13 ms·

Apple makes its case against iPhone app sideloading

mimixco 5y ago
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And Sideloading is Eliminating Choice. Yep!
- randompwd 5y ago
  What an unnecessarily trite comment. Have you any comment on the actual article or the arguments contained within?
  - mimixco 5y ago
    Sure. They're ridiculous. You cannot call the absence of the choice to sideload an application "a choice." By the same token, it makes no sense to call having the choice to sideload an application an example of "eliminating choice." Apple is very good at spinning their walled garden as a user benefit. In some cases, it is. Here, it isn't.
    - makerofthings 5y ago
      Right now, people have the choice to use a system without sideloading or one with sideloading (Android or presumably something like a pinephone). Forcing iOS to be open to sideloading or other AppStores would remove choice. I chose to use iOS as is because it’s locked down and that’s what I want. Opening the platform would remove that choice. I consider the lack of sideloading to be an advantage of iOS and I pay a premium for it.
      - RealStickman_ 5y ago
        Why would sideloading be a disadvantage? Just don't enable it if you don't need it. If an app wants to sideload something you get directed to the settings where you have to enable it, so it's not like apps can just install themselves.
        makerofthings 5y ago
        Apps that I need or like would stop developing for the main store and start demanding people sideload or install another App Store and I would inevitably have to follow along and put my credit card into multiple stores. I don’t have any bargaining power to prevent this, apple do. Of course I could not sideload apps, but I expect that I would lose access to some games and services that I use. There is all downside for me.
        mthoms 5y ago
        >Apps that I need or like would stop developing for the main store and start demanding people sideload or install another App Store Genuinely curious as I have no idea: Has this happened on Android? What are some examples?
        makerofthings 5y ago
        A quick search for sideload-only android apps turns up plenty examples, but I think Android is less restrictive in what it lets you do so I’m not sure the two can be compared that easily. For sure, we’d be getting an Epic store. Either way, sounds like a bad plan to me. Maybe people who think sideloading is an important feature should buy one of the many Android or Linux phones?
        mthoms 5y ago
        Oh I'm sure there are. The claim was that some apps the commenter currently uses will switch from only being available in the App Store to being sideload-only. I'm just trying to find cases of that happening for any notable apps on Android. I'm not convinced either way about sideloading - I just hear this claim touted a lot around HN. I'm trying to determine if it's FUD by examining the evidence. Do you have any examples that fit this criteria?
        makerofthings 5y ago
        Sounds very much like you have a point to make rather than any desire to examine the evidence (which you could easily find yourself if that was what you cared about). If you google this, as I just did, there are examples of what you're asking for.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    Per site guidelines, please don’t feed the trolls: flag or downvote and move along.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  I had the same reaction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535904 It blows my mind that there are people who defend these kind of statements.
antifa 5y ago
Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own.
- simonh 5y ago
  The thing is as a user I want Apple to vet the software I use. I’m hiring them to do that for me. I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - RealStickman_ 5y ago
    Facebook does not have its own store on android and amazon's is pretty small and comes preinstalled with very few devices only. Why would that be different with apple?
    - simonh 5y ago
      Because on Android, Google doesn’t give a crap about privacy and Facebook knows it, so they’re quite happy to stay on the Play Store. The same goes for a ton of other apps, they’d all swing over up a ‘Freedom Store’ on iOS. They don’t need up do that on Android because Google.
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
      To quote the parent commenter: > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Alternative stores is a subset of this core issue: sideloading apps to circumvent the gatekeeping process that Apple created for the users benefit.
    - 5y ago
ryankrage77 5y ago
> Because Apple requires developers to ask the user for permission in a universal way before it can access such features as an iPhone’s microphone or camera, a user can identify if something shady is going on inside the app. Does the average user really do this? In my experience they just allow everything, because every permissions pop-up is just a delay to whatever they're trying to do.
- domano 5y ago
  Also they could force such behaviour just by the usage of the relevant APIs even outside of App Store Apps or am i mistaken? Dont have a lot of iOs Dev experience.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    I'm fairly certain these checks are completely iOS level, and have nothing to do with the App Store. Nothing is stopping Apple from enforcing the exact same checks for sideloaded apps.
