microsoft and other online stores. there are also 15%
> tiers.

The Epic court case showed Apple has "arbitrary" pricing schemes, depending
on the company (as I recall, even Apple couldn't explain the reasons why).

What is _really_ happening though, is rather obvious to all intelligent
people, which was said explicitly in that article referenced in the OP.
*Apple blamed Android to shield their own anticompetitive behavior*.

The entire point of that Apple marketing white paper was to blame Android
for Apple's own choice to prevent users from sideloading apps outside of the
Apple App store (which itself, doesn't allow customers to go elsewhere).

Specifically:
<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
"In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
*as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

That's really what Apple is doing.
*Apple blamed Android to shield their own anticompetitive behavior*.

What's really happening is Apple fucks the user, and then tells that
(admittedly loyal but ignorantly gullible) user that it's for their own
good.

Happens every time with Apple
Apple fucked customers by throttling (saying it's good for you).
�Apple fucked customers by removing chargers (saying it's good for the environment)
�Apple fucked customers by removing aux jacks (saying it's a courageous decision).

As Steve pointed out, and which I agree to, the facts show that a key
component of Apple's marketing strategy is to fuck the customer and then
convince the customer that fucking you (for Apple profit) is good for you.
--
The apologists on this ng even gloat over how much Apple makes in profit by
fucking the user (happens every time on this newsgroup, and you know it).

[AJL]

On 10/13/2021 6:49 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:

> I don't use Chrome OS. Does the Chrome OS allow sideloading?

In normal operation my Chromebook does not allow sideloading of Android
apps. However if I put it into developer mode it does. But I would lose
all account syncing and security features in that mode so it is not very
practical for normal use...

[nospam]

In article <sk82a9$j66$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow

<Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:

>
> Both Apple and Google get rather high fees for their App Store downloads.

actually, it's very low compared to how it used to be, when the
retailer, distributor and publisher all took a piece, leaving very
little for the developer. now the bulk of the revenue goes to the
developer. apple & google's cut is to host, handle payments, etc.

[nospam]

In article <sk82ul$pb4$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow

<Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> What is _really_ happening though, is rather obvious to all intelligent
> people,

that would explain why you get so much wrong.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 7:00 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> apple wants 30% of the price of every app sold in apple store.
>>
>> as does google, microsoft and other online stores. there are also 15%
>> tiers.
>
> The Epic court case showed Apple has "arbitrary" pricing schemes, depending
> on the company (as I recall, even Apple couldn't explain the reasons why).

Cite, please!

>
> What is _really_ happening though, is rather obvious to all intelligent
> people, which was said explicitly in that article referenced in the OP.
> *Apple blamed Android to shield their own anticompetitive behavior*.

What "anti-competitive behaviour".

Apple created something.

People liked it.

Developers liked it.

They weren't forced to participate.

>
> The entire point of that Apple marketing white paper was to blame Android
> for Apple's own choice to prevent users from sideloading apps outside of the
> Apple App store (which itself, doesn't allow customers to go elsewhere).

Nope. The point was to show there are real risks to allowing sideloading.

>
> Specifically:
> <https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
> "In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
> previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
> *as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"
>
> That's really what Apple is doing.
> *Apple blamed Android to shield their own anticompetitive behavior*.
>
> What's really happening is Apple fucks the user, and then tells that
> (admittedly loyal but ignorantly gullible) user that it's for their own
> good.
>
> Happens every time with Apple
> Apple fucked customers by throttling (saying it's good for you).

Apple prevented phones from dying suddenly.

> ���Apple fucked customers by removing chargers (saying it's good for the environment)

It is, and there are lots of compatible chargers already out there.

> ���Apple fucked customers by removing aux jacks (saying it's a courageous decision).

And replacing it with a jack that serves just as well, is less fragile,
takes up less space, and is easier to seal against water.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

> that would explain why you get so much wrong.

It's revealing apologists have absolutely no _adult_ defense to facts.

