10 ms·

Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing

Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves by being the only way to get apps on the store and by simultaneously incessantly marketing the store as "Safe and Secure". The former encourages them to maximize the number of apps on the store, while the latter encourages them to shoot first and ask questions later. If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live. Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.

ProjectArcturis 6y ago
If they allowed side-loading, they might not capture 30% of revenue from apps sold through the app store. If they disallowed scams, they might not capture 30% of the scammers' revenue.
- tolmasky 6y ago
  I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing it on your own". This is much different than the current Hobson's Choice of "you don't have to be on the store, you could just not have an app" which feels increasingly shallow in a duopoly, which gets to another important point: they'd actually have a fantastic argument for regulators: competitors really do have choices other than Apple! It would be very hard to argue that Apple should cater to your app that they don't like when there is another way to deliver that app to all the same customers (that doesn't involve first convincing them to switch platforms). I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users. The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.
  - ed_elliott_asc 6y ago
    This is the worst thing they could do, leave google open to host iOS apps on their store
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Not really, judging by the current quality of the Play Store.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        I should clarify the above means that given the (lack of) quality of the Play Store, I don't see Google hosting iOS apps would get much traction and receive many adopters.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Truth be told, Apple could own side-loading on its own terms. They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. Wrap it up in copious disclaimers and language informing the end-user that Apple is not responsible for what happens with these "advanced settings." Bake security checks into this process. Make side-loading into a walled garden unto itself. This would also disincentivize jailbreakers, as fewer power users would be interested in pursuing the 100% amount of freedom that jailbreaking allows. You could even go all of the way and have Apple adopt a "can't beat us? Join us" mentality towards independent app repositories outside of App Store by providing their own APIs and SDKs to run your own third-party app store. Again, architect it to automatically include security checks. Tie in subtle ways for Apple still to get a cut and a measure of their control. This is far from a concrete description of what "third party stores brought to you by Apple" would look like, but if there's any company that could square the circle and make it a reality, it'd be Apple.
    - ksec 6y ago
      >They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading. Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.
- Despegar 6y ago
  There's no reason to think that the cut would be any less than 30% even if they allowed side-loading. People just assume it would be like the Mac, but Apple isn't required to license its technology to anyone for free.
simonh 6y ago
How would the security model work with side loaded apps. How would they get access to OS resources, services and share data with other apps, e.g through the clipboard? Who would verify them against malware, or ensure they didn’t violate security constraints? It’s not like Apple could disavow all responsibility for any data leaked from the system, a lot of users simply wouldn’t see it that way. There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
- egocentric 6y ago
  “Sideloading Apps Would ‘Break’ the Security and Privacy of iPhone”, said Tim Cook. But instead of gaslighting us, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means: - Automated scan for malware - Remote kill switch, just in case They already do this for macOS [1]: > “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.” They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to." That's… not a very convincing argument. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Yeah, the whole "there is no alternative to the App Store" argument completely falls apart in the face of the existence of the Mac, and how the Mac isn't constrained by the Mac App Store.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Obviously not, because the Mac has only ever had minor sales relative to the PC even, and minuscule compared to iOS. It’s never been a serious target.
      - 6y ago
tracedddd 6y ago
I think it would still poison the “Apple experience” to have many AppStores all competing with their own closed ecosystems. The Apple Experience of not being able to install some apps sucks, but its always been easy for me to help someone with an iOS device. That’s not true with Android or Windows. A walled garden ecosystem isn’t for everyone, but it does have value. Instead, I’d like to see Apple be forced to provide bootloader unlocks and some basic drivers for alternative operating systems. We own the hardware, after all. Then they could have their walled garden and people who wanted more could run something else. It’s also a simpler and more generalizable goal, in my opinion. If you own it, you should have low level access. That sounds more reasonable than forcing a corporation to add open App Store access, maintain it, and deal with whatever market effects precipitate.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  How does it matter which policy the app store have in ease of providing support? Providing support in Windows (can't talk for Android) isn't hard at all.
  - tracedddd 6y ago
    Apps in the Apple App Store must meet usability and standardization guidelines, and are deeply integrated into the OS. As a simple example that came up recently, all the payments on the phone go through Apple, so the payment process is the same cross ecosystem. While that is a point of discussion in the monopoly debate, it’s undeniably a simpler experience on the user side - and that translates to easy support. I don’t have to consider it it’s stripe or PayPal or freedompay or anything else when mom calls and wants help buying premium, payments just work. With an open app ecosystem all guarantees of standardization or not using private APIs or (ideally) the app has been somewhat vetted are out the window.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > I think it would still poison the “Apple experience” to have many AppStores all competing with their own closed ecosystems. I actually think Apple could find a way to navigate it. They already allow one prominent alternative choice on iOS: non-iMessage SMS. If Apple allowed third-party stores, I could see them using their product, UX, and branding mastery to create the equivalent of the blue-bubble and green-bubble dichotomy for App Store vs. 3rd party downloaded apps. Creating a social stigma without technical restrictions, so to speak. So allowing an alternative while at the same time encouraging users not to partake in it.
amelius 6y ago
The real issue is that "AppStore" and "ContentFilter" are two orthogonal things (which Apple conflates). We can have multiple instances of both. And we probably should.
- saurik 6y ago
  Yeah: and for anyone who doesn't immediately see how this is possible, a curator merely needs to have an allow/deny list of apps--possibly specific reviewed binaries--not actually host them or be the bottleneck for obtaining them: you just want the (hopefully federated) store app(s) to be able to refer to the (hopefully federated) curator(s) to limit the display and prevent installs.
  - egocentric 6y ago
    Also, from my other comment, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means: - Automated scan for malware - Remote kill switch, just in case They already do this for macOS [1]: > “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.” They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to." That's… not a very convincing argument. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
- ksec 6y ago
  OH Yes. I think you perfectly describe it something no others have done. ( At least I have yet to seen any )
coldtea 6y ago
>If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). Then every scammer and scamster does the same for their apps, and lures enough people to get them, and depending on what's allowed, you also get pirated app "stores". In the end the result is not so great for the devs complaining either... Now instead of 1 method of payment, 1 way to enforce subscriptions/cancellations and other rules, one checkpoint, you have 2 or 5 or 10.
- pranau 6y ago
  >And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). >Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are distribured through the Play Store. All "big" players still go through the Play Store. When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different?
  - spullara 6y ago
    Money. There is way more money in the iOS ecosystem.
    - spartanatreyu 6y ago
      I don't think you're giving enough weight to the network effect. People don't want to switch from what they already use. Worst case scenario, some managers decide to include an app store inside their app, they ignore the reality of the chance of success and put a whole bunch of marketing in it to their higher ups. Then they get promoted or switch jobs then blame whoever gets stuck with it 3-6 months later when it fails. After that we'll probably end up seeing real use cases side loaded app stores (like hobby game development, or open source tools that don't want to or can't pay the Apple tax).
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
>Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves Until you realize they don't actually care about it being "safe and secure" beyond a certain point. They care they apps wont leech your payment details, they care they apps can't step outside the guidelines, they care that technology and connectivity is locked within the app store and not the browser but as long as an app plays within the rules they don't care if an app tricks your 5 year old into a 400$ a week subscription, as long as your 5 year old is doing it safely.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
Right. The AppStore wouldn't disappear if the platform were more open- the AppStore would have to actually compete.
sneak 6y ago
For a counterexample, Wireguard is on the Mac App Store (MAS) and can't be downloaded directly from their site because you can't install NetworkExtension VPN apps on a mac outside of the MAS.
Aeolun 6y ago
> Safe and Secure Safe and secure maybe, but it’s safe and secure garbage. It’s mind blowing how shitty most apps on the store are. I want to go back to the iPhone 1 app store, where literally every app was a jewel.
compiler-guy 6y ago
Apple's App store grossed twenty-billion dollars last year [1]. Whatever its problems are, it isn't the worst possible situation for themselves by a long shot. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
dustinmoris 6y ago
How you obtain, install, update and manage apps is one of the key elements of a smartphone. If people are so against the fundamental way of how Apple does its smartphone then why are these people buying an iPhone if it makes them so unhappy? I honestly don’t get it. If you dislike the AppStore so much and oppose how Apple runs its products then don’t buy it. If enough people feel that way then it will incentivise Apple to change course. Currently it feels that the vast majority have no issue whatsoever and it’s only a small vocal minority (probably some dodgy App developers) who complain for their own benefit. Just get an Android and only develop for Android. Nobody was born as an App developer. You chose yourself to develop apps. If AppStores are so hostile and the current model s financially unattractive then why did you decide to become an App developer?

ProjectArcturis 6y ago

If they allowed side-loading, they might not capture 30% of revenue from apps sold through the app store. If they disallowed scams, they might not capture 30% of the scammers' revenue.

tolmasky 6y ago
I actually believe that if they allowed side-loading it would be one of the best ways to guarantee that they continue capturing 30% of revenue in perpetuity. This is because they could actually for the first time make developers feel like they're getting something for that 30%, as opposed to it being an "existence tax". Apple could actually with a straight face say "hey, you don't HAVE to be on the store, try doing it on your own". This is much different than the current Hobson's Choice of "you don't have to be on the store, you could just not have an app" which feels increasingly shallow in a duopoly, which gets to another important point: they'd actually have a fantastic argument for regulators: competitors really do have choices other than Apple! It would be very hard to argue that Apple should cater to your app that they don't like when there is another way to deliver that app to all the same customers (that doesn't involve first convincing them to switch platforms). I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users. The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.
- ed_elliott_asc 6y ago
  This is the worst thing they could do, leave google open to host iOS apps on their store
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Not really, judging by the current quality of the Play Store.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      I should clarify the above means that given the (lack of) quality of the Play Store, I don't see Google hosting iOS apps would get much traction and receive many adopters.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Truth be told, Apple could own side-loading on its own terms. They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. Wrap it up in copious disclaimers and language informing the end-user that Apple is not responsible for what happens with these "advanced settings." Bake security checks into this process. Make side-loading into a walled garden unto itself. This would also disincentivize jailbreakers, as fewer power users would be interested in pursuing the 100% amount of freedom that jailbreaking allows. You could even go all of the way and have Apple adopt a "can't beat us? Join us" mentality towards independent app repositories outside of App Store by providing their own APIs and SDKs to run your own third-party app store. Again, architect it to automatically include security checks. Tie in subtle ways for Apple still to get a cut and a measure of their control. This is far from a concrete description of what "third party stores brought to you by Apple" would look like, but if there's any company that could square the circle and make it a reality, it'd be Apple.
  - ksec 6y ago
    >They can present their own APIs that provide some freedom outside of the App Store, without ceding all of their control. That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading. Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.
Despegar 6y ago
There's no reason to think that the cut would be any less than 30% even if they allowed side-loading. People just assume it would be like the Mac, but Apple isn't required to license its technology to anyone for free.

simonh 6y ago

How would the security model work with side loaded apps. How would they get access to OS resources, services and share data with other apps, e.g through the clipboard? Who would verify them against malware, or ensure they didn’t violate security constraints? It’s not like Apple could disavow all responsibility for any data leaked from the system, a lot of users simply wouldn’t see it that way. There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.

egocentric 6y ago
“Sideloading Apps Would ‘Break’ the Security and Privacy of iPhone”, said Tim Cook. But instead of gaslighting us, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means: - Automated scan for malware - Remote kill switch, just in case They already do this for macOS [1]: > “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.” They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to." That's… not a very convincing argument. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Yeah, the whole "there is no alternative to the App Store" argument completely falls apart in the face of the existence of the Mac, and how the Mac isn't constrained by the Mac App Store.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Obviously not, because the Mac has only ever had minor sales relative to the PC even, and minuscule compared to iOS. It’s never been a serious target.
    - 6y ago

tracedddd 6y ago

I think it would still poison the “Apple experience” to have many AppStores all competing with their own closed ecosystems. The Apple Experience of not being able to install some apps sucks, but its always been easy for me to help someone with an iOS device. That’s not true with Android or Windows. A walled garden ecosystem isn’t for everyone, but it does have value. Instead, I’d like to see Apple be forced to provide bootloader unlocks and some basic drivers for alternative operating systems. We own the hardware, after all. Then they could have their walled garden and people who wanted more could run something else. It’s also a simpler and more generalizable goal, in my opinion. If you own it, you should have low level access. That sounds more reasonable than forcing a corporation to add open App Store access, maintain it, and deal with whatever market effects precipitate.

