5 ms·

I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would b

I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means they meet the quality standards that Apple would like. This would allow Apple to raise the quality bar for the App Store, while allowing indie development. Loading a non-app-store app could come with forced user acceptance flow, where you’re informed the app doesn’t meet Apple’s standards for user experience but has at least been checked for safety. Independent app ‘stores’ would then be able to exist, and we’d have a compromise.

blparker 6y ago
This seems like a reasonable idea.
ginko 6y ago
>There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.
- Retric 6y ago
  The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee which hurts independent developers and discourages bug fixes.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Really? How much of this comes from manual reviewing and not sandboxing and technical security policy of iOS?
    - Retric 6y ago
      iOS’s current sandboxing model is heavily dependent on the review process. It’s arguable what could be achieved in theory if they where going to let arbitrary apps be installed, but right now iOS on it’s own is simply inadequate.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows Counter opinion Billions of devices are scanned everyday thanks to specialized software that do it locally They are called anti virus (also check for malware, trojan, backdoor, rootkit etc. etc.)
    - Retric 6y ago
      You can do incredible amounts of harm to your PC without installing a virus. Ironically installing every virus scanning software at the same time results in massive issues.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        > Ironically installing every virus scanning software at the same time results in massive issues. That's both fun and saddening, and also true But I have to say that Apple store policies results in massive issues as well The illusion of choice is more dangerous than too much freedom.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      >They are called anti virus (also check for malware, trojan, backdoor, rootkit etc. etc.) 1. And most anti-virus are considered a scam by most people 2. Apps that make egregious use of device APIs to implement tracking won't be flagged as a virus.
- rusticpenn 6y ago
  This is the main reason why I had to move my parents from android to IOS. The free apks were ruining their experience and my work/support/life balance.
mrbrianhinton 6y ago
I'm fine with that. As long as their Developer fee is significantly more.
- onion2k 6y ago
  I strongly suspect that if Apple win this case against Epic and get an official court-sanctioned nod that their monopoly on iOS software sales is acceptable we'll see developer fees double or triple within a couple of years and the 30% IAP fee get ratcheted up to 40 or 50% over the next decade (unless you're big enough to negotiate). Developers would make a bit less (although still more than they make on Android) and Apple would make a lot more.
mchristen 6y ago
Isn't that how it works now though? I have an app that is not distributed via the app store, but is still notarized by Apple and has no Gatekeeper warning when you install it. You still have to pay the Apple Tax to get your software signed and notarized though.
- Sangeppato 6y ago
  He's talking about iOS, not macOS
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    The idea is that if you side load on iOS, apps would still need to be notarised, like on macOS
- isodev 6y ago
  The notarisation process is automated, scanning for commonly known API usage. In normal App Store review you get a real person to test and vet the app, the marketing presentation and if it works as advertised.
dageshi 6y ago
Apple wouldn't want to be responsible for something not in their store. They have all the downsides of verifying an app is safe but none of the upsides, worse they will inevitably be the ones who have to handle support.
- tokamak-teapot 6y ago
  Yes, this is not something that directly benefits Apple. Without external intervention, I don't believe any system which opens up iOS at all will be introduced. What I'm looking for is - given external intervention, what would be a workable compromise that: * Frees developers enough that they can produce applications without the full weight of Apple's process - and its rather hazy and inconsistent application - being a constant frustration or absolute block. * Allows Apple (and its customers) to continue to benefit from their App Store model and its safety guards, protecting their security and (most of their) revenue. I'm sure some customers would attempt to deal with Apple support for non-App-Store apps, but my expectation is that this would be a minority case and there are plenty of ways for Apple to head this off. I don't know that it's a 'downside' for Apple to verify that apps are safe. This is a mostly automated process and one that they don't need to build from scratch. It's a cost for them - without an associated App Store revenue, but I believe it's reasonable to ask Apple to contribute at least this much to allow more open development for their platform.
  - dageshi 6y ago
    Malware isn't really the primary threat. It's bad actors. It's specifically designed apps intended to rip people off. If an app goes through apples review process and then accepts credit card payment (which is the entire reason these apps want to bypass the app store) and subsequently use the users credit card details for fraud, who cleans it up? The user will say that apple are culpable because it went through their review process, they approved the app. I think more likely apple would reluctantly do the android model and just allow apps to be downloaded and installed via safari. The user is responsible for what they install, the risk is on them, they can use the app store if they want safety.
romanoderoma 6y ago
> I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. Correct! My phone downloads the App from the Play Store and then does a scan locally, on the device. There's no need to have a centralized, proprietary, anti virus...
Lammy 6y ago
> They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. It amuses me that you're using exactly the same language used to justify the App Store in the first place. Check out Steve Job's original "Third Party Applications on the iPhone" announcement between the time of iPhoneOS 1.x and 2.0, in October 2007: https://macdailynews.com/2007/10/17/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_sdk_for_third_party_applications_on_iphone_ipod_touch/ https://macdailynews.com/2007/10/17/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_sdk... "We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs."

blparker 6y ago

This seems like a reasonable idea.

ginko 6y ago

>There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.

