Or at least include this flag in the system backups and restore it upon switching to a new device...
If you get most/all of your apps from F-Droid, they're essentially establishing a policy of "any time you get a new phone, you can't use it for 24 hours", which is... insane?
How do you know this? It's been confirmed that you can use adb to temporarily bypass verification on a per-app basis, yes, but from what I can see, there's no indication that sideloading one app over adb will also skip the 1-day period.
This matters if you're sideloading an app store like F-Droid, because sideloaded app stores still have to go through PackageInstaller [1], which probably still enforces verification checks for adb-sideloaded apps?
Google could easily put an end to that if they wanted. Just block adb access from the loopback address and VPN. I'm surprised this isn't already in place. The setup flow for those apps you're referring to is awkward enough that it's clear it was never intentional to be able to access adb on-device.
Choosing an iPhone is not sufficient to avoid the risks of technology. The majority of online scams require nothing more than two pre-installed apps: Safari and Phone.
Before downvoting, consider providing evidence that sideloading comes anywhere close to being the root cause of most online scams.
Just yesterday I discovered that my grandmother had been receiving calls from "Google business support" on her iPhone. The fact that they can't get her to sideload some app doesn't seem to stop them.
By "fundamental individual right", I believe they're referring to the first amendment. How we should interpret the first amendment is not something we can put up to a vote. Only the judicial branch holds the power to interpret the law. As the root commenter noted, the Supreme Court has already decided that sexual speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment.
At the same time, you're allowed to disagree with their decision. The Supreme Court tries its best, but there is no "100% correct" interpretation and individual justices often disagree (as they did on Miller v. California).
You should probably ask the parent commenter. I think GrapheneOS is a good choice even for those that don't have something to hide. Reminds me of iOS, really (in a good way).
It makes it easier to pirate your app if you enable that checkbox. macOS attempts to disable iOS apps when SIP is disabled to prevent this but it's not difficult to bypass [1]. I don't necessarily agree with it but this probably does factor into their decision process.
That couldn’t be the reason. 90% of App Store revenue comes from in app purchases of consumables from games. This came out in the Epic trial.
The rest of the most use apps are front end for services where the app is free. There are very very few one time app purchases on iOS where pirating would make sense
They're encrypted using FairPlay, so you need either a jailbroken iPhone or a "jailbroken" (SIP bypass while SIP is enabled) Mac to decrypt them. The former will stop being possible soon enough, the latter will likely remain possible for quite some time.
I don't take issue with the idea of something like this (assuming it isn't expensive and is more of an information center than anything else), but yeah it is funny that while they evidently made this in response to the EU, if it ends up being what it sounds like it will, it's going to enable Americans to circumvent their own state's laws as well.
Non-preloaded apps can't access your camera feed unless they are open in the foreground (zero days aside, but you're probably not interesting enough to burn one on).
If you get most/all of your apps from F-Droid, they're essentially establishing a policy of "any time you get a new phone, you can't use it for 24 hours", which is... insane?