3 ms·

Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to inst

Because it creates customer confusion and anger when they hit the genius bar with a phone that is bricked because the customer used a non-apple appstore to install software that resulted in a bricked phone. It further causes apple support increased support costs when they have to prove that it wasn't their fault. Perhaps if apple had approval on those third-party appstores and held them to a standard and charged pushed those support charges onto them..

amelius 5y ago
Apple should just provide proper sandboxing. If some alternative appstore manages to break the sandbox, then they have different problems. The problem is not that Apple can't make this happen. The problem is that they don't want it.
Apocryphon 5y ago
Apple can just very publicly and visibly issue disclaimers that it is not responsible for the after effects of users installing non-App Store content. Just as it does not offer coverage for water damage to MacBooks. Then the boundaries are made clear, and user anger will be directed at whatever malicious third party instead of Apple itself.
- FalconSensei 5y ago
  But how do you prevent the users from thinking the problem was the non-App Store content instead of an update? They ARE going to contact support anyway
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Simply, if you enable sideloading/downloading from non App Store, you make it very visible in the UX that you are essentially in a "non-safe mode" (the actual security status probably varies, but Apple would probably go out of its way to hype up the potential of danger here), and you consent to all sorts of disclaimers disavowing Apple's responsibility here, and recommending they make backups before doing so. In fact maybe they could distinguish between pre- and post-sideloading enablement backups. If users complain after sideloading was enabled, the Geniuses can simply tap on the sign.
    - tpmoney 5y ago
      Way back when apple first released boot camp for the intel macs, I worked retail. A customer came in one day fuming mad and demanding a refund of their new MacBook. They described a series of issues they’d been having for the past month, some of which were known issues that were addressed with a firmware update months earlier and some of which sounded like nothing that should be able to happen in OS X at all. After some taking the customer allowed us to take a look at things before we did the refund. It turned out her nephew, whom she had turned to for help setting up her new computer decided for her that she didn’t need a mac, she needed a mac running windows. He had resized the Mac OS partition to as small as it would go, installed windows and configured boot camp to boot entirely into windows. As a result all the problems she’d had under windows remained (made worse by not having antivirus because “macs don’t need antivirus”) and she never got any of the firmware updates because Mac OS was never booted and never checked the update servers. Boot camp was an involved process at the time, with plenty of scary warnings and no official support at all. But the end user never even saw them because the “tech” person in their lives just set it up anyway. The result of this was a few hours of employee time and and out of policy assurance of return long after the normal return policy if the customer still wasn’t happy trying the proper Mac and Mac OS experience for a while. No amount of disclaimers, not taking responsibility or sign tapping would have gotten a better response, and not taking that responsibility even though Apple explicitly disclaimed responsibility would have resulted in brand damage, costs in terms of returns and restocking and the loss of future sales that (later happy) customer represented. In the end, customers aren’t impressed with your signs and disclaimers. If apple is the product vendor, they will demand apple fixes it.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        That's fair, but it would seem that the entire set of problems related to Boot Camp have since gone away over time, and Apple's brand has been no worse for wear. (Though I'm not even sure how widespread Windows on Mac use is these days, and the Apple Silicon licensing issues would seem to pose a threat to that continued use. Yet I haven't seen any urgent fears about that lack of support.) At some point you're just going to have to expect users to grow and learn alongside the platform. Edit: I should also note that Apple is perfectly fine with taking credit, as product vendor, for content that they are hosting on one of their apps, but not actually producing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30191126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30191126 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-podcasts/id525463029 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-podcasts/id525463029 2nd Edit: > No amount of disclaimers, not taking responsibility or sign tapping I've also wondered about that. Apple is a master of UX patterns. The whole green vs. blue message bubbles alone has become a social/cultural signifier. Let's say the UX was similarly tweaked if a user had sideloading enabled, maybe an unsightly header. If there were similar color filters or distinguishing UI that specified installed apps as not from the App Store. Wouldn't that be enough to create user behavior to distinguish between "official" App Store apps and sideloaded ones? Emergent behavior will arise from simple prodding. The green/blue division is real.
McDyver 5y ago
If I buy a diesel car, should I only be allowed to use Apple Diesel? What happens if I fill up with MS petrol and damage the engine? Do I need to go to some Genius to tell me I'm an idiot?
dawnbreez 5y ago
Begging the question, what part of the Apple app store prevents a bricked phone, and why would that not be a feature of non-Apple stores?
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  Part of their app review process is static analysis and determining if you are using any of the 'private' parts of their apis. Another app store might decide that they don't care to do that level of work and just rubber stamp everything that comes into their queue.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Perhaps then Apple should simply block all user installed apps from using any API that can brick a device.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Apple could just provide those scanners as an open service, or make something akin to notarizing on macOS universal even if third party app stores are available. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... > Notarizing is not App Review.
  - realusername 5y ago
    In other words, the iOS sandbox isn't that secure...

amelius 5y ago

Apple should just provide proper sandboxing. If some alternative appstore manages to break the sandbox, then they have different problems. The problem is not that Apple can't make this happen. The problem is that they don't want it.

