5 ms·

And still folks think that if side loading is forced on Apple, that companies will not force us to start side loading their apps to escape this "apocalypse".

by trurl 4y ago

glowingly 4y ago
I agree. We only have to look 3 years ago to see exactly what happens when those same companies get sideload access. Facebook did something very similar, using their Apple App Store Developer certificate to enroll users as "employees," allowing them to defacto sideload their market research application. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033451 I also fully expect the last browser holding against Google's browser monoculture - Safari - to die soon after. I hate this state of affairs, where Apple's sheer greed is the main force stablizing this fragile environment.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Those instances show that Facebook is willing to do that to small incentivized groups of users- in that case, volunteers offered monetary benefit via gift cards, but difficult to say such a model is accomplishable on a wide scale. This is a situation where the users were self-selecting. Certainly, companies will misuse and abuse the freedoms associated with sideloading, but I disagree that it’s as an easy task as people think. First they actually have to build competing app stores that are compelling enough for users to overcome the friction of switching. I don’t think these companies, other than game platforms like Epic, and perhaps tech companies in politically sensitive markets such as China or Russia, have it in them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
  - trurl 4y ago
    I don't understand why you think building alternative app stores is somehow a limiting factor. If you want to use some software, and the company wants to bypass Apple's protections, they'll just put a download link on their website. Why go through the hassle of registering with any "app store" at all?
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Because Apple still wields control over iOS, which means they can also curate how the sideloading experience. I don't believe that even if legislation and regulator action forces iOS to permit sideloading, that it necessitates sideloading to be done in as casual a process as it is to download and install software on macOS, Windows, or desktops in general. Apple will still be able to determine how sideloading is done. And they can make the process very guarded, with multiple disclaimer screens and agreement menus that the user must assent to before they are allowed to sideload. Even on Android today, enabling sideloading is a multiple step process: https://techcult.com/sideload-apps-on-android/ https://techcult.com/sideload-apps-on-android/ Furthermore, I believe that Apple can choose to shape the experience even after sideloading is enabled. They can add badge icons that single out sideloaded apps. They can force sideloaded apps to be on specifically marked pages on the springboard. They can add alerts and popovers galore that ask the user "Do you really want to do that?" wrt the sideloaded apps. Apple is a master of UX and branding - if they can influence millions of users via the blue iMessage bubble vs. the green SMS chat bubble dichotomy, they can find a way to subtly single out sideloaded apps as worthy of concern. Emergent user behavior then follows. Finally, as I have mentioned in the previous link, Apple still controls the operating system that all apps, whether sideloaded or not, exist on. If they wanted to harden its security and strengthen entitlements in such a way that even sideloaded apps cannot bypass certain privacy or security safeguards, they can probably find a way. At they very least, they can introduce a similar notarization process that they already do on macOS on non-Mac App Store apps. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
      - trurl 4y ago
        Yeah, I figured someone might try this argument. Everyone seems to keep forgetting, there is already an option on iOS for developers not wanting to go through the App Store: web apps. I believe WASM can even be used these days. Except that Safari doesn't offer developers some privacy sensitive APIs other browsers do. The current side loading pressure has very little to do avoiding Apple's cut and everything to do with bypassing Apple's restrictions. So I expect should Apple introduce a heavily sandboxed side-loading experience, we'd be seeing developers complain they are not adhering to the spirit or the law or lawsuit.
- trurl 4y ago
  I agree that having to rely on Apple here is not great, but no other ecosystem is even trying.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  If side-loading or alternate app stores are allowed I fully expect a "Facebook Store" to appear which includes (and mandates) Facebook malware in every app and most mainstream apps eventually moving over to it.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    I think if this was a decade ago, when Facebook was younger (newly post-IPO!), hungrier, and had a better reputation with the public, that might have happened. But nowadays Meta is older and much more disreputable, many of their new products seem to be clones of other things that exist, from Clubhouse to HQ Trivia, and users are far more jaded towards the company. Not to mention, mobile and tech in general has matured to a state that a brand new app store, at least from a tech giant everyone knows about, coming to iOS isn't as exciting as it used to be. What does another mobile app store offer the average consumer? They barely download as many new apps from the actual official App Store. Having to deal with another platform account, even if expedited through Facebook login would be another friction point for users, another set of confusing permissions to juggle, another payment system to hook up to, another downloads history to keep track. Users are already getting burned out by having to deal with so many video streaming platforms that piracy is making a comeback, why would they be willing to put up with a Facebook Store just to get Instagram? At least signing up for Paramount+ lets you watch the Halo television show, what does signing up to the Facebook Store do besides let you use Facebook- which you already can? No, I believe that even if Meta really does launch such a store, they would not be willing to pull their official apps away from the actual App Store. They will hedge their bets because it is unlikely that all, or maybe even most, Facebook users will switch to their app store. If forced to have to use a whole new store for no good reason, many consumers will just stop using Facebook, and find substitutes to Instagram instead.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      > What does another mobile app store offer the average consumer? The fact that most of the apps they use moved over to it because it doesn't have the pro-privacy restrictions that the official App Store has.
bradknowles 4y ago
App-pocalypse?

