19 ms·

On iPhone sideloading: it’s ok, I’m changing my mind

160 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

stephc_int13 5y ago
All of this is political, this is about power and money. Yes, Apple is too big and too powerful, and yes, we should to everything we can to take (at least some) power back.
saurik 5y ago
> Apple isn’t perfect. The App Store isn’t perfect. Developers aren’t perfect. The App Store review team isn’t perfect. Everything isn’t perfect. This is key: because individual centralized actors are imperfect and even corruptible--whether due to intrinsic motivations or extrinsic application of force--it isn't acceptable to concentrate so much power onto them; in a talk I gave at Mozilla Privacy Lab a few years back, I covered a lot of these failure cases throughout our industry with real-world "this actually happened" examples, including (as this would of course be one of my focuses) looking at numerous ways in which Apple's App Store moderation has been the problem instead of the solution. https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms
- rektide 5y ago
  The Safari team is asking for feedback, after "Safari is the new IE"[1] is getting steam again as an idea. This idea that they want to do better is good, but your arguments really cut into the heart of it. Even if Safari turns the ship around & decides to support fun & interesting new platform capabilities that make the web interesting, like WebMIDI, WebUSB, the mere fact that Safari is the gauntlet for innovation, that Apple & Apple alone gets to say what parts of the web will work, is highly poisonous to the web. iOS users having no choice, having a centralized actor now & forever gating progress is untennable, is wrong, prevents healthy emergence & discovery. However good they are today, they may drift tomorrow, and having no fallback, no options is a technocratic fascism that society should recognize as structurally sick. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30277179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30277179
- starkruzr 5y ago
  just want to thank you for everything you've done for the iOS user community these last 15 years. I left the platform when Apple's success in fighting its own users became too much of a pain point, but before that your work helped enable developers to do some utterly fantastic stuff.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  But as long as we have fairly effective enforcement of IP law, so that e.g. only the publisher of a popular video game can get away with distributing that video game to smartphone users, don't you still have largely the same issue with concentration of power? You still won't have different parties able to compete in how Fortnite is distributed. The publisher of Fortnite can choose how to distribute Fortnite, but that power is still concentrated with the publisher, and arguably even more concentrated since the publisher would not be subject to power from any particular app store.
  - saurik 5y ago
    A) We do not have effectively enforcement of IP law, and to the extent we do it is only because you already helped usher in a dystopia by centralizing power with entities such as Apple. B) That laws are different in different places and that even in the US there are exemptions to laws should not be casually ignored by assuming one narrow interpretation of a set of laws as you have: Apple controlling the distribution model with cryptographic locks hard-codes in a subset of American IP preferences around the world. C) Even if we ignore these details and take your argument at the face of it and accept that for "choose how to distribute Fortnite" you merely are deciding between one of two centralized actors, you seem to be carefully trying to perform not one but two sleight of hands on the moral discussion at play. It isn't like Epic doesn't have legal control over how Fortnite is distributed regardless: if Epic doesn't like Apple's terms for their App Store in the current model, they can choose to just not give you the software at all. You are just hoping to play a super dangerous game by assigning a single negotiator between your community of users and Epic in order to try to convince them to develop their software differently, for which you are apparently willing to pay 36% more for your software (which means you must value it a lot: like, for whatever benefit you think Apple is getting you here you are willing to dig into your own pocketbook and pay multiple extra dollars you otherwise wouldn't have to pay on every purchase or subscription) and--and this is where the tradeoff is unacceptable and the subject of the following #2--give Apple a large amount of control over all software in all jurisdictions... control which they lie about the benefits of, which they have routinely abused, and which can and is take advantage of by external actors. And really, that is the most important thing in all of this and what I'd hope you would appreciate if you watch my talk: by giving Apple control over all software on the App Store you give them the power to affect what kinds of software is allowed to be built by anyone anywhere while creating a centralized chokepoint for the enforcement of whatever rules that bad actors want (such as the inclusion of end-to-end encryption carbon-copy features in applications or whatever). Giving Epic control over the distribution of Fortnite can't usher in a dystopia. X) BTW: note that Fortnite is attempting to be some kind of massive metaverse service with a centralized set of servers attempting to provide an ecosystem of content that they would then have centralized control over. If the issues with Apple weren't so dominating and glaringly dangerous today maybe we could be having an argument about whether what Epic is building is moral and whether laws need to exist to stop it (and instead force--either directly or indirectly--such technology to come into existence in a way that is itself decentralized).
iqanq 5y ago
If you want to sideload then buy an Android... they are even cheaper. It's not like they pulled the rug out from under you: you already knew you couldn't sideload when you bought the phone.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  And if you don't like railway cartel you're free to ride a horse?
  - tehwebguy 5y ago
    I definitely prefer iPhone but I don't think it's quite fair to say train : horse :: iphone : android
    - jay_kyburz 5y ago
      Its actually not that bad. A train is stuck on the tracks, only stops at stations. Owned by somebody else. A horse you can own yourself and go anywhere.
      - thetallstick 5y ago
        On the other hand: I don't have to care for the train, house it, or clean up after it. So maybe the analogy does work... :)
        tehwebguy 5y ago
        Not to mention crossing the country in like a week instead of 2 months lmao
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        For the purposes of comparing a train to a horse in the above metaphor, you can swap in the horse for a personal automobile just as well. And maybe even swap the train for a bus while you're at it.
kemayo 5y ago
Honestly, speaking as someone who's pretty heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem, I'd like iOS to (be made to?) allow sideloading in order to keep Apple honest. Assuming it works out the same as on Android, I very much doubt that sideloading would ever be mainstream or popular, but the existence of the option would serve as a constraint on how user/developer-hostile Apple can be. (And I entirely agree with the article that Apple eliding over the entire internet-sales era of software is highly disingenuous...)
- Melkman 5y ago
  Being able to sideload is a double edged sword. Yes, it would be a barrier for Apple to go to far overboard on monetizing the ecosystem. It would also give companies like Microsoft a means of ONLY distributing their applications via their own app store forcing you to side load this app store with less oversight. Maybe they add a forced installer to push their apps ? It's not that I trust Apple that much. It's that I trust other companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon less.
  - yreg 5y ago
    The likes of Facebook would certainly like not having to submit to Apple's rules.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    This doesn't happen on Android, so why would it happen on iOS?
    - etchalon 5y ago
      iOS and Android are fundamentally different markets.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Explain the relevant fundamental difference please.
etchalon 5y ago
"Sideloading is fine. Just look at the Mac!" "Sideloading is dangerous. Just look at Windows."
anonymouse008 5y ago
If sideloading means code signing becomes as difficult as it is on the Mac, then there’s nothing to fear…
blakesterz 5y ago
I thought this was interesting point, way near the end: "Even if Apple allowed sideloading, I don’t trust Apple to come up with an elegant solution, though. They will put every warning they can to discourage users from sideloading applications. It could make the user experience miserable, worse than it is on macOS. Why? Money is at stake here. A lot of money, actually. Because Apple seems to be run by lawyers and greedy people, we can expect everything."
