> Introduce Gatekeeper and app notarization for iOS. The process of side-loading apps should not be as simple as downloading them from the App Store. Bury it in Settings, make it slightly convoluted, whatever: just have an officially-sanctioned way of doing it.

> Ruthlessly purge the App Store Guidelines of anything that prevents the iPad from serving as a development machine. Every kind of development from web to games should be possible on an iPad. And speaking of games—emulators should be allowed, too.

No.

I am uncertain and unclear why a single company should have a monopoly on what we can and can't install on a general-purpose computational device. When the iPhone was first launched, it was launched into a world where carriers controlled what could be installed on phones due to a combination of contracts and the difficulty of developing for the environment. The "computers" in the early smartphones were, essentially, embedded systems with a rudimentary operating system on top. You couldn't do much of anything with them, so most people didn't try.

Until Apple came along and brought OS X to the iPhone, that was the original promise. iOS was OS X on a phone, with all the great "APIs" and features that it indicated. However, Jobs wanted to keep it locked down with web apps being the only way out. AT&T were pleased with that arrangement and gave them a good deal.

iPhone was a hit, and Apple had a crisis. They wanted to open up the phone to devs. Jobs said no. Jobs kept saying no until the App Store was created as a sort of compromise. In hindsight, this compromise ended up being a spigot of "free" cash, giving Apple the ability to control 30% of all revenue flowing through 1 Billion installed devices. If the average owner spends only $10/yr, Apple makes $3Bn per year, essentially for "free" on top of the generous profit margins of their devices and services.

Smartphones have grown up since then. Moore's law has turned embedded machines into full-fledged computers, with the ability to rival desktops. And yet we're still stuck in this paradigm. Why?

Why should we accept this as the way it should be?

It hurts people like Becky and me. For smaller, indie businesses, 15% to 30% of your revenue going to a cut on a platform with little-to-no-oversight and extensive content restrictions means that several things are already off the table, and small businesses have to sell a third more to make the same amount.

It hurts the users. An adult can't download and enjoy age-appropriate games on their phone because Apple says so.

If they live in an oppressive regime, they can't use their phone for dissent because Apple lets their oppressors say so.

Programmers and artists can't use their tools the way they want on computers they have bought and owned because Apple says so.

Consumers with an artistic streak can't customize their phones because Apple says so.

iOS users get a degraded experience for common apps because Apple says so.

Apple jealously gatekeeps features, making several iOS apps either one or two updates behind their Android counterparts, or lacking in feature parity.

Why should we - the users, creators, developers, and artists - pay a tax to a company that is acting against our interest and is locking up a computer we've bought with our hard-earned money? Why should we live in a world where Becky has to give 30% of her income to Apple as tithe? And I have to live with what little Apple allows into the store?

Why should my creativity be limited by some corporate jockey sitting in Cupertino?

So, No.

We need to dream bigger. We need to set these computers free.