12 ms·

Installing apps outside an app store also introduces other risks, it's not exactly one better than the other. Personally I'd love to sideload apps, but seeing h

Installing apps outside an app store also introduces other risks, it's not exactly one better than the other. Personally I'd love to sideload apps, but seeing how big of a mess that was on desktops leads me to believe most users are better served by a gatekeeper.

kbenson 8y ago
> most users are better served by a gatekeeper. I think the point is that Android's marketplace functions as a gatekeeper. Apple's marketplace functions as a prison warden. The difference is whether you on the inside are allowed to make exceptions for who can come through, or even pass through yourself. If you have no control, what you've been told is a protective wall is actually restraining wall. That said, as to your original point, perhaps some people do need their devices imprisoned for the benefit of the rest of us. I'm not sure I believe that, but I will readily admit that a vast number of people are either unable or unwilling to detect and rectify the problem of their digital devices being hacked, and that ends up affecting us all.
- codedokode 8y ago
  While Android allows to install apps from anywhere, it doesn't allow them to have the same privileges that Google's apps have and doesn't allow them to manage iptables for example.
- y_molodtsov 8y ago
  And then people install pirated .apk making iOS the most profitable mobile platform for developers as they prefer to focus on iOS, especially regarding expensive apps.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Do you actually know of anyone that installs pirated APK files? Do you have actual statistics as to how prevalent it is? I'm sure it happens, but if you're going to use it as the reason "iOS is the most profitable platform for developers" you're going to need to more evidence than an unsupported assertion such as that.
jstanley 8y ago
I will never support an oppressor. People should be free of gatekeepers, even if they're worse at looking after themselves than the gatekeepers are, because being a gatekeeper is just far too much of a moral hazard.
- Qwertie 8y ago
  I think the best option is picking your own gatekeeper. fdroid and redhat are the gatekeepers of my system but if they turn bad I can choose better ones.
anderber 8y ago
I should have specified, I meant risk to freedom/censorship.
- jonknee 8y ago
  Well it has those risks too. Tainted copies of messaging apps shipped by hostile governments. If you download from the App Store you know you're getting the app that was signed by the developer.
  - Zak 8y ago
    Signed binaries and open distribution channels are not mutually exclusive.
jMyles 8y ago
> how big of a mess that was on desktops Wait, what? The desktop experience is wonderful in this regard - choose any number of app stores if you want, or don't, if you don't want. I've never, ever thought of this as a problem.
- jonknee 8y ago
  The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS. Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS. That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security. > Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing. > If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone? I dunno man, this seems like a very dangerous argument to me. It's like you're saying that there's a huge silent majority that is not qualified to be the sovereign over the machines in their life, and that's not my world view. I acknowledge that malware is a huge issue, but I think it's reasonably clear that the best ways of mitigating it do not include disempowering people or cutting their free speech at the knees.
    - dwaite 8y ago
      > That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security. I squarely blame developers/designers. Not just Microsoft, but Netscape with SSL, Android with app permissions and side-loading, etc. There is this terrible historical concept that we can solve security issues with user education and work around design/deployment problems with security through obtuse user prompts. >> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? > Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing. Sure, just as long as you keep in mind that Firefox extensions and Ubuntu snaps/universe/multiverse aren't vetted for malware. Plus Firefox extensions (like those toolbars of days past) can inspect all traffic and capture things like credit cards and passwords. But hey, the user was notified that there was a risk and blindly hit OK - because it was the way to get the computer to do what they said they wanted the computer to do.
Ataraxy 8y ago
> most users are better served by a gatekeeper If you believe that's the case the bigger problem is the lack of education that leads to some people who are incapable of understanding the risks associated with doing so and not that they have access to do so.
- nicky0 8y ago
  My mum is highly educated but somehow every time I visit her, her computer is full of fresh malware. Usually it's stuff like sketchy webpages that say "your Flash Player is out of date. Click here to install lates version." and they just do it. Malware makers will always find a way to trick people into installing their stuff.
- y_molodtsov 8y ago
  Yes, let’s just educate everyone instead of bulding a better system in the first place.
danShumway 8y ago
Others have already said this, but you can always add a gatekeeper on top of an open system. IMHO what closed systems like Apple propose is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why Apple couldn't allow sideloading apps and aggressively curate it's own store. The average user will use Apple certified apps and the power users who need more will sideload uncertified apps. If gatekeepers are as genuinely beneficial to end users as people claim, then there's no reason to force anyone to use them or to block off unofficial channels. If your claim is true then ordinary people will stick to the certified App store of their own volition because it makes them feel safe.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  Put a phone permitting side loading in front of my mom or half my friends and they’ll find a way to get a virus within a month. Broadly speaking, freedom a consumer doesn’t understand isn’t freedom to them. Apple’s products are reliable in part due to their tight control over the ecosystem.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    I kind of don't understand this. Nobody is forcing anyone to use sideloading. Heck, Android phones by default have sideloading turned off in the settings so you can't even accidentally do it without going through a bunch of warnings. Unless Android phones have an extra side-channel I don't know about, I just can't imagine someone sideloading an app on one of them unless they explicitly have decided the benefits outweigh the risks. And if an average consumer is going into their settings and explicitly turning off a security measure, then at what point does it become reasonable to say that they're doing it because the official app store is not good enough on its own for the average consumer? I get the whole "consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them" argument that people make sometimes, but I think that's a very tricky line to walk - especially when a company has a huge amount of profit tied up in deciding that individual freedom is a net negative.
    - filleduchaos 8y ago
      Counterpoint: The sheer state of the average user's browser circa 2012
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
While that's probably true, Apple could bring to iOS what macOS has been doing for years: code-signed apps that aren't distributed through the App Store and aren't subject to any of the App Store's restrictions (and can't guarantee the ostensible security benefits), but can still be "disabled" by Apple if they prove to be bad actors. On macOS, there are actually three states for this: signed App Store apps, signed regular apps, and entirely unsigned apps. Users get to tell the system what to allow and disallow. There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now. (That system on macOS is, for those who don't remember, called Gatekeeper!)
- codedokode 8y ago
  Apple won't be able to receive its 30% revenue cut then.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    That may be the reason, but it's not a technical reason. :)
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now. But then I can sign a jailbreak with my developer certificate and pass it around. Now, you're going to say that such a thing has never happened on macOS, but the fact that it could happen because you've opened the door to it is something that should be considered.
  - y_molodtsov 8y ago
    As soon as it get wide enough they’d just block you.
- Qwertie 8y ago
  iOS doesn't allow this because Apple makes shitloads more money from mobile than desktop. They recently blocked Valves app from iOS because it allows you to stream games from another device which puts apples cut from the app store at risk. They don't care about steam on OSX because they make so much less money there.