- NobodyNada 5y ago
  This is exactly what I (selfishly) want Apple to do. I don’t want Facebook, Google, and co. to require sideloading in order to get around Apple’s privacy rules, but I do want to be able to run emulators without paying $99/year.
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    Yeah, it sounds like the best case scenario to me. It would let us hobbyists and tinkerers have our fun while still effectively forcing Google and Facebook to obey Apple's strict privacy rules.
    - buggeryorkshire 5y ago
      I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app stores but with requirements like the new app store needs to provide the push messaging, with the seriously large investment that would require? They could then warn users their battery life would be worse, cos 2 persistent connections, and make it scary. Meanwhile I, as an Android user would happily take up the offer.
      - onemoresoop 5y ago
        > I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app stores I'll tell you why: money.
      - toast0 5y ago
        Push messaging isn't really that hard. Sure, one connection per device adds up, and you've got to manage the queue of messages, and authenticating devices, etc. The hidden challenge is tracking connection tracking timeouts in stateful firewalls and NAT gateways, so you can keep connections alive with the minimun of data exchanged. This is like if ISP A has a clean network, you only need to ping once an hour, but any packet sent will be recieved without delay; but ISP B needs a ping every 60 seconds or further packets will be dropped without notification. This isn't that hard either. Bandwidth of push messaging is nothing compared to app downloads, and probably more of the effort would be on attracting quality applications and vetting applications and maintaining business relationships. All that said, Google lets non-play apps use Google push, as long as the phone has play services, not sure why Apple would do it differently.
lapetitejort 5y ago
The vast majoring of apps I use on Android come from the Play Store. I've sideloaded maybe five or six apps on Android since the T-Mobile G1. It's not something I keep in the back of my mind. But when I find an app I can only sideload, I really want to do it, and I would be really annoyed if I couldn't use my hardware the way I wanted.
- syshum 5y ago
  F Droid is my first stop for anything I need, if I can not find it there then I go to Play Store F Droid is only possible because of side loading
xoa 5y ago
I've said this repeatedly, but what I'd like would be a buy-time option to "enable sideloading" (specifically, to enable the hardware owner to add their own signing certificate to the root keystore, iOS would still enforce full normal trust chaining and such except that Apple wouldn't be the only valid root). Because I think not have sideloading is actively valuable in many cases too and thus should itself remain an option (and probably the default) for purchaser. Leaving the power with Apple has obvious downsides, but it also has upsides in terms of pooling negotiating power of users vs powerful developers and entirely eliminating a large class of possible social engineering attacks. The reason Apple has been able to enforce privacy protections vs Facebook for a current example is that there is no sideloading. Period. Facebook is a powerful enough entity vs its users[products] that if they could demand that users sideload the "Facebook store" and then run root from there they could get a sufficient mass to do so that they could then afford to ignore Apple and do an end run. Can see the same thing play out with stuff like Zoom, Dropbox etc: on iOS all these are applications in the App Store and must abide by all the privacy, disclosure, and so on rules. On the Mac, they demand their own clients which get a lot more powers. Of course, the MAS is a pile of shit, Apple has utterly fucked up on basic great software business things like "upgrade pricing", and there are lots of examples of fantastic decent small/med size software devs doing their own Mac software same as always. Apple certainly has perverse incentives they have abused, primarily around service integration (can't aim backups at any storage provider for example). Also, it all breaks down when there is an entity MORE powerful than Apple like a major government. Then Apple becomes a single point of failure for censorship and control, and indeed that ties right back into the former. We don't have E2EE encrypted wireless backups for iDevices because of Apple caving to "security" agencies. But still, it cuts both ways and I really appreciate that less technical (but still very smart!) users, including vulnerable members of my own family and friends, can have a platform in iOS which has much stronger guardrails that they cannot physically be talked into bypassing. I think giving those who ask for hardware, software, or both root cert access that access is enough of a release valve (these are probably all the same people who would jailbreak which is much worse) to help check Apple and bypass the big failing points while still accommodating the hundreds of millions of users whose threat models involve worse from other corporations. And it'd help nudge Apple's incentives in a good direction even for those staying fully within the walled garden by making them balance a bit on keeping them there.
difosfor 5y ago
These kinds of monopolistic practically unavoidable parts of our lives should have been regulated long ago already. I'm afraid given the existing political climates and tech lobbies that they will still just circle around the problems though.
tshaddox 5y ago
The odd thing about this article is that it seems like the author is conceding to removing all restrictions on third-party software being installed on the iPhone because Apple is not currently restrictive enough on what third-party software makes it into their App Store. I suppose I can understand the appeal of that argument, since it does resolve apparent hypocrisy and lying in Apple's statements about its policies, but crucially this argument doesn't actually address whether allowing sideloading will be good for users, despite the author indicating that they think it will be ("Until today, I thought forbidding applications sideloading on the iPhone was good for users. But…"). All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article.
- Talanes 5y ago
  > All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article. I'd say the main argument of the article is that the situation with the App Store in actual reality is so far from ideal that arguments about what happens in an ideal situation are irrelevant.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    And I'd go further and say that the ideal state is unachievable by any centralized entity, no matter how much energy, money or time it spends on the problem. Therefore we must embrace decentralized discovery and safety, and we're deluding ourselves otherwise.
pyman 5y ago
Very poor analysis and not at all compelling argument for sideloading apps.
pyman 5y ago
Very poor analysis and argument for sideloading apps. I'm neither in favour nor against. I respect his opinion but the research he did was very poor.
__d 5y ago
There is no technical reason that Apple cannot maintain the exact same review processes that they have today, or even more stringent ones (that’d actually be good), BUT instead of then putting the app in the AppStore, they simply sign it with with the AppleBlessed(TM) key, and give the binary back to the developer. Whatever might happen to that binary between Apple signing it, and the iOS installer getting hold of it DOES NOT MATTER — if the signature is still good, then it’s no worse off than if it was put in the AppStore. The security argument is total BS.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  That wouldn't really change this for the better. This whole thing is about Apple not having the final say.
  - __d 5y ago
    Sure, but it illustrates that Apple's argument that "it would weaken security" is rubbish. It is technically possible to allow side-loading with exactly the same security as provided by the AppStore, if they simply used a signature to indicate that an app had passed review. It would still use the same sandpit, still use the same permissions system, still able to be disabled by Apple, etc, etc. Without the argument that "it's less secure", it becomes obvious that the only motivation is commercial.
    - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
      But then what would be the point if the "anticompetitive" measures are still there? If Apple can still get the final say, they can still refuse to sign any IPA for any reason.
      - zamadatix 5y ago
        The point is sideloading vs app store isn't a function of security like Apple constantly touts. The point is not that this method in particular answers all possible problems one could have with the lack of side-loading or that this is necessarily the actual method that should be the one implemented.
kstrauser 5y ago