And still folks think that if side loading is forced on Apple, that companies will not force us to start side loading their apps to escape this "apocalypse".

by trurl 4y ago

And still folks think that if side loading is forced on Apple, that companies will not force us to start side loading their apps to escape this "apocalypse".

glowingly 4y ago

I agree. We only have to look 3 years ago to see exactly what happens when those same companies get sideload access. Facebook did something very similar, using their Apple App Store Developer certificate to enroll users as "employees," allowing them to defacto sideload their market research application. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19033451 I also fully expect the last browser holding against Google's browser monoculture - Safari - to die soon after. I hate this state of affairs, where Apple's sheer greed is the main force stablizing this fragile environment.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Those instances show that Facebook is willing to do that to small incentivized groups of users- in that case, volunteers offered monetary benefit via gift cards, but difficult to say such a model is accomplishable on a wide scale. This is a situation where the users were self-selecting. Certainly, companies will misuse and abuse the freedoms associated with sideloading, but I disagree that it’s as an easy task as people think. First they actually have to build competing app stores that are compelling enough for users to overcome the friction of switching. I don’t think these companies, other than game platforms like Epic, and perhaps tech companies in politically sensitive markets such as China or Russia, have it in them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
- trurl 4y ago
  I don't understand why you think building alternative app stores is somehow a limiting factor. If you want to use some software, and the company wants to bypass Apple's protections, they'll just put a download link on their website. Why go through the hassle of registering with any "app store" at all?
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Because Apple still wields control over iOS, which means they can also curate how the sideloading experience. I don't believe that even if legislation and regulator action forces iOS to permit sideloading, that it necessitates sideloading to be done in as casual a process as it is to download and install software on macOS, Windows, or desktops in general. Apple will still be able to determine how sideloading is done. And they can make the process very guarded, with multiple disclaimer screens and agreement menus that the user must assent to before they are allowed to sideload. Even on Android today, enabling sideloading is a multiple step process: https://techcult.com/sideload-apps-on-android/ https://techcult.com/sideload-apps-on-android/ Furthermore, I believe that Apple can choose to shape the experience even after sideloading is enabled. They can add badge icons that single out sideloaded apps. They can force sideloaded apps to be on specifically marked pages on the springboard. They can add alerts and popovers galore that ask the user "Do you really want to do that?" wrt the sideloaded apps. Apple is a master of UX and branding - if they can influence millions of users via the blue iMessage bubble vs. the green SMS chat bubble dichotomy, they can find a way to subtly single out sideloaded apps as worthy of concern. Emergent user behavior then follows. Finally, as I have mentioned in the previous link, Apple still controls the operating system that all apps, whether sideloaded or not, exist on. If they wanted to harden its security and strengthen entitlements in such a way that even sideloaded apps cannot bypass certain privacy or security safeguards, they can probably find a way. At they very least, they can introduce a similar notarization process that they already do on macOS on non-Mac App Store apps. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
    - trurl 4y ago
      Yeah, I figured someone might try this argument. Everyone seems to keep forgetting, there is already an option on iOS for developers not wanting to go through the App Store: web apps. I believe WASM can even be used these days. Except that Safari doesn't offer developers some privacy sensitive APIs other browsers do. The current side loading pressure has very little to do avoiding Apple's cut and everything to do with bypassing Apple's restrictions. So I expect should Apple introduce a heavily sandboxed side-loading experience, we'd be seeing developers complain they are not adhering to the spirit or the law or lawsuit.
trurl 4y ago
I agree that having to rely on Apple here is not great, but no other ecosystem is even trying.
Nextgrid 4y ago
If side-loading or alternate app stores are allowed I fully expect a "Facebook Store" to appear which includes (and mandates) Facebook malware in every app and most mainstream apps eventually moving over to it.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  I think if this was a decade ago, when Facebook was younger (newly post-IPO!), hungrier, and had a better reputation with the public, that might have happened. But nowadays Meta is older and much more disreputable, many of their new products seem to be clones of other things that exist, from Clubhouse to HQ Trivia, and users are far more jaded towards the company. Not to mention, mobile and tech in general has matured to a state that a brand new app store, at least from a tech giant everyone knows about, coming to iOS isn't as exciting as it used to be. What does another mobile app store offer the average consumer? They barely download as many new apps from the actual official App Store. Having to deal with another platform account, even if expedited through Facebook login would be another friction point for users, another set of confusing permissions to juggle, another payment system to hook up to, another downloads history to keep track. Users are already getting burned out by having to deal with so many video streaming platforms that piracy is making a comeback, why would they be willing to put up with a Facebook Store just to get Instagram? At least signing up for Paramount+ lets you watch the Halo television show, what does signing up to the Facebook Store do besides let you use Facebook- which you already can? No, I believe that even if Meta really does launch such a store, they would not be willing to pull their official apps away from the actual App Store. They will hedge their bets because it is unlikely that all, or maybe even most, Facebook users will switch to their app store. If forced to have to use a whole new store for no good reason, many consumers will just stop using Facebook, and find substitutes to Instagram instead.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > What does another mobile app store offer the average consumer? The fact that most of the apps they use moved over to it because it doesn't have the pro-privacy restrictions that the official App Store has.

bradknowles 4y ago

App-pocalypse?