9 ms·

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.

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.
  - 43920 6y ago
    All iOS jailbreaks are a result of security vulnerabilities, which Apple tends to fix almost as soon as they're discovered - and ultimately, it's Apple's responsibility to make their sandbox secure, regardless of what's running in it. I also don't see how installing outside apps would make jailbreaks any easier, given that you can already connect your phone to a computer and temporarily install an app on it (and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle). I haven't done enough iOS development to know for sure, but I'm assuming Apple could prevent private API usage by apps through technical means, rather than just app review.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      > and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle And also because, once you’re jailbroken, you can setup software to automatically resign the app on-device every few days, so you never need a computer again.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        I thought jailbreaking worked by using exploits to disable code signing. As in, there’s no need to sign an app. Have things changed the past few years?
        Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        Most Jailbreaks today are "tethered" in some way, which means the Jailbreak disappears (to varying degrees†) once the phone is turned off. For Jailbreaks like unc0ver, this means you need to re-run a bootstrap app every time you reboot your phone, in order to return to "Jailbroken" mode and allow unsigned code. This, of course, is a catch-22. You need to run an app to allow unsigned apps, but that app can't run if it isn't signed. --- † The community makes a distinction between "tethered", "semi-tethered", and "semi-untethered" jailbreaks. The jailbreak I described above is "semi-untethered". You really couldn't come up with terminology more prone to getting mixed up...
- drrotmos 6y ago
  IIRC Apple has the ability to push a blacklist of apps that has slipped through the review, preventing them from running, not just from being installed. To my understanding, they've only ever used it for actual malware though, not for apps that they've pulled from the App Store due to "regular" breaches of the rules.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Apple can just revoke the certificate of developers that sign malware, preventing them from running. They also have the ability to pull apps from your device, but have never used it.
neogodless 6y ago
I get that this is a preference, and that this preference makes it a challenge for third parties to maintain profit margins while reaching as many consumers as possible. So what's the other option? Just don't offer your games at all on a platform like iOS, and people need to own multiple smartphones just to get all the apps and games they want? It doesn't seem like a solution.
danShumway 6y ago
How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of the Apple store? I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should have a choice. As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care. The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their advantages and commitment to quality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pfranz 6y ago
  Just look at the PC platform Epic is coming from. It used to be just buying retail boxes, then Steam came along. Now it's Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay. Personally, I hate keeping track of the separate apps and which games were purchased with each. So I avoid most of them even for games I want to play. Its one of the things that makes me prefer consoles. The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that distribution platform.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    I think it's going to be pretty hard for you to argue that the proliferation of app stores for the PC is bad for consumers. A lot of people credit Steam (I think justifiably) with kickstarting a huge portion of the modern indie gaming scene -- precisely because they got rid of the crazy rules, agreements, and contracts of the retail boxes, which acted as a massive barrier to entry for game developers. If Steam had never been built, I don't think modern games would be even half as diverse or creative as they are. Then we move on to storefronts like Humble and GoG, which I think have been hugely influential in pushing DRM-free games as the norm for indies. There are a lot of games that flat-out would not have DRM-free releases if GoG didn't exist. Heck, there are a lot of games that would not run on modern Windows if GoG didn't exist. Then we move on to Epic's store, which I know gamers hate, but trust me when I say a lot of indie developers are thrilled right now to see someone forcing Steam to lower their splits. Epic has done some serious good for the indie scene. I don't like that they're encouraging exclusives, I think that's bad for gamers. But I'm not going to pretend that as a developer I'm not happy to see someone breaking Steam's stranglehold on the mainstream PC marketplace. So yeah, there are a lot of PC stores. This has been a massive boon to the industry, there are a lot of excellent games that (I think) would not exist today if not for the diversity of marketplaces. And a lot of these marketplaces fill different niches. GoG focuses on older games, Steam offers mainstream AA titles, Uplay/Origin offer corporate AAA titles, Itch has all the really weird, creative "true-indy" stuff. No single PC store is expansive enough to cover all of the niches of the entire market. Even on the console side of things, the diversity of games on the PC has pushed console manufacturers to offer much wider selections of games. Are you happy that basically every indie developer and their dog is releasing their game for the Switch? A big part of that is Nintendo opening up the development process, and they did that because after the Wii U they realized that they needed to pull indie devs away from the PC to stay competitive. And on PC, what's actually the problem with this? You can basically ignore all of the other platforms and just download your games from Steam. You can opt out of all of the complexity that you dislike. Sure, you'll miss out on a few exclusives if you do. But you would have missed out on many of those exclusives with a unified storefront anyway, because a lot of those games just wouldn't have been created if there weren't stores that were a good fit for them to sell on. You'll miss out on just as many games if you decide to stick with curated console storefronts.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else. The last time I had a virus was on my Amiga which I got at a copy party in the Netherlands. I think it is perfectly fine that you want the security from the Apple store and pay 30% on top for this, but why should I pay those 30%? It's not some kind of insurance that works better the more people take it.
- thirdsun 6y ago
  > I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else. Sure, neither did I, but Apple also has to provide a secure platform to my dad, my grandparents or any other non-tech-savvy person that will wreak havoc on any fresh Windows installation in record time.
  - KingOfCoders 6y ago
    Yes, and they can pay 30% for the anti-virus and anti-malware service, if they want too. But why should I pay for a service that I dont want or need?
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Because you have chosen an anti-consumer company?
      - KingOfCoders 6y ago
        After 20y of Apple with a Mac Cube, XServes, XSANs, first ipod, first ipad, Webcams, Airports, Mac Minis, first iPhone, first MacBookPro, many MacBookPros after that, iPods, iMacs, iMac Pros, iPhones, filling departments with Apple products as CTO in several companies, I no longer buy Apple because since some years they do not care about developers any more - it's no longer the same company as with Steve.
Polylactic_acid 6y ago
> then those advantages go out the window. Not entirely. You just don't sideload to keep those advantages. Only powerusers sideload apps on android currently. But this also doesn't help epics usecase where they would want every user to sideload to access a popular app.
camhart 6y ago
How did you come to the conclusion that wiping and reinstalling is a regular part of android users lives? Or that it requires you be a system admin to use it? Or that you have to worry about many types of malware? I'm an android user, and I think you have the wrong impression of what android is actually like. Have you ever used one as your primary device for a non-insignificant amount of time?
grey-area 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. Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods. Apple should be forced to compete on a level playing field, rather than leveraging their platform to bully other companies into compliance.
- varjag 6y ago
  It competes with Play Store.
  - dhsysusbsjsi 6y ago
    You’re talking about the competition of hardware sales. On the iOS hardware platform(s) it competes with nobody. The owner of an iPhone isn’t tossing up between Play or App stores. It’s Apple or nothing. There is no competition for methods to install apps. Both developers and users are completely at the mercy of Apple.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods Epic’s fight, regarding Apple bundling its payment service with its App Store, is orthogonal to the “free device” cause. The former is compelling. The latter is interesting, but it’s an old debate that has never found traction. It’s helpful to segregate these arguments.
- gwd 6y ago
  > Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though How do you think that the iOS platform is paid for? Apple's current business model is supported by paying the Apple Tax. If they don't get that tax revenue, they're going to have to either reduce the quality of their platform, or get more revenue somewhere else, like selling my data to advertising companies. Right now I have a choice to buy a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by hardware sales and appstore taxes, or a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to give up their Apple Tax, I will no longer have that choice. If Fortnite wanted, they could just make things more expensive on iOS, passing the Apple Tax on to consumers. That's how stores treat sales tax and VAT in different countries; there's no reason app developers can't do the same thing. If users don't like paying more they can go to other platforms; and if users like the iOS platform, they should accept that paying more for apps is part of what makes it possible.
wheresmycraisin 6y ago
I've submitted multiple apps to the ios store and I can guarantee they are not looking at it very closely.
McDyver 6y ago
> If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. Who's to say what constitutes an advantage? From this discussion, half the people here consider it to be an advantage to having the possibility to load whatever they want on their phone, and have control over it.

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.
- 43920 6y ago
  All iOS jailbreaks are a result of security vulnerabilities, which Apple tends to fix almost as soon as they're discovered - and ultimately, it's Apple's responsibility to make their sandbox secure, regardless of what's running in it. I also don't see how installing outside apps would make jailbreaks any easier, given that you can already connect your phone to a computer and temporarily install an app on it (and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle). I haven't done enough iOS development to know for sure, but I'm assuming Apple could prevent private API usage by apps through technical means, rather than just app review.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > and for people who are motivated to jailbreak, this isn't much of a hurdle And also because, once you’re jailbroken, you can setup software to automatically resign the app on-device every few days, so you never need a computer again.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      I thought jailbreaking worked by using exploits to disable code signing. As in, there’s no need to sign an app. Have things changed the past few years?
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        Most Jailbreaks today are "tethered" in some way, which means the Jailbreak disappears (to varying degrees†) once the phone is turned off. For Jailbreaks like unc0ver, this means you need to re-run a bootstrap app every time you reboot your phone, in order to return to "Jailbroken" mode and allow unsigned code. This, of course, is a catch-22. You need to run an app to allow unsigned apps, but that app can't run if it isn't signed. --- † The community makes a distinction between "tethered", "semi-tethered", and "semi-untethered" jailbreaks. The jailbreak I described above is "semi-untethered". You really couldn't come up with terminology more prone to getting mixed up...
drrotmos 6y ago
IIRC Apple has the ability to push a blacklist of apps that has slipped through the review, preventing them from running, not just from being installed. To my understanding, they've only ever used it for actual malware though, not for apps that they've pulled from the App Store due to "regular" breaches of the rules.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Apple can just revoke the certificate of developers that sign malware, preventing them from running. They also have the ability to pull apps from your device, but have never used it.