I'm so utterly torn on this. I want sideloading for my own purposes, like installing classes of apps Apple would never approve (such as a real Unix shell with native code compilers). On the other hand, I absolutely don't want my older relatives to be able to install stuff from wherever. I just know I'll have a Thanksgiving conversation like "hey, could you look at my phone? It's been getting hot after Microsoft called and helped me install the new antivirus." I don't have an answer for this. I'm all for people being able to get around the garden walls. I just hope and pray that no one in my "you use computers so you're my de facto tech support" circles does it.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  The problem here isn't sideloading. The problem is that you cater to > my "you use computers so you're my de facto tech support" circles and you hate it. Stop doing that.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 5y ago
    So we should just let grandma get her life savings scammed?
    - danShumway 5y ago
      I don't like the grandma analogy, some old people are really smart with computers. But in general, if you're in that situation with someone where you're worried that they'll get scammed if you leave them alone for a second, at some point you need to ask whether they should have access to an app store at all. How many apps per week does your grandma need to install? It would be better if you set her up a phone with the apps she wants, and then disabled all app installation. Because if someone is in that position, the unfortunate reality is that the official app store isn't safe either. The article gets into this in more detail, but there's enough malware on the official Apple Store to make it dangerous to randomly install apps. There are apps where their whole design is to set you up with big subscriptions in the background that you don't notice, there are malware apps that slip through Apple's review process, there are phishing apps. Really, you should install the apps your grandma needs, and if she needs more later, then she can ask you about them (or someone else who's an expert). I think people look at the Apple Store as if it's perfectly safe and that opening it up would suddenly let in malware for the first time. But while the Apple Store might have comparatively less malware than Android, that's not the same thing as being perfectly safe, and it doesn't mean you can let a young kid or a naive adult go wild on it and install whatever they want. That's a recipe for disaster. I've set people up on Linux and had zero support calls or malware problems with them, not because Linux has good security or perfectly curated software sources, and not because there aren't dangerous ways to get malware on a command line, but because they don't open the command line in the first place. Some people are safer and thrive in a computing environment that's set up to do the things they want and that doesn't change after that point -- but I don't think that has much of anything to do with alternative app stores, that's really a question of whether app stores should be allowed at all for those people.
Crontab 5y ago
I am pro-sideloading but I think it has to be done in a way that people cam't be tricked into doing it. Speaking personally, the only thing I want to sideload is Mame (assuming an iOS version exists).
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > Speaking personally, the only thing I want to sideload is Mame (assuming an iOS version exists). It does, and you can sideload it by following the "Building / Installation / Sideloading" instructions at https://github.com/yoshisuga/MAME4iOS https://github.com/yoshisuga/MAME4iOS.
  - Osiris 5y ago
    From other comments it sounds like a free developer account expires builds after a few days. Otherwise you have to pay $100/yr for the privilege. That's a lot of money to run an open source emulator.
enos_feedler 5y ago
Any argument that starts with the Mac entirely misses the point on why iOS is different and why it is more important than ever to protect users on that platform. The userbase of each of those respective products is so different that you can't just take a feature from one and say it makes sense on the other. It's especially arrogant to say that to the company that makes both of them. You can say "gee it would be neat if this thing you did over here could be brought here", but you can't really fight tooth and nail that the company is WRONG to not do it.
- Osiris 5y ago
  In what way are they different? Hardware wise, the iPhone has a touchscreen and a cellular radio, some additional sensors and no keyboard. At the center of each is a CPU, GPU, and storage. Software is the primary differentiator.
  - skydhash 5y ago
    No one is putting their mac in their pocket and going everywhere with it. People use their device in different way. And people behaviors are a big part in security models.
    - enos_feedler 5y ago
      Exactly. And the people who don't see this are those with an engineering-like mind that just these as computers with parts and their own relationship to the device. And perhaps for that group there should be another product on the market that satisfies those needs. I think Google wanted Android to be that, but as we all know, as they scale to serve the same addressable market as Apple, the device becomes more Apple like and locked down. There isn't really much that can be done.
faebi 5y ago
I wouldn't even care about side loading if they finally would drop their browser engine requirement for other browsers. I want to use the real Firefox with all of it's sweet addons on iOS and then I'm completely happy. Hell, let people use Chrome. They can even disallow it for non-browser apps.
- acdha 5y ago
  I think they could make that case, and I'd also love real Firefox, but if that happens it basically removes the last thing keeping “the web” from not meaning “whatever the Chrome developers choose”. There's approximately a 0% chance that all Google properties wouldn't start heavily pushing you to use Chrome or mysteriously developing odd performance or reliability issues in Safari.
jstsch 5y ago
Yeah, sure, on some theoretical level sideloading should be a user's right. But we all know what will happen. The only way to install essential platform apps like Facebook, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, etc. will be through the vendors themselves, bypassing all of Apple's privacy protections. In the end this will be a net negative for the user.
- Osiris 5y ago
  Side loading doesn't magically give apps access to APIs that don't exist. The operating system controls privacy, not the app store.
- ng12 5y ago
  This isn't how it is on Android. Why would it be different on iPhone?
  - jstsch 5y ago
    The Google Play store lets apps get away with lots of user hostile activity.
    - ng12 5y ago
      Not really sure what you're referring to. I switched within the last year and found the experience to be pretty similar.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  I'm not convinced that those tech giants would be able to pull that off from a product execution and business demand perspective. And users will balk, having to deal with yet another membership and do accounts/payment management would add a lot of friction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457
arepublicadoceu 5y ago
I just want New Pipe, firefox with ublock and emulators on my iPhone/iPad. Put the side loading toggle behind a thousand warning screens, make me run 3km in 12 min to prove that I’m worth it. But please allow it already or I’m out of the apple bandwagon on my next purchase.
legutierr 5y ago
I have some questions about how access to Secure Enclave, and in particular hardware keys, would work in a sideloaded app. It would be tremendously helpful if someone knowledgeable here might be able to explain! Wouldn't sideloading make it possible for one sideloaded app to somehow impersonate another sideloaded app, and thereby trick the PKA/SKP into signing a message with a private key that the imposter shouldn't have access to? And might we even see vulnerabilities whereby a slideloaded app could impersonate an app downloaded from the app store? If there is no way to securely distinguish between two sideloaded apps, such that one app could impersonate another in getting access to OS- or hardware-level cryptographic services, then that could be a real problem, no? And if you have downloaded an app from a third-party app store, what is stopping that app from somehow getting access to OS resources that it could to use to impersonate another app? Does anyone know how this issue is dealt with in MacOS?
- dannyw 5y ago
  A sideloaded app cannot impersonate another app for the same reason that it won't be signed with the same developer keys during compilation.
  - legutierr 5y ago
    OK, so the OS has a way to verify the public key and the signature of the app executable, before the Secure Enclave responds to any request? Makes sense.
TheMode 5y ago
The issue (or benefit depending on how you see it) is that Apple is very conservative and try to limit as much as possible their security risks. Sideloading is part of it, and I can also mention JIT compilation.
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
