29 ms·

Installer.app was the first "App Store", before Cydia even existed, I wrote it. I spoke to Steve before they launched their App Store -- we were happy to see th

Installer.app was the first "App Store", before Cydia even existed, I wrote it. I spoke to Steve before they launched their App Store -- we were happy to see them open up the platform and provide an official SDK, which was our goal with Installer.app. I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than 15%) or allow competition. Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. They also need to provide wider access to low level APIs (with user confirmation), instead of dumbing it down for developers while keeping all the powerful APIs to themselves.

thanksforthe42 6y ago
The primary fear is getting kicked off because Apple said so. The fees might suck, but the concern is spending a year on an app only to be denied or lose it once you gain popularity.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kbenson 6y ago
> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than 15%) or allow competition. There's no "or" there. They need competition. The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already. I would posit the reason is because there is no real competition because Apple's behavior and control of their platform (from hardware to customer transactions) is extremely anti-competitive. Monopoly or not, anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem, and the fact they could drop fees so easily and quickly and by an arbitrary amount (half) points towards harm to developers and by extension consumers due to inflated fees because of lack of competition.
- clay_the_ripper 6y ago
  I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
  - carlisle_ 6y ago
    >I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    >I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect. This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform. Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on. iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down. These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it. You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable. Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.
newbie789 6y ago
I used Installer.app many many years ago on both my friend's iPhone and my first iPod touch! It was one of the first things I used when fiddling around with mobile platforms as a teenager. Thank you so much for your awesome work!
purplecats 6y ago
That’s awesome that you made that! I am not well versed in this area but why does apple “need” to do that? that would hurt them. more like everyone else needs apple to do that because they’re profiting off of our backs. so the last thing apple needs is to hurt themselves. just curious why you phrased it like that.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  Need can also express an obligation, not just something that is required by someone but also of someone.
  - purplecats 6y ago
    But under the dynamics of capitalism, they are everything _but_ obligated to do so.
    - ubercow13 6y ago
      Yes, they are not literally already obligated to do so by law or economics. But GP is clearly using it as a rhetorical device to express their manifesto: we (society) should 'need' Apple to do X (for the good of society), or whatever.
fmntf 6y ago
Installer.app was awesome. I remember the first App Store release, it was sooooo similar :) Do you have any anecdote or story to share about Installer.app or more in general the iOS 1.0 era?
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Smartphones are more PCs than PCs now - Apple and others OS makers shouldn't be even allowed to run "app stores"!
- philjohn 6y ago
  I can see both sides. I like that apps have to pass review before being allowed on the platform, and those low-level API's are to protect users - you just don't see the "stealing all your personal data" or "mining bitcoin without telling you" apps that you do on other app stores.
- risyachka 6y ago
  As a developer I don't want to publish my app to different stores. Each new publish costs days and thousands of dollars in time. Also development becomes much more expensive. And usually those stores have pure garbage of an APIs. As a consumer I don't want to search an app I need in 5 stores. It is a pure waste of time and I have much better things to do. Fix existing store? Sure. Let it rain with new stores, so to speak? No.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    I don't understand why do you think that app stores are something that is even needed?
madeofpalk 6y ago
> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores The biggest problem for many people is not the %, but the rules and limitations of the platform that comes from Apple being the intermediary between devs and users. For example, game streaming services should exist on the app store. It is preposterous that apple rejects these apps. They are actively harming thier own platform, making it less featureful by doing this. Being this intermediary is both a pro and a con for both devs and users, but they disallow anyone else to innovate on the platform. If Apple is so confident that their IAP is what users prefer, then they should give users (and developers) the choice and let the market speak!
- zepto 6y ago