- smachiz 5y ago
  They must, otherwise Facebook wouldn't freak out so much on the anti-tracking notices. I routinely limit location on apps - as well as address book, microphone and camera.
stemlord 5y ago
Fast Company articles feel like their goal is to promote a business rather than disseminate valuable information.
lucasyvas 5y ago
One thing I don't understand is this: Is this stance by Apple really the best for them? I'm an Android user only because of Apple's draconian closed garden. Surely there are lots of Android users that would happily buy from the AppStore by default and enjoy likely privacy benefits if they felt they had more freedom of choice while using their device. Has Apple made the conscious decision to forego a massive market of users because the AppStore really rakes in that much cash? Basically, how do they know this position is better - even from a shareholder perspective? They must have proof - and that's sad because there are many users who would love their core product that will not own one.
- mimixco 5y ago
  The proof is in the pudding. Apple doesn't really sell products; they sell a lifestyle. This is in contrast to almost all other tech and PC brands which sell on the tech itself. Because tech cannot compete with lifestyle, Apple is in a different business. Clearly, it's a profitable one. Changing to an open model or competing on raw hardware or software is never going to be their thing. BTW, this is not to denigrate their hardware in any way as much of it is great. But, especially in recent years, the company has compromised the usefulness of its hardware through its walled garden approach to software.
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    They don't only sell a lifestyle. They could do that without being anticompetitive and creating a walled garden. They do sell a lifestyle but want to be the only one who can sell it. I would really have to drink the cool-aid to work at Apple on their tech. I'm so annoyed by how Macs so commonly negotiate a low quality external display signal, e.g. YPbPr. It would suck to be told to make it do that in a plausibly deniable manner.
    - mimixco 5y ago
      Microsoft stands out here with their Xbox product, which is 1000% percent a walled garden. They make great hardware, have a great online product, their store is well liked and used by other gaming companies, and they allow cross-play with other platforms, even PC and Mac. Xbox Game Pass is considered the big success of the gaming industry right now and could define the future of how gaming looks (a la Netflix). It makes tons of money for them. All of this inside their walled garden and not in any way open. So walled gardens are not necessarily bad. I pay for Game Pass and I think it's a great deal.
muro 5y ago
It's unfortunate that what has some security benefits is also a such a gold mine for Apple. If they ran th still in a from developers yearly subscription costs + users paying for hardware, this would be so much easier to agree with. One example: DJI's app for their drones. They are forced to follow Apple's rules on iOS, but don't offer the same app on Google's play store. I trust the iOS version much more for that reason alone. But as long as they take 30% from developers on the platform and expanding the scope who needs to pay, they fully deserve monopoly investigations and eventually fines for their greed.
villgax 5y ago
The hearing is pretty good since we now get on record admissions of stupid from every company
camgunz 5y ago
The entire "eliminates choice" argument here is "some people want to choose a platform where you can't sideload apps, and if you make us support it that choice is unavailable". Ugh. I wish businesses would start considering the corrosive effect this kind of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is peace" newspeak has on society. Hearing corporate spokesperson after corporate spokesperson (or their toadies in the press) parrot this kind of junk generates untold cynicism. How are we supposed to believe corporations are an important part of a just human society when they have whole departments scheming on how to bamboozle us with this kind of brainwashing? And what does it do to the people who start out earnestly believing in a company's mission, who start internalizing that they need to say whatever they have to to protect the company? It would be way more straightforward to say "we have a lot of non-technical users [referred to as 'your 15-year-old nephew or 75-year-old father' in the article] and they're at risk from exploits via sideloaded apps". Or I mean, it's probably even more straightforward to say "we make lots of money on the App Store; why would we enable competitors when we don't have to?" People are just so tired of everything coming down to "freedom" and "fairness"; this stuff has just lost all meaning. Let's take this seriously and start working against it.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  It seems to me that continuing to press on this specific goal of using legal force to induce Apple to allow sideloading could induce extreme opposition from the right. In particular from those that embrace Ayn Rand and her parable of Roark.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    I see what you're saying (and understand you're not arguing that) but, I'm not interested in having a freedom of speech argument with people who want to dictate what content Twitter/Facebook must have on their platform. The American right is philosophically and politically bankrupt; we should stop both sides-ing them until they dig out of their ditch.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  I would also like to point out that Apple is lying here. Apple does allow sideloading via Xcode. They just limit it to 3 apps for non-developers.
Jcowell 5y ago
While slightly off topic , I wrote about this subject on Reddit when someone said Android allows it and hasn’t lead to serious App Store fragmentation on that platform so I’ll just copy and paste here: There’s a reason for this that I’ve been thinking about and it all comes down to Pushing Power. Android , on its own, doesn’t have a lot of “pushing” power because it’s not monotheistic. It requires all the players in the game to play nice in order to make something the norm. If Samsung or Google does something in their own, it doesn’t have the pushing power to turn the industry (only really Androids). Google could have that pushing power, but their reputation of killing and rebranding services hurt them. There aren’t assurances that they won’t kill something so there’s no backing of it. And this affects everything down to the developers of the platform. How can one push anything on such a platform ? The Google play store will probably have the average consumer’s wants and there’s too much friction of installing another store for one thing. This lack of Pushability works since Android likes to churn out razor-edge and innovation features, even if these features don’t talk to each-other like iOS users often expect, and it doesn’t matter if these features are 100% baked. But iPhones is a different story. It’s probably one of the most powerful pushing platform there is. Think about it. Apple was able to remove the headphone Jack and sell the solution. Neither Google nor Samsung has the pushing power to do that since their customers can just get a similar experience elsewhere. They need Apple to do the “crazy” thing first and just follow suit down the line once Apple has successfully done it. Because in the end , no matter what Apple does, there is no where else we can ever get the parity with the seamlessness that is the iPhone. And as a result it has pushing power. And this extends to its Apps to. I bet Android Tablets are great (I actually own one my self but never use it). But I’m also willing to bet an artist is going to Choose the iPad every single time because in the end Android does not have Procreate nor an App that can approach the experience of procreate. Procreate, by being an Apple exclusive app , has Pushing power and if it were to move to an alternative store , users will follow. Mobile Gaming is probably the most popular gaming platform there is (crazy right) and I’m willing to bet a tenth of what whales put down that they would download a third party store if a game like Genshin Impact were to move and I’m willing to pay another tenth that they would absolutely become and Epic Games Store exclusive if they we’re offered. Every one’s thinking that this will lead to more competition and better things for the consumer but that’s not how it’s going to go down. Here’s what’s going to happen: If Sideloading and third party stores are permitted Epic will immediately start securing exclusive third party apps—not just games but apps to promote their store. They will pay the exact same book they play on Desktops because it’s the smartest play there is. Eventually they will get the app (I predict Spotify) that will make everyone have to download their store in order to use. They of course will also do this on Android as well but will be more successful this time since their success on iOS will go mainstream and affect android as it always does (think removing the charging brick). Other companies (I predict Google and Nintendo) will do this also and find success and the mobile device app Ecosystem will become exactly like the browser app Ecosystem (minus PWA probably). TL;DR: Android is not a good indicator of what would happen if iPhones did what it does because it never is nor was. iPhones has always been the “pusher” of the mobile device industry, not in that it releases cutting-edge features first, but that it pushes what features are the norm. What happens on iPhones have a far greater impact on Android consumers than the vice versa. If you don’t believe so see: Smartphone boom (don’t matter who did it truly first but who did it truly right), removal of headphone Jack, removal of charging brick, faster adoption of NFC in US despite years of Android Phones having them, And Airtags.
DrBenCarson 5y ago
How hard is it to support a freemium model? Lower fee plan from Apple that allows external payments, no enterprise support, no App Store promotion, limited iOS API access (nothing sensitive), etc. Higher fee plan to give developers access to more sensitive APIs and Apple payments, etc. Mark the latter apps as “supported by Apple” or something in the store. I know it doesn’t solve everything but it’s better than the current state of things.
HWR_14 5y ago
Doesn't it eliminate choice? Like, what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps instead of admitting to their privacy practices as required by Apple's latest updates?
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  That's exactly the issue. Individuals have 0 recourse against Facebook, but Apple does. Apple is basically selling you a collective action against the likes of Facebook to fight against having everything you do tracked and monitored. What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Most of the people who want sideloading on iOS have Android phones.
  - passivate 5y ago
    >What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that. Customers are demanding a feature from the manufacturer - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. More people should be doing this. Also using words like "desperately" is needlessly polarizing.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      It's not just a feature. It's in direct opposition to the feature I want - to have a 2 trillion dollar company act in opposition to other trillion dollar companies shoving shit down my throat. They are mutually exclusive features, so you can expect people to be polarized.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  > what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps Zero, judging by Android.
mthoms 5y ago
Remember: the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of Apples’ App Store commissions. This whole side-loading, “other App stores” thing is a distraction from the real issue. The main problem would (mostly) go away if Apple wasn’t gouging developers and users. I’m sympathetic to the “I love my walled garden” crowd. There are good points being made on both sides. The funny thing is that I never hear the pro-Apple side suggesting (or being agreeable to) lowering App Store fees as an acceptable compromise. Or suggesting the Apple should do the right thing and properly support PWAs. Apple is redirecting the argument towards privacy/security and we are giving them a pass on the core issue. Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? Why does the pro-Apple side never seem to be willing to budge on anything? Allowing PWAs? Nope. Other browser engines? Nope. Lower fees? No way. It’s infuriating. Note: I use Apple products almost exclusively and love them. I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? I can envision a possible Nash equilibrium arising if, ceteris paribus, the fee was capped at the actual cost for running the App Store.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought. Interestingly, 30% seems to be a common business threshold for acceptable profit margin in other industries, as well.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    30% is their commission, not their profit margin. Apple deliberately hides their App Store profit margin from everyone, including shareholders. Doesn't it make you wonder why?
    - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
danShumway 5y ago
Just a quick note, this is the same company that until ~2016 was saying of video games: "If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song." This is the same company that has more recently described Itch.io as offensive and indecent. This is the same company that has gone out of its way to basically block game streaming entirely from its platform. It's the same company holding back web apps/experiences. So I get the security angle here, I really do, but forgive me if I'm suspicious whether security is the primary reason why Apple is locking down their store. On my side of things as a game developer, I think Apple is a large part of why gaming on mobile phones looks the way it does today. They made one model economically viable, and they aggressively chased off anyone who was treating games like a serious medium, and they still have those attitudes towards gaming as an art form today. So for them to act like this is just a debate about malware is really disingenuous. It's also a debate about the cultural control that Apple exerts, and their ability to basically shut down and manipulate markets by deciding what software innovations, game genres, and content in general are allowed run on their phones. A lot of us don't want Apple to have the control it has, not because we don't care about malware, but because we fundamentally don't trust Apple to be a responsible moderator/gatekeeper to the mobile market. The company has the criticism it has about moderation because they've burned a lot of bridges with developer communities over the years. If Apple really was just caring about privacy/security, this debate wouldn't be as fierce as it is. I actually really like the direction iOS is going on privacy. The problem is that on multiple other moderation fronts, their developer policies are anti-competitive or puritan/regressive.
dang 5y ago
It looks like the related threads are: Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 - June 2021 (35 comments) Apple CEO Tim Cook: Sideloading Apps Would 'Destroy the Security' of the iPhone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 - June 2021 (1 comment) Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 - June 2021 (44 comments) Apple is blocking Apple Silicon Mac users from sideloading iPhone apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 - Jan 2021 (36 comments) Apple begins blocking M1 Mac users from side loading iOS applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 - Jan 2021 (9 comments)

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And Sideloading is Eliminating Choice. Yep!

randompwd 5y ago
What an unnecessarily trite comment. Have you any comment on the actual article or the arguments contained within?
- mimixco 5y ago
  Sure. They're ridiculous. You cannot call the absence of the choice to sideload an application "a choice." By the same token, it makes no sense to call having the choice to sideload an application an example of "eliminating choice." Apple is very good at spinning their walled garden as a user benefit. In some cases, it is. Here, it isn't.
  - makerofthings 5y ago
    Right now, people have the choice to use a system without sideloading or one with sideloading (Android or presumably something like a pinephone). Forcing iOS to be open to sideloading or other AppStores would remove choice. I chose to use iOS as is because it’s locked down and that’s what I want. Opening the platform would remove that choice. I consider the lack of sideloading to be an advantage of iOS and I pay a premium for it.
    - RealStickman_ 5y ago
      Why would sideloading be a disadvantage? Just don't enable it if you don't need it. If an app wants to sideload something you get directed to the settings where you have to enable it, so it's not like apps can just install themselves.
      - makerofthings 5y ago
        Apps that I need or like would stop developing for the main store and start demanding people sideload or install another App Store and I would inevitably have to follow along and put my credit card into multiple stores. I don’t have any bargaining power to prevent this, apple do. Of course I could not sideload apps, but I expect that I would lose access to some games and services that I use. There is all downside for me.
        mthoms 5y ago
        >Apps that I need or like would stop developing for the main store and start demanding people sideload or install another App Store Genuinely curious as I have no idea: Has this happened on Android? What are some examples?
        makerofthings 5y ago
        A quick search for sideload-only android apps turns up plenty examples, but I think Android is less restrictive in what it lets you do so I’m not sure the two can be compared that easily. For sure, we’d be getting an Epic store. Either way, sounds like a bad plan to me. Maybe people who think sideloading is an important feature should buy one of the many Android or Linux phones?
        mthoms 5y ago
        Oh I'm sure there are. The claim was that some apps the commenter currently uses will switch from only being available in the App Store to being sideload-only. I'm just trying to find cases of that happening for any notable apps on Android. I'm not convinced either way about sideloading - I just hear this claim touted a lot around HN. I'm trying to determine if it's FUD by examining the evidence. Do you have any examples that fit this criteria?
        makerofthings 5y ago
        Sounds very much like you have a point to make rather than any desire to examine the evidence (which you could easily find yourself if that was what you cared about). If you google this, as I just did, there are examples of what you're asking for.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  Per site guidelines, please don’t feed the trolls: flag or downvote and move along.
perryizgr8 5y ago
I had the same reaction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535904 It blows my mind that there are people who defend these kind of statements.

Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own.

simonh 5y ago
The thing is as a user I want Apple to vet the software I use. I’m hiring them to do that for me. I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me. Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- RealStickman_ 5y ago
  Facebook does not have its own store on android and amazon's is pretty small and comes preinstalled with very few devices only. Why would that be different with apple?
  - simonh 5y ago
    Because on Android, Google doesn’t give a crap about privacy and Facebook knows it, so they’re quite happy to stay on the Play Store. The same goes for a ton of other apps, they’d all swing over up a ‘Freedom Store’ on iOS. They don’t need up do that on Android because Google.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    To quote the parent commenter: > I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. Alternative stores is a subset of this core issue: sideloading apps to circumvent the gatekeeping process that Apple created for the users benefit.
  - 5y ago

ryankrage77 5y ago

> Because Apple requires developers to ask the user for permission in a universal way before it can access such features as an iPhone’s microphone or camera, a user can identify if something shady is going on inside the app. Does the average user really do this? In my experience they just allow everything, because every permissions pop-up is just a delay to whatever they're trying to do.

domano 5y ago
Also they could force such behaviour just by the usage of the relevant APIs even outside of App Store Apps or am i mistaken? Dont have a lot of iOs Dev experience.
- thebean11 5y ago
  I'm fairly certain these checks are completely iOS level, and have nothing to do with the App Store. Nothing is stopping Apple from enforcing the exact same checks for sideloaded apps.
smachiz 5y ago
They must, otherwise Facebook wouldn't freak out so much on the anti-tracking notices. I routinely limit location on apps - as well as address book, microphone and camera.

stemlord 5y ago

Fast Company articles feel like their goal is to promote a business rather than disseminate valuable information.

lucasyvas 5y ago

One thing I don't understand is this: Is this stance by Apple really the best for them? I'm an Android user only because of Apple's draconian closed garden. Surely there are lots of Android users that would happily buy from the AppStore by default and enjoy likely privacy benefits if they felt they had more freedom of choice while using their device. Has Apple made the conscious decision to forego a massive market of users because the AppStore really rakes in that much cash? Basically, how do they know this position is better - even from a shareholder perspective? They must have proof - and that's sad because there are many users who would love their core product that will not own one.

mimixco 5y ago
The proof is in the pudding. Apple doesn't really sell products; they sell a lifestyle. This is in contrast to almost all other tech and PC brands which sell on the tech itself. Because tech cannot compete with lifestyle, Apple is in a different business. Clearly, it's a profitable one. Changing to an open model or competing on raw hardware or software is never going to be their thing. BTW, this is not to denigrate their hardware in any way as much of it is great. But, especially in recent years, the company has compromised the usefulness of its hardware through its walled garden approach to software.
- karmakaze 5y ago
  They don't only sell a lifestyle. They could do that without being anticompetitive and creating a walled garden. They do sell a lifestyle but want to be the only one who can sell it. I would really have to drink the cool-aid to work at Apple on their tech. I'm so annoyed by how Macs so commonly negotiate a low quality external display signal, e.g. YPbPr. It would suck to be told to make it do that in a plausibly deniable manner.
  - mimixco 5y ago
    Microsoft stands out here with their Xbox product, which is 1000% percent a walled garden. They make great hardware, have a great online product, their store is well liked and used by other gaming companies, and they allow cross-play with other platforms, even PC and Mac. Xbox Game Pass is considered the big success of the gaming industry right now and could define the future of how gaming looks (a la Netflix). It makes tons of money for them. All of this inside their walled garden and not in any way open. So walled gardens are not necessarily bad. I pay for Game Pass and I think it's a great deal.

muro 5y ago

It's unfortunate that what has some security benefits is also a such a gold mine for Apple. If they ran th still in a from developers yearly subscription costs + users paying for hardware, this would be so much easier to agree with. One example: DJI's app for their drones. They are forced to follow Apple's rules on iOS, but don't offer the same app on Google's play store. I trust the iOS version much more for that reason alone. But as long as they take 30% from developers on the platform and expanding the scope who needs to pay, they fully deserve monopoly investigations and eventually fines for their greed.

villgax 5y ago

The hearing is pretty good since we now get on record admissions of stupid from every company

camgunz 5y ago

The entire "eliminates choice" argument here is "some people want to choose a platform where you can't sideload apps, and if you make us support it that choice is unavailable". Ugh. I wish businesses would start considering the corrosive effect this kind of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is peace" newspeak has on society. Hearing corporate spokesperson after corporate spokesperson (or their toadies in the press) parrot this kind of junk generates untold cynicism. How are we supposed to believe corporations are an important part of a just human society when they have whole departments scheming on how to bamboozle us with this kind of brainwashing? And what does it do to the people who start out earnestly believing in a company's mission, who start internalizing that they need to say whatever they have to to protect the company? It would be way more straightforward to say "we have a lot of non-technical users [referred to as 'your 15-year-old nephew or 75-year-old father' in the article] and they're at risk from exploits via sideloaded apps". Or I mean, it's probably even more straightforward to say "we make lots of money on the App Store; why would we enable competitors when we don't have to?" People are just so tired of everything coming down to "freedom" and "fairness"; this stuff has just lost all meaning. Let's take this seriously and start working against it.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
It seems to me that continuing to press on this specific goal of using legal force to induce Apple to allow sideloading could induce extreme opposition from the right. In particular from those that embrace Ayn Rand and her parable of Roark.
- camgunz 5y ago
  I see what you're saying (and understand you're not arguing that) but, I'm not interested in having a freedom of speech argument with people who want to dictate what content Twitter/Facebook must have on their platform. The American right is philosophically and politically bankrupt; we should stop both sides-ing them until they dig out of their ditch.
Dracophoenix 5y ago
I would also like to point out that Apple is lying here. Apple does allow sideloading via Xcode. They just limit it to 3 apps for non-developers.

Jcowell 5y ago

While slightly off topic , I wrote about this subject on Reddit when someone said Android allows it and hasn’t lead to serious App Store fragmentation on that platform so I’ll just copy and paste here: There’s a reason for this that I’ve been thinking about and it all comes down to Pushing Power. Android , on its own, doesn’t have a lot of “pushing” power because it’s not monotheistic. It requires all the players in the game to play nice in order to make something the norm. If Samsung or Google does something in their own, it doesn’t have the pushing power to turn the industry (only really Androids). Google could have that pushing power, but their reputation of killing and rebranding services hurt them. There aren’t assurances that they won’t kill something so there’s no backing of it. And this affects everything down to the developers of the platform. How can one push anything on such a platform ? The Google play store will probably have the average consumer’s wants and there’s too much friction of installing another store for one thing. This lack of Pushability works since Android likes to churn out razor-edge and innovation features, even if these features don’t talk to each-other like iOS users often expect, and it doesn’t matter if these features are 100% baked. But iPhones is a different story. It’s probably one of the most powerful pushing platform there is. Think about it. Apple was able to remove the headphone Jack and sell the solution. Neither Google nor Samsung has the pushing power to do that since their customers can just get a similar experience elsewhere. They need Apple to do the “crazy” thing first and just follow suit down the line once Apple has successfully done it. Because in the end , no matter what Apple does, there is no where else we can ever get the parity with the seamlessness that is the iPhone. And as a result it has pushing power. And this extends to its Apps to. I bet Android Tablets are great (I actually own one my self but never use it). But I’m also willing to bet an artist is going to Choose the iPad every single time because in the end Android does not have Procreate nor an App that can approach the experience of procreate. Procreate, by being an Apple exclusive app , has Pushing power and if it were to move to an alternative store , users will follow. Mobile Gaming is probably the most popular gaming platform there is (crazy right) and I’m willing to bet a tenth of what whales put down that they would download a third party store if a game like Genshin Impact were to move and I’m willing to pay another tenth that they would absolutely become and Epic Games Store exclusive if they we’re offered. Every one’s thinking that this will lead to more competition and better things for the consumer but that’s not how it’s going to go down. Here’s what’s going to happen: If Sideloading and third party stores are permitted Epic will immediately start securing exclusive third party apps—not just games but apps to promote their store. They will pay the exact same book they play on Desktops because it’s the smartest play there is. Eventually they will get the app (I predict Spotify) that will make everyone have to download their store in order to use. They of course will also do this on Android as well but will be more successful this time since their success on iOS will go mainstream and affect android as it always does (think removing the charging brick). Other companies (I predict Google and Nintendo) will do this also and find success and the mobile device app Ecosystem will become exactly like the browser app Ecosystem (minus PWA probably). TL;DR: Android is not a good indicator of what would happen if iPhones did what it does because it never is nor was. iPhones has always been the “pusher” of the mobile device industry, not in that it releases cutting-edge features first, but that it pushes what features are the norm. What happens on iPhones have a far greater impact on Android consumers than the vice versa. If you don’t believe so see: Smartphone boom (don’t matter who did it truly first but who did it truly right), removal of headphone Jack, removal of charging brick, faster adoption of NFC in US despite years of Android Phones having them, And Airtags.

DrBenCarson 5y ago

How hard is it to support a freemium model? Lower fee plan from Apple that allows external payments, no enterprise support, no App Store promotion, limited iOS API access (nothing sensitive), etc. Higher fee plan to give developers access to more sensitive APIs and Apple payments, etc. Mark the latter apps as “supported by Apple” or something in the store. I know it doesn’t solve everything but it’s better than the current state of things.

