23 ms·

The fact that we can't side-load apps is a tragedy. Any anti-trust investigation into Apple + Google should discuss this it's highly anti-competitive. I get t

The fact that we can't side-load apps is a tragedy. Any anti-trust investigation into Apple + Google should discuss this it's highly anti-competitive. I get that they want a sanitary app store but if I go to myapp.com I should be able to side load. It would also be nice to side-load from phone to phone in situations like this so that apps can't be blocked by governments like China. If the apps just verified keys that would be enough so that you know you're installing the app from the right developer.

hyperbovine 7y ago
I dunno, I feel like there is a very solid user experience argument for not allowing the average person to do this. For those of you who are old enough, think back to all the sh*t your mom/uncle/grandparent would load up on their Windows 95 desktop. Now make it 100x easier to install an app. Seems like a recipe for disaster, for the average case anyways.
- chii 7y ago
  so the question is whether user freedom is a better tradeoff. I will quote Benjamin Franklin " Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
  - sneak 7y ago
    Good thing you can still buy and use other phones that will run any malware you wish. It’s not a question of freedom.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Given the number of things that only run on an iPhone, I’m inclined to disagree.
      - etatoby 7y ago
        Such as?
  - userbinator 7y ago
    That infamous quote has gotten rather a lot of visibility within the past few years, AFAIK it gained popularity shortly after Secure Boot and Cory Doctor's articles that started the term "war on general-purpose computing" became well known, over 7 years ago: https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html A few more relevant quotes: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." -Gandhi "Insecurity is freedom." -(various)
- chillacy 7y ago
  macOS presents a nice model where by default the computer is locked down but you can disable code signing checks to run 3rd party apps at your own risk.
- folkhack 7y ago
  > think back to all the sh*t your mom/uncle/grandparent would load up on their Windows 95 desktop So what. Should my computing experience be crippled because people are ignorant to security practices? Should we hold the market back because uncle Marty keeps visiting gross sites with Internet Explorer?...
  - remus 7y ago
    When uncle Marty and aunt Mavis are 99% of your users then yes, it does make sense.
  - matwood 7y ago
    > Should my computing experience be crippled because people are ignorant to security practices? But it's not. You don't have to buy an iPhone. This isn't some bait and switch tactic. People who buy iPhones know the App Store is where they get software.
- 43920 7y ago
  The big difference is that iOS/Android are sandboxed, whereas Windows gave every app access to anything. Even if you do manage to install malware on your device, the potential for damage is much more limited.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Uploading all your contacts and photos to malicious attackers is not “much more limited” damage; we keep a lot more important data on our devices now than we used to.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Even so, people should be free to fuck themselves over. Removing the possibility for everyone just because you don’t trust users to take care of themselves is such a sad way of thinking.
      - hyperbovine 7y ago
        No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone or use iOS. I'd say the market has spoken on the whole curated app store thing, and it largely doesn't give a hoot. There are entire phone OSs built for people just like you. Vote with your feet and your wallet.
        matwood 7y ago
        > I'd say the market has spoken on the whole curated app store thing, and it largely doesn't give a hoot. I would say the market even prefers the App Store model. Google/Android is working more towards the Apple model and not the other way around.
      - bonoboTP 7y ago
        Think about it from Apple's point of view. If they make app installation easy from anywhere, you soon end up with tons of ads, popups etc. that direct you to a crappy app's site, which is either just very badly designed or straight up malware. And the average user will download them, just like they have been doing it on Windows (ever looked at non-technical people's computers? Remember toolbars?). Then people end up complaining about the manufacturer of the computer because they don't understand the difference. Windows used to be blamed for being slow after people installed all sorts of garbage on it. Similarly, in the minds of non-technical people, Apple would be blamed for making their iPhone experience clumsy and frustrating. Apple support will be called when they lose data or get their nudes stolen. Apple wants everyday users to have a streamlined, simple, "just works" experience. It is a common principle in many other facets of life. You can't just buy any prescription medicine for example, even though theoretically a well-prepared patient with access to the newest medical literature could figure out what he needs. But the vast majority most definitely cannot and relies on some kind of access-filter.
