Actionjackson

Sao Paulo is as cental America as you can get. "Lite South" America would be something like Mexico/Panama in where it would be better getting a server in Miami instead,
for both ping and bandwidth related performance.
Geographical center:
Panama/Mexico/Costa Rica - Most providers are limited to lease a shared 100mbit connection per customer. This is because they have max 5-10Gbit per datacenter or less.
Because of that, their main peering happens to be with U.S. providers, so see the sentence above.
 
"Southern South":
Rest of the countries are not going to happen - Peru, Chile, Argentina. No sufficient datacenters to offer quality bandwidth for a reasonable price. Wholesale of 1Gbit almost unspoken of.
Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay - the same reasons as above, + add at least 5 more years for their availability after the countries above.
Most providers in those areas offer only shaped 10Mbit traffic (yes, in 2019) with a burstable option to 100Mbit with a very high premium.
Those providers mostly offer local data as well as CDN to companies like Akamai, Cloudflare, Google which is their most profitable way of operation.
 
Other Caribbean islands or countries with less than 5M residents - can be totally dismissed. Not a valid option even for large "Big 10" companies to operate. 
An exotic new location will not give you the privacy/performance you would probably assume from a service like Air. So this is a strategic point which is totally
transparent and provable. Don't make other providers who sell fake GeoIP locations (this is possible and actually much cheaper) or sell VPS/Cloud connectivity
with limited 100Mbit b/w make your decision here, test your own locations with your maximum speed before you buy a VPN service. And always remember:
If AirVPN ever wanted to cross that grey area, there would probably be 50 available countries now. Or maybe 100. This is not an ethical way to do (VPN) business.
Not flagging any competitors here since we all know who they are.
 
 
//
Finding even a single provider in South America with apparently enough bandwidth and acceptable prices (probably because they have more than utilized) is not an easy task
by it's own. Right now no other country can probably overcome Brazil by price/performance, where even 3 years ago the situation was nearly as same as above.
Same things happen is East Asia as well, where I am more native, and is directly linked to the country GDP.
(The case has some exceptions in countries like Ukraine, Romania) because they are strategically and historically big EU transit points where AirVPN operates. But largely if it costs more
than an average monthly salary to get a 100mbit connectivity, this country cannot be generally considered as a valid location.

Yes, for one key reason. When Viscosity is "reconnecting" your IP is exposed. The killswitch script only works when Viscosity is completely disconnected and not attmeping to reconnect to an AirVPN server. The AirVPN client Eddie protects your IP in both cases. Either when you are disconnected or reconnecting. That's the difference between them. Although there is a Viscosity method to do what the AirVPN "network lock" does it's more complicated and annoying to implement. 
 
I'm glad my script was able to help you for awhile. 

I can give a good guess as to why there is no plans for a native iOS app. iOS doesn't support OpenVPN by default at the system level. It only supports PPTP, IPSec and IKEv2. Right now, the only way to get an OpenVPN connection working is to use the OpenVPN app itself. So AirVPN would basically have to fork however the OpenVPN app works around this and build their proprietary stuff on top of it.
 
It's probably just not worth the effort considering they have a one-touch config generator that works perfect with the OpenVPN app.

Any updates on a native OS X AirVPN Client?

Any updates on a native OS X AirVPN Client?