Daho0n 6y ago
How does it matter which policy the app store have in ease of providing support? Providing support in Windows (can't talk for Android) isn't hard at all.
- tracedddd 6y ago
  Apps in the Apple App Store must meet usability and standardization guidelines, and are deeply integrated into the OS. As a simple example that came up recently, all the payments on the phone go through Apple, so the payment process is the same cross ecosystem. While that is a point of discussion in the monopoly debate, it’s undeniably a simpler experience on the user side - and that translates to easy support. I don’t have to consider it it’s stripe or PayPal or freedompay or anything else when mom calls and wants help buying premium, payments just work. With an open app ecosystem all guarantees of standardization or not using private APIs or (ideally) the app has been somewhat vetted are out the window.
Apocryphon 6y ago
> I think it would still poison the “Apple experience” to have many AppStores all competing with their own closed ecosystems. I actually think Apple could find a way to navigate it. They already allow one prominent alternative choice on iOS: non-iMessage SMS. If Apple allowed third-party stores, I could see them using their product, UX, and branding mastery to create the equivalent of the blue-bubble and green-bubble dichotomy for App Store vs. 3rd party downloaded apps. Creating a social stigma without technical restrictions, so to speak. So allowing an alternative while at the same time encouraging users not to partake in it.

amelius 6y ago

The real issue is that "AppStore" and "ContentFilter" are two orthogonal things (which Apple conflates). We can have multiple instances of both. And we probably should.

saurik 6y ago
Yeah: and for anyone who doesn't immediately see how this is possible, a curator merely needs to have an allow/deny list of apps--possibly specific reviewed binaries--not actually host them or be the bottleneck for obtaining them: you just want the (hopefully federated) store app(s) to be able to refer to the (hopefully federated) curator(s) to limit the display and prevent installs.
- egocentric 6y ago
  Also, from my other comment, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means: - Automated scan for malware - Remote kill switch, just in case They already do this for macOS [1]: > “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.” They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to." That's… not a very convincing argument. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
ksec 6y ago
OH Yes. I think you perfectly describe it something no others have done. ( At least I have yet to seen any )

coldtea 6y ago

>If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac. And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). Then every scammer and scamster does the same for their apps, and lures enough people to get them, and depending on what's allowed, you also get pirated app "stores". In the end the result is not so great for the devs complaining either... Now instead of 1 method of payment, 1 way to enforce subscriptions/cancellations and other rules, one checkpoint, you have 2 or 5 or 10.

pranau 6y ago
>And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps). >Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc). We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are distribured through the Play Store. All "big" players still go through the Play Store. When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different?
- spullara 6y ago
  Money. There is way more money in the iOS ecosystem.
  - spartanatreyu 6y ago
    I don't think you're giving enough weight to the network effect. People don't want to switch from what they already use. Worst case scenario, some managers decide to include an app store inside their app, they ignore the reality of the chance of success and put a whole bunch of marketing in it to their higher ups. Then they get promoted or switch jobs then blame whoever gets stuck with it 3-6 months later when it fails. After that we'll probably end up seeing real use cases side loaded app stores (like hobby game development, or open source tools that don't want to or can't pay the Apple tax).

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

>Apple has just engineered the worst possible situation for themselves Until you realize they don't actually care about it being "safe and secure" beyond a certain point. They care they apps wont leech your payment details, they care they apps can't step outside the guidelines, they care that technology and connectivity is locked within the app store and not the browser but as long as an app plays within the rules they don't care if an app tricks your 5 year old into a 400$ a week subscription, as long as your 5 year old is doing it safely.

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

Right. The AppStore wouldn't disappear if the platform were more open- the AppStore would have to actually compete.

sneak 6y ago

For a counterexample, Wireguard is on the Mac App Store (MAS) and can't be downloaded directly from their site because you can't install NetworkExtension VPN apps on a mac outside of the MAS.

Aeolun 6y ago

> Safe and Secure Safe and secure maybe, but it’s safe and secure garbage. It’s mind blowing how shitty most apps on the store are. I want to go back to the iPhone 1 app store, where literally every app was a jewel.

compiler-guy 6y ago

Apple's App store grossed twenty-billion dollars last year [1]. Whatever its problems are, it isn't the worst possible situation for themselves by a long shot. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...

dustinmoris 6y ago

How you obtain, install, update and manage apps is one of the key elements of a smartphone. If people are so against the fundamental way of how Apple does its smartphone then why are these people buying an iPhone if it makes them so unhappy? I honestly don’t get it. If you dislike the AppStore so much and oppose how Apple runs its products then don’t buy it. If enough people feel that way then it will incentivise Apple to change course. Currently it feels that the vast majority have no issue whatsoever and it’s only a small vocal minority (probably some dodgy App developers) who complain for their own benefit. Just get an Android and only develop for Android. Nobody was born as an App developer. You chose yourself to develop apps. If AppStores are so hostile and the current model s financially unattractive then why did you decide to become an App developer?