Sideloading is actually two separate issues: 1. Should Apple allow iPhone users to build their own software (or third-party open source software) and deploy it to their iPhones? The answer here is a resounding yes; in fact it's already possible! Just register a developer account, and you can sign your own apps and deploy them to your phone. 2. Should Apple allow predatory 3rd party vendors (Google, Meta, TikTok, spyware developers, etc.) to circumvent the AppStore review process and deploy their opaque blobs to other people's iPhones? The answer here should be no in my opinion. (unless iOS gets rewritten in Rust with a capability-based ultrasecure watertight microkernel, where accessing dangerous "private" APIs and thus privacy violations are provably impossible - in this hypothetical utopic vision the AppStore review process would become moot from a security point of view, although there are other aspects of the review process that cannot be formalized that easily, c.f. "I know it when I see it") (of course, the predatory 3rd party vendors love it when people conflate the two issues)
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Third party vendors might want to do that, but I think it's a lot easier to imagine and to say than to execute. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457
Terry_Roll 5y ago
By not allowing sideloading, the apps which fingerprint your device through access to unique elements of your phone (like the number of contacts & contact data, gps data, & wifi signals, network device exploration), makes it easier to expose those app entities sharing out your data and increases liability on Apple for failing to "police" their app store properly, over and above their existing checks. By allowing sideloading, a new attack vector opens up which reduces the liability on Apple, which is no different to what Microsoft and Google already do. Facebook/Meta are sort of excluded in some ways because theirs app store runs online on their servers and not on your device which is considered private property and brings different Govt legislations into play.
throw7 5y ago
Meh, I'm on android, but google has castrated several apps I enjoyed (termux,sshelper,etc.). So, being able to sideload is only one aspect of stumbling blocks to user usefulness. Don't get me wrong; the prison of apple is not one I would ever enter, but the grass is getting drier every day over here.
- starkruzr 5y ago
  what did they do to Termux and sshelper?
  - throw7 5y ago
    https://arachnoid.com/android/SSHelper/index.html https://arachnoid.com/android/SSHelper/index.html
Apocryphon 5y ago
I think there's two types of sideloading that usually inspires fear: 1. The fear of the other big tech giants creating their own app store, forcing users to migrate there to use Facebook/GMail/Amazon/Outlook etc., and then siccing invasive tracking on them for the purposes of serving ads and selling user data. I think this threat is easily more conceived than realized. While the motivation exists to have easier access to user data, I don't think users will necessarily bite. Having to join a new third party app store just to be able to use Instagram or WhatsApp would alienate, and anger, most users. It's yet another account one would have to manage and keep track of. It breaks the seamless nature of iOS and mobile experiences in general. Everyone would know why they're really doing it. And these companies are big and old. To create a competing app store takes a lot of effort. Not just on a technical level but on a product and business perspective. To convince users that this added friction is worth experiencing. Based on the anemic state of the Amazon Appstore or the Samsung Galaxy Store app stores on Android, tech giants only end up investing in alternate app stores if it's already tailored for the devices they make, which is a moot point with iOS. And those stores aren't even dynamic, nor contain app exclusivity as far as I know. Not to mention, running a third party app store means that Meta will have to start wooing other third party developers so it doesn't just end up being the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp show. That means they have to start creating their own pocket ecosystems and manage their own platform communities as well. It's a lot of hassle and effort for something that won't necessarily pay off. Just ask Microsoft how their Windows Phone store fared. Or heck, just take a look at the current state of Facebook apps. Maybe ten years ago when mobile apps were still a fairly new category of products, when there was a lot more room to grow and these companies were less entrenched and nimbler, there was a chance that rival stores could pay off. But nowadays? Sure from a technical perspective they're all capable of building their own cloud gaming service or Clubhouse clone or Snapchat stories knock-off, but how many of those actually stick? I think the only companies that will want to heavily invest in their own third party iOS app stores will be video game publishers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 2. Installing random app binaries. Dubious files, email attachments, malware, random scripts, all common vectors for viruses and computer problems. This fear on mobile is overblown because Apple still controls the operating system, and can carefully set the flow to prevent easy access to sideloading. They can enforce all sorts of OS and app binary-level restrictions even without needing to go through the App Store. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 Though now that I've laid out the two topics, I suppose one potential worst case scenario is the tech giants act greedily and stupidly, force essential apps to be downloadable only on their third party app store, so users resort to sideloading those apps from shady sources. But on the other hand, maybe people will use resort to mobile web instead. Or just quit using those apps altogether. We're already see Facebook adoption drop precipitously.
twelve40 5y ago
The tech monopolies make the insecure practice of sideloading almost a necessity because no stupid corporation will be fully controlling what to run and what not to run on my own phone. This is so much worse than the Microsoft outrage in the 90's. That's why I'm not doing Iphone, I will keep my options to customize the shit out of a very expensive piece of equipment as I see fit, and not the appstore censorship rules in whatever country I happened to be in at the time. Come to think of it, how did another massive everyday consumer OS - Windows - survive all these decades with _most_ apps installed via sideloading (of sorts)? But iOS is somehow totally different?
- skydhash 5y ago
  Windows survived because of the family tech support. I can't even count the number of time I had to restore the computers in the house. Users can and will wreck their devices. Think GB WhatsApp on Android.
yannikyeo 5y ago
What are some apps that are not on App Store that needs sideloading?
- lostgame 5y ago
  Emulators? That’s pretty huge, alone.
Hicks69 5y ago
[dead]
ksec 5y ago
>“I always believed Apple would draw a line at outright lying — but they continue to lie about what selling software was like before the App Store. They lie about what the review process does and about how developers are treated equally. As a developer, I find this profoundly disillusioning.” — Brent Simmons I really like the word disillusioning here. And this isn't the first time we caught Apple outright lying. Cases on Qualcomm, Imagination, Ericsson, Nuvia / Gerard Williams and possibly many others over the years. And it is not a surprise Apple is acting that way. Software developers are a minority, and not every dev agrees with sideloading. If you look at macrumors and 9to5mac comments from users, you will see "Apple should pull out of a small country like Netherland, it is Apple's IP no government should be allowed to touch it." or "Apple should threaten to pull out of those state or countries that try to make them open up their platform and steal their IP." "Apple spend $8-10bn per year on App Store for Xcode, hosting, reviews and delivery. Software developers are just greedy AF." Yes I am not making any of these up. It is the reason why for the first time in nearly 15 years of using an iPhone. I watched the Samsung Galaxy Unpack Event live yesterday. And...... it wasn't very good to say the least. But at least I am now looking, hopefully I could switch away from Tim Cook's Apple soon. I really like the Steve Jobs video [1] "Steve Jobs on the greed and outlandish profits that ruined Apple", from Apple product Repair, Apple Retail Store investment, Apple Store employee KPI, I could go on and on. The is sort of the reason why having a product CEO is so important. So we dont have to wait 4-5 years before a fix on the Keyboard fiasco. And I didn't even mention China. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2v8GVsL1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2v8GVsL1Q
lstroud 5y ago
You can already side load. You can load adhoc distribution apps through itunes onto your phone. Or, you can download Xcode build and run apps onto your phone. You just can’t distribute the app in binary form to a large group. Seems like this is about alternate app stores, not side loading.

160 points by keleftheriou 5y ago

All of this is political, this is about power and money. Yes, Apple is too big and too powerful, and yes, we should to everything we can to take (at least some) power back.

saurik 5y ago

> Apple isn’t perfect. The App Store isn’t perfect. Developers aren’t perfect. The App Store review team isn’t perfect. Everything isn’t perfect. This is key: because individual centralized actors are imperfect and even corruptible--whether due to intrinsic motivations or extrinsic application of force--it isn't acceptable to concentrate so much power onto them; in a talk I gave at Mozilla Privacy Lab a few years back, I covered a lot of these failure cases throughout our industry with real-world "this actually happened" examples, including (as this would of course be one of my focuses) looking at numerous ways in which Apple's App Store moderation has been the problem instead of the solution. https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms

rektide 5y ago
The Safari team is asking for feedback, after "Safari is the new IE"[1] is getting steam again as an idea. This idea that they want to do better is good, but your arguments really cut into the heart of it. Even if Safari turns the ship around & decides to support fun & interesting new platform capabilities that make the web interesting, like WebMIDI, WebUSB, the mere fact that Safari is the gauntlet for innovation, that Apple & Apple alone gets to say what parts of the web will work, is highly poisonous to the web. iOS users having no choice, having a centralized actor now & forever gating progress is untennable, is wrong, prevents healthy emergence & discovery. However good they are today, they may drift tomorrow, and having no fallback, no options is a technocratic fascism that society should recognize as structurally sick. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30277179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30277179
starkruzr 5y ago
just want to thank you for everything you've done for the iOS user community these last 15 years. I left the platform when Apple's success in fighting its own users became too much of a pain point, but before that your work helped enable developers to do some utterly fantastic stuff.
tshaddox 5y ago
But as long as we have fairly effective enforcement of IP law, so that e.g. only the publisher of a popular video game can get away with distributing that video game to smartphone users, don't you still have largely the same issue with concentration of power? You still won't have different parties able to compete in how Fortnite is distributed. The publisher of Fortnite can choose how to distribute Fortnite, but that power is still concentrated with the publisher, and arguably even more concentrated since the publisher would not be subject to power from any particular app store.
- saurik 5y ago
  A) We do not have effectively enforcement of IP law, and to the extent we do it is only because you already helped usher in a dystopia by centralizing power with entities such as Apple. B) That laws are different in different places and that even in the US there are exemptions to laws should not be casually ignored by assuming one narrow interpretation of a set of laws as you have: Apple controlling the distribution model with cryptographic locks hard-codes in a subset of American IP preferences around the world. C) Even if we ignore these details and take your argument at the face of it and accept that for "choose how to distribute Fortnite" you merely are deciding between one of two centralized actors, you seem to be carefully trying to perform not one but two sleight of hands on the moral discussion at play. It isn't like Epic doesn't have legal control over how Fortnite is distributed regardless: if Epic doesn't like Apple's terms for their App Store in the current model, they can choose to just not give you the software at all. You are just hoping to play a super dangerous game by assigning a single negotiator between your community of users and Epic in order to try to convince them to develop their software differently, for which you are apparently willing to pay 36% more for your software (which means you must value it a lot: like, for whatever benefit you think Apple is getting you here you are willing to dig into your own pocketbook and pay multiple extra dollars you otherwise wouldn't have to pay on every purchase or subscription) and--and this is where the tradeoff is unacceptable and the subject of the following #2--give Apple a large amount of control over all software in all jurisdictions... control which they lie about the benefits of, which they have routinely abused, and which can and is take advantage of by external actors. And really, that is the most important thing in all of this and what I'd hope you would appreciate if you watch my talk: by giving Apple control over all software on the App Store you give them the power to affect what kinds of software is allowed to be built by anyone anywhere while creating a centralized chokepoint for the enforcement of whatever rules that bad actors want (such as the inclusion of end-to-end encryption carbon-copy features in applications or whatever). Giving Epic control over the distribution of Fortnite can't usher in a dystopia. X) BTW: note that Fortnite is attempting to be some kind of massive metaverse service with a centralized set of servers attempting to provide an ecosystem of content that they would then have centralized control over. If the issues with Apple weren't so dominating and glaringly dangerous today maybe we could be having an argument about whether what Epic is building is moral and whether laws need to exist to stop it (and instead force--either directly or indirectly--such technology to come into existence in a way that is itself decentralized).

iqanq 5y ago

If you want to sideload then buy an Android... they are even cheaper. It's not like they pulled the rug out from under you: you already knew you couldn't sideload when you bought the phone.

Dma54rhs 5y ago
And if you don't like railway cartel you're free to ride a horse?
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  I definitely prefer iPhone but I don't think it's quite fair to say train : horse :: iphone : android
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    Its actually not that bad. A train is stuck on the tracks, only stops at stations. Owned by somebody else. A horse you can own yourself and go anywhere.
    - thetallstick 5y ago
      On the other hand: I don't have to care for the train, house it, or clean up after it. So maybe the analogy does work... :)
      - tehwebguy 5y ago
        Not to mention crossing the country in like a week instead of 2 months lmao
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        For the purposes of comparing a train to a horse in the above metaphor, you can swap in the horse for a personal automobile just as well. And maybe even swap the train for a bus while you're at it.

kemayo 5y ago

Honestly, speaking as someone who's pretty heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem, I'd like iOS to (be made to?) allow sideloading in order to keep Apple honest. Assuming it works out the same as on Android, I very much doubt that sideloading would ever be mainstream or popular, but the existence of the option would serve as a constraint on how user/developer-hostile Apple can be. (And I entirely agree with the article that Apple eliding over the entire internet-sales era of software is highly disingenuous...)

Melkman 5y ago
Being able to sideload is a double edged sword. Yes, it would be a barrier for Apple to go to far overboard on monetizing the ecosystem. It would also give companies like Microsoft a means of ONLY distributing their applications via their own app store forcing you to side load this app store with less oversight. Maybe they add a forced installer to push their apps ? It's not that I trust Apple that much. It's that I trust other companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon less.
- yreg 5y ago
  The likes of Facebook would certainly like not having to submit to Apple's rules.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  This doesn't happen on Android, so why would it happen on iOS?
  - etchalon 5y ago
    iOS and Android are fundamentally different markets.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Explain the relevant fundamental difference please.

etchalon 5y ago

"Sideloading is fine. Just look at the Mac!" "Sideloading is dangerous. Just look at Windows."

anonymouse008 5y ago

If sideloading means code signing becomes as difficult as it is on the Mac, then there’s nothing to fear…

blakesterz 5y ago

I thought this was interesting point, way near the end: "Even if Apple allowed sideloading, I don’t trust Apple to come up with an elegant solution, though. They will put every warning they can to discourage users from sideloading applications. It could make the user experience miserable, worse than it is on macOS. Why? Money is at stake here. A lot of money, actually. Because Apple seems to be run by lawyers and greedy people, we can expect everything."