cptskippy 7y ago
You can side load Apps into Android and install competing stores all day long. The objection I have is that Google doesn't let you delegate that authority, it's either "Let Google Manage It" or "Let everyone do whatever the hell they want".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 7y ago
  >The objection I have is that Google doesn't let you delegate that authority, it's either "Let Google Manage It" or "Let everyone do whatever the hell they want". What do you mean? After android 7 or 8, the "install unknown apps" permission was per-app rather than being a global setting[1]. That means you can allow f-droid to install apps but not your weather app. The only difference is that third party apps can't install apps "silently" (you have to manually confirm each install/update through a system dialog). [1] random image result: https://media.kasperskydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/92/2018/09/24053328/android-8-permissions-unknown-apps-EN.png https://media.kasperskydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/92...
  - bubblethink 7y ago
    That is better, but not ideal. You don't have a way to trust developer keys independently. What's the point of trusting Chrome if everything can be installed through Chrome?
    - cptskippy 7y ago
      I could see that being valuable if it's a Store like Steam or Amazon. It's not any worse than Google Play right?
      - bubblethink 7y ago
        Yes, trusting a store like fdroid is the ideal case. However, most uninformed users would come across an apk file on their browser, trust Chrome, and then Chrome will happily install anything.
twothumbsup 7y ago
you've been able to sideload apps on iOS for a bit now. 2016 article: http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ipad-xcode/ http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ip...
- cglong 7y ago
  Okay mom, first thing you need to do is install Xcode...
  - gruez 7y ago
    There's cydia impactor which is much more straightforward. It only needs your apple id and an IPA.
    - samfisher83 7y ago
      Unless you have a paid developer account you will have to reload every 7 days.
  - noisem4ker 7y ago
    ...on a MacBook - I forgot to tell you - you have to buy first.
    - briandear 7y ago
      You also need an iOS device too. Crazy.
      - noisem4ker 7y ago
        Is that a rebuttal? That makes no sense: as it is the target platform, of course it is required. The point was I don't need a Chromebook to develop Android applications. I don't need a Microsoft Surface laptop to develop Windows software. Somehow, Apple requires you to buy their expensive hardware to develop for their platform. There's no technical reason you couldn't just get their OS and development tools; they just want you to shell out for overpriced x86 hardware along with those.
dpedu 7y ago
Side-loading is a first-class feature on Android.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  [Edit: I'm a dumbass regarding APKs, ignore this]
  - jimktrains2 7y ago
    You don't have to only use Verizon branded phoneson Verizon's network. I haven't for years.
  - TheRealSteel 7y ago
    You don't need to mess with the bootloader at all to sideload apps on Android. Maybe you're thinking of installing custom ROMs?
  - jeffchien 7y ago
    Isn't this thread talking about sideloading APKs, not installing custom ROMs? https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-222183/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-22218...
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    You're talking about rooting which is different from sideloading. On android, you can go to foo.com/someApp.apk and after accepting a bajillion warnings, install the app with no approval from Google needed
cglong 7y ago
Even proper support on iOS for Progressive Web Apps would help bridge this gap. On Android, you can go to a URL and receive a prompt to "install" it on your home screen. iOS keeps burying their equivalent more with each release and imposes way too many restrictions to web apps make it an alternative to the iOS App Store.
- threeseed 7y ago
  It is trivial to add a website to the home screen. Just two clicks. One for share button. One to add to home screen.