FACT:

<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
"In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
*as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

ASSESSMENT:

That's really what Apple is doing.

*Apple just blamed Android to shield their own anticompetitive behavior*.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Alan <no...@nope.com> asked
> Cite, please!

Oh Jesus.
Alan Baker.

It wouldn't matter how many cites were provided to that moron.
He'll claim a cite isn't a cite because he didn't even click on it.

Moron.
Plonk.

[Robin Goodfellow]

AJL <noe...@none.com> asked

>> I don't use Chrome OS. Does the Chrome OS allow sideloading?
>
> In normal operation my Chromebook does not allow sideloading of Android
> apps. However if I put it into developer mode it does. But I would lose
> all account syncing and security features in that mode so it is not very
> practical for normal use...

Thank you for answering that basic question as I don't have any experience
with Chromebooks (what is the OS actually called for those things?).

Much appreciated.

So the best comparison with iOS would be a Chromebook then, wouldn't it?

[nospam]

In article <sk848t$1akr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> It wouldn't matter how many cites were provided to me.

ftfy

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 7:20 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>> that would explain why you get so much wrong.
>
> It's revealing apologists have absolutely no _adult_ defense to facts.
>
> FACT:
> <https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
> "In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
> previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
> *as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

And that statement is free of bias...

...why?

[Alan]

Chicken.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>> Both Apple and Google get rather high fees for their App Store downloads.
>
> actually, it's very low compared to how it used to be, when the
> retailer, distributor and publisher all took a piece, leaving very
> little for the developer. now the bulk of the revenue goes to the
> developer. apple & google's cut is to host, handle payments, etc.

I don't deny that the developers flock to the app stores (both of them) in
droves, specifically because Apple/Google do all the work to promote them.

For that service, certainly, both Apple & Google deserve a reasonable fee.
It's not up to us to determine what a reasonable fee really is though.

However, with all other operating systems other than iOS (and Chromebooks
perhaps), the normal user is locked out of going somewhere else for apps.

Apple (iOS) and Google (Chromebooks) lock the user out of sideloading for a
reason, which we have to understand before we can intelligently discuss why.

Certainly this quote tells us that someone has assessed _why_ Apple does it:

FACT:
<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
"In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
*as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

ASSESSMENT:
That's really what Apple is doing.

*Apple just blamed Android to defend their own anticompetitive behavior*.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
> ftfy

It's revealing that apologists have no _adult_ defense to facts.

The fact remains Apple published this white paper just today.
<https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>

The news clearly assessed this as a marketing ploy.

In plain language, the marketing ploy is the same Apple always uses.
1. Blame anyone but Apple for Apple fucking the customer.
2. Then tell the customer that was fucked that it was good for them.

That's exactly what this quote says, in perhaps less plain language.
FACT:

<https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
"In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
*as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

ASSESSMENT:
That's really what Apple is doing (and what Apple _always_ does).
*Apple blamed Android to hide behind their own anticompetitive behavior*.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 7:29 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>>> Both Apple and Google get rather high fees for their App Store downloads.
>>
>> actually, it's very low compared to how it used to be, when the
>> retailer, distributor and publisher all took a piece, leaving very
>> little for the developer. now the bulk of the revenue goes to the
>> developer. apple & google's cut is to host, handle payments, etc.
>
> I don't deny that the developers flock to the app stores (both of them) in
> droves, specifically because Apple/Google do all the work to promote them.

So you admit they know the situation when they decide to develop an app.

Got it.

>
> For that service, certainly, both Apple & Google deserve a reasonable fee.
> It's not up to us to determine what a reasonable fee really is though.

Right. That's called the "free market".

>
> However, with all other operating systems other than iOS (and Chromebooks
> perhaps), the normal user is locked out of going somewhere else for apps.

The people who by iOS devices know this fact when they buy.

It is a positive thing for many of them.

