9 ms·

I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps. It’s ridiculous and just plain criminal that this is not possible. Apple does not own my device and do

I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps. It’s ridiculous and just plain criminal that this is not possible. Apple does not own my device and does not get to dictate what I do with it. Phones are so locked down that they are a real threat to personal computing and software engineering. The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near.

benbristow 6y ago
> Apple does not get to dictate what I do with it Sounds like they already do...
echelon 6y ago
This is where antitrust attention needs to be laser focused. Our freedoms are at stake, and this should be our rallying point. The iPhone is a general purpose computer (email, photos, dating, payments, reminders, docs, web, games, etc.) and computer manufacturers should not be allowed to control the only means to run software on computers they sell. This is less drastic than breaking the company up into constituent parts. But honestly we ought to also be asking ourselves why a computer manufacturer gets to be a film studio and distribution chain.
- zepto 6y ago
  We are. Just don’t buy an iPhone. You never seem to explain why that freedom doesn’t suffice.
  - zeusk 6y ago
    Because it is essentially a duopoly, and switching platforms is not as easy as just not buying an iPhone. For example, I recently broke the screen on my iPhone 7 and for this exact reason (not being able to run some Apple unapproved applications on my device) wanted to switch to an Android, but when I tried one out for a couple days * My BMW would not show music cover art because only Apple had a deal with them in early 2010s * iMessage no longer worked and I had to maintain an iPad for communicating to friends who only use iMessage and Facetime * Macbook was suddenly a lot less interoperable with the phone - the easiest way to transfer photos was to push them to Google photos and download them on the mac * Homepod speaker would no longer be controllable from my phone * Apple obviously won't publish AppleTV(Remote) or HomeKit apps for android
    - wil421 6y ago
      BMW not supporting Android is not Apple’s problem. iMessage is for Apple devices. You are free to choose from SMS, What’s app, and all the others. You should be able to transfer files by plugging in your Android to the MacBook via USB. Something that you can’t do with an iPhone in the same way. The rest are all Apple products in Apple’s ecosystem. I pay to use Apple because the ecosystem is closed.
      - zeusk 6y ago
        Nor am I saying it is, I'm telling you why switching is not an option for me which is what the parent comment asked. I'm slowly reducing my reliance on Apple and have already abstained from getting the new watch or adding homepod minis to my current apple tv and homepod setup. And hopefully, as these devices weather out I will definitely make it a priority to not buy into a closed system like this again.
        zepto 6y ago
        This seems wise. I made the same move away from Google about 5 years ago. It took me a year or so, mostly because it took a while to unthread Gmail from everything. That we can do this means we do in fact have a choice.
        zeusk 6y ago
        Yes, but that choice is getting harder with time. What happens when home automation and car automation is also controlled by these tech giants? What if some day your account was banned because you said something against the "community guidelines" of Apple? Will your car, phone, TV still work? Will Apple buy them back?
        zepto 6y ago
        “What if some day your account was banned because you said something against the "community guidelines" of Apple?“ That is a fictional what if. More importantly, it would be a field day for lawyers.
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    While we're at it, we can also just stop paying credit card swipe fees too by paying cash as well and avoid artificial preservatives by growing our own food, and while we're at it we can bicycle everywhere in order not to exhaust Carbon into the air. Or as a democratic country, we can debate the laws and rules in which we would like businesses to follow for the privilege of selling products in the market and so they do not unhealthily, dominate the market.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone. All of the other examples are in fact increasingly popular things to do. Sure - we are debating it here. It just doesn’t seem like there is any real argument being made why people are forced to choose Apple.
  - pryelluw 6y ago