NobodyNada 5y ago
This is exactly what I (selfishly) want Apple to do. I don’t want Facebook, Google, and co. to require sideloading in order to get around Apple’s privacy rules, but I do want to be able to run emulators without paying $99/year.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  Yeah, it sounds like the best case scenario to me. It would let us hobbyists and tinkerers have our fun while still effectively forcing Google and Facebook to obey Apple's strict privacy rules.
  - buggeryorkshire 5y ago
    I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app stores but with requirements like the new app store needs to provide the push messaging, with the seriously large investment that would require? They could then warn users their battery life would be worse, cos 2 persistent connections, and make it scary. Meanwhile I, as an Android user would happily take up the offer.
    - onemoresoop 5y ago
      > I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app stores I'll tell you why: money.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Push messaging isn't really that hard. Sure, one connection per device adds up, and you've got to manage the queue of messages, and authenticating devices, etc. The hidden challenge is tracking connection tracking timeouts in stateful firewalls and NAT gateways, so you can keep connections alive with the minimun of data exchanged. This is like if ISP A has a clean network, you only need to ping once an hour, but any packet sent will be recieved without delay; but ISP B needs a ping every 60 seconds or further packets will be dropped without notification. This isn't that hard either. Bandwidth of push messaging is nothing compared to app downloads, and probably more of the effort would be on attracting quality applications and vetting applications and maintaining business relationships. All that said, Google lets non-play apps use Google push, as long as the phone has play services, not sure why Apple would do it differently.

lapetitejort 5y ago

The vast majoring of apps I use on Android come from the Play Store. I've sideloaded maybe five or six apps on Android since the T-Mobile G1. It's not something I keep in the back of my mind. But when I find an app I can only sideload, I really want to do it, and I would be really annoyed if I couldn't use my hardware the way I wanted.

syshum 5y ago
F Droid is my first stop for anything I need, if I can not find it there then I go to Play Store F Droid is only possible because of side loading

xoa 5y ago

I've said this repeatedly, but what I'd like would be a buy-time option to "enable sideloading" (specifically, to enable the hardware owner to add their own signing certificate to the root keystore, iOS would still enforce full normal trust chaining and such except that Apple wouldn't be the only valid root). Because I think not have sideloading is actively valuable in many cases too and thus should itself remain an option (and probably the default) for purchaser. Leaving the power with Apple has obvious downsides, but it also has upsides in terms of pooling negotiating power of users vs powerful developers and entirely eliminating a large class of possible social engineering attacks. The reason Apple has been able to enforce privacy protections vs Facebook for a current example is that there is no sideloading. Period. Facebook is a powerful enough entity vs its users[products] that if they could demand that users sideload the "Facebook store" and then run root from there they could get a sufficient mass to do so that they could then afford to ignore Apple and do an end run. Can see the same thing play out with stuff like Zoom, Dropbox etc: on iOS all these are applications in the App Store and must abide by all the privacy, disclosure, and so on rules. On the Mac, they demand their own clients which get a lot more powers. Of course, the MAS is a pile of shit, Apple has utterly fucked up on basic great software business things like "upgrade pricing", and there are lots of examples of fantastic decent small/med size software devs doing their own Mac software same as always. Apple certainly has perverse incentives they have abused, primarily around service integration (can't aim backups at any storage provider for example). Also, it all breaks down when there is an entity MORE powerful than Apple like a major government. Then Apple becomes a single point of failure for censorship and control, and indeed that ties right back into the former. We don't have E2EE encrypted wireless backups for iDevices because of Apple caving to "security" agencies. But still, it cuts both ways and I really appreciate that less technical (but still very smart!) users, including vulnerable members of my own family and friends, can have a platform in iOS which has much stronger guardrails that they cannot physically be talked into bypassing. I think giving those who ask for hardware, software, or both root cert access that access is enough of a release valve (these are probably all the same people who would jailbreak which is much worse) to help check Apple and bypass the big failing points while still accommodating the hundreds of millions of users whose threat models involve worse from other corporations. And it'd help nudge Apple's incentives in a good direction even for those staying fully within the walled garden by making them balance a bit on keeping them there.

difosfor 5y ago

These kinds of monopolistic practically unavoidable parts of our lives should have been regulated long ago already. I'm afraid given the existing political climates and tech lobbies that they will still just circle around the problems though.

tshaddox 5y ago

The odd thing about this article is that it seems like the author is conceding to removing all restrictions on third-party software being installed on the iPhone because Apple is not currently restrictive enough on what third-party software makes it into their App Store. I suppose I can understand the appeal of that argument, since it does resolve apparent hypocrisy and lying in Apple's statements about its policies, but crucially this argument doesn't actually address whether allowing sideloading will be good for users, despite the author indicating that they think it will be ("Until today, I thought forbidding applications sideloading on the iPhone was good for users. But…"). All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article.

Talanes 5y ago
> All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article. I'd say the main argument of the article is that the situation with the App Store in actual reality is so far from ideal that arguments about what happens in an ideal situation are irrelevant.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  And I'd go further and say that the ideal state is unachievable by any centralized entity, no matter how much energy, money or time it spends on the problem. Therefore we must embrace decentralized discovery and safety, and we're deluding ourselves otherwise.

pyman 5y ago

Very poor analysis and not at all compelling argument for sideloading apps.

pyman 5y ago

Very poor analysis and argument for sideloading apps. I'm neither in favour nor against. I respect his opinion but the research he did was very poor.

__d 5y ago

There is no technical reason that Apple cannot maintain the exact same review processes that they have today, or even more stringent ones (that’d actually be good), BUT instead of then putting the app in the AppStore, they simply sign it with with the AppleBlessed(TM) key, and give the binary back to the developer. Whatever might happen to that binary between Apple signing it, and the iOS installer getting hold of it DOES NOT MATTER — if the signature is still good, then it’s no worse off than if it was put in the AppStore. The security argument is total BS.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
That wouldn't really change this for the better. This whole thing is about Apple not having the final say.
- __d 5y ago
  Sure, but it illustrates that Apple's argument that "it would weaken security" is rubbish. It is technically possible to allow side-loading with exactly the same security as provided by the AppStore, if they simply used a signature to indicate that an app had passed review. It would still use the same sandpit, still use the same permissions system, still able to be disabled by Apple, etc, etc. Without the argument that "it's less secure", it becomes obvious that the only motivation is commercial.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    But then what would be the point if the "anticompetitive" measures are still there? If Apple can still get the final say, they can still refuse to sign any IPA for any reason.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      The point is sideloading vs app store isn't a function of security like Apple constantly touts. The point is not that this method in particular answers all possible problems one could have with the lack of side-loading or that this is necessarily the actual method that should be the one implemented.

kstrauser 5y ago

I'm so utterly torn on this. I want sideloading for my own purposes, like installing classes of apps Apple would never approve (such as a real Unix shell with native code compilers). On the other hand, I absolutely don't want my older relatives to be able to install stuff from wherever. I just know I'll have a Thanksgiving conversation like "hey, could you look at my phone? It's been getting hot after Microsoft called and helped me install the new antivirus." I don't have an answer for this. I'm all for people being able to get around the garden walls. I just hope and pray that no one in my "you use computers so you're my de facto tech support" circles does it.