>
> Apple (iOS) and Google (Chromebooks) lock the user out of sideloading for a
> reason, which we have to understand before we can intelligently discuss why.
>
> Certainly this quote tells us that someone has assessed _why_ Apple does it:
> FACT:
> <https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/13/apple-says-android-47x-malware-than-iphone-sideloading-pushback/>
> "In contrast, European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager,
> previously said *Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns*
> *as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.*"

Amazingly, with no technical understanding whatsoever, she also says:

'"[I] think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone.
The important thing here is, of course, that it’s not a shield against
competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security
nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload,” she said.'

Also:

Vestager, however, did praise Apple’s recent privacy features such as
App Tracking Transparency, which gives users the ability to choose
whether applications can track them:

“As I have said, I think actually several times, that it is a good thing
when providers give us the service that we can easily set our
preferences if we want to be tracked outside the use of an app or not as
long as it’s the same condition for everyone. So far, we have no reason
to believe that this is not the case for Apple,” she said.

But one of the things Apple's Tim Cook points out:

'If Apple had to allow side-loading, Cook said last month, then features
like App Store nutrition labels and App Tracking Transparency “would not
exist anymore.”'

>
> ASSESSMENT:
> That's really what Apple is doing.
> *Apple just blamed Android to defend their own anticompetitive behavior*.
>

None of that even begins a discussion of why Apple has an App Store and
doesn't (normally) allow sideloading.

[Alan]

On 2021-10-13 7:32 p.m., Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
>> ftfy
>
> It's revealing that apologists have no _adult_ defense to facts.
>
> The fact remains Apple published this white paper just today.
> <https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>
>
> The news clearly assessed this as a marketing ploy.

Cite, please!

[nospam]

In article <sk84lq$1ebo$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow

<Ancient...@Heaven.Net> wrote:

> For that service, certainly, both Apple & Google deserve a reasonable fee.

which the industry has settled on 30%.

as i said before, there is also a 15% tier which may apply.

it's also not just apple and google, but microsoft and others.

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked

>> For that service, certainly, both Apple & Google deserve a reasonable fee.
>
> which the industry has settled on 30%.
> as i said before, there is also a 15% tier which may apply.
> it's also not just apple and google, but microsoft and others.

I'm eminently logical and reasonable nospam, unlike you apologists.
As you know, I try to find, understand, and process the facts, nospam.

I process a ton of facts about Apple (and Google) nospam.
Which is why I'm not ignorant of the games that each of them play on us.

Any rational person can see I didn't disagree that both Apple and Google do
a lot of work _for_ the developers by operating their respective app stores.

I specifically stated that it's up to others to agree on a pricing scheme
(where I only stated that the Epic court case brought out details on the
seemingly random pricing Apple allows - which even Apple couldn't explain,
AFAIR).

The topic of this thread is the ploy Apple marketing posted just today.
<https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>

Why do _you_ think Apple marketing wrote that white paper, nospam?

[Robin Goodfellow]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> asked
> you have to wait for it to be released. it's not in the current w11
> version.

To AJL's point, I've tested every freeware Android emulator on Windows
(Genymotion, Bluestacks, Andyroid, Google, Microsoft, etc.) and they all
work reasonably well (even on my AMD machines).

The key app that I _love_ on Windows is the NewPipe YouTube clone!
There's nothing like it on iOS; and not even on Windows (and no, the
youtube-dl app isn't the same thing, nor are web page youtube portals).
<https://newpipe.net/>

Other than fantastically powerful free Google-replacement apps such as
Google Play app replacement clients, there's not all that much more free
functionality on Android that isn't already on Windows 10, is there?
<https://auroraoss.com/>

BTW, I first solve all problems on Android and then I "attempt" iOS.
I tried to find free emulation for iOS and failed miserably so, in fact.

If you know of free open source iOS emulation on Windows, let me know.

Nonetheless, to nospam's point, Windows 11 is supposed to be better (as
Windows 10 was with WSL, which I wrote a tutorial on when I tested it).

Android & Windows seem to run the other OS's reasonably well by now though.

Even full-fledged Linux distros like Ubuntu runs pretty damn well on Android
nowadays, essentially as a plugin to Android Termux (I tested the CLI only).
<https://andronix.app/>

To the point of the thread topic, notice these adult facts & assessments:
Android emulation on Windows is free & extremely powerful.
Does free iOS emulation even exist on Windows even now?

Android apps on Windows will soon be native in Windows 11.
When will iOS apps ever be native on Windows?

Linux distros run perfectly well inside of Android nowadays.
How well do the common Linux distros run inside of iOS?

Android has fantastic Google replacements that kill the Google clients.
When will iOS ever get fantastic replacements to the shitty Apple apps?

In the end, it's obvious the assessment that Android wins big, as does
Windows, and Linux, by allowing sideloading of super powerful apps.

The poor ignorant iOS user is stuck with the clusterfuck apps from Apple.
Just today, Apple defended their clusterfuck apps by attacking Android.
<https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf>

And yet, it's iOS that is literally _crippled_ by lack of functionality.
Not Android.

[Robin Goodfellow]

AJL <noe...@none.com> asked

>> So the best comparison with iOS would be a Chromebook then, wouldn't
>> it?
>

> Dunno. My Chromebook is basically a device in laptop form with a Chrome
> browser and the capability to run Play Store Android apps. Some run
> good, some not so good. I bought it out of curiosity. It's over 3 years
> old now so the new ones may be better at Android. It's unlikely I'll get
> another. I find that my W10 laptop using the BlueStacks emulator runs
> Android apps just as good as the Chromebook if not better. I have
> another LT that just updated to W11 which is supposed to run Android
> apps natively but so far I haven't figured out how. Can't get by the new
> screwy W11 GUI...

Thanks for that candid assessment of Chromebook operating system capability.

I own plenty of iOS and Android devices, and I've converted a few Windows S
laptops (usually gifts for kids) to Windows Home (because they're $50
cheaper); but I've never owned a Chromebook so I don't know what it can do.

From what I can tell, Google _copied_ Apple's iOS gameplan with the
Chromebook on limiting the functionality available to the user by limiting
sideloading.

A Chromebook seems as limited in sideloading as any iPad is AFAICT.

If that's true, then the closest parallel to compare iOS to is a Chromebook.
Not Android.

[Robin Goodfellow]

AJL <noe...@none.com> asked

> On 10/13/2021 9:24 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
>
>> From what I can tell, Google _copied_ Apple's iOS gameplan with the
>> Chromebook on limiting the functionality available to the user by
>> limiting sideloading.
>

> I doubt that the average Chromebook user even knows what sideloading is.
> But my GUESS is that by limiting sideloading Google wants to protect the
> user from himself. Chromebooks are known for their security and
> sideloading can be a security problem...

Thanks for that assessment of the Chromebook on its lack of sideloading.
Google blocked sideloading for a reason, which we need to know why they did.

The reason it matters is Google apparently copied Apple marketing strategem.
a. Block sideloading
b. Claim security advantages
c. Completely ignore the astoundingly huge functionality disadvantages

While both the iOS device and the Chromebook are crippled in functionality,
that lack of functionality does have advantages in certain environments.

An advantage of blocking sideloading (e.g., for educational institutions) is
that the device can be kept to a minimum of focused functionality.

Of course, as you stated, blocking sideloading "may" also be to limit
security threats, but at the huge cost of crippling the functionality.

For an educational institution that doesn't want kids "playing around" with
the chromebook, I can see both advantages (in addition to the lower cost).

For the average user, other than the lower cost (which is an appreciable
advantage), I can also see the allure if they are using that chromebook for
a specific purpose (e.g., as a web browser only or to only play games).

I presume the chromebook uses all google apps (google docs type of stuff).
What do you think a chromebook is best for, when used by the average person?

I always wondered why people buy chromebooks, so I appreciate your advice.