    Flawed argument similar to the one used around privacy: People who don’t have anything to hide should not worry about big brother. Well, turns out that you are telling me that companies with ungodly amounts of power and influence should be allowed to dictate our rights. This is why we desperately need regulation that puts consumers first.
    - Taylor_OD 6y ago
      Is that really the same type of argument? While I don't think, "Don't buy apple products then" is really a great argument it's not the same as the privacy argument. You do have other options. I don't have other options than to be spied on by the US government.
      - pryelluw 6y ago
        You can move to another country. /s
  - swiley 6y ago
    How does this solve the problem where my family refuses to switch to a reasonable problem and I can't even talk to them without pirating an apple OS?
    - zepto 6y ago
      The problem seems to be with your family’s refusal, no?
    - aembleton 6y ago
      Can't you phone her?
      - swiley 6y ago
        Sure, but I'm left out of the group chat if I don't leave my OSX VM running.
        zepto 6y ago
        This is just as true for Facebook or Google or any messaging system. There is nothing special about Apple in this regard. It’s just a feature of current messaging technologies. I stopped using Facebook earlier this year, and I am missing out on a bunch of social groups the contain people I know in real life. What we need to do is build technology that doesn’t these downsides.
- dannyincolor 6y ago
  Assuming Apple is ever kept at bay, they'll just ratchet up their already prevalent "soft coercion" tactics (warnings, unforced security errors, etc.) The question is literally: 1. Comply fully and lose billions in revenue 2. Figure out a way to continue cheating the system We have decades of data setting a precedent that this specific company will choose Option 2 unless absolutely forced to fundamentally change.
- jonwinstanley 6y ago
  Currently the iPhone is a great device for almost everyone on the planet and the trust their users have in the 3rd party apps is a big part of that. If Apple made it easy to put custom apps on the device it would mean you could more easily be tricked into installing malware and so reduce the trust in the security. The iPhone is as popular as it is today due in no small part to how they have policed the App Store.
  - jimmaswell 6y ago
    Android has over 70% market share.
    - jonwinstanley 6y ago
      What did you mean by this one?
    - jolux 6y ago
      And significantly more malware than iOS has.
      - jimmaswell 6y ago
        Malware can't do all that much but drain your battery with Android's sandboxing unless you're rooted.
        Razengan 6y ago
        > unless you're rooted. There we go :)
        echelon 6y ago
        You can run custom / 3rd party software without being rooted. Not that rooting should be impossible.
        jolux 6y ago
- offtop5 6y ago
  You can still use a flip phone and a desktop PC running arch Linux. Most users , even some of us can accidentally break a Linux install. Saving me from myself is what IOS effectively does. Look at the Android fortnite fiasco with users installing the wrong app and getting malware on their phones. Even open source smart phones exist. Your more than free to custom write your own software on them.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
You can do whatever you want with your phone, that doesn't mean Apple has to support it.
- mason55 6y ago
  This is the right answer. Apple’s not going to arrest you for jailbreaking your phone and running your own software. But they’re not obligated to go out of their way to support it either.
  - upbeat_general 6y ago
    It’s not that they don’t go out of their way to support it. They actively try to stop it. All jailbreaking is, is gaining root privileges on the device. They could just add a little toggle button saying use at your own risk, we don’t support it. By making it so hard to jailbreak and so hard to install apps not from the App Store, they make jailbreaking not the answer.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Yes, let's add a potentially system breaking switch to a consumer phone. Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around the software geeks.
      - helloycombinat 6y ago
        nvm I was wrong, it's not that you didn't get it, you're just an idiot
    - mason55 6y ago
      Their goal/feature/product, whatever you want to call it, is to create something secure enough that grandpa can’t get tricked into getting owned. Anything at all that allows people to disable security becomes an immediate threat for that type of user. If the side effect is that they prevent people from jailbreaking then so be it because they have no desire or obligation to support those users.
robotresearcher 6y ago
[edit: I missed that the parent comment was scoped to iPhone, rather than the OP story about Macs.] You can distribute [macOS] apps directly to customers. From Apple's site: "While the Mac App Store is the safest place for users to get software for their Mac, you may choose to distribute your Mac apps in other ways. Gatekeeper on macOS helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software by checking for a Developer ID certificate. Make sure to test your apps with the latest version of macOS and sign your apps, plug-ins, or installer packages to let Gatekeeper know they’re safe to install. You can also give users even more confidence in your apps by submitting them to Apple to be notarized." https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/ https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/
- banachtarski 6y ago
  The parent comment is talking about phones.
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    Thanks. Edited to reflect.
coronadisaster 6y ago
I thought I was the only one thinking similarly on HN
Razengan 6y ago
Users don’t care about indie crap as long as they get their Facegram and Instabook. The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around. And so you have to play by the policies that attracted those users to Apple in the first place, which includes the App Store with all its glorious kinks.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around. This is simply not true. Instagram was the project of indie developers. Likewise many of the big apps which exist on iOS. The vast majority of software on iOS is small niche tools which are either fun to use or useful tools. Apple knows this and they know they need indie developers supporting their platform. I realize there are a fair number of situations where it doesn't seem that way. But there are a lot of times such as this where it's more than clear they do.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps A niggle and not contradicting your main point. You can run and distribute you own app. You can even share it with a few hundred people (maybe a couple thousand?). What you can't do is distribute it in the App Store or effectively sell it outside the App Store. Again, more a niggle and not disputing your point. > The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near. This point I will dispute. Apple isn't going to stop Indies from publishing apps. Apple loves developers (though sometimes they show it poorly) and knows they are the life-blood of the platform.
- onion2k 6y ago
  Apple loves developers Apple loves money, and realises that without developers they won't make as much. A subtle but important difference.
  - theshrike79 6y ago
    Can you point out a company that doesn't love money?
  - valparaiso 6y ago
    You've forgot that in 2008 software developers jumped into unknown to masses Apple ecosystem. Think about it.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > A subtle but important difference. Subtle, different, but irrelevant in this context. Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple. There will never be a day where Apple boots all Indies from the App Store. They would just as soon change the policies on locking the doors on their retail stores at night.
simonh 6y ago
I do believe that once I buy a device it's mine. I have jailbroken iPhones and an iPod Touch before, they were my devices and I did as I saw fit. On the other hand I don't feel I have the right to dictate to anyone else what sort of products they may or may not sell, or how they work, beyond health and safety, accessibility, etc. I don't see that I have a right to tell Nintendo that they must write software to support side loading games for my Switch for example, or demand via government regulation that Sony can't charge a fee for developers to create games for the Playstation. As long as I know up front what the features and services are that come with my purchase, I have a free choice whether to accept them or not. In particular, I certainly don't think I have the right to tell other members of the public that they should not have the option to buy those products on those terms if they wish. What right do I have to interfere in the product design of popular products, used by millions of people that are perfectly happy with them? Especially if that will force the company involved to change it's business practices and charging structure in ways those customers would not be happy with.