neogodless 6y ago

I get that this is a preference, and that this preference makes it a challenge for third parties to maintain profit margins while reaching as many consumers as possible. So what's the other option? Just don't offer your games at all on a platform like iOS, and people need to own multiple smartphones just to get all the apps and games they want? It doesn't seem like a solution.

danShumway 6y ago

How would the ability to sideload apps force you to install apps outside of the Apple store? I'm not forced to use FDroid just because I have an Android phone. People aren't arguing that the app store should go away, just that consumers should have a choice. As an analogy, if I want OEM care for my car, I can get that. It's more expensive, but it offers me strict guarantees about where parts are coming from, and I don't need to worry so much that I'll get substandard care. The existence of a third-party marketplace doesn't change anything about that situation other than forcing the OEMs to compete more and push their advantages and commitment to quality.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pfranz 6y ago
Just look at the PC platform Epic is coming from. It used to be just buying retail boxes, then Steam came along. Now it's Steam, Epic, Origin, Uplay. Personally, I hate keeping track of the separate apps and which games were purchased with each. So I avoid most of them even for games I want to play. Its one of the things that makes me prefer consoles. The current situation seems more anti-business than anti-consumer (it is both). Pro-consumer would be requiring any purchase be decoupled from that distribution platform.
- danShumway 6y ago
  I think it's going to be pretty hard for you to argue that the proliferation of app stores for the PC is bad for consumers. A lot of people credit Steam (I think justifiably) with kickstarting a huge portion of the modern indie gaming scene -- precisely because they got rid of the crazy rules, agreements, and contracts of the retail boxes, which acted as a massive barrier to entry for game developers. If Steam had never been built, I don't think modern games would be even half as diverse or creative as they are. Then we move on to storefronts like Humble and GoG, which I think have been hugely influential in pushing DRM-free games as the norm for indies. There are a lot of games that flat-out would not have DRM-free releases if GoG didn't exist. Heck, there are a lot of games that would not run on modern Windows if GoG didn't exist. Then we move on to Epic's store, which I know gamers hate, but trust me when I say a lot of indie developers are thrilled right now to see someone forcing Steam to lower their splits. Epic has done some serious good for the indie scene. I don't like that they're encouraging exclusives, I think that's bad for gamers. But I'm not going to pretend that as a developer I'm not happy to see someone breaking Steam's stranglehold on the mainstream PC marketplace. So yeah, there are a lot of PC stores. This has been a massive boon to the industry, there are a lot of excellent games that (I think) would not exist today if not for the diversity of marketplaces. And a lot of these marketplaces fill different niches. GoG focuses on older games, Steam offers mainstream AA titles, Uplay/Origin offer corporate AAA titles, Itch has all the really weird, creative "true-indy" stuff. No single PC store is expansive enough to cover all of the niches of the entire market. Even on the console side of things, the diversity of games on the PC has pushed console manufacturers to offer much wider selections of games. Are you happy that basically every indie developer and their dog is releasing their game for the Switch? A big part of that is Nintendo opening up the development process, and they did that because after the Wii U they realized that they needed to pull indie devs away from the PC to stay competitive. And on PC, what's actually the problem with this? You can basically ignore all of the other platforms and just download your games from Steam. You can opt out of all of the complexity that you dislike. Sure, you'll miss out on a few exclusives if you do. But you would have missed out on many of those exclusives with a unified storefront anyway, because a lot of those games just wouldn't have been created if there weren't stores that were a good fit for them to sell on. You'll miss out on just as many games if you decide to stick with curated console storefronts.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else. The last time I had a virus was on my Amiga which I got at a copy party in the Netherlands. I think it is perfectly fine that you want the security from the Apple store and pay 30% on top for this, but why should I pay those 30%? It's not some kind of insurance that works better the more people take it.