kbenson 8y ago

> most users are better served by a gatekeeper. I think the point is that Android's marketplace functions as a gatekeeper. Apple's marketplace functions as a prison warden. The difference is whether you on the inside are allowed to make exceptions for who can come through, or even pass through yourself. If you have no control, what you've been told is a protective wall is actually restraining wall. That said, as to your original point, perhaps some people do need their devices imprisoned for the benefit of the rest of us. I'm not sure I believe that, but I will readily admit that a vast number of people are either unable or unwilling to detect and rectify the problem of their digital devices being hacked, and that ends up affecting us all.

codedokode 8y ago
While Android allows to install apps from anywhere, it doesn't allow them to have the same privileges that Google's apps have and doesn't allow them to manage iptables for example.
y_molodtsov 8y ago
And then people install pirated .apk making iOS the most profitable mobile platform for developers as they prefer to focus on iOS, especially regarding expensive apps.
- kbenson 8y ago
  Do you actually know of anyone that installs pirated APK files? Do you have actual statistics as to how prevalent it is? I'm sure it happens, but if you're going to use it as the reason "iOS is the most profitable platform for developers" you're going to need to more evidence than an unsupported assertion such as that.

jstanley 8y ago

I will never support an oppressor. People should be free of gatekeepers, even if they're worse at looking after themselves than the gatekeepers are, because being a gatekeeper is just far too much of a moral hazard.

Qwertie 8y ago
I think the best option is picking your own gatekeeper. fdroid and redhat are the gatekeepers of my system but if they turn bad I can choose better ones.

anderber 8y ago

I should have specified, I meant risk to freedom/censorship.

jonknee 8y ago
Well it has those risks too. Tainted copies of messaging apps shipped by hostile governments. If you download from the App Store you know you're getting the app that was signed by the developer.
- Zak 8y ago
  Signed binaries and open distribution channels are not mutually exclusive.

jMyles 8y ago

> how big of a mess that was on desktops Wait, what? The desktop experience is wonderful in this regard - choose any number of app stores if you want, or don't, if you don't want. I've never, ever thought of this as a problem.