Apocryphon 5y ago

Apple can just very publicly and visibly issue disclaimers that it is not responsible for the after effects of users installing non-App Store content. Just as it does not offer coverage for water damage to MacBooks. Then the boundaries are made clear, and user anger will be directed at whatever malicious third party instead of Apple itself.

FalconSensei 5y ago
But how do you prevent the users from thinking the problem was the non-App Store content instead of an update? They ARE going to contact support anyway
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Simply, if you enable sideloading/downloading from non App Store, you make it very visible in the UX that you are essentially in a "non-safe mode" (the actual security status probably varies, but Apple would probably go out of its way to hype up the potential of danger here), and you consent to all sorts of disclaimers disavowing Apple's responsibility here, and recommending they make backups before doing so. In fact maybe they could distinguish between pre- and post-sideloading enablement backups. If users complain after sideloading was enabled, the Geniuses can simply tap on the sign.
  - tpmoney 5y ago
    Way back when apple first released boot camp for the intel macs, I worked retail. A customer came in one day fuming mad and demanding a refund of their new MacBook. They described a series of issues they’d been having for the past month, some of which were known issues that were addressed with a firmware update months earlier and some of which sounded like nothing that should be able to happen in OS X at all. After some taking the customer allowed us to take a look at things before we did the refund. It turned out her nephew, whom she had turned to for help setting up her new computer decided for her that she didn’t need a mac, she needed a mac running windows. He had resized the Mac OS partition to as small as it would go, installed windows and configured boot camp to boot entirely into windows. As a result all the problems she’d had under windows remained (made worse by not having antivirus because “macs don’t need antivirus”) and she never got any of the firmware updates because Mac OS was never booted and never checked the update servers. Boot camp was an involved process at the time, with plenty of scary warnings and no official support at all. But the end user never even saw them because the “tech” person in their lives just set it up anyway. The result of this was a few hours of employee time and and out of policy assurance of return long after the normal return policy if the customer still wasn’t happy trying the proper Mac and Mac OS experience for a while. No amount of disclaimers, not taking responsibility or sign tapping would have gotten a better response, and not taking that responsibility even though Apple explicitly disclaimed responsibility would have resulted in brand damage, costs in terms of returns and restocking and the loss of future sales that (later happy) customer represented. In the end, customers aren’t impressed with your signs and disclaimers. If apple is the product vendor, they will demand apple fixes it.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      That's fair, but it would seem that the entire set of problems related to Boot Camp have since gone away over time, and Apple's brand has been no worse for wear. (Though I'm not even sure how widespread Windows on Mac use is these days, and the Apple Silicon licensing issues would seem to pose a threat to that continued use. Yet I haven't seen any urgent fears about that lack of support.) At some point you're just going to have to expect users to grow and learn alongside the platform. Edit: I should also note that Apple is perfectly fine with taking credit, as product vendor, for content that they are hosting on one of their apps, but not actually producing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30191126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30191126 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-podcasts/id525463029 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/apple-podcasts/id525463029 2nd Edit: > No amount of disclaimers, not taking responsibility or sign tapping I've also wondered about that. Apple is a master of UX patterns. The whole green vs. blue message bubbles alone has become a social/cultural signifier. Let's say the UX was similarly tweaked if a user had sideloading enabled, maybe an unsightly header. If there were similar color filters or distinguishing UI that specified installed apps as not from the App Store. Wouldn't that be enough to create user behavior to distinguish between "official" App Store apps and sideloaded ones? Emergent behavior will arise from simple prodding. The green/blue division is real.

McDyver 5y ago

If I buy a diesel car, should I only be allowed to use Apple Diesel? What happens if I fill up with MS petrol and damage the engine? Do I need to go to some Genius to tell me I'm an idiot?

dawnbreez 5y ago

Begging the question, what part of the Apple app store prevents a bricked phone, and why would that not be a feature of non-Apple stores?

sleepybrett 5y ago
Part of their app review process is static analysis and determining if you are using any of the 'private' parts of their apis. Another app store might decide that they don't care to do that level of work and just rubber stamp everything that comes into their queue.
- nradov 5y ago
  Perhaps then Apple should simply block all user installed apps from using any API that can brick a device.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Apple could just provide those scanners as an open service, or make something akin to notarizing on macOS universal even if third party app stores are available. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... > Notarizing is not App Review.
- realusername 5y ago
  In other words, the iOS sandbox isn't that secure...