  They don’t actually reject game streaming services. They just reject game streaming storefronts. They have already said they are fine with streaming games, as long as each title is in the App Store.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Which is unfeasable for game streaming services, so in practice they do reject any game streaming service that functions as consumers expect them to. It was a deliberate decision that was made to make it highly impractical to actually do. GeForce now has over 2000 games available to stream - do they actually expect Nvidia to submit 2000 apps? From a dev-infra POV that’s obviously largely impractical. Would Apple even allow that? It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU. Would it be reasonable for Apple to require Netflix to submit each movie and TV show to the App Store, and then say "no no, we do allow streaming tv!"
    - alexeldeib 6y ago
      Does Nvidia even have the proper licenses to do that? Seems like one thing to stream the games vs. upload the standalone apps to the store (implying they are available in full-featured form). > It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU. this is gross...
mcintyre1994 6y ago
> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. I really don't know about this, or rather I understand why Apple might argue that it's protecting users in addition to its services revenue. As far as I can tell from my mum's Android phone, Facebook has a lucrative business of advertising absolute garbage borderline-malware apps through their Android apps to people who don't know any better. It might be that Apple don't expose the APIs you need to make an iOS device a terrible experience for a user who installs your app at all. But if there are any holes in that walled garden once you drop the app store and review, a lot of iPhones will be a lot worse because Facebook will push horrible stuff at their less savvy users.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  So, here's the thing: Apple already has this, and has had it for a decade. When large companies want to have an internal app, they go to Apple and buy an enterprise signing certificate, and then you can just download and run the app. Well, almost - there's two hitches. 1. You have to manually trust the developer before the app will launch, which involves a huge dance of finding the developer trust settings (which are well hidden) and then selecting the developer of the enterprise-signed app 2. Apple will revoke your account if they catch your apps distributing outside of your organization Technically speaking, there's zero changes Apple has to make in order to allow competition in app distribution. It's all policy. Apple could implement notarization requirements like they did with macOS, and they should, but that doesn't affect the underlying fact that people worried about third-party app distribution are already too late to the party. Here's the thing: plenty of developers abuse the system anyway. But it's extremely obvious and signposted to the user that they're installing a third-party app Apple hasn't reviewed. You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
  - nomel 6y ago
    > You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone. I'm not sure this would be too much of a burden. After all, it wasn't long ago that the Amazon Prime app had to be side loaded on android devices [1]. If the most vulnerable users are presented with "you need this to do what you want, here's how to install it", they'll follow the directions, even if difficult, because everything tech is relatively difficult and convoluted anyways. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-available-on-google-play https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-av...
amelius 6y ago
Ringtones were the first app store. The apps were not Turing complete, but you could download them and run them on your phone. Very lucrative business.
maram 6y ago
Installer.app and Cydia were before Apple App Store?!
- xahrepap 6y ago
  Yeah, I remember people jailbreaking iOS 1 and installing various goodies. Then I remember getting an iPod Touch and a Mac Mini when (I think it was) iOS 2 came out add the SDK and app store so that I could try developing on their platform.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Well, it was technically going to be iPhone OS 1.2, but with the second beta, they changed it to 2.0. It didn’t become iOS until the iPhone 4 and version 4.0.
    - xahrepap 6y ago
      Sure... Also technically, I think they called it something different on the iPod Touch as well, if memory serves me right. :)
- xeromal 6y ago
  Yup, at the time, Steve Jobs was going full bore into web apps. He actually fought against having an app store for a bit.
nudgeee 6y ago
Ahh AppTapp Installer, those were the days. I had a tweak[0] up on your store way back when :) Thank you for being one of the pioneers of the Jailbreak community! [0] http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/ http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/
grishka 6y ago
IMO, the money isn't even the worst problem with the app store. The worst one is that they force you, the app developer, to change your platform, whatever it is, to accommodate ever-changing arbitrary Apple policies. Real-life example: apps getting rejected with the reason that while reviewing, they typed "porn" into the search bar and gasp naked people came up! Your own rules allow it, but Apple won't let you have it. Even if you rate your app 18+. Same goes for all the copyright stuff. Also funny how Apple keeps trying to spin its insane rules as a universally good thing. Not everyone is a US corporation. Sexuality is a very important part of a person's life. Get over it.
SergeAx 6y ago
