16 ms·

You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I t

You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate. But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent? Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it. Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.

admiral33 6y ago
Separate hardware and software. If you buy an iPhone, you have the right to put whatever software you want on it. Similarly - Apple can restrict whatever software they provide to you on those devices in return. Future software updates, App store, iCloud etc.
- fastball 6y ago
  The problem is that a lot of people actually like how hard it is to sideload content onto an iPhone, because it effectively bricks stolen ones, which is a pretty good deterrent.
  - tomxor 6y ago
    That same type of control bricks it for you at the OS level when they decide your device is too old (aka you haven't paid them often enough).
    - judge2020 6y ago
      No? My old iPad 2 still works and can download apps from the App Store, albeit many apps don't support the iOS 9 it still has since it's super old. Given that it came with iOS 4, i'm happy with the 5 years of updates it got and how it still works.
    - tomxor 6y ago
      When will i learn to not engage with the apologists...
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    Android solves this. Out of the box its locked and can not have software sideloaded. You can disable this feature and do whatever you want but to disable it you have to have the phone open. Stolen phones are still bricked because they can't be unlocked and legitimate owners can do whatever they want.
    - fastball 6y ago
      How is it locked out of the box if you haven't set it up yet?
      - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
        The bootloader is locked so it won't accept unsigned software. Of course it can't be locked to your google account until you sign in. To unlock the bootloader you have to know the screen code or the google account code.
tomohawk 6y ago
According to the law, a monopoly is not treated like a normal company - they have much less latitude in their actions because a monopoly in one area can easily be used to acquire a monopoly in another area.
ernst_klim 6y ago
> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? Yes, I have. You put unnecessary limits on our freedom to agree on certain contracts. Hence your measures are authoritarian, you try to restrict my freedom. In my opinion it's unethical to restrict people's freedom to make contracts willingly, if it hurts not any third party. As a consumer, I think apple is doing the right thing, and I totally agree on their terms. We both, Apple and I, agree on what an ipnone is and how it works. If you don't like it, there is a plethora of other OS: sailfish, mer, postmarket, android, use them. As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case. One of the reasons they support their devices for so long is that the earn on the ecosystem. With the laws you propose they would be incentivized to sell more phones supporting them less, turning iphone into another short term phone, like any android one. Hence you would significantly diminish the choice, hurting me, the consumer.
- Sargos 6y ago
  I have to assume you're not trolling but those are some impressive mental gymnastics my friend. If Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical. You would have the freedom to continue using the App Store just like you do today and have a nice curated experience. Contracts would continue to work just like they do today. The thing is, the rest of us would have -more- freedom as we could, optionally and of our own accord, use apps outside of the App Store as well. Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy. Everyone either has the same amount of or more freedom and safety.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    As if "allow sideloading" is just some boolean flag in the iOS source. Enabling it would have seriuos implications for iOS and for Apple (no matter where from a user download some shady app Apple suddenly becomes responsible).
    - bishalb 6y ago
wheelie_boy 6y ago
A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe & reinstall. You don't have to worry about viruses. You don't have to worry about spending a lot of time being a system administrator, and just use it. You don't even have to worry about many types of malware, because the system protects you from poorly-behaved applications, through a combination of technical means and human review. If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app store. Onavo is a good example. They: - paid teens - to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate - to side-load the Onavo VPN - to spy on their internet traffic - to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook (among other things)
- 43920 6y ago
  I would argue that the technical limitations of iOS are what accomplishes this, rather than app review. For a malicious actor, sneaking prohibited behavior past app review is incredibly easy - look at what Fortnite just did! The reason that apps on iOS can't damage your device is that apps are sandboxed, and that the OS requires user permission to access data and places limits on how many resources an app can use. There's no reason that the same sandboxing system couldn't be applied to apps from outside the store. (VPNs and provisioning profiles are sort of an exception to this, because they can escape the sandbox, but a) the number of scary warnings presented by the system should be enough to limit their impact, and b) they will also continue to exist separately from the app store issue).
  - wheelie_boy 6y ago
    Sandboxing is important, but is only one part of the protections. There's also: - App store guidelines on what is and is not permissible in different cases - Restrictions against using private APIs - Restrictions against jailbreaking the device There are a variety of VPN apps available on iOS. Why was Onavo blocked? Because it violated the guidelines on the use of the information, which is the kind of thing that it difficult to automate. Restrictions against using private APIs are semi-automated, and would be difficult to completely automate. The fact that you can't get an iOS app that jailbreaks the device in order to do whatever it wants is in part due to human review - if one existed in the store, it would get pulled, and the developer cert would get revoked. Jailbreaks exist, and human review in the app store is one way they are mitigated. I for one remember the bad old days when playing a CD could (and did!) install a rootkit.
snowwrestler 6y ago
> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. The thing is, people do have this right on Apple phones; the Library of Congress can designate exemptions from the DMCA and they have done so for jailbreaking smart phones. You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you. Now, whether Apple must make it easy for you to do that is a different question. They actually do, in a way--if you have an Apple developer account you can "side load" whatever you want onto your personal phone. You have to register and pay $99 for that privilege, though. Again--the question is how easy Apple should make it for you to do that. Anyway, this particular lawsuit is not about Apple devices at all; it's about the contract between Apple and the App Developers in their store. If Epic wins this lawsuit, it might encourage some more developers to list their apps in the App Store, but it will have zero impact on how hard it is for you to freely install whatever software on an Apple phone.
- judge2020 6y ago
  You can side-load apps for 7 days at a time with the free developer account as well.
- sjy 6y ago
  > You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you. The law isn’t that simple, and even if it was, Apple does stop most people from jailbreaking most Apple devices most of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act_exemptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Digital_Mille...