benbristow 6y ago

> Apple does not get to dictate what I do with it Sounds like they already do...

echelon 6y ago

This is where antitrust attention needs to be laser focused. Our freedoms are at stake, and this should be our rallying point. The iPhone is a general purpose computer (email, photos, dating, payments, reminders, docs, web, games, etc.) and computer manufacturers should not be allowed to control the only means to run software on computers they sell. This is less drastic than breaking the company up into constituent parts. But honestly we ought to also be asking ourselves why a computer manufacturer gets to be a film studio and distribution chain.

zepto 6y ago
We are. Just don’t buy an iPhone. You never seem to explain why that freedom doesn’t suffice.
- zeusk 6y ago
  Because it is essentially a duopoly, and switching platforms is not as easy as just not buying an iPhone. For example, I recently broke the screen on my iPhone 7 and for this exact reason (not being able to run some Apple unapproved applications on my device) wanted to switch to an Android, but when I tried one out for a couple days * My BMW would not show music cover art because only Apple had a deal with them in early 2010s * iMessage no longer worked and I had to maintain an iPad for communicating to friends who only use iMessage and Facetime * Macbook was suddenly a lot less interoperable with the phone - the easiest way to transfer photos was to push them to Google photos and download them on the mac * Homepod speaker would no longer be controllable from my phone * Apple obviously won't publish AppleTV(Remote) or HomeKit apps for android
  - wil421 6y ago
    BMW not supporting Android is not Apple’s problem. iMessage is for Apple devices. You are free to choose from SMS, What’s app, and all the others. You should be able to transfer files by plugging in your Android to the MacBook via USB. Something that you can’t do with an iPhone in the same way. The rest are all Apple products in Apple’s ecosystem. I pay to use Apple because the ecosystem is closed.
    - zeusk 6y ago
      Nor am I saying it is, I'm telling you why switching is not an option for me which is what the parent comment asked. I'm slowly reducing my reliance on Apple and have already abstained from getting the new watch or adding homepod minis to my current apple tv and homepod setup. And hopefully, as these devices weather out I will definitely make it a priority to not buy into a closed system like this again.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This seems wise. I made the same move away from Google about 5 years ago. It took me a year or so, mostly because it took a while to unthread Gmail from everything. That we can do this means we do in fact have a choice.
        zeusk 6y ago
        Yes, but that choice is getting harder with time. What happens when home automation and car automation is also controlled by these tech giants? What if some day your account was banned because you said something against the "community guidelines" of Apple? Will your car, phone, TV still work? Will Apple buy them back?
        zepto 6y ago
        “What if some day your account was banned because you said something against the "community guidelines" of Apple?“ That is a fictional what if. More importantly, it would be a field day for lawyers.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  While we're at it, we can also just stop paying credit card swipe fees too by paying cash as well and avoid artificial preservatives by growing our own food, and while we're at it we can bicycle everywhere in order not to exhaust Carbon into the air. Or as a democratic country, we can debate the laws and rules in which we would like businesses to follow for the privilege of selling products in the market and so they do not unhealthily, dominate the market.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone. All of the other examples are in fact increasingly popular things to do. Sure - we are debating it here. It just doesn’t seem like there is any real argument being made why people are forced to choose Apple.
- pryelluw 6y ago
  Flawed argument similar to the one used around privacy: People who don’t have anything to hide should not worry about big brother. Well, turns out that you are telling me that companies with ungodly amounts of power and influence should be allowed to dictate our rights. This is why we desperately need regulation that puts consumers first.
  - Taylor_OD 6y ago
    Is that really the same type of argument? While I don't think, "Don't buy apple products then" is really a great argument it's not the same as the privacy argument. You do have other options. I don't have other options than to be spied on by the US government.
    - pryelluw 6y ago
      You can move to another country. /s
- swiley 6y ago
  How does this solve the problem where my family refuses to switch to a reasonable problem and I can't even talk to them without pirating an apple OS?
  - zepto 6y ago
    The problem seems to be with your family’s refusal, no?
  - aembleton 6y ago
    Can't you phone her?
    - swiley 6y ago
      Sure, but I'm left out of the group chat if I don't leave my OSX VM running.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This is just as true for Facebook or Google or any messaging system. There is nothing special about Apple in this regard. It’s just a feature of current messaging technologies. I stopped using Facebook earlier this year, and I am missing out on a bunch of social groups the contain people I know in real life. What we need to do is build technology that doesn’t these downsides.
dannyincolor 6y ago
Assuming Apple is ever kept at bay, they'll just ratchet up their already prevalent "soft coercion" tactics (warnings, unforced security errors, etc.) The question is literally: 1. Comply fully and lose billions in revenue 2. Figure out a way to continue cheating the system We have decades of data setting a precedent that this specific company will choose Option 2 unless absolutely forced to fundamentally change.
jonwinstanley 6y ago
Currently the iPhone is a great device for almost everyone on the planet and the trust their users have in the 3rd party apps is a big part of that. If Apple made it easy to put custom apps on the device it would mean you could more easily be tricked into installing malware and so reduce the trust in the security. The iPhone is as popular as it is today due in no small part to how they have policed the App Store.
- jimmaswell 6y ago
  Android has over 70% market share.
  - jonwinstanley 6y ago
    What did you mean by this one?
  - jolux 6y ago
    And significantly more malware than iOS has.
    - jimmaswell 6y ago
      Malware can't do all that much but drain your battery with Android's sandboxing unless you're rooted.
      - Razengan 6y ago
        > unless you're rooted. There we go :)
        echelon 6y ago
        You can run custom / 3rd party software without being rooted. Not that rooting should be impossible.
      - jolux 6y ago
offtop5 6y ago
You can still use a flip phone and a desktop PC running arch Linux. Most users , even some of us can accidentally break a Linux install. Saving me from myself is what IOS effectively does. Look at the Android fortnite fiasco with users installing the wrong app and getting malware on their phones. Even open source smart phones exist. Your more than free to custom write your own software on them.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

You can do whatever you want with your phone, that doesn't mean Apple has to support it.

