> However, an iOS device is also the property of its owner and the owner should be allowed (morally) to install software outside the app store. Even if that comes with potential security problems. Android already permits this.
The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?
Because morality does not revolve around the question "Will a megacorp lose some revenue?" There are many things companies and individuals could do that would make them money which they are nonetheless constrained from doing because those things are wrong.
Also, the idea that users understand these issues and are passing judgment on them when they buy an iPhone doesn't seem realistic for the majority of iPhone owners. If you walked around polling iPhone users about this issue anywhere besides Silicon Valley, the most common answer would probably be "What?" And that's ignoring the fact that someone might object to this but still buy an iPhone for unrelated reasons. So even if their dollars could act as moral validation, I don't think it's reasonable to say they do in practice.
I won't deny that there are many many users that do not care. However, I disagree that there is a real choice in the current duopoly. Android allows you to install applications outside the app store. However, you trade this possibility for continuous data harvesting by Google and only a limited window of updates.
So, the choice is largely:
some freedom ^ (privacy | long-term updates)
Freedom, privacy, and long-term updates are all important to me, so there is no real choice.
Just because you aren't having all your desires perfectly catered to does not mean that there is not real choice. It means that, like everything else in life, you have to make tradeoffs.
I really think we should ask more of technology rather than to just accept Locked-Thing vs Spy-Thing. It's practically an imposed dichotomy, and people deserve better.
Other models of monetization are simply not sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to write your own mobile OS (you can even start by just forking Android).
I think (end-user computing) corporations have just become selfish. Even pre-iPhone, phones such as Windows Mobile, Palm Pilot, Symbian, and J2ME all allowed sideloading and didn't mine the users' data (as far as I know). On the desktop, Windows and OS X were both profitable and successful without locking out third-party software or mining all the user's data.
Money can still be made through app stores (exclusivity is not needed - I'm sure the Play Store is still hugely profitable despite sideloading), from hardware sales, from subscription services, from licensing software to OEMs, and more.
What we're seeing is that companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are not content to make a lot of money while still keeping some respect for the user. They realize that even more money can be made screwing over the user. This really causes harm to society, as a lot of people realize they're being screwed but feel like they have no choice or agency in the matter. In my opinion, this is a good example of why capitalism and the free market are not ultimate goods in themselves but are rather a means to an end, and can certainly be used for evil purposes.
Since apple management is 0.000001% of the population why can't we just abrogate the trade off by making them do what we prefer in the name of consumer choice.
I do have an android phone. I don't think there is any value in having only some workplaces be safe, only some restaurants clean, or only some computers actually owned by their owners.
The owner has the choice between iOS and Android. Why should Apple change their policies (and lose revenue) if the majority of users appear to be sufficiently happy with those restrictions (otherwise they wouldn't buy iOS devices)?