> Users should always be allowed, at the very least, to build and sideload their own code.

You barely can anyway. Unless you pay $99/yr for a developer account, any self-compiled apps you install will expire after seven days. If you want your app to keep working, you need to plug your phone into a computer and recompile every single week. That's just not realistically usable for anything other than simple testing.

Yes, it should be allowed. But it's not. It's been this way for the entire history of iOS and it's awful.

Yes, this restriction is a huge PAIN. Back in my Windows Phone days, I ran development builds in addition to the store versions of my apps as dog fooding, or even just prototypes I never finished. Now I have this kind of apps on a secondary Android phone, but no iOS apps despite using macOS and having iPhone a main phone. Apple is really shitting on developers and hobbyists.

Do apps from a $99/yr account last for a year or is there some other sort of time limit?

Only last for a year. After that, renew it. Unlike Google dev account which is $25 for lifetime, single payment only.

They last a year.

Many people still seem to believe that when they buy a phone (be it Apple or Android) they actually "own" the device.

You don't really:

    . can't open it to access h/w, change battery, etc...
    . can't choose what you run on it
    . can't actually access all of the data that's stored on it
    . most of the things you do with it are recorded by a remote entity.
    . "for your own protection", here's a very long list of things we will not let you do with your device.

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "ownership".

I can't fully agree with your first point:

> can't open it to access h/w, change battery, etc...

We're necessarily moving closer and closer to monolithic ASICs that cover all functions of a phone, most likely encased in epoxy for complete waterproofing. Some guy with a screwdriver and multimeter will never be able to keep up with advancements in manufacturing/technology.

Silicon is one thing, but the comment you’re replying to specifically mentioned batteries. Non-replaceable batteries offer a modest reduction in size, at the cost of reducing the device’s service life to 3-5 years. I personally don’t find that to be an impressive advancement in technology. The design’s lack of respect for user-serviceability reinforces the other user-hostile features of the iOS ecosystem identified by the grandparent. (Sent from my iPad.)

I use and enjoy Apple products, but behavior like this is so annoying. My devices are mine and this should not be a restriction.

IOS devices have never been your own. Apple justified this in the early days on the grounds that they were protecting mobile phone networks from hackers, but that argument fell through when the iPod touch (an iPhone without phone functionality) was equally locked down. The only thing Apple is protecting with this policy is their revenue stream.

> Apple justified this in the early days on the grounds that they were protecting mobile phone networks from hackers

Substantial claims require proof, please show even one example where Apple stated this ever.

I'm not very familiar with iOS but is this restriction a fundamental limitation or just a paper-cut style limitation that's just one more hurdle for developers to jump through?

It appears to me that developers who are previously using dynamic libraries now have to invest in the effort to make them static libraries and link them to the main executable. So it seems like it can be overcome, but just more hassle. Am I correct?

It is completely arbitrary, yes.

I agree, and it's probably just a matter of time until Apple finds a way to kill this project too.

Stifling peoples creativity for commercial reasons. It feels like instead of my own government, Apple/Google now dictate the new rules (for which there are no laws yet, and won't ever be since new laws are always 10 years behind the newest innovation.)