Sure, right, yes! They also should provide us key for the apartment where money are stored. I don't believe Apple will ever give up their infinite and effectively zero-cost source of free dough. They badly need it to justify their senseless valuation, not to mention growth.
tomschlick 6y ago
> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. No thanks. One of the main reasons I have had my whole family switch to iOS over Android over the past decade is that it's idiot proof. I no longer get a call that someone borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box.
- raydev 6y ago
  > borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box You don't need to pretend OS security models haven't improved in the last 10 years. The App Store isn't the only or even the best protection against malware.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Being able to run arbitrary code on iOS means that all of the other, presently secondary platform security protections (such as sandboxing) now become the first line of defense. That is not something they were designed to do, and I doubt they would hold up. They're just one piece of the puzzle, and were put in place with the expectation that they would always be behind the App Store automated static analysis steps. The other issues are push and entitlements. Should every app now maintain its own separate push connection to that app's own servers, or are they expected to get APNS certs from Apple? How about feature entitlements? Should competing app store apps be notarized by Apple via developer ID, or should running anything, able to access anything (such as installing covert spyware that installs a systemwide spying VPN) be allowed? There are probably more I haven't even thought of, yet. Maybe "free" apps that you pay for by letting it use your iCloud storage and bandwidth to put you in some giant replicated storage botnet? There are probably all sorts of avenues for abuse of bundled cloud services that open up when Apple can't reject abusive apps that users would otherwise voluntarily install.
- Siira 6y ago
  You know what is really idiot proof? Cheap Nokia phones. They work very well for people not well-versed in technology. You can even buy a separate digital camera with the money saved.
runawaybottle 6y ago
Sorry, I can’t co-sign this. My mom and dad use iPhones. Last week I overheard them giving each other advice on ‘That email about the IRS, I learned it was a scam, don’t open it’. They are extremely vulnerable, everything looks official to them if it comes in an email. I don’t want links installing jack shit on their phone ever. There are scummy apps already on the App Store that can enable a vpn and route all your traffic through their servers, and people like my parents won’t know any better. The walled garden is important for them. For the rest of us, we can switch to another phone.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Except there aren’t many options for devices right now. It’s either Google spying on you or Apple babying you. More importantly, means that as developers your distribution options are severely limited. Let them buy another phone, or let Apple ship open and closed variants, or bury a switch in settings.
chii 6y ago
> allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. this is the most important aspect. I don't care how big a cut apple takes off the appstore - it's irrelevant what people "think" they should charge, because the cut is going to be determined by a market rate. But this market rate determination requires competition, and the lowest denominator competition is allowing installation from outside app store.
lowbloodsugar 6y ago
There are many purchase options if you want a new phone. One of those options, and not the largest selling option, is a product from Apple that requires that you use their app store, and follow certain rules. If you do not like this product, then there are literally far more non-apple products to choose from. There are both for more non-apple options, and there are far more of those sold worldwide. The demand you are making is already addressed by the market. The majority of phone manufacturers, the majority of phones available to purchase, and the majority of phones actually sold world-wide all work the way you want. But, no, it must be all of them for you to be satisfied! You are on the one hand saying that Apple is bad because it 100% insists on doing what it wants, and yet you are the one demanding that 100% of phone manufacturers do what you want. Well that's not ok. Go buy one of the alternatives please, and leave us with our intolerable, despotic iphones.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market. Saying just buy a different phone misses the pony entirely. I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
  - lowbloodsugar 6y ago
    >This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market. On the contrary. I, a user, want a phone that is locked down. You are demanding that the government force Apple to stop making that phone. You are demanding that no such phone is allowed to exist: that the government steps in to remove that choice for me. >I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy. No, you don't. And you shouldn't have. But you are trying to make that a moot point by demanding the government prevents me from buying the phone I want. You are trying to assert control over the choice of features of the phones I am allowed to buy. And your propaganda is that you are all about freedom of choice.
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      Just because you want something doesn’t make it legal.
sah55 6y ago
Wosniak or Jobs?