Retric 6y ago
The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee which hurts independent developers and discourages bug fixes.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Really? How much of this comes from manual reviewing and not sandboxing and technical security policy of iOS?
  - Retric 6y ago
    iOS’s current sandboxing model is heavily dependent on the review process. It’s arguable what could be achieved in theory if they where going to let arbitrary apps be installed, but right now iOS on it’s own is simply inadequate.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows Counter opinion Billions of devices are scanned everyday thanks to specialized software that do it locally They are called anti virus (also check for malware, trojan, backdoor, rootkit etc. etc.)
  - Retric 6y ago
    You can do incredible amounts of harm to your PC without installing a virus. Ironically installing every virus scanning software at the same time results in massive issues.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > Ironically installing every virus scanning software at the same time results in massive issues. That's both fun and saddening, and also true But I have to say that Apple store policies results in massive issues as well The illusion of choice is more dangerous than too much freedom.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    >They are called anti virus (also check for malware, trojan, backdoor, rootkit etc. etc.) 1. And most anti-virus are considered a scam by most people 2. Apps that make egregious use of device APIs to implement tracking won't be flagged as a virus.
rusticpenn 6y ago
This is the main reason why I had to move my parents from android to IOS. The free apks were ruining their experience and my work/support/life balance.

mrbrianhinton 6y ago

I'm fine with that. As long as their Developer fee is significantly more.

onion2k 6y ago
I strongly suspect that if Apple win this case against Epic and get an official court-sanctioned nod that their monopoly on iOS software sales is acceptable we'll see developer fees double or triple within a couple of years and the 30% IAP fee get ratcheted up to 40 or 50% over the next decade (unless you're big enough to negotiate). Developers would make a bit less (although still more than they make on Android) and Apple would make a lot more.

mchristen 6y ago

Isn't that how it works now though? I have an app that is not distributed via the app store, but is still notarized by Apple and has no Gatekeeper warning when you install it. You still have to pay the Apple Tax to get your software signed and notarized though.

Sangeppato 6y ago
He's talking about iOS, not macOS
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  The idea is that if you side load on iOS, apps would still need to be notarised, like on macOS
isodev 6y ago
The notarisation process is automated, scanning for commonly known API usage. In normal App Store review you get a real person to test and vet the app, the marketing presentation and if it works as advertised.

dageshi 6y ago

Apple wouldn't want to be responsible for something not in their store. They have all the downsides of verifying an app is safe but none of the upsides, worse they will inevitably be the ones who have to handle support.

tokamak-teapot 6y ago
Yes, this is not something that directly benefits Apple. Without external intervention, I don't believe any system which opens up iOS at all will be introduced. What I'm looking for is - given external intervention, what would be a workable compromise that: * Frees developers enough that they can produce applications without the full weight of Apple's process - and its rather hazy and inconsistent application - being a constant frustration or absolute block. * Allows Apple (and its customers) to continue to benefit from their App Store model and its safety guards, protecting their security and (most of their) revenue. I'm sure some customers would attempt to deal with Apple support for non-App-Store apps, but my expectation is that this would be a minority case and there are plenty of ways for Apple to head this off. I don't know that it's a 'downside' for Apple to verify that apps are safe. This is a mostly automated process and one that they don't need to build from scratch. It's a cost for them - without an associated App Store revenue, but I believe it's reasonable to ask Apple to contribute at least this much to allow more open development for their platform.
- dageshi 6y ago
  Malware isn't really the primary threat. It's bad actors. It's specifically designed apps intended to rip people off. If an app goes through apples review process and then accepts credit card payment (which is the entire reason these apps want to bypass the app store) and subsequently use the users credit card details for fraud, who cleans it up? The user will say that apple are culpable because it went through their review process, they approved the app. I think more likely apple would reluctantly do the android model and just allow apps to be downloaded and installed via safari. The user is responsible for what they install, the risk is on them, they can use the app store if they want safety.

romanoderoma 6y ago

> I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. Correct! My phone downloads the App from the Play Store and then does a scan locally, on the device. There's no need to have a centralized, proprietary, anti virus...

Lammy 6y ago

> They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. It amuses me that you're using exactly the same language used to justify the App Store in the first place. Check out Steve Job's original "Third Party Applications on the iPhone" announcement between the time of iPhoneOS 1.x and 2.0, in October 2007: https://macdailynews.com/2007/10/17/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_sdk_for_third_party_applications_on_iphone_ipod_touch/ https://macdailynews.com/2007/10/17/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_sdk... "We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs."