4 ms·

One of the salient points Apple makes in the document is that by the mere ability for sideloading to be possible, it would be forced upon users by schools and j

by keehun 5y ago

One of the salient points Apple makes in the document is that by the mere ability for sideloading to be possible, it would be forced upon users by schools and jobs. It also opens an entirely new attack vector by spoofing and other means of deceiving the user into either sideloading an app they didn't mean to.

horsawlarway 5y ago
Except all of those things exist in the wild today - using the enterprise management tools that Apple already provides. Apple is happy as can be to let enterprise (and schools/gov/etc) force users to install apps. They just fight tooth and fucking nail to hang onto their rent-seeking in the app store. As a customer, you're getting fucked twice.
- kenferry 5y ago
  Those mandated apps still go through App Store review. Apple’s point is those entities would bypass review if they could.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    I don't believe this is true (disclosure: I'm about 2 years out of date). Last I checked - you can distribute private & proprietary apps using an enterprise deployment provisioning profile. It requires that the signing entity (usually an enterprise) is registered with Apple (and pays a $300 fee), but it does not require store review.
  - frumper 5y ago
    This is definitely not true. I publish enterprise apps for my org and there is no review
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      I guess it's telling in a way of the PR push if users believe that Apple is constantly and always protecting them, even when they do absolutely nothing.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    > Those mandated apps still go through App Store review. Not true - the company can push whatever they like to their managed devices making that whole line of argument moot
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > Apple is happy as can be to let enterprise (and schools/gov/etc) force users to install apps. The enterprises are "forcing" the installation of apps on the hardware they themselves own. Corp A cannot force the installation of apps on Corp B's devices, or even on the personal devices of Corp A's employees. I have an iPhone for work and my personal iPhone, and my work has no access to the latter. I don't think there's any technical reason why you couldn't set up a MDM system for your own personal phones and have the same capabilities as an 'enterprise'.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    > The enterprises are "forcing" the installation of apps on the hardware they themselves own. Okay, then why can't I do the same thing with devices that I own?
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      You can. Set up an MDM system and attach your device. * https://simplemdm.com/ https://simplemdm.com/ * https://jumpcloud.com/mdm-mobile-device-management https://jumpcloud.com/mdm-mobile-device-management
      - easton 5y ago
        That's not enough. You also need to buy a enterprise developer certificate from Apple (a few hundred dollars?). App Store apps can be deployed via MDM for free, but not ones you write.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        Wow, that's unbelievable.
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    There's nothing to stop enterprises from asking users to install their provisioning profiles on personal devices (technically the employee could say "no" but employment is "at will" in almost all of the US, so....) And yes - I can set up an MDM system, but that doesn't provide the same utility as a store. Nor does it work around the profile limitations built into iOS (again, I'm out of date, but previously you could only have a single provisioning profile installed on the device - this was actually the recommended way to prevent this type of attack: pre-install your own profile).
rpdillon 5y ago
Are there any cases where this has happened with Android? I use side-loading extensively and consider it essential, but have never had it imposed.
- setpatchaddress 5y ago
  The document is actually worth a read. I don’t think the parent poster is accurately representing Apple’s position.
  - rpdillon 5y ago
    Page 26, paragraph 3 seems to make exactly the claim GP made. But you're correct, I haven't read all of the 28 pages of Apple's argument here. From what I have read, they don't seem to be discussing potential benefits that come from sideloading, only costs. > Even users who decide they don’t want to sideload, and prefer to download apps only from the App Store, would end up being harmed. They could be forced to sideload an app they need for work, for school, or for social inclusion if it is not made available on the App Store. Furthermore, cybercriminals and hackers may trick users into unknowingly sideloading an app by mimicking the appearance of the App Store, or by touting free or expanded access to services or exclusive features.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Epic already tried it once by not offering Fortnite in the Play Store, instead making directions on how to sideload APKs on Android. I guess it didn't work that well since they went on the Play Store anyways and then sued Google for making their life so hard.

by keehun 5y ago

horsawlarway 5y ago

Except all of those things exist in the wild today - using the enterprise management tools that Apple already provides. Apple is happy as can be to let enterprise (and schools/gov/etc) force users to install apps. They just fight tooth and fucking nail to hang onto their rent-seeking in the app store. As a customer, you're getting fucked twice.

kenferry 5y ago
Those mandated apps still go through App Store review. Apple’s point is those entities would bypass review if they could.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  I don't believe this is true (disclosure: I'm about 2 years out of date). Last I checked - you can distribute private & proprietary apps using an enterprise deployment provisioning profile. It requires that the signing entity (usually an enterprise) is registered with Apple (and pays a $300 fee), but it does not require store review.
- frumper 5y ago
  This is definitely not true. I publish enterprise apps for my org and there is no review
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    I guess it's telling in a way of the PR push if users believe that Apple is constantly and always protecting them, even when they do absolutely nothing.
- jjcon 5y ago
  > Those mandated apps still go through App Store review. Not true - the company can push whatever they like to their managed devices making that whole line of argument moot
throw0101a 5y ago
> Apple is happy as can be to let enterprise (and schools/gov/etc) force users to install apps. The enterprises are "forcing" the installation of apps on the hardware they themselves own. Corp A cannot force the installation of apps on Corp B's devices, or even on the personal devices of Corp A's employees. I have an iPhone for work and my personal iPhone, and my work has no access to the latter. I don't think there's any technical reason why you couldn't set up a MDM system for your own personal phones and have the same capabilities as an 'enterprise'.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > The enterprises are "forcing" the installation of apps on the hardware they themselves own. Okay, then why can't I do the same thing with devices that I own?
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    You can. Set up an MDM system and attach your device. * https://simplemdm.com/ https://simplemdm.com/ * https://jumpcloud.com/mdm-mobile-device-management https://jumpcloud.com/mdm-mobile-device-management
    - easton 5y ago
      That's not enough. You also need to buy a enterprise developer certificate from Apple (a few hundred dollars?). App Store apps can be deployed via MDM for free, but not ones you write.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        Wow, that's unbelievable.
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  There's nothing to stop enterprises from asking users to install their provisioning profiles on personal devices (technically the employee could say "no" but employment is "at will" in almost all of the US, so....) And yes - I can set up an MDM system, but that doesn't provide the same utility as a store. Nor does it work around the profile limitations built into iOS (again, I'm out of date, but previously you could only have a single provisioning profile installed on the device - this was actually the recommended way to prevent this type of attack: pre-install your own profile).

rpdillon 5y ago

Are there any cases where this has happened with Android? I use side-loading extensively and consider it essential, but have never had it imposed.

setpatchaddress 5y ago
The document is actually worth a read. I don’t think the parent poster is accurately representing Apple’s position.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  Page 26, paragraph 3 seems to make exactly the claim GP made. But you're correct, I haven't read all of the 28 pages of Apple's argument here. From what I have read, they don't seem to be discussing potential benefits that come from sideloading, only costs. > Even users who decide they don’t want to sideload, and prefer to download apps only from the App Store, would end up being harmed. They could be forced to sideload an app they need for work, for school, or for social inclusion if it is not made available on the App Store. Furthermore, cybercriminals and hackers may trick users into unknowingly sideloading an app by mimicking the appearance of the App Store, or by touting free or expanded access to services or exclusive features.
Hamuko 5y ago
Epic already tried it once by not offering Fortnite in the Play Store, instead making directions on how to sideload APKs on Android. I guess it didn't work that well since they went on the Play Store anyways and then sued Google for making their life so hard.