4 ms·

I don't think Apple has any other choice, except to open up iOS system so that it doesn't have the responsibility to censor apps. It's interesting to see how Ap

• Steko 9y ago
  This is the point John Gruber made: To me, the more interesting question isn’t whether Apple should be selling its products in China, but rather whether Apple should continue to make the App Store the only way to install apps on iOS devices. A full-on “install whatever you want” policy isn’t going to happen, but something like Gatekeeper on MacOS could. Keep iOS App Store-only by default. Add a preference in Settings to allow apps to be downloaded from “identified developers” (those with an Apple developer certificate) in addition to the App Store. In that scenario, the App Store is no longer a single choke point for all native apps on the device. The App Store was envisioned as a means for Apple to maintain strict control over the software running on iOS devices. But in a totalitarian state like China (or perhaps Russia, next), it becomes a source of control for the totalitarian regime. I don’t expect Apple to do this. They’d rather deal with the negative consequences of the App Store as a choke point than give up the benefits (including the profits) of maintaining complete control over all software on the platform.1 But if you’re angry about Apple’s role in this VPN crackdown in China, I suggest you direct your anger at the App Store as the single source for third-party software.
  • Inconel 9y ago
    As someone who just recently started using an iOS device and finds the lack of sideloading mildly annoying, can anyone with some expertise in iOS security chime in with whether or not allowing sideloading of apps on iOS represents any serious security implications for iPhones? From my admittedly amateurish understanding, iOS sandboxing is significantly more robust than Android, is this just a way for Apple to maintain total control of, and profit off of, apps, or does this policy have a basis in security as well?
    • tristanj 9y ago
      The decision to prevent sideloading dates back to the release of the App Store. Upon release of the App Store, Apple charged a 30% royalty on every app sold. Developers were outraged by these fees, and fought against them. If Apple allowed side loading, then developers would sell their apps on their own websites and then tell users to sideload the apps. Apple had to prevent side loading to ensure success of their App Store. At the time, people with a developer account could always sideload apps, however they were much more difficult to obtain back then (had to send in verification). Security was not the primary consideration. iOS was a rushed project and it took them many revisions to implement security features. In iOS 1.0, all apps ran as root. iOS didn't have ASLR until 4.3. This was fine since mobile malware barely existed back then. I would argue Apple's sideloading motivations are primarily monetary based and for "protecting the user experience" (typical Apple PR talk). Why though, does android allow sideloading? I'd say it is because Android was ~2 years behind iOS and they needed to catch up. Therefore they made it very easy to build apps for their platform and let any developer install/test apps without an Android Market account. Also Android chose to be open source and there is little stopping someone from building their own version of Android without sideloading restrictions.
• mtgx 9y ago
  > It's interesting to see how Apple's centralized control turns out to be a convenient tool for authoritarian governments. Yes, "interesting" -- and completely predictable. Some of us have said this from day one of the closed garden app store.