thanksforthe42 6y ago

The primary fear is getting kicked off because Apple said so. The fees might suck, but the concern is spending a year on an app only to be denied or lose it once you gain popularity.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kbenson 6y ago

> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores (that is, even less than 15%) or allow competition. There's no "or" there. They need competition. The fact they were able to quickly halve their fee due to public sentiment and some lawmakers sniffing around means that competition was not working to even that out to costs plus some profit already. I would posit the reason is because there is no real competition because Apple's behavior and control of their platform (from hardware to customer transactions) is extremely anti-competitive. Monopoly or not, anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers is the problem, and the fact they could drop fees so easily and quickly and by an arbitrary amount (half) points towards harm to developers and by extension consumers due to inflated fees because of lack of competition.

clay_the_ripper 6y ago
I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. I like the walled garden and have no interest in it going away. I like that my mom can install apps and not worry about them spying on her. I like that developers aren’t allowed to use their own payment processors. I don’t want to input my credit card into your black box payment system that might or might not charge me correctly. I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. If you want to install whatever apps you want, buy an android phone! And have fun while their bloat ware and preinstalled crap spams you with notifications and scams you.
- carlisle_ 6y ago
  >I see that it does harm developers, but that’s a different conversation entirely. This is generally the conversation that's happening here. People talking about competition aren't talking about it as it relates to the quality of the product, they're talking about it from an economic perspective.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  >I see no evidence that this harms consumers at all. Quite the opposite. Your entire argument is refuted if Apple isn't allowed to abuse it's market position and you're allowed to have "Apple Pay +30% price" "Stripe Payment" "Payment X" - you would quickly see the real value of App Store and Apple Payment processing convenience - that 30% would probably come down to 10% where it provides the convenience value. If consumers weren't harmed consumer choice would have no effect. This "users are idiots and they need Apple to tell them what's best for them" is like Stockholm syndrome with Apple fans, it's especially entertaining to hear it so often on a "hacker" newsgroup. Good thing papa Apple decided you can't have that dangerous Fortnite scam tricking you in to using a different payment system, you're better off not wasting time on games anyway - really if you look at it that way they are saving you from bad choices two times - win/win for Apple users I'd say.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's familiarity with how things worked on other platform. Windows/IE literally wasted hundreds of millions of person hours by being leaky, insecure, virus-prone crap. You could - if you chose to - make quite a nice income out of sending out phishing emails on our open email system. Likewise for randomsware, only more so. And so on. iOS may have other flaws, but worrying that your iPhone is going to be locked by a Bitcoin hacker isn't one of them. And realistically, users are idiots - at least technically. We've all heard of PC users who click on every random thing and end up with twenty-odd toolbars and almost every possible virus. The only reason phones aren't the same is because security is locked down. These are consumer devices. They are not hacker devices. If you want an open hacker device, go build one and see if you can persuade people to buy it. You won't - of course - because in userland locked down security is a feature, not a bug. And users care more about not having to pay a ransom to unlock their own phones than they do about running with root privileges. Not having to think about this is valuable. Having said all that, there's definitely room to negotiate the costs of all of this, and also to open up selected services that can be proven to be secure. But those costs, the access to useful non-risky APIs for devs, and access for third party service providers, are all different issues to the core validity of the model itself.

newbie789 6y ago

I used Installer.app many many years ago on both my friend's iPhone and my first iPod touch! It was one of the first things I used when fiddling around with mobile platforms as a teenager. Thank you so much for your awesome work!

purplecats 6y ago

That’s awesome that you made that! I am not well versed in this area but why does apple “need” to do that? that would hurt them. more like everyone else needs apple to do that because they’re profiting off of our backs. so the last thing apple needs is to hurt themselves. just curious why you phrased it like that.

ubercow13 6y ago
Need can also express an obligation, not just something that is required by someone but also of someone.
- purplecats 6y ago
  But under the dynamics of capitalism, they are everything _but_ obligated to do so.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    Yes, they are not literally already obligated to do so by law or economics. But GP is clearly using it as a rhetorical device to express their manifesto: we (society) should 'need' Apple to do X (for the good of society), or whatever.

fmntf 6y ago

Installer.app was awesome. I remember the first App Store release, it was sooooo similar :) Do you have any anecdote or story to share about Installer.app or more in general the iOS 1.0 era?

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Smartphones are more PCs than PCs now - Apple and others OS makers shouldn't be even allowed to run "app stores"!

philjohn 6y ago
I can see both sides. I like that apps have to pass review before being allowed on the platform, and those low-level API's are to protect users - you just don't see the "stealing all your personal data" or "mining bitcoin without telling you" apps that you do on other app stores.
risyachka 6y ago
As a developer I don't want to publish my app to different stores. Each new publish costs days and thousands of dollars in time. Also development becomes much more expensive. And usually those stores have pure garbage of an APIs. As a consumer I don't want to search an app I need in 5 stores. It is a pure waste of time and I have much better things to do. Fix existing store? Sure. Let it rain with new stores, so to speak? No.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  I don't understand why do you think that app stores are something that is even needed?

madeofpalk 6y ago

> I think Apple should either charge considerably less than they do for distribution via their App Stores The biggest problem for many people is not the %, but the rules and limitations of the platform that comes from Apple being the intermediary between devs and users. For example, game streaming services should exist on the app store. It is preposterous that apple rejects these apps. They are actively harming thier own platform, making it less featureful by doing this. Being this intermediary is both a pro and a con for both devs and users, but they disallow anyone else to innovate on the platform. If Apple is so confident that their IAP is what users prefer, then they should give users (and developers) the choice and let the market speak!