mason55 6y ago
This is the right answer. Apple’s not going to arrest you for jailbreaking your phone and running your own software. But they’re not obligated to go out of their way to support it either.
- upbeat_general 6y ago
  It’s not that they don’t go out of their way to support it. They actively try to stop it. All jailbreaking is, is gaining root privileges on the device. They could just add a little toggle button saying use at your own risk, we don’t support it. By making it so hard to jailbreak and so hard to install apps not from the App Store, they make jailbreaking not the answer.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Yes, let's add a potentially system breaking switch to a consumer phone. Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around the software geeks.
    - helloycombinat 6y ago
      nvm I was wrong, it's not that you didn't get it, you're just an idiot
  - mason55 6y ago
    Their goal/feature/product, whatever you want to call it, is to create something secure enough that grandpa can’t get tricked into getting owned. Anything at all that allows people to disable security becomes an immediate threat for that type of user. If the side effect is that they prevent people from jailbreaking then so be it because they have no desire or obligation to support those users.

robotresearcher 6y ago

[edit: I missed that the parent comment was scoped to iPhone, rather than the OP story about Macs.] You can distribute [macOS] apps directly to customers. From Apple's site: "While the Mac App Store is the safest place for users to get software for their Mac, you may choose to distribute your Mac apps in other ways. Gatekeeper on macOS helps protect users from downloading and installing malicious software by checking for a Developer ID certificate. Make sure to test your apps with the latest version of macOS and sign your apps, plug-ins, or installer packages to let Gatekeeper know they’re safe to install. You can also give users even more confidence in your apps by submitting them to Apple to be notarized." https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/ https://developer.apple.com/macos/distribution/

banachtarski 6y ago
The parent comment is talking about phones.
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  Thanks. Edited to reflect.

coronadisaster 6y ago

I thought I was the only one thinking similarly on HN

Razengan 6y ago

Users don’t care about indie crap as long as they get their Facegram and Instabook. The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around. And so you have to play by the policies that attracted those users to Apple in the first place, which includes the App Store with all its glorious kinks.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> The harsh truth is that indie devs need access to Apple’s users, not the other way around. This is simply not true. Instagram was the project of indie developers. Likewise many of the big apps which exist on iOS. The vast majority of software on iOS is small niche tools which are either fun to use or useful tools. Apple knows this and they know they need indie developers supporting their platform. I realize there are a fair number of situations where it doesn't seem that way. But there are a lot of times such as this where it's more than clear they do.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> I just want to be able to run and distribute my own apps A niggle and not contradicting your main point. You can run and distribute you own app. You can even share it with a few hundred people (maybe a couple thousand?). What you can't do is distribute it in the App Store or effectively sell it outside the App Store. Again, more a niggle and not disputing your point. > The day where apple stops indies from publishing apps is near. This point I will dispute. Apple isn't going to stop Indies from publishing apps. Apple loves developers (though sometimes they show it poorly) and knows they are the life-blood of the platform.

onion2k 6y ago
Apple loves developers Apple loves money, and realises that without developers they won't make as much. A subtle but important difference.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  Can you point out a company that doesn't love money?
- valparaiso 6y ago
  You've forgot that in 2008 software developers jumped into unknown to masses Apple ecosystem. Think about it.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > A subtle but important difference. Subtle, different, but irrelevant in this context. Apple needs developers as much as developers need Apple. There will never be a day where Apple boots all Indies from the App Store. They would just as soon change the policies on locking the doors on their retail stores at night.

simonh 6y ago

I do believe that once I buy a device it's mine. I have jailbroken iPhones and an iPod Touch before, they were my devices and I did as I saw fit. On the other hand I don't feel I have the right to dictate to anyone else what sort of products they may or may not sell, or how they work, beyond health and safety, accessibility, etc. I don't see that I have a right to tell Nintendo that they must write software to support side loading games for my Switch for example, or demand via government regulation that Sony can't charge a fee for developers to create games for the Playstation. As long as I know up front what the features and services are that come with my purchase, I have a free choice whether to accept them or not. In particular, I certainly don't think I have the right to tell other members of the public that they should not have the option to buy those products on those terms if they wish. What right do I have to interfere in the product design of popular products, used by millions of people that are perfectly happy with them? Especially if that will force the company involved to change it's business practices and charging structure in ways those customers would not be happy with.