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    In the United States, the law is that simple.
    - sjy 6y ago
      Did you read the link I posted? > The jailbreaking of smartphones continued to be legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset." However, the U.S. Copyright office refused to extend this exemption to tablets, such as iPads, arguing that the term "tablets" is broad and ill-defined, and an exemption to this class of devices could have unintended side effects.
pmcollins 6y ago
What if you take the App Store to an extreme? Say, the App Store is so successful that iPhones and Macs are almost free -- paid for by the lifetime expected amount Apple will make from any and all apps sold on those devices. Would this be bad for the consumer? I feel like this is Apple's perspective: the app store subsidizes devices and helps consumers. OTOH, the thing about Epic is I think they're incredibly generous with their developers and with their customers. You can play Fortnite for free, and are only charged if you want to buy a vanity item. And if you develop using Unreal Engine, you're only charged if you literally make millions of dollars. I can see being pissed off at Apple for being incredibly rapacious, wrecking their standing with developers, and undermining their own platform. I, for one, will never develop for Apple again after awful experiences with two apps I developed for their store. Ultimately, IMO Apple is hurting themselves very badly, but I think it might be their right to do so.
- karmelapple 6y ago
  Alas, iPhones still make a healthy profit for Apple, so any cut from software isn’t subsidizing hardware for consumers today.
- ckocagil 6y ago
  One could argue that it would be bad for the consumer since their subsidized divisions have zero incentive to improve. It's nearly impossible to beat a free offering, so no competition will arise. Therefore innovation halts. This is what Google's been doing for years. In a healthy market we could have incredible email providers, video hosting services, calendars and whatnot.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Prices are signal, they must match the cost of the product. Otherwise the customer can't properly decide whether it's worth it. Subsidizing phones with app revenue means customers buy phones even though the benefit they gain from them is lower than the cost of the phone. Conversely, they don't buy apps when the benefit would have outweighed the cost.
ace_of_spades 6y ago
Let‘s take the example of an autonomous car. Would you also argue that you have the right to run any software on it? Looking a bit further down the line toward a society with more prevalent and powerful AI there will need to be some kind of certification that the software you are running is safe. It will be almost impossible to enforce this without the help of device manufacturers who will be mandated to only run safe software. I don’t like that there is currently no way to get Apple to reduce its cut due to competitive pressure but mandating a right to run any kind of software people like is very short sighted move that would likely need to be reversed in time if we don’t want to sink into chaos as a society. What I could imagine as a solution in the long run is a consortium type governing body for the certification of software that is made up of companies, specialists, and government reps. This would allow something like sideloading of approved apps to take place in a controlled way. Question would still be who would pay for this? Do they also take a cut? Do you pay a one time fee? Is it subsidized by taxes? Also could a consortium do this better than the manufacturer itself? Maybe we end up with sideloading of apps that still need to be approved but for a one time fee rather than a revenue sharing model?
- btown 6y ago
  I think the line is “does this harm a human who does not consent.” Regulating autonomous vehicles? Apple being able to reject apps that steal user data? Both within reason. But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.
  - jszymborski 6y ago
    While I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your argument, I believe Apple makes the argument that their payment gateway enforcement is in fact in line with that “does this harm a human who does not consent” test. The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner. Whether you buy that or not is up to you, but this is definitely a defence I've heard.
    - 6y ago
neop1x 6y ago
People should be able to install alternatives. Microsoft was forced some time ago to give people alternatives to built-in apps so why Apple shouldn't. I would also like to see VP9 supported on iOS and alternative web engines in addition to WebKit/Safari!
- dwaite 6y ago
  Good news - VP9 is supported on the next major iOS/tvOS releases. Alternative web engines are a nice thought, but the reality is that the browser engine cannot be packaged as an "app", it is a new type of application sandboxing environment. Safari (and WebKit and JavaScriptCore) use significant elevated entitlements to be able to do things like control prompts to hardware features like location and NFC, JIT compile code, etc. The reality is that Chrome and Firefox have technical and security limitations which are much harder to overcome than Apple's platform guidelines.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Location access is an entitlement made available to all apps, though. The major roadblock is dynamic-codesigning, which Apple refused to grant to third-party applications.
cblconfederate 6y ago
Apple could try any amount of tech to lock their devices, but it shouldn't be illegal to break those locks.
- sjy 6y ago
  Nobody benefits from the pointless arms race that this policy generates.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  It is not illegal to break those locks, at least in the United States. The question is if Apple should provide you with the key if you ask.
theredlion 6y ago
Talking about should is well and good so long as we remember that many things which have been implemented with the intent of helping ended up being very bad
BurningFrog 6y ago
> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? For one thing, that is how you get viruses. This is amusingly similar to the mask refusal arguments. > People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already "My proposal would lead to bad things, but there already are bad things" is a terrible argument.
- Sargos 6y ago
  People are perfectly free to use Apple App Store and stay free from viruses and have a nice curated environment. Nothing changes for them if you allow sideloading. The ONLY change is that you have the OPTION to run software Apple doesn't officially sanction. That's just a basic freedom right there and it's hard to see any rational argument against it.
  - etchalon 6y ago
    The rational argument is that the ability to side-load applications would be exploited by the nefarious and the clever to take advantage to naive users. If a website can convince someone to download a "new version of the Flash Player", those same websites will convince someone to "side-load this application to protect against identity theft!"
    - Fargren 6y ago
      Android allows sideloading and this doesn't happen (too much) in Android. It's possible to support walled garden by default while giving the user advanced options to sideload, which are difficult but not too difficult to find.
      - etchalon 6y ago
        (Too much) and (not at all) are two different things.
sfjailbird 6y ago
> You could argue about Apple's rights [...] But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? Because this is a time and place to call out Apple and Google, the colluding monopolists, for their de facto, if not (yet) proven de jure, criminal behavior, which costs developers, like us, enormous amounts of money. A call to arms is what we need. It's not a difficult philosophical question. (1) Cut the ridiculous 30% fee, (2) allow other payment processors, (3) allow alternative app installation processes.
pzo 6y ago
Some ideas that apple could consider and I would like to see: * 30% fee if app featured by apple or install initiated from app store search * 20% provision if user landed in app store from direct app store app link * provide accredited 3rd payment processors (e.g. paypal, stripe). Provide them API and guidelines that they have to comply with. In app store search apps that will go through apple payment processor will have label e.g. 'fulfillment by apple' similar to what amazon uses. Such app would have fee: 15% to apple + x% whatever paypal/stripe will charge. If app installed from direct link and using 3rd party processor then 10% to apple + x% to payment processor * remove ads inside app store - I consider them unfair or indie devs * iOS Safari WebView that is not crippled and catches up to latest web standards (Web Notifiations, Fullscreen API on iOS, Shared Web Workers just to name a few) [edit] formatting
dustinmoris 6y ago
> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation. If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice. However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less. It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.
- lub 6y ago
  > It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car. I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.
  - jhasse 6y ago
    You're free to jailbreak your iPhone.
    - hanselot 6y ago
greendesk 6y ago
I will want a clearly marked difference in brands. One brand can be where the restrictions are associated under a common service. Another brand can be all-you-want-install set of stores. I have had cases maintaining systems where the common denominator was to reinstall a system. In the hypothetical scenario where iOS permits active side loading of applications, then there should be, in my opinion, two separate brands. Brand 1: iOS (classic), Brand 2: Generic Brand. Let’s call it Epic mobile brand. While in principle I want to install any software on any hardware. In practice if an issue comes up on non-iOS brand, let’s call it Epic Mobile OS, the fast solution is to reinstall the OS. I want these to be clearly demarcated , so that I avoid the onslaught of crappy apps in the second category requiring re-installation. And I am old to consistently reinstall OSes.
- greendesk 6y ago
  There are options outside iOS/Android. See the Firefox Mobile OS. I do expect these to be successful. But I will find it harder of what I used to call iOS changes in having non-conforming set of not-vetted applications.
shrimpx 6y ago
This is such a tough issue because you could argue zuckerberg is taking this exact stance when he refuses to moderate harmful content because they’re a “mere platform”. From that perspective you could see Apple as selling you “the whole end to end experience” and therefore taking responsibility for and curating all of it. So what do we want? What’s more evil and harmful? Pure platforms and their obliviousness as to good vs. bad, or curated end to end experiences and their draconian, limiting definitions of good vs. bad? And what’s the middle ground?
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  It is not tough at all: your hardware and your OS are oblivious of good vs. bad and you want it to be that way. Why not a platform? You want Microsoft to curate your apps? Then why FB to do it for the content you can see? You should make the choices, not others make it for you.
  - shrimpx 6y ago
    Not so fast. The hardware was mediated to be “safe” in various ways by the manufacturer and regulating bodies. It’s within accepted radiation levels, it’s highly unlikely to explode in your face or set your house on fire when you charge it. And this brings up the crucial thing: it’s because (a) unsafe devices would wreak havoc on society at scale and (b) you wouldn’t be able to/want to do this verification by yourself. You could choose to forego verification, as in “I choose this device safe or unsafe it’s my choice” but overall this is probably reckless as an effect on society, so it’s therefore regulated and your choice is disallowed. Software is in more of a gray area and you could more easily believe you can verify it. But if a piece of software threatened to wreck society, ultimately society will bring it under control. Facebook is incidentally a highly efficient propaganda targeting system that does threaten to enable bad players to wreck societies. I think the correct answer is case by case in a vast gray area between the extremes.
tommymachine 6y ago
Customers do have the right to install whatever they want. Apple just doesn’t have to facilitate making it super easy for them to do that if they don’t think it contributes to the health of the platform & their business model.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Super easy? There is no way to install an app in your iPhone to export you iMessages or render websites using Gecko short of exploiting it.
  - tommymachine 6y ago
    If you want a messaging app that’s easier to hack you can always download one. See: Jeff Bezos‘ WhatsApp hacked
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I’m having trouble engaging with your comment in good faith when it looks like you’re implying that the ability to access messages I have sent that are sitting locked up in my own device makes it “easier to hack”?
      - tommymachine 6y ago
        I’m sorry you’re having trouble. You can always touch & hold a message, & select “Copy” to export an individual message. You can also screen shot your messages, or simply view them in the app. How does not allowing batch export of sms messages to other apps stop you from accessing them?
        saagarjha 6y ago
        That's useful if you want to share a couple of messages with someone else, not if you're looking to archive them. Try finding a message you sent on August 15, 2015, or saving a copy of your messages from 2018–you can't. Again, your tone and choice to pick a strange meaning of the word "access" when it is fairly obvious which definition I am talking about (to the point where you clearly knew what I was saying, since you quoted it) is not welcome.
ken47 6y ago
If you follow Apple's financial reporting, they need to make up for lost revenue from declining iPhone sales growth, and they've stated they will achieve this via service revenue. So if you're in the Apple C-suite right now, why wouldn't you exploit your monopolistic position to impose unpalatable fees such as this 30% cut? They are trading Apple's reputation in the future (a future in which they will be conveniently uninvolved) for Apple's revenue (and their personal reputations) today. And most Apple shareholders don't care. They'll ride the Apple stock as far as it will go, and then they'll sell as soon as the bottom line begins to reap what is today sown. Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics? In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?
PikachuEXE 6y ago
I agree with you that we should have that right Maybe we will lose some Apple support or risk of hacking / payment issue around those apps. But as long as we are informed about those risks before installing the apps. iOS App Store is so big like Facebook / Google. If Google / Facebook block something based on similar reasons I would be against them too (also I hate AMP). BTW you might want to take a look at https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ for sideloading iOS apps. There are some limitations but still better than nothing.
boublepop 6y ago
You have both the right and possibility to install whatever software you want on an iPhone and Apple can’t stop you. Many tinkeres play around with this. But that’s not what your actually talking about, you feel that Apple should be forced to make that easy and to support it to the point where it’s as easy as staying in their managed ecosystem, which is something entirely different. It’s like people complaining that you can’t change the battery in a iPhone and saying that it infringes on their rights, but of cause you can actually replace it, it’s just difficult, not impossible. But Apple will void warranty on diy repairs, but is that really such a bad thing? Why should they psi if I screw up my repair of the product?

admiral33 6y ago

Separate hardware and software. If you buy an iPhone, you have the right to put whatever software you want on it. Similarly - Apple can restrict whatever software they provide to you on those devices in return. Future software updates, App store, iCloud etc.

fastball 6y ago
The problem is that a lot of people actually like how hard it is to sideload content onto an iPhone, because it effectively bricks stolen ones, which is a pretty good deterrent.
- tomxor 6y ago
  That same type of control bricks it for you at the OS level when they decide your device is too old (aka you haven't paid them often enough).
  - judge2020 6y ago
    No? My old iPad 2 still works and can download apps from the App Store, albeit many apps don't support the iOS 9 it still has since it's super old. Given that it came with iOS 4, i'm happy with the 5 years of updates it got and how it still works.
  - tomxor 6y ago
    When will i learn to not engage with the apologists...
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Android solves this. Out of the box its locked and can not have software sideloaded. You can disable this feature and do whatever you want but to disable it you have to have the phone open. Stolen phones are still bricked because they can't be unlocked and legitimate owners can do whatever they want.
  - fastball 6y ago
    How is it locked out of the box if you haven't set it up yet?
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
      The bootloader is locked so it won't accept unsigned software. Of course it can't be locked to your google account until you sign in. To unlock the bootloader you have to know the screen code or the google account code.