thirdsun 6y ago
> I'm using Windows, OS X and Linux for 30+ years, didn't have a virus or a malware or anything else. Sure, neither did I, but Apple also has to provide a secure platform to my dad, my grandparents or any other non-tech-savvy person that will wreak havoc on any fresh Windows installation in record time.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  Yes, and they can pay 30% for the anti-virus and anti-malware service, if they want too. But why should I pay for a service that I dont want or need?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Because you have chosen an anti-consumer company?
    - KingOfCoders 6y ago
      After 20y of Apple with a Mac Cube, XServes, XSANs, first ipod, first ipad, Webcams, Airports, Mac Minis, first iPhone, first MacBookPro, many MacBookPros after that, iPods, iMacs, iMac Pros, iPhones, filling departments with Apple products as CTO in several companies, I no longer buy Apple because since some years they do not care about developers any more - it's no longer the same company as with Steve.

Polylactic_acid 6y ago

> then those advantages go out the window. Not entirely. You just don't sideload to keep those advantages. Only powerusers sideload apps on android currently. But this also doesn't help epics usecase where they would want every user to sideload to access a popular app.

camhart 6y ago

How did you come to the conclusion that wiping and reinstalling is a regular part of android users lives? Or that it requires you be a system admin to use it? Or that you have to worry about many types of malware? I'm an android user, and I think you have the wrong impression of what android is actually like. Have you ever used one as your primary device for a non-insignificant amount of time?

grey-area 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. Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods. Apple should be forced to compete on a level playing field, rather than leveraging their platform to bully other companies into compliance.

varjag 6y ago
It competes with Play Store.
- dhsysusbsjsi 6y ago
  You’re talking about the competition of hardware sales. On the iOS hardware platform(s) it competes with nobody. The owner of an iPhone isn’t tossing up between Play or App stores. It’s Apple or nothing. There is no competition for methods to install apps. Both developers and users are completely at the mercy of Apple.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though, nor does it require them to ban other payment methods Epic’s fight, regarding Apple bundling its payment service with its App Store, is orthogonal to the “free device” cause. The former is compelling. The latter is interesting, but it’s an old debate that has never found traction. It’s helpful to segregate these arguments.
gwd 6y ago
> Security doesn't require a 30% cut of every transaction though How do you think that the iOS platform is paid for? Apple's current business model is supported by paying the Apple Tax. If they don't get that tax revenue, they're going to have to either reduce the quality of their platform, or get more revenue somewhere else, like selling my data to advertising companies. Right now I have a choice to buy a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by hardware sales and appstore taxes, or a phone whose software ecosystem is supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to give up their Apple Tax, I will no longer have that choice. If Fortnite wanted, they could just make things more expensive on iOS, passing the Apple Tax on to consumers. That's how stores treat sales tax and VAT in different countries; there's no reason app developers can't do the same thing. If users don't like paying more they can go to other platforms; and if users like the iOS platform, they should accept that paying more for apps is part of what makes it possible.

wheresmycraisin 6y ago

I've submitted multiple apps to the ios store and I can guarantee they are not looking at it very closely.

McDyver 6y ago

> If it was possible to side-load apps, then those advantages go out the window. Who's to say what constitutes an advantage? From this discussion, half the people here consider it to be an advantage to having the possibility to load whatever they want on their phone, and have control over it.