jonknee 8y ago
The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS. Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?
- jMyles 8y ago
  > The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS. That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security. > Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing. > If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone? I dunno man, this seems like a very dangerous argument to me. It's like you're saying that there's a huge silent majority that is not qualified to be the sovereign over the machines in their life, and that's not my world view. I acknowledge that malware is a huge issue, but I think it's reasonably clear that the best ways of mitigating it do not include disempowering people or cutting their free speech at the knees.
  - dwaite 8y ago
    > That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security. I squarely blame developers/designers. Not just Microsoft, but Netscape with SSL, Android with app permissions and side-loading, etc. There is this terrible historical concept that we can solve security issues with user education and work around design/deployment problems with security through obtuse user prompts. >> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got? > Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing. Sure, just as long as you keep in mind that Firefox extensions and Ubuntu snaps/universe/multiverse aren't vetted for malware. Plus Firefox extensions (like those toolbars of days past) can inspect all traffic and capture things like credit cards and passwords. But hey, the user was notified that there was a risk and blindly hit OK - because it was the way to get the computer to do what they said they wanted the computer to do.

Ataraxy 8y ago

> most users are better served by a gatekeeper If you believe that's the case the bigger problem is the lack of education that leads to some people who are incapable of understanding the risks associated with doing so and not that they have access to do so.

nicky0 8y ago
My mum is highly educated but somehow every time I visit her, her computer is full of fresh malware. Usually it's stuff like sketchy webpages that say "your Flash Player is out of date. Click here to install lates version." and they just do it. Malware makers will always find a way to trick people into installing their stuff.
y_molodtsov 8y ago
Yes, let’s just educate everyone instead of bulding a better system in the first place.

danShumway 8y ago

Others have already said this, but you can always add a gatekeeper on top of an open system. IMHO what closed systems like Apple propose is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why Apple couldn't allow sideloading apps and aggressively curate it's own store. The average user will use Apple certified apps and the power users who need more will sideload uncertified apps. If gatekeepers are as genuinely beneficial to end users as people claim, then there's no reason to force anyone to use them or to block off unofficial channels. If your claim is true then ordinary people will stick to the certified App store of their own volition because it makes them feel safe.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Put a phone permitting side loading in front of my mom or half my friends and they’ll find a way to get a virus within a month. Broadly speaking, freedom a consumer doesn’t understand isn’t freedom to them. Apple’s products are reliable in part due to their tight control over the ecosystem.
- danShumway 8y ago
  I kind of don't understand this. Nobody is forcing anyone to use sideloading. Heck, Android phones by default have sideloading turned off in the settings so you can't even accidentally do it without going through a bunch of warnings. Unless Android phones have an extra side-channel I don't know about, I just can't imagine someone sideloading an app on one of them unless they explicitly have decided the benefits outweigh the risks. And if an average consumer is going into their settings and explicitly turning off a security measure, then at what point does it become reasonable to say that they're doing it because the official app store is not good enough on its own for the average consumer? I get the whole "consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them" argument that people make sometimes, but I think that's a very tricky line to walk - especially when a company has a huge amount of profit tied up in deciding that individual freedom is a net negative.
  - filleduchaos 8y ago
    Counterpoint: The sheer state of the average user's browser circa 2012

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

While that's probably true, Apple could bring to iOS what macOS has been doing for years: code-signed apps that aren't distributed through the App Store and aren't subject to any of the App Store's restrictions (and can't guarantee the ostensible security benefits), but can still be "disabled" by Apple if they prove to be bad actors. On macOS, there are actually three states for this: signed App Store apps, signed regular apps, and entirely unsigned apps. Users get to tell the system what to allow and disallow. There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now. (That system on macOS is, for those who don't remember, called Gatekeeper!)

codedokode 8y ago
Apple won't be able to receive its 30% revenue cut then.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  That may be the reason, but it's not a technical reason. :)
saagarjha 8y ago
> There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now. But then I can sign a jailbreak with my developer certificate and pass it around. Now, you're going to say that such a thing has never happened on macOS, but the fact that it could happen because you've opened the door to it is something that should be considered.
- y_molodtsov 8y ago
  As soon as it get wide enough they’d just block you.
Qwertie 8y ago
iOS doesn't allow this because Apple makes shitloads more money from mobile than desktop. They recently blocked Valves app from iOS because it allows you to stream games from another device which puts apples cut from the app store at risk. They don't care about steam on OSX because they make so much less money there.