tomohawk 6y ago

According to the law, a monopoly is not treated like a normal company - they have much less latitude in their actions because a monopoly in one area can easily be used to acquire a monopoly in another area.

ernst_klim 6y ago

> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? Yes, I have. You put unnecessary limits on our freedom to agree on certain contracts. Hence your measures are authoritarian, you try to restrict my freedom. In my opinion it's unethical to restrict people's freedom to make contracts willingly, if it hurts not any third party. As a consumer, I think apple is doing the right thing, and I totally agree on their terms. We both, Apple and I, agree on what an ipnone is and how it works. If you don't like it, there is a plethora of other OS: sailfish, mer, postmarket, android, use them. As for apple, yes it asks for 30% fee, and it builds a walled garden. But they also offer what others don't: 8 years of support. I'm totally agree to have a walled garden (convenient enough for me), if I could use my phone for 8 years instead of 2-3 as in the Android case. One of the reasons they support their devices for so long is that the earn on the ecosystem. With the laws you propose they would be incentivized to sell more phones supporting them less, turning iphone into another short term phone, like any android one. Hence you would significantly diminish the choice, hurting me, the consumer.

Sargos 6y ago
I have to assume you're not trolling but those are some impressive mental gymnastics my friend. If Apple allowed sideloading then you're experience would be 100% identical. You would have the freedom to continue using the App Store just like you do today and have a nice curated experience. Contracts would continue to work just like they do today. The thing is, the rest of us would have -more- freedom as we could, optionally and of our own accord, use apps outside of the App Store as well. Nobody is harmed and everyone is happy. Everyone either has the same amount of or more freedom and safety.
- rimliu 6y ago
  As if "allow sideloading" is just some boolean flag in the iOS source. Enabling it would have seriuos implications for iOS and for Apple (no matter where from a user download some shady app Apple suddenly becomes responsible).
  - bishalb 6y ago

wheelie_boy 6y ago

A big part of the value of iPhones and iPads is that you don't have to worry about installing an app that screws up your system and requires a wipe & reinstall. You don't have to worry about viruses. You don't have to worry about spending a lot of time being a system administrator, and just use it. You don't even have to worry about many types of malware, because the system protects you from poorly-behaved applications, through a combination of technical means and human review. If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. To see what I'm talking about, look at apps that are skirting the apple app store. Onavo is a good example. They: - paid teens - to install the Facebook Enterprise Certificate - to side-load the Onavo VPN - to spy on their internet traffic - to find out about new apps or websites that might be a threat to facebook (among other things)

43920 6y ago
I would argue that the technical limitations of iOS are what accomplishes this, rather than app review. For a malicious actor, sneaking prohibited behavior past app review is incredibly easy - look at what Fortnite just did! The reason that apps on iOS can't damage your device is that apps are sandboxed, and that the OS requires user permission to access data and places limits on how many resources an app can use. There's no reason that the same sandboxing system couldn't be applied to apps from outside the store. (VPNs and provisioning profiles are sort of an exception to this, because they can escape the sandbox, but a) the number of scary warnings presented by the system should be enough to limit their impact, and b) they will also continue to exist separately from the app store issue).
- wheelie_boy 6y ago
  Sandboxing is important, but is only one part of the protections. There's also: - App store guidelines on what is and is not permissible in different cases - Restrictions against using private APIs - Restrictions against jailbreaking the device There are a variety of VPN apps available on iOS. Why was Onavo blocked? Because it violated the guidelines on the use of the information, which is the kind of thing that it difficult to automate. Restrictions against using private APIs are semi-automated, and would be difficult to completely automate. The fact that you can't get an iOS app that jailbreaks the device in order to do whatever it wants is in part due to human review - if one existed in the store, it would get pulled, and the developer cert would get revoked. Jailbreaks exist, and human review in the app store is one way they are mitigated. I for one remember the bad old days when playing a CD could (and did!) install a rootkit.

snowwrestler 6y ago

> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. The thing is, people do have this right on Apple phones; the Library of Congress can designate exemptions from the DMCA and they have done so for jailbreaking smart phones. You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you. Now, whether Apple must make it easy for you to do that is a different question. They actually do, in a way--if you have an Apple developer account you can "side load" whatever you want onto your personal phone. You have to register and pay $99 for that privilege, though. Again--the question is how easy Apple should make it for you to do that. Anyway, this particular lawsuit is not about Apple devices at all; it's about the contract between Apple and the App Developers in their store. If Epic wins this lawsuit, it might encourage some more developers to list their apps in the App Store, but it will have zero impact on how hard it is for you to freely install whatever software on an Apple phone.