HWR_14 5y ago

Doesn't it eliminate choice? Like, what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps instead of admitting to their privacy practices as required by Apple's latest updates?

blacktriangle 5y ago
That's exactly the issue. Individuals have 0 recourse against Facebook, but Apple does. Apple is basically selling you a collective action against the likes of Facebook to fight against having everything you do tracked and monitored. What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Most of the people who want sideloading on iOS have Android phones.
- passivate 5y ago
  >What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that. Customers are demanding a feature from the manufacturer - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. More people should be doing this. Also using words like "desperately" is needlessly polarizing.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    It's not just a feature. It's in direct opposition to the feature I want - to have a 2 trillion dollar company act in opposition to other trillion dollar companies shoving shit down my throat. They are mutually exclusive features, so you can expect people to be polarized.
paulddraper 5y ago
> what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps Zero, judging by Android.

mthoms 5y ago

Remember: the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of Apples’ App Store commissions. This whole side-loading, “other App stores” thing is a distraction from the real issue. The main problem would (mostly) go away if Apple wasn’t gouging developers and users. I’m sympathetic to the “I love my walled garden” crowd. There are good points being made on both sides. The funny thing is that I never hear the pro-Apple side suggesting (or being agreeable to) lowering App Store fees as an acceptable compromise. Or suggesting the Apple should do the right thing and properly support PWAs. Apple is redirecting the argument towards privacy/security and we are giving them a pass on the core issue. Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? Why does the pro-Apple side never seem to be willing to budge on anything? Allowing PWAs? Nope. Other browser engines? Nope. Lower fees? No way. It’s infuriating. Note: I use Apple products almost exclusively and love them. I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? I can envision a possible Nash equilibrium arising if, ceteris paribus, the fee was capped at the actual cost for running the App Store.
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
> I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought. Interestingly, 30% seems to be a common business threshold for acceptable profit margin in other industries, as well.
- mthoms 5y ago
  30% is their commission, not their profit margin. Apple deliberately hides their App Store profit margin from everyone, including shareholders. Doesn't it make you wonder why?
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

Just a quick note, this is the same company that until ~2016 was saying of video games: "If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song." This is the same company that has more recently described Itch.io as offensive and indecent. This is the same company that has gone out of its way to basically block game streaming entirely from its platform. It's the same company holding back web apps/experiences. So I get the security angle here, I really do, but forgive me if I'm suspicious whether security is the primary reason why Apple is locking down their store. On my side of things as a game developer, I think Apple is a large part of why gaming on mobile phones looks the way it does today. They made one model economically viable, and they aggressively chased off anyone who was treating games like a serious medium, and they still have those attitudes towards gaming as an art form today. So for them to act like this is just a debate about malware is really disingenuous. It's also a debate about the cultural control that Apple exerts, and their ability to basically shut down and manipulate markets by deciding what software innovations, game genres, and content in general are allowed run on their phones. A lot of us don't want Apple to have the control it has, not because we don't care about malware, but because we fundamentally don't trust Apple to be a responsible moderator/gatekeeper to the mobile market. The company has the criticism it has about moderation because they've burned a lot of bridges with developer communities over the years. If Apple really was just caring about privacy/security, this debate wouldn't be as fierce as it is. I actually really like the direction iOS is going on privacy. The problem is that on multiple other moderation fronts, their developer policies are anti-competitive or puritan/regressive.

dang 5y ago

It looks like the related threads are: Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 - June 2021 (35 comments) Apple CEO Tim Cook: Sideloading Apps Would 'Destroy the Security' of the iPhone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 - June 2021 (1 comment) Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 - June 2021 (44 comments) Apple is blocking Apple Silicon Mac users from sideloading iPhone apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 - Jan 2021 (36 comments) Apple begins blocking M1 Mac users from side loading iOS applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 - Jan 2021 (9 comments)