tasha0663 5y ago
The problem here isn't sideloading. The problem is that you cater to > my "you use computers so you're my de facto tech support" circles and you hate it. Stop doing that.
- hsbauauvhabzb 5y ago
  So we should just let grandma get her life savings scammed?
  - danShumway 5y ago
    I don't like the grandma analogy, some old people are really smart with computers. But in general, if you're in that situation with someone where you're worried that they'll get scammed if you leave them alone for a second, at some point you need to ask whether they should have access to an app store at all. How many apps per week does your grandma need to install? It would be better if you set her up a phone with the apps she wants, and then disabled all app installation. Because if someone is in that position, the unfortunate reality is that the official app store isn't safe either. The article gets into this in more detail, but there's enough malware on the official Apple Store to make it dangerous to randomly install apps. There are apps where their whole design is to set you up with big subscriptions in the background that you don't notice, there are malware apps that slip through Apple's review process, there are phishing apps. Really, you should install the apps your grandma needs, and if she needs more later, then she can ask you about them (or someone else who's an expert). I think people look at the Apple Store as if it's perfectly safe and that opening it up would suddenly let in malware for the first time. But while the Apple Store might have comparatively less malware than Android, that's not the same thing as being perfectly safe, and it doesn't mean you can let a young kid or a naive adult go wild on it and install whatever they want. That's a recipe for disaster. I've set people up on Linux and had zero support calls or malware problems with them, not because Linux has good security or perfectly curated software sources, and not because there aren't dangerous ways to get malware on a command line, but because they don't open the command line in the first place. Some people are safer and thrive in a computing environment that's set up to do the things they want and that doesn't change after that point -- but I don't think that has much of anything to do with alternative app stores, that's really a question of whether app stores should be allowed at all for those people.

Crontab 5y ago

I am pro-sideloading but I think it has to be done in a way that people cam't be tricked into doing it. Speaking personally, the only thing I want to sideload is Mame (assuming an iOS version exists).

CharlesW 5y ago
> Speaking personally, the only thing I want to sideload is Mame (assuming an iOS version exists). It does, and you can sideload it by following the "Building / Installation / Sideloading" instructions at https://github.com/yoshisuga/MAME4iOS https://github.com/yoshisuga/MAME4iOS.
- Osiris 5y ago
  From other comments it sounds like a free developer account expires builds after a few days. Otherwise you have to pay $100/yr for the privilege. That's a lot of money to run an open source emulator.

enos_feedler 5y ago

Any argument that starts with the Mac entirely misses the point on why iOS is different and why it is more important than ever to protect users on that platform. The userbase of each of those respective products is so different that you can't just take a feature from one and say it makes sense on the other. It's especially arrogant to say that to the company that makes both of them. You can say "gee it would be neat if this thing you did over here could be brought here", but you can't really fight tooth and nail that the company is WRONG to not do it.

Osiris 5y ago
In what way are they different? Hardware wise, the iPhone has a touchscreen and a cellular radio, some additional sensors and no keyboard. At the center of each is a CPU, GPU, and storage. Software is the primary differentiator.
- skydhash 5y ago
  No one is putting their mac in their pocket and going everywhere with it. People use their device in different way. And people behaviors are a big part in security models.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    Exactly. And the people who don't see this are those with an engineering-like mind that just these as computers with parts and their own relationship to the device. And perhaps for that group there should be another product on the market that satisfies those needs. I think Google wanted Android to be that, but as we all know, as they scale to serve the same addressable market as Apple, the device becomes more Apple like and locked down. There isn't really much that can be done.

faebi 5y ago

I wouldn't even care about side loading if they finally would drop their browser engine requirement for other browsers. I want to use the real Firefox with all of it's sweet addons on iOS and then I'm completely happy. Hell, let people use Chrome. They can even disallow it for non-browser apps.

acdha 5y ago
I think they could make that case, and I'd also love real Firefox, but if that happens it basically removes the last thing keeping “the web” from not meaning “whatever the Chrome developers choose”. There's approximately a 0% chance that all Google properties wouldn't start heavily pushing you to use Chrome or mysteriously developing odd performance or reliability issues in Safari.

jstsch 5y ago

Yeah, sure, on some theoretical level sideloading should be a user's right. But we all know what will happen. The only way to install essential platform apps like Facebook, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, etc. will be through the vendors themselves, bypassing all of Apple's privacy protections. In the end this will be a net negative for the user.

Osiris 5y ago
Side loading doesn't magically give apps access to APIs that don't exist. The operating system controls privacy, not the app store.
ng12 5y ago
This isn't how it is on Android. Why would it be different on iPhone?
- jstsch 5y ago
  The Google Play store lets apps get away with lots of user hostile activity.
  - ng12 5y ago
    Not really sure what you're referring to. I switched within the last year and found the experience to be pretty similar.
Apocryphon 5y ago
I'm not convinced that those tech giants would be able to pull that off from a product execution and business demand perspective. And users will balk, having to deal with yet another membership and do accounts/payment management would add a lot of friction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457

arepublicadoceu 5y ago

I just want New Pipe, firefox with ublock and emulators on my iPhone/iPad. Put the side loading toggle behind a thousand warning screens, make me run 3km in 12 min to prove that I’m worth it. But please allow it already or I’m out of the apple bandwagon on my next purchase.

legutierr 5y ago

I have some questions about how access to Secure Enclave, and in particular hardware keys, would work in a sideloaded app. It would be tremendously helpful if someone knowledgeable here might be able to explain! Wouldn't sideloading make it possible for one sideloaded app to somehow impersonate another sideloaded app, and thereby trick the PKA/SKP into signing a message with a private key that the imposter shouldn't have access to? And might we even see vulnerabilities whereby a slideloaded app could impersonate an app downloaded from the app store? If there is no way to securely distinguish between two sideloaded apps, such that one app could impersonate another in getting access to OS- or hardware-level cryptographic services, then that could be a real problem, no? And if you have downloaded an app from a third-party app store, what is stopping that app from somehow getting access to OS resources that it could to use to impersonate another app? Does anyone know how this issue is dealt with in MacOS?

dannyw 5y ago
A sideloaded app cannot impersonate another app for the same reason that it won't be signed with the same developer keys during compilation.
- legutierr 5y ago
  OK, so the OS has a way to verify the public key and the signature of the app executable, before the Secure Enclave responds to any request? Makes sense.

TheMode 5y ago

The issue (or benefit depending on how you see it) is that Apple is very conservative and try to limit as much as possible their security risks. Sideloading is part of it, and I can also mention JIT compilation.

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

Sideloading is actually two separate issues: 1. Should Apple allow iPhone users to build their own software (or third-party open source software) and deploy it to their iPhones? The answer here is a resounding yes; in fact it's already possible! Just register a developer account, and you can sign your own apps and deploy them to your phone. 2. Should Apple allow predatory 3rd party vendors (Google, Meta, TikTok, spyware developers, etc.) to circumvent the AppStore review process and deploy their opaque blobs to other people's iPhones? The answer here should be no in my opinion. (unless iOS gets rewritten in Rust with a capability-based ultrasecure watertight microkernel, where accessing dangerous "private" APIs and thus privacy violations are provably impossible - in this hypothetical utopic vision the AppStore review process would become moot from a security point of view, although there are other aspects of the review process that cannot be formalized that easily, c.f. "I know it when I see it") (of course, the predatory 3rd party vendors love it when people conflate the two issues)

Apocryphon 5y ago
Third party vendors might want to do that, but I think it's a lot easier to imagine and to say than to execute. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30280457

Terry_Roll 5y ago

By not allowing sideloading, the apps which fingerprint your device through access to unique elements of your phone (like the number of contacts & contact data, gps data, & wifi signals, network device exploration), makes it easier to expose those app entities sharing out your data and increases liability on Apple for failing to "police" their app store properly, over and above their existing checks. By allowing sideloading, a new attack vector opens up which reduces the liability on Apple, which is no different to what Microsoft and Google already do. Facebook/Meta are sort of excluded in some ways because theirs app store runs online on their servers and not on your device which is considered private property and brings different Govt legislations into play.

throw7 5y ago

Meh, I'm on android, but google has castrated several apps I enjoyed (termux,sshelper,etc.). So, being able to sideload is only one aspect of stumbling blocks to user usefulness. Don't get me wrong; the prison of apple is not one I would ever enter, but the grass is getting drier every day over here.

starkruzr 5y ago
what did they do to Termux and sshelper?
- throw7 5y ago
  https://arachnoid.com/android/SSHelper/index.html https://arachnoid.com/android/SSHelper/index.html

Apocryphon 5y ago

I think there's two types of sideloading that usually inspires fear: 1. The fear of the other big tech giants creating their own app store, forcing users to migrate there to use Facebook/GMail/Amazon/Outlook etc., and then siccing invasive tracking on them for the purposes of serving ads and selling user data. I think this threat is easily more conceived than realized. While the motivation exists to have easier access to user data, I don't think users will necessarily bite. Having to join a new third party app store just to be able to use Instagram or WhatsApp would alienate, and anger, most users. It's yet another account one would have to manage and keep track of. It breaks the seamless nature of iOS and mobile experiences in general. Everyone would know why they're really doing it. And these companies are big and old. To create a competing app store takes a lot of effort. Not just on a technical level but on a product and business perspective. To convince users that this added friction is worth experiencing. Based on the anemic state of the Amazon Appstore or the Samsung Galaxy Store app stores on Android, tech giants only end up investing in alternate app stores if it's already tailored for the devices they make, which is a moot point with iOS. And those stores aren't even dynamic, nor contain app exclusivity as far as I know. Not to mention, running a third party app store means that Meta will have to start wooing other third party developers so it doesn't just end up being the Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp show. That means they have to start creating their own pocket ecosystems and manage their own platform communities as well. It's a lot of hassle and effort for something that won't necessarily pay off. Just ask Microsoft how their Windows Phone store fared. Or heck, just take a look at the current state of Facebook apps. Maybe ten years ago when mobile apps were still a fairly new category of products, when there was a lot more room to grow and these companies were less entrenched and nimbler, there was a chance that rival stores could pay off. But nowadays? Sure from a technical perspective they're all capable of building their own cloud gaming service or Clubhouse clone or Snapchat stories knock-off, but how many of those actually stick? I think the only companies that will want to heavily invest in their own third party iOS app stores will be video game publishers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012 2. Installing random app binaries. Dubious files, email attachments, malware, random scripts, all common vectors for viruses and computer problems. This fear on mobile is overblown because Apple still controls the operating system, and can carefully set the flow to prevent easy access to sideloading. They can enforce all sorts of OS and app binary-level restrictions even without needing to go through the App Store. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30199125 Though now that I've laid out the two topics, I suppose one potential worst case scenario is the tech giants act greedily and stupidly, force essential apps to be downloadable only on their third party app store, so users resort to sideloading those apps from shady sources. But on the other hand, maybe people will use resort to mobile web instead. Or just quit using those apps altogether. We're already see Facebook adoption drop precipitously.

twelve40 5y ago

The tech monopolies make the insecure practice of sideloading almost a necessity because no stupid corporation will be fully controlling what to run and what not to run on my own phone. This is so much worse than the Microsoft outrage in the 90's. That's why I'm not doing Iphone, I will keep my options to customize the shit out of a very expensive piece of equipment as I see fit, and not the appstore censorship rules in whatever country I happened to be in at the time. Come to think of it, how did another massive everyday consumer OS - Windows - survive all these decades with _most_ apps installed via sideloading (of sorts)? But iOS is somehow totally different?

skydhash 5y ago
Windows survived because of the family tech support. I can't even count the number of time I had to restore the computers in the house. Users can and will wreck their devices. Think GB WhatsApp on Android.

yannikyeo 5y ago

What are some apps that are not on App Store that needs sideloading?

lostgame 5y ago
Emulators? That’s pretty huge, alone.

Hicks69 5y ago

[dead]

ksec 5y ago

>“I always believed Apple would draw a line at outright lying — but they continue to lie about what selling software was like before the App Store. They lie about what the review process does and about how developers are treated equally. As a developer, I find this profoundly disillusioning.” — Brent Simmons I really like the word disillusioning here. And this isn't the first time we caught Apple outright lying. Cases on Qualcomm, Imagination, Ericsson, Nuvia / Gerard Williams and possibly many others over the years. And it is not a surprise Apple is acting that way. Software developers are a minority, and not every dev agrees with sideloading. If you look at macrumors and 9to5mac comments from users, you will see "Apple should pull out of a small country like Netherland, it is Apple's IP no government should be allowed to touch it." or "Apple should threaten to pull out of those state or countries that try to make them open up their platform and steal their IP." "Apple spend $8-10bn per year on App Store for Xcode, hosting, reviews and delivery. Software developers are just greedy AF." Yes I am not making any of these up. It is the reason why for the first time in nearly 15 years of using an iPhone. I watched the Samsung Galaxy Unpack Event live yesterday. And...... it wasn't very good to say the least. But at least I am now looking, hopefully I could switch away from Tim Cook's Apple soon. I really like the Steve Jobs video [1] "Steve Jobs on the greed and outlandish profits that ruined Apple", from Apple product Repair, Apple Retail Store investment, Apple Store employee KPI, I could go on and on. The is sort of the reason why having a product CEO is so important. So we dont have to wait 4-5 years before a fix on the Keyboard fiasco. And I didn't even mention China. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2v8GVsL1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2v8GVsL1Q

lstroud 5y ago

You can already side load. You can load adhoc distribution apps through itunes onto your phone. Or, you can download Xcode build and run apps onto your phone. You just can’t distribute the app in binary form to a large group. Seems like this is about alternate app stores, not side loading.