  - mynameisvlad 7y ago
    Note, this only applies to Safari. So if you're using Chrome, Firefox, Brave, etc, you won't get that option.
  - lucasmullens 7y ago
    That's different from full PWA support. Apple understandably has strong incentives to make building a PWA not a viable alternative to a native iOS app (since that means more iOS-only apps which makes other platforms less useful).
  - coder543 7y ago
    Unfortunately, iOS does not support web push notifications like Android (and practically every desktop browser including Safari on macOS), which is a huge limitation. Not supporting notifications at all is a dealbreaker for most apps that could just be PWAs. Furthermore, last I checked, iOS doesn’t allow PWAs added to the home screen to access the camera or certain other valuable things that they should be able to access, but maybe that has finally been fixed. Apple has intentionally made PWAs a bad experience to push people to the App Store, which is really unfortunate since they basically invented the concept of adding a website to your home screen that would then open in a chromeless experience that felt like an app.
    - threeseed 7y ago
_bxg1 7y ago
It also helps beef up security against drive-by attacks, no? Wouldn't it be easier for a malicious website to install software on your phone without your express permission if not every app had to be signed by Apple? Presumably it would have to be combined with another exploit, but still.
- userbinator 7y ago
  No one is advocating for "silent" installs; even in the wide-open-freedom days of early Windows, you still had to download and run a binary to install anything (browser exploits and such notwithstanding.)
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    No but what I'm saying is, given other exploits, this could be one additional hurdle for attackers. I.e. right now, if they figured out how to bypass the prompt, I believe (?) they still couldn't install a binary that isn't signed by Apple.
    - simion314 7y ago
      Apple developers are smart enough to sandbox a browser and have the installer processes secured enough, there are so many ways to do it.
      - _bxg1 7y ago
        The point is that every layer helps. It's bad security practice to build a single layer of defense and call it a day. People always find a way through.
        simion314 7y ago
        Who said only 1 layer ? You sandbox the browser you put the installer on a different user you make the installer always open a popup you ask for the password/pin If a JS script can bypass all of this then you have a bigger problem, the malware developers can easily already have a dummpy app already in the app-store that is signed by Apple, the installer signature is the last thing you should worry about in this case (better disable JS now)
zepto 7y ago
Some people consider this a bad feature of the iPhone and some think it is desirable. Products are available on the market to suit both preferences. Mandating sideloading would remove consumer choice. It would also be compelled speech, since code is considered speech.
- simion314 7y ago
  >Mandating sideloading would remove consumer choice. How exactly are you affected by an optional thing that is off by default and hidden away. Apple could force you to watch some videos that explain why this is dangerous and make you read all the warnings. Some smart developers and designers could design this so grandma is not tricked to install malware, you could even require you take a quiz online. You also have the Mac OS example, it is not locked down and the viruses and malware are not rampant. Honest question , can you take 1 minute and consider thins, is there a large monetary incentive for Apple to lock down iOS?
  - spunker540 7y ago
    There is a good incentive for them to do it, just like any other business decision they make. There should also be a large monetary incentive for someone to create a more open platform if people really cared about it as much HN does. The problem is most people could care less. I will never hear my mom say she wishes she could download apps that aren’t on the App Store.
    - simion314 7y ago
      My son was playing a new video game. After he finished I asked him about it and he told me that was good but some buttons were inverted and he had to get used to that. He did not know or asked himself if maybe there are options to change the buttons/controls. Same with your mother, she will not even know or consider the side loading app idea, this will happen only you are hit with things like your application or books are removed from your device, or a popular application is not approved because of political or moral issues. Other example is ad blocking, my relatives do not ask me randomly , "hey is there something that can block ads?" , I need to notice they are missing an ad blocker, then explain why should install one and install one for them. Btw my parents don't play video games, so since you decided if parents don't need something then is useless let's get rid of video games.
superkuh 7y ago
The fact that the word 'side-load' exists and is used with a straight face is part of the problem. Installing applications yourself is the default. It's all these walled gardens that are weird.
- threeseed 7y ago
  That is only because App Stores never used to exist. Now it is common to not to have a side-load option. And walled gardens aren't weird. It has always been the default. I can only install console games approved by Sony, Nintendo etc for example. Printer cartridges were even signed against the printer themselves. Companies have always tried to lock you down in some way.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Consoles are very different, the hardware is subsidized by Sony where with Apple you pay a premium. Also consoles are more an entertainment device you use a few hours a day or just in weekends where smartphones are replacing general computers. Comparing a smartphone and a console is a big stretch
    - threeseed 7y ago
      Console manufacturers take a loss at the start but they start to make a profit as the components become less expensive. And a console is exactly what Apple has tried to emulate so of course it's relevant.
      - simion314 7y ago
        >And a console is exactly what Apple has tried to emulate so of course it's relevant. You could also say that Apple is emulating the printer manufacturers , some practices are similar but there are important differences.
    - babypuncher 7y ago
      Neither Xbox One nor Playstation 4 were sold at subsidized prices even at launch. That trend died with the 7th generation consoles.
yesplorer 7y ago
It isn't anti-competitive if you have a choice of comparatively equal standards and quality and you choose the one that doesn't offer the option you want.
- noisem4ker 7y ago
  It is anti-competitive regardless. The fact that it is or isn't the only option in the market is what frequently causes the intervention of anti-trust authorities, but it is still harmful behavior.
tempsy 7y ago
What do you mean "side load"? You can download non-App Store apps from source code...
- amelius 7y ago
  If only there was an app to automate this process.
GeekyBear 7y ago
You jailbreak the device and then you can sideload anything you like.
jtaft 7y ago
You can side load applications on iOS devices by re-singing it with your developer key. I do this when testing iOS apps for security vulns when source code or jailbreaks are not available. You can even binary patch the application and add new functionality (such as instrumenting w/ frida for debugging capability). https://coderwall.com/p/cea3fw/resign-ipa-with-new-distribution-certificate https://coderwall.com/p/cea3fw/resign-ipa-with-new-distribut...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- m463 7y ago
  The point is that it requires permission from Apple.
rad_gruchalski 7y ago
> I get that they want a sanitary app store but if I go to myapp.com I should be able to side load. Great. Maybe get yourself a developer license and do as you please. I applaud the fact that whatever I install comes with some sort of safety constraint.
willis936 7y ago
If you trust (laughs in credit card thief) the developer, a program called alt store recently made tethered side loading easy. It doesn’t require xcode, a developer account, or a mac. The app is signed by the iPhone. It’s more convoluted than it needs to be but as it stands right now things are in a better state. It remains to be seen if Apple will crush this, as they do many nice things.
1propionyl 7y ago
Except you can "side-load" apps (though you do need access to a Mac/Xcode). No developer license needed, though it is slightly technical (but not outrageously so).
- m463 7y ago
  that requries: accept xcode terms and conditions, an apple id, and 7 day renewal.
mastre_ 7y ago
I too wish you could side-load, and the reasons for which you can't aren't 100% noble, but I do appreciate the side-effect of improved security. Side-loading from phone to phone would be a hacker's wet dream.
cyptus 7y ago
https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ automates sideloading in iOS without xcode
pentae 7y ago
The userbase should be up and arms about it. But they aren't, because most iOS users have never even known an experience on their phone of being able to sideload their own apps. Instead you always get some hand waving about how "Apple knows best" and if you "don't like it, get an Android". It's tragic.
als0 7y ago
It's sad that when you build an app from source and install it on your iPhone that it automatically expires after 3 days.

hyperbovine 7y ago

I dunno, I feel like there is a very solid user experience argument for not allowing the average person to do this. For those of you who are old enough, think back to all the sh*t your mom/uncle/grandparent would load up on their Windows 95 desktop. Now make it 100x easier to install an app. Seems like a recipe for disaster, for the average case anyways.

chii 7y ago
so the question is whether user freedom is a better tradeoff. I will quote Benjamin Franklin " Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
- sneak 7y ago
  Good thing you can still buy and use other phones that will run any malware you wish. It’s not a question of freedom.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Given the number of things that only run on an iPhone, I’m inclined to disagree.
    - etatoby 7y ago
      Such as?
- userbinator 7y ago
  That infamous quote has gotten rather a lot of visibility within the past few years, AFAIK it gained popularity shortly after Secure Boot and Cory Doctor's articles that started the term "war on general-purpose computing" became well known, over 7 years ago: https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html A few more relevant quotes: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." -Gandhi "Insecurity is freedom." -(various)
chillacy 7y ago
macOS presents a nice model where by default the computer is locked down but you can disable code signing checks to run 3rd party apps at your own risk.
folkhack 7y ago
> think back to all the sh*t your mom/uncle/grandparent would load up on their Windows 95 desktop So what. Should my computing experience be crippled because people are ignorant to security practices? Should we hold the market back because uncle Marty keeps visiting gross sites with Internet Explorer?...
- remus 7y ago
  When uncle Marty and aunt Mavis are 99% of your users then yes, it does make sense.
- matwood 7y ago
  > Should my computing experience be crippled because people are ignorant to security practices? But it's not. You don't have to buy an iPhone. This isn't some bait and switch tactic. People who buy iPhones know the App Store is where they get software.
43920 7y ago
The big difference is that iOS/Android are sandboxed, whereas Windows gave every app access to anything. Even if you do manage to install malware on your device, the potential for damage is much more limited.
- sneak 7y ago
  Uploading all your contacts and photos to malicious attackers is not “much more limited” damage; we keep a lot more important data on our devices now than we used to.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Even so, people should be free to fuck themselves over. Removing the possibility for everyone just because you don’t trust users to take care of themselves is such a sad way of thinking.
    - hyperbovine 7y ago
      No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone or use iOS. I'd say the market has spoken on the whole curated app store thing, and it largely doesn't give a hoot. There are entire phone OSs built for people just like you. Vote with your feet and your wallet.
      - matwood 7y ago
        > I'd say the market has spoken on the whole curated app store thing, and it largely doesn't give a hoot. I would say the market even prefers the App Store model. Google/Android is working more towards the Apple model and not the other way around.
    - bonoboTP 7y ago
      Think about it from Apple's point of view. If they make app installation easy from anywhere, you soon end up with tons of ads, popups etc. that direct you to a crappy app's site, which is either just very badly designed or straight up malware. And the average user will download them, just like they have been doing it on Windows (ever looked at non-technical people's computers? Remember toolbars?). Then people end up complaining about the manufacturer of the computer because they don't understand the difference. Windows used to be blamed for being slow after people installed all sorts of garbage on it. Similarly, in the minds of non-technical people, Apple would be blamed for making their iPhone experience clumsy and frustrating. Apple support will be called when they lose data or get their nudes stolen. Apple wants everyday users to have a streamlined, simple, "just works" experience. It is a common principle in many other facets of life. You can't just buy any prescription medicine for example, even though theoretically a well-prepared patient with access to the newest medical literature could figure out what he needs. But the vast majority most definitely cannot and relies on some kind of access-filter.

cptskippy 7y ago

You can side load Apps into Android and install competing stores all day long. The objection I have is that Google doesn't let you delegate that authority, it's either "Let Google Manage It" or "Let everyone do whatever the hell they want".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gruez 7y ago
>The objection I have is that Google doesn't let you delegate that authority, it's either "Let Google Manage It" or "Let everyone do whatever the hell they want". What do you mean? After android 7 or 8, the "install unknown apps" permission was per-app rather than being a global setting[1]. That means you can allow f-droid to install apps but not your weather app. The only difference is that third party apps can't install apps "silently" (you have to manually confirm each install/update through a system dialog). [1] random image result: https://media.kasperskydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/92/2018/09/24053328/android-8-permissions-unknown-apps-EN.png https://media.kasperskydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/92...
- bubblethink 7y ago
  That is better, but not ideal. You don't have a way to trust developer keys independently. What's the point of trusting Chrome if everything can be installed through Chrome?
  - cptskippy 7y ago
    I could see that being valuable if it's a Store like Steam or Amazon. It's not any worse than Google Play right?
    - bubblethink 7y ago
      Yes, trusting a store like fdroid is the ideal case. However, most uninformed users would come across an apk file on their browser, trust Chrome, and then Chrome will happily install anything.

twothumbsup 7y ago

you've been able to sideload apps on iOS for a bit now. 2016 article: http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ipad-xcode/ http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/12/howto-sideload-apps-iphone-ip...

cglong 7y ago
Okay mom, first thing you need to do is install Xcode...
- gruez 7y ago
  There's cydia impactor which is much more straightforward. It only needs your apple id and an IPA.
  - samfisher83 7y ago
    Unless you have a paid developer account you will have to reload every 7 days.
- noisem4ker 7y ago
  ...on a MacBook - I forgot to tell you - you have to buy first.
  - briandear 7y ago
    You also need an iOS device too. Crazy.
    - noisem4ker 7y ago
      Is that a rebuttal? That makes no sense: as it is the target platform, of course it is required. The point was I don't need a Chromebook to develop Android applications. I don't need a Microsoft Surface laptop to develop Windows software. Somehow, Apple requires you to buy their expensive hardware to develop for their platform. There's no technical reason you couldn't just get their OS and development tools; they just want you to shell out for overpriced x86 hardware along with those.

dpedu 7y ago

Side-loading is a first-class feature on Android.