zepto 6y ago
They don’t actually reject game streaming services. They just reject game streaming storefronts. They have already said they are fine with streaming games, as long as each title is in the App Store.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Which is unfeasable for game streaming services, so in practice they do reject any game streaming service that functions as consumers expect them to. It was a deliberate decision that was made to make it highly impractical to actually do. GeForce now has over 2000 games available to stream - do they actually expect Nvidia to submit 2000 apps? From a dev-infra POV that’s obviously largely impractical. Would Apple even allow that? It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU. Would it be reasonable for Apple to require Netflix to submit each movie and TV show to the App Store, and then say "no no, we do allow streaming tv!"
  - alexeldeib 6y ago
    Does Nvidia even have the proper licenses to do that? Seems like one thing to stream the games vs. upload the standalone apps to the store (implying they are available in full-featured form). > It’s also a baffling from the user’s point of view. What happens a single game is available on multiple platforms? I search for “Destiny 2” on the App Store and there’s 3 different listings for it on Stadia, GeForce Now and Xbox GPU. this is gross...

mcintyre1994 6y ago

> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. I really don't know about this, or rather I understand why Apple might argue that it's protecting users in addition to its services revenue. As far as I can tell from my mum's Android phone, Facebook has a lucrative business of advertising absolute garbage borderline-malware apps through their Android apps to people who don't know any better. It might be that Apple don't expose the APIs you need to make an iOS device a terrible experience for a user who installs your app at all. But if there are any holes in that walled garden once you drop the app store and review, a lot of iPhones will be a lot worse because Facebook will push horrible stuff at their less savvy users.

kmeisthax 6y ago
So, here's the thing: Apple already has this, and has had it for a decade. When large companies want to have an internal app, they go to Apple and buy an enterprise signing certificate, and then you can just download and run the app. Well, almost - there's two hitches. 1. You have to manually trust the developer before the app will launch, which involves a huge dance of finding the developer trust settings (which are well hidden) and then selecting the developer of the enterprise-signed app 2. Apple will revoke your account if they catch your apps distributing outside of your organization Technically speaking, there's zero changes Apple has to make in order to allow competition in app distribution. It's all policy. Apple could implement notarization requirements like they did with macOS, and they should, but that doesn't affect the underlying fact that people worried about third-party app distribution are already too late to the party. Here's the thing: plenty of developers abuse the system anyway. But it's extremely obvious and signposted to the user that they're installing a third-party app Apple hasn't reviewed. You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone.
- nomel 6y ago
  > You aren't going to just click a link on a Facebook ad and suddenly have malware on your phone. I'm not sure this would be too much of a burden. After all, it wasn't long ago that the Amazon Prime app had to be side loaded on android devices [1]. If the most vulnerable users are presented with "you need this to do what you want, here's how to install it", they'll follow the directions, even if difficult, because everything tech is relatively difficult and convoluted anyways. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-available-on-google-play https://www.pcmag.com/news/amazon-prime-video-app-finally-av...

amelius 6y ago

Ringtones were the first app store. The apps were not Turing complete, but you could download them and run them on your phone. Very lucrative business.

maram 6y ago

Installer.app and Cydia were before Apple App Store?!

xahrepap 6y ago
Yeah, I remember people jailbreaking iOS 1 and installing various goodies. Then I remember getting an iPod Touch and a Mac Mini when (I think it was) iOS 2 came out add the SDK and app store so that I could try developing on their platform.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Well, it was technically going to be iPhone OS 1.2, but with the second beta, they changed it to 2.0. It didn’t become iOS until the iPhone 4 and version 4.0.
  - xahrepap 6y ago
    Sure... Also technically, I think they called it something different on the iPod Touch as well, if memory serves me right. :)
xeromal 6y ago
Yup, at the time, Steve Jobs was going full bore into web apps. He actually fought against having an app store for a bit.

nudgeee 6y ago

Ahh AppTapp Installer, those were the days. I had a tweak[0] up on your store way back when :) Thank you for being one of the pioneers of the Jailbreak community! [0] http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/ http://iphone.nudge.id.au/Cello/

grishka 6y ago

IMO, the money isn't even the worst problem with the app store. The worst one is that they force you, the app developer, to change your platform, whatever it is, to accommodate ever-changing arbitrary Apple policies. Real-life example: apps getting rejected with the reason that while reviewing, they typed "porn" into the search bar and gasp naked people came up! Your own rules allow it, but Apple won't let you have it. Even if you rate your app 18+. Same goes for all the copyright stuff. Also funny how Apple keeps trying to spin its insane rules as a universally good thing. Not everyone is a US corporation. Sexuality is a very important part of a person's life. Get over it.