judge2020 6y ago
You can side-load apps for 7 days at a time with the free developer account as well.
sjy 6y ago
> You have the legal right to jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want; neither Apple nor the Feds can stop you. The law isn’t that simple, and even if it was, Apple does stop most people from jailbreaking most Apple devices most of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act_exemptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Digital_Mille...
- saagarjha 6y ago
  In the United States, the law is that simple.
  - sjy 6y ago
    Did you read the link I posted? > The jailbreaking of smartphones continued to be legal "where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset." However, the U.S. Copyright office refused to extend this exemption to tablets, such as iPads, arguing that the term "tablets" is broad and ill-defined, and an exemption to this class of devices could have unintended side effects.

pmcollins 6y ago

What if you take the App Store to an extreme? Say, the App Store is so successful that iPhones and Macs are almost free -- paid for by the lifetime expected amount Apple will make from any and all apps sold on those devices. Would this be bad for the consumer? I feel like this is Apple's perspective: the app store subsidizes devices and helps consumers. OTOH, the thing about Epic is I think they're incredibly generous with their developers and with their customers. You can play Fortnite for free, and are only charged if you want to buy a vanity item. And if you develop using Unreal Engine, you're only charged if you literally make millions of dollars. I can see being pissed off at Apple for being incredibly rapacious, wrecking their standing with developers, and undermining their own platform. I, for one, will never develop for Apple again after awful experiences with two apps I developed for their store. Ultimately, IMO Apple is hurting themselves very badly, but I think it might be their right to do so.

karmelapple 6y ago
Alas, iPhones still make a healthy profit for Apple, so any cut from software isn’t subsidizing hardware for consumers today.
ckocagil 6y ago
One could argue that it would be bad for the consumer since their subsidized divisions have zero incentive to improve. It's nearly impossible to beat a free offering, so no competition will arise. Therefore innovation halts. This is what Google's been doing for years. In a healthy market we could have incredible email providers, video hosting services, calendars and whatnot.
anoncake 6y ago
Prices are signal, they must match the cost of the product. Otherwise the customer can't properly decide whether it's worth it. Subsidizing phones with app revenue means customers buy phones even though the benefit they gain from them is lower than the cost of the phone. Conversely, they don't buy apps when the benefit would have outweighed the cost.

ace_of_spades 6y ago

Let‘s take the example of an autonomous car. Would you also argue that you have the right to run any software on it? Looking a bit further down the line toward a society with more prevalent and powerful AI there will need to be some kind of certification that the software you are running is safe. It will be almost impossible to enforce this without the help of device manufacturers who will be mandated to only run safe software. I don’t like that there is currently no way to get Apple to reduce its cut due to competitive pressure but mandating a right to run any kind of software people like is very short sighted move that would likely need to be reversed in time if we don’t want to sink into chaos as a society. What I could imagine as a solution in the long run is a consortium type governing body for the certification of software that is made up of companies, specialists, and government reps. This would allow something like sideloading of approved apps to take place in a controlled way. Question would still be who would pay for this? Do they also take a cut? Do you pay a one time fee? Is it subsidized by taxes? Also could a consortium do this better than the manufacturer itself? Maybe we end up with sideloading of apps that still need to be approved but for a one time fee rather than a revenue sharing model?

btown 6y ago
I think the line is “does this harm a human who does not consent.” Regulating autonomous vehicles? Apple being able to reject apps that steal user data? Both within reason. But rejecting simply because it lets someone pay in an alternate manner crosses a line.
- jszymborski 6y ago
  While I'm inclined to agree with the spirit of your argument, I believe Apple makes the argument that their payment gateway enforcement is in fact in line with that “does this harm a human who does not consent” test. The argument goes, if I'm not mistaken, that by enforcing their payment gateway, they're assuring that users aren't handing over credit card info and other PPI in an insecure manner. Whether you buy that or not is up to you, but this is definitely a defence I've heard.
  - 6y ago

neop1x 6y ago

People should be able to install alternatives. Microsoft was forced some time ago to give people alternatives to built-in apps so why Apple shouldn't. I would also like to see VP9 supported on iOS and alternative web engines in addition to WebKit/Safari!

dwaite 6y ago
Good news - VP9 is supported on the next major iOS/tvOS releases. Alternative web engines are a nice thought, but the reality is that the browser engine cannot be packaged as an "app", it is a new type of application sandboxing environment. Safari (and WebKit and JavaScriptCore) use significant elevated entitlements to be able to do things like control prompts to hardware features like location and NFC, JIT compile code, etc. The reality is that Chrome and Firefox have technical and security limitations which are much harder to overcome than Apple's platform guidelines.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Location access is an entitlement made available to all apps, though. The major roadblock is dynamic-codesigning, which Apple refused to grant to third-party applications.

cblconfederate 6y ago

Apple could try any amount of tech to lock their devices, but it shouldn't be illegal to break those locks.

sjy 6y ago
Nobody benefits from the pointless arms race that this policy generates.
saagarjha 6y ago
It is not illegal to break those locks, at least in the United States. The question is if Apple should provide you with the key if you ask.

theredlion 6y ago

Talking about should is well and good so long as we remember that many things which have been implemented with the intent of helping ended up being very bad

BurningFrog 6y ago

> Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? For one thing, that is how you get viruses. This is amusingly similar to the mask refusal arguments. > People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already "My proposal would lead to bad things, but there already are bad things" is a terrible argument.

Sargos 6y ago
People are perfectly free to use Apple App Store and stay free from viruses and have a nice curated environment. Nothing changes for them if you allow sideloading. The ONLY change is that you have the OPTION to run software Apple doesn't officially sanction. That's just a basic freedom right there and it's hard to see any rational argument against it.
- etchalon 6y ago
  The rational argument is that the ability to side-load applications would be exploited by the nefarious and the clever to take advantage to naive users. If a website can convince someone to download a "new version of the Flash Player", those same websites will convince someone to "side-load this application to protect against identity theft!"
  - Fargren 6y ago
    Android allows sideloading and this doesn't happen (too much) in Android. It's possible to support walled garden by default while giving the user advanced options to sideload, which are difficult but not too difficult to find.
    - etchalon 6y ago
      (Too much) and (not at all) are two different things.

sfjailbird 6y ago

> You could argue about Apple's rights [...] But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? Because this is a time and place to call out Apple and Google, the colluding monopolists, for their de facto, if not (yet) proven de jure, criminal behavior, which costs developers, like us, enormous amounts of money. A call to arms is what we need. It's not a difficult philosophical question. (1) Cut the ridiculous 30% fee, (2) allow other payment processors, (3) allow alternative app installation processes.

pzo 6y ago

Some ideas that apple could consider and I would like to see: * 30% fee if app featured by apple or install initiated from app store search * 20% provision if user landed in app store from direct app store app link * provide accredited 3rd payment processors (e.g. paypal, stripe). Provide them API and guidelines that they have to comply with. In app store search apps that will go through apple payment processor will have label e.g. 'fulfillment by apple' similar to what amazon uses. Such app would have fee: 15% to apple + x% whatever paypal/stripe will charge. If app installed from direct link and using 3rd party processor then 10% to apple + x% to payment processor * remove ads inside app store - I consider them unfair or indie devs * iOS Safari WebView that is not crippled and catches up to latest web standards (Web Notifiations, Fullscreen API on iOS, Shared Web Workers just to name a few) [edit] formatting

dustinmoris 6y ago

> Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system I fundamentally disagree and this is also a misrepresentation of the current situation. If I buy an open operating system which advertises that I can run on it what pleases me then I should have the right to carry out this freedom of choice. However, if a company advertises a product as a walled garden, specifically claims that one of the things it does is to vet and prohibit apps which violate their guidelines (which are also open for me to assess myself) and I buy a product for its benefits doing this, then I have a right as a consumer that the company will stick to this and not be forced to change in order to please some dodgy companies or gaming apps which I honestly couldn't care less. It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. The packaging says secure, long battery life, high quality phone because of walled garden, so I fucking expect Apple to deliver the walled garden promise so I don't have to do the vetting myself. When I buy an iPhone for my kids or parents, then I pay more for it because of Apple's walled garden, because it means I have to spend less time doing dumb things for them which I'd have to do on another operating system.

lub 6y ago
> It's like saying I bought a petrol car but I should have a legal right to fill it up with Diesel or make it work with electricity. It's illogical. The packaging said petrol and so I knownlingly bought petrol. Though it's not really uncommon to modify a car for autogas or electric. Often it's also possible to change the radio receiver to e.g. one with android car. I kinda expect the same freedom to modify other products including smartphones.
- jhasse 6y ago
  You're free to jailbreak your iPhone.
  - hanselot 6y ago

greendesk 6y ago

I will want a clearly marked difference in brands. One brand can be where the restrictions are associated under a common service. Another brand can be all-you-want-install set of stores. I have had cases maintaining systems where the common denominator was to reinstall a system. In the hypothetical scenario where iOS permits active side loading of applications, then there should be, in my opinion, two separate brands. Brand 1: iOS (classic), Brand 2: Generic Brand. Let’s call it Epic mobile brand. While in principle I want to install any software on any hardware. In practice if an issue comes up on non-iOS brand, let’s call it Epic Mobile OS, the fast solution is to reinstall the OS. I want these to be clearly demarcated , so that I avoid the onslaught of crappy apps in the second category requiring re-installation. And I am old to consistently reinstall OSes.

greendesk 6y ago
There are options outside iOS/Android. See the Firefox Mobile OS. I do expect these to be successful. But I will find it harder of what I used to call iOS changes in having non-conforming set of not-vetted applications.

shrimpx 6y ago

This is such a tough issue because you could argue zuckerberg is taking this exact stance when he refuses to moderate harmful content because they’re a “mere platform”. From that perspective you could see Apple as selling you “the whole end to end experience” and therefore taking responsibility for and curating all of it. So what do we want? What’s more evil and harmful? Pure platforms and their obliviousness as to good vs. bad, or curated end to end experiences and their draconian, limiting definitions of good vs. bad? And what’s the middle ground?

AdrianB1 6y ago
It is not tough at all: your hardware and your OS are oblivious of good vs. bad and you want it to be that way. Why not a platform? You want Microsoft to curate your apps? Then why FB to do it for the content you can see? You should make the choices, not others make it for you.
- shrimpx 6y ago
  Not so fast. The hardware was mediated to be “safe” in various ways by the manufacturer and regulating bodies. It’s within accepted radiation levels, it’s highly unlikely to explode in your face or set your house on fire when you charge it. And this brings up the crucial thing: it’s because (a) unsafe devices would wreak havoc on society at scale and (b) you wouldn’t be able to/want to do this verification by yourself. You could choose to forego verification, as in “I choose this device safe or unsafe it’s my choice” but overall this is probably reckless as an effect on society, so it’s therefore regulated and your choice is disallowed. Software is in more of a gray area and you could more easily believe you can verify it. But if a piece of software threatened to wreck society, ultimately society will bring it under control. Facebook is incidentally a highly efficient propaganda targeting system that does threaten to enable bad players to wreck societies. I think the correct answer is case by case in a vast gray area between the extremes.

tommymachine 6y ago

Customers do have the right to install whatever they want. Apple just doesn’t have to facilitate making it super easy for them to do that if they don’t think it contributes to the health of the platform & their business model.

saagarjha 6y ago
Super easy? There is no way to install an app in your iPhone to export you iMessages or render websites using Gecko short of exploiting it.
- tommymachine 6y ago
  If you want a messaging app that’s easier to hack you can always download one. See: Jeff Bezos‘ WhatsApp hacked
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I’m having trouble engaging with your comment in good faith when it looks like you’re implying that the ability to access messages I have sent that are sitting locked up in my own device makes it “easier to hack”?
    - tommymachine 6y ago
      I’m sorry you’re having trouble. You can always touch & hold a message, & select “Copy” to export an individual message. You can also screen shot your messages, or simply view them in the app. How does not allowing batch export of sms messages to other apps stop you from accessing them?
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        That's useful if you want to share a couple of messages with someone else, not if you're looking to archive them. Try finding a message you sent on August 15, 2015, or saving a copy of your messages from 2018–you can't. Again, your tone and choice to pick a strange meaning of the word "access" when it is fairly obvious which definition I am talking about (to the point where you clearly knew what I was saying, since you quoted it) is not welcome.

ken47 6y ago

If you follow Apple's financial reporting, they need to make up for lost revenue from declining iPhone sales growth, and they've stated they will achieve this via service revenue. So if you're in the Apple C-suite right now, why wouldn't you exploit your monopolistic position to impose unpalatable fees such as this 30% cut? They are trading Apple's reputation in the future (a future in which they will be conveniently uninvolved) for Apple's revenue (and their personal reputations) today. And most Apple shareholders don't care. They'll ride the Apple stock as far as it will go, and then they'll sell as soon as the bottom line begins to reap what is today sown. Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics? In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?

PikachuEXE 6y ago

I agree with you that we should have that right Maybe we will lose some Apple support or risk of hacking / payment issue around those apps. But as long as we are informed about those risks before installing the apps. iOS App Store is so big like Facebook / Google. If Google / Facebook block something based on similar reasons I would be against them too (also I hate AMP). BTW you might want to take a look at https://altstore.io/ https://altstore.io/ for sideloading iOS apps. There are some limitations but still better than nothing.

boublepop 6y ago

You have both the right and possibility to install whatever software you want on an iPhone and Apple can’t stop you. Many tinkeres play around with this. But that’s not what your actually talking about, you feel that Apple should be forced to make that easy and to support it to the point where it’s as easy as staying in their managed ecosystem, which is something entirely different. It’s like people complaining that you can’t change the battery in a iPhone and saying that it infringes on their rights, but of cause you can actually replace it, it’s just difficult, not impossible. But Apple will void warranty on diy repairs, but is that really such a bad thing? Why should they psi if I screw up my repair of the product?