tomatotomato37 7y ago
[Edit: I'm a dumbass regarding APKs, ignore this]
- jimktrains2 7y ago
  You don't have to only use Verizon branded phoneson Verizon's network. I haven't for years.
- TheRealSteel 7y ago
  You don't need to mess with the bootloader at all to sideload apps on Android. Maybe you're thinking of installing custom ROMs?
- jeffchien 7y ago
  Isn't this thread talking about sideloading APKs, not installing custom ROMs? https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-222183/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/knowledge-base-22218...
- bryan_w 7y ago
  You're talking about rooting which is different from sideloading. On android, you can go to foo.com/someApp.apk and after accepting a bajillion warnings, install the app with no approval from Google needed

cglong 7y ago

Even proper support on iOS for Progressive Web Apps would help bridge this gap. On Android, you can go to a URL and receive a prompt to "install" it on your home screen. iOS keeps burying their equivalent more with each release and imposes way too many restrictions to web apps make it an alternative to the iOS App Store.

threeseed 7y ago
It is trivial to add a website to the home screen. Just two clicks. One for share button. One to add to home screen.
- mynameisvlad 7y ago
  Note, this only applies to Safari. So if you're using Chrome, Firefox, Brave, etc, you won't get that option.
- lucasmullens 7y ago
  That's different from full PWA support. Apple understandably has strong incentives to make building a PWA not a viable alternative to a native iOS app (since that means more iOS-only apps which makes other platforms less useful).
- coder543 7y ago
  Unfortunately, iOS does not support web push notifications like Android (and practically every desktop browser including Safari on macOS), which is a huge limitation. Not supporting notifications at all is a dealbreaker for most apps that could just be PWAs. Furthermore, last I checked, iOS doesn’t allow PWAs added to the home screen to access the camera or certain other valuable things that they should be able to access, but maybe that has finally been fixed. Apple has intentionally made PWAs a bad experience to push people to the App Store, which is really unfortunate since they basically invented the concept of adding a website to your home screen that would then open in a chromeless experience that felt like an app.
  - threeseed 7y ago

_bxg1 7y ago

It also helps beef up security against drive-by attacks, no? Wouldn't it be easier for a malicious website to install software on your phone without your express permission if not every app had to be signed by Apple? Presumably it would have to be combined with another exploit, but still.

userbinator 7y ago
No one is advocating for "silent" installs; even in the wide-open-freedom days of early Windows, you still had to download and run a binary to install anything (browser exploits and such notwithstanding.)
- _bxg1 7y ago
  No but what I'm saying is, given other exploits, this could be one additional hurdle for attackers. I.e. right now, if they figured out how to bypass the prompt, I believe (?) they still couldn't install a binary that isn't signed by Apple.
  - simion314 7y ago
    Apple developers are smart enough to sandbox a browser and have the installer processes secured enough, there are so many ways to do it.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      The point is that every layer helps. It's bad security practice to build a single layer of defense and call it a day. People always find a way through.
      - simion314 7y ago
        Who said only 1 layer ? You sandbox the browser you put the installer on a different user you make the installer always open a popup you ask for the password/pin If a JS script can bypass all of this then you have a bigger problem, the malware developers can easily already have a dummpy app already in the app-store that is signed by Apple, the installer signature is the last thing you should worry about in this case (better disable JS now)

zepto 7y ago

Some people consider this a bad feature of the iPhone and some think it is desirable. Products are available on the market to suit both preferences. Mandating sideloading would remove consumer choice. It would also be compelled speech, since code is considered speech.

simion314 7y ago
>Mandating sideloading would remove consumer choice. How exactly are you affected by an optional thing that is off by default and hidden away. Apple could force you to watch some videos that explain why this is dangerous and make you read all the warnings. Some smart developers and designers could design this so grandma is not tricked to install malware, you could even require you take a quiz online. You also have the Mac OS example, it is not locked down and the viruses and malware are not rampant. Honest question , can you take 1 minute and consider thins, is there a large monetary incentive for Apple to lock down iOS?
- spunker540 7y ago
  There is a good incentive for them to do it, just like any other business decision they make. There should also be a large monetary incentive for someone to create a more open platform if people really cared about it as much HN does. The problem is most people could care less. I will never hear my mom say she wishes she could download apps that aren’t on the App Store.
  - simion314 7y ago
    My son was playing a new video game. After he finished I asked him about it and he told me that was good but some buttons were inverted and he had to get used to that. He did not know or asked himself if maybe there are options to change the buttons/controls. Same with your mother, she will not even know or consider the side loading app idea, this will happen only you are hit with things like your application or books are removed from your device, or a popular application is not approved because of political or moral issues. Other example is ad blocking, my relatives do not ask me randomly , "hey is there something that can block ads?" , I need to notice they are missing an ad blocker, then explain why should install one and install one for them. Btw my parents don't play video games, so since you decided if parents don't need something then is useless let's get rid of video games.