SergeAx 6y ago

Sure, right, yes! They also should provide us key for the apartment where money are stored. I don't believe Apple will ever give up their infinite and effectively zero-cost source of free dough. They badly need it to justify their senseless valuation, not to mention growth.

tomschlick 6y ago

> Even more importantly, they need to allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. No thanks. One of the main reasons I have had my whole family switch to iOS over Android over the past decade is that it's idiot proof. I no longer get a call that someone borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box.

raydev 6y ago
> borked their phone because they followed the "unlimited farmville money with this one simple trick" tutorial that opened pandora's malware box You don't need to pretend OS security models haven't improved in the last 10 years. The App Store isn't the only or even the best protection against malware.
- sneak 6y ago
  Being able to run arbitrary code on iOS means that all of the other, presently secondary platform security protections (such as sandboxing) now become the first line of defense. That is not something they were designed to do, and I doubt they would hold up. They're just one piece of the puzzle, and were put in place with the expectation that they would always be behind the App Store automated static analysis steps. The other issues are push and entitlements. Should every app now maintain its own separate push connection to that app's own servers, or are they expected to get APNS certs from Apple? How about feature entitlements? Should competing app store apps be notarized by Apple via developer ID, or should running anything, able to access anything (such as installing covert spyware that installs a systemwide spying VPN) be allowed? There are probably more I haven't even thought of, yet. Maybe "free" apps that you pay for by letting it use your iCloud storage and bandwidth to put you in some giant replicated storage botnet? There are probably all sorts of avenues for abuse of bundled cloud services that open up when Apple can't reject abusive apps that users would otherwise voluntarily install.
Siira 6y ago
You know what is really idiot proof? Cheap Nokia phones. They work very well for people not well-versed in technology. You can even buy a separate digital camera with the money saved.

runawaybottle 6y ago

Sorry, I can’t co-sign this. My mom and dad use iPhones. Last week I overheard them giving each other advice on ‘That email about the IRS, I learned it was a scam, don’t open it’. They are extremely vulnerable, everything looks official to them if it comes in an email. I don’t want links installing jack shit on their phone ever. There are scummy apps already on the App Store that can enable a vpn and route all your traffic through their servers, and people like my parents won’t know any better. The walled garden is important for them. For the rest of us, we can switch to another phone.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
Except there aren’t many options for devices right now. It’s either Google spying on you or Apple babying you. More importantly, means that as developers your distribution options are severely limited. Let them buy another phone, or let Apple ship open and closed variants, or bury a switch in settings.

chii 6y ago

> allow installation of apps via links without requiring an App Store altogether. this is the most important aspect. I don't care how big a cut apple takes off the appstore - it's irrelevant what people "think" they should charge, because the cut is going to be determined by a market rate. But this market rate determination requires competition, and the lowest denominator competition is allowing installation from outside app store.

lowbloodsugar 6y ago

There are many purchase options if you want a new phone. One of those options, and not the largest selling option, is a product from Apple that requires that you use their app store, and follow certain rules. If you do not like this product, then there are literally far more non-apple products to choose from. There are both for more non-apple options, and there are far more of those sold worldwide. The demand you are making is already addressed by the market. The majority of phone manufacturers, the majority of phones available to purchase, and the majority of phones actually sold world-wide all work the way you want. But, no, it must be all of them for you to be satisfied! You are on the one hand saying that Apple is bad because it 100% insists on doing what it wants, and yet you are the one demanding that 100% of phone manufacturers do what you want. Well that's not ok. Go buy one of the alternatives please, and leave us with our intolerable, despotic iphones.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market. Saying just buy a different phone misses the pony entirely. I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy.
- lowbloodsugar 6y ago
  >This isn’t about the control over users, but the app market. On the contrary. I, a user, want a phone that is locked down. You are demanding that the government force Apple to stop making that phone. You are demanding that no such phone is allowed to exist: that the government steps in to remove that choice for me. >I, as a developer, have no control over what phone you, as a user, buy. No, you don't. And you shouldn't have. But you are trying to make that a moot point by demanding the government prevents me from buying the phone I want. You are trying to assert control over the choice of features of the phones I am allowed to buy. And your propaganda is that you are all about freedom of choice.
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    Just because you want something doesn’t make it legal.

sah55 6y ago

Wosniak or Jobs?