superkuh 7y ago

The fact that the word 'side-load' exists and is used with a straight face is part of the problem. Installing applications yourself is the default. It's all these walled gardens that are weird.

threeseed 7y ago
That is only because App Stores never used to exist. Now it is common to not to have a side-load option. And walled gardens aren't weird. It has always been the default. I can only install console games approved by Sony, Nintendo etc for example. Printer cartridges were even signed against the printer themselves. Companies have always tried to lock you down in some way.
- simion314 7y ago
  Consoles are very different, the hardware is subsidized by Sony where with Apple you pay a premium. Also consoles are more an entertainment device you use a few hours a day or just in weekends where smartphones are replacing general computers. Comparing a smartphone and a console is a big stretch
  - threeseed 7y ago
    Console manufacturers take a loss at the start but they start to make a profit as the components become less expensive. And a console is exactly what Apple has tried to emulate so of course it's relevant.
    - simion314 7y ago
      >And a console is exactly what Apple has tried to emulate so of course it's relevant. You could also say that Apple is emulating the printer manufacturers , some practices are similar but there are important differences.
  - babypuncher 7y ago
    Neither Xbox One nor Playstation 4 were sold at subsidized prices even at launch. That trend died with the 7th generation consoles.

yesplorer 7y ago

It isn't anti-competitive if you have a choice of comparatively equal standards and quality and you choose the one that doesn't offer the option you want.

noisem4ker 7y ago
It is anti-competitive regardless. The fact that it is or isn't the only option in the market is what frequently causes the intervention of anti-trust authorities, but it is still harmful behavior.

tempsy 7y ago

What do you mean "side load"? You can download non-App Store apps from source code...

amelius 7y ago
If only there was an app to automate this process.

GeekyBear 7y ago

You jailbreak the device and then you can sideload anything you like.

jtaft 7y ago

You can side load applications on iOS devices by re-singing it with your developer key. I do this when testing iOS apps for security vulns when source code or jailbreaks are not available. You can even binary patch the application and add new functionality (such as instrumenting w/ frida for debugging capability). https://coderwall.com/p/cea3fw/resign-ipa-with-new-distribution-certificate https://coderwall.com/p/cea3fw/resign-ipa-with-new-distribut...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m463 7y ago
The point is that it requires permission from Apple.

rad_gruchalski 7y ago

> I get that they want a sanitary app store but if I go to myapp.com I should be able to side load. Great. Maybe get yourself a developer license and do as you please. I applaud the fact that whatever I install comes with some sort of safety constraint.

willis936 7y ago

If you trust (laughs in credit card thief) the developer, a program called alt store recently made tethered side loading easy. It doesn’t require xcode, a developer account, or a mac. The app is signed by the iPhone. It’s more convoluted than it needs to be but as it stands right now things are in a better state. It remains to be seen if Apple will crush this, as they do many nice things.

1propionyl 7y ago

Except you can "side-load" apps (though you do need access to a Mac/Xcode). No developer license needed, though it is slightly technical (but not outrageously so).

m463 7y ago
that requries: accept xcode terms and conditions, an apple id, and 7 day renewal.

mastre_ 7y ago

I too wish you could side-load, and the reasons for which you can't aren't 100% noble, but I do appreciate the side-effect of improved security. Side-loading from phone to phone would be a hacker's wet dream.

cyptus 7y ago

https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ automates sideloading in iOS without xcode

pentae 7y ago

The userbase should be up and arms about it. But they aren't, because most iOS users have never even known an experience on their phone of being able to sideload their own apps. Instead you always get some hand waving about how "Apple knows best" and if you "don't like it, get an Android". It's tragic.

als0 7y ago

It's sad that when you build an app from source and install it on your iPhone that it automatically expires after 3 days.