5 ms·

Of course, I'll admit it will stop small-time attackers that aren't willing to pay $299, register a fake company, and whatever else is needed to trick Apple int

Of course, I'll admit it will stop small-time attackers that aren't willing to pay $299, register a fake company, and whatever else is needed to trick Apple into letting you into the enterprise dev program. But I'd like to propose these attackers wouldn't have been able to bypass the sandbox anyways. I'm sure the fact this setup forces all apps to go through Apple's app store and pay them 30% of their revenue is just a unfortunate accident. My point is that if Apple truly believed sideloading was a risk to user security there wouldn't be certificates that let you sideload on all devices. They would force companies to provide a list of devices or only allow devices enrolled in their MDM or some similar reasonable restriction.

acdha 4y ago
> I'm sure the fact this setup forces all apps to go through Apple's app store and pay them 30% of their revenue is just a unfortunate accident. Does a normal enterprise charge its users to install internal apps? If not, this seems like an odd complaint. > My point is that if Apple truly believed sideloading was a risk to user security there wouldn't be certificates that let you sideload on all devices. They would force companies to provide a list of devices or only allow devices enrolled in their MDM or some similar reasonable restriction. That last part is effectively what they're doing: you have to do the same level of scary prompt and authentication to install an enterprise certificate as you do to enroll for MDM. Yes, users can still be socially engineered to compromise their device but that's an order of magnitude harder than just convincing someone to run some random binary.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Apple can easily create a guarded sideloading experience replete with scary warnings. They can shape the sideloading UX to screen out users who aren't ready for it. Critics of iOS sideloading fail to see that Apple can add as many guards and guided experiences into sideloading as it does with its other features, such as installing enterprise certs. Even on Android with its openness and notoriety for security issues, to sideload APKs means having to navigate multiple settings menus to get to it, which screens out the majority of non-technical users. Though that is more playing to the "strength" of that platform (clunky design and unwieldiness), which Apple would not be doing.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yes, they certainly could — and the harder they make it the more people would then say they were being anti-competitive but if they make it easy a ton of people would be getting rooted after installing FreePorn.app just like we've seen for ages on Android, or simply honest developers being ripped off by people bootlegging their apps. I'm not in love with the current balance but having done support for a long time I think it's a pretty defensible position. I personally think the best solution here is regulation: let Apple and Google control app distribution, with some legal mandates for prompt responses both to active threats as well as developer complaints, but cap the percentage they can charge.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      More people could claim that, but so long as Apple was doing it in good faith- as in, the opposite of what they did in the Netherlands to saltily, passive-aggressively flout Dutch regulation re: the App Store (0), the regulators will recognize that. Most people do not bother to root their Android phones, and it's perfectly possible to pirate iOS apps on non-jailbroken phones, so that point is also moot. The people who are technically savvy enough to pirate apps are already doing so whether sideloading is made possible or not. Finally, you discount Apple's mastery of UX patterns and their capability of design. By simply changing non-Messages texts to green, they created an entire dichotomy between messages from iOS devices, and non-iOS. Do you really think they wouldn't be capable of doing something similar towards official App Store-originated and non-official apps? Simply a subtle color tint, a badge, some off-looking font, and they can get users to look askance at sideloaded apps with caution. If Apple had to make sideloading possible, you can bet they can make it a secure and curated experience, as they do with the rest of their walled garden. (0) https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489595417117483010 https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489595417117483010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334683
      - acdha 4y ago
        > Most people do not bother to root their Android phones, and it's perfectly possible to pirate iOS apps on non-jailbroken phones, so that point is also moot. The people who are technically savvy enough to pirate apps are already doing so whether sideloading is made possible or not. Your second sentence contradicts the first: the difference is not whether it’s theoretically possible but whether it’s easy and thus widespread. That’s the important distinction and it deserves more careful thought when you’re talking about devices large percentages of the population trust heavily. > By simply changing non-Messages texts to green, they created an entire dichotomy between messages from iOS devices, and non-iOS. Similarly, this deserves more careful thought: is the difference the color or the fact that one which isn’t controlled by the phone companies is faster, more capable, more secure and cost less for years? Again, I’m not saying that Apple is perfect but it’s not as simple as people like to portray it, either. Multiple of the topics here are market failures where governments were deterred from stepping in. What Apple has done is not purely benevolent but it’s also satisfying a lot of users - they didn’t go from niche to one of the most important tech companies because they weren’t doing what people liked (and, no, it’s not “just” marketing or design).

acdha 4y ago

> I'm sure the fact this setup forces all apps to go through Apple's app store and pay them 30% of their revenue is just a unfortunate accident. Does a normal enterprise charge its users to install internal apps? If not, this seems like an odd complaint. > My point is that if Apple truly believed sideloading was a risk to user security there wouldn't be certificates that let you sideload on all devices. They would force companies to provide a list of devices or only allow devices enrolled in their MDM or some similar reasonable restriction. That last part is effectively what they're doing: you have to do the same level of scary prompt and authentication to install an enterprise certificate as you do to enroll for MDM. Yes, users can still be socially engineered to compromise their device but that's an order of magnitude harder than just convincing someone to run some random binary.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Apple can easily create a guarded sideloading experience replete with scary warnings. They can shape the sideloading UX to screen out users who aren't ready for it. Critics of iOS sideloading fail to see that Apple can add as many guards and guided experiences into sideloading as it does with its other features, such as installing enterprise certs. Even on Android with its openness and notoriety for security issues, to sideload APKs means having to navigate multiple settings menus to get to it, which screens out the majority of non-technical users. Though that is more playing to the "strength" of that platform (clunky design and unwieldiness), which Apple would not be doing.
- acdha 4y ago
  Yes, they certainly could — and the harder they make it the more people would then say they were being anti-competitive but if they make it easy a ton of people would be getting rooted after installing FreePorn.app just like we've seen for ages on Android, or simply honest developers being ripped off by people bootlegging their apps. I'm not in love with the current balance but having done support for a long time I think it's a pretty defensible position. I personally think the best solution here is regulation: let Apple and Google control app distribution, with some legal mandates for prompt responses both to active threats as well as developer complaints, but cap the percentage they can charge.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    More people could claim that, but so long as Apple was doing it in good faith- as in, the opposite of what they did in the Netherlands to saltily, passive-aggressively flout Dutch regulation re: the App Store (0), the regulators will recognize that. Most people do not bother to root their Android phones, and it's perfectly possible to pirate iOS apps on non-jailbroken phones, so that point is also moot. The people who are technically savvy enough to pirate apps are already doing so whether sideloading is made possible or not. Finally, you discount Apple's mastery of UX patterns and their capability of design. By simply changing non-Messages texts to green, they created an entire dichotomy between messages from iOS devices, and non-iOS. Do you really think they wouldn't be capable of doing something similar towards official App Store-originated and non-official apps? Simply a subtle color tint, a badge, some off-looking font, and they can get users to look askance at sideloaded apps with caution. If Apple had to make sideloading possible, you can bet they can make it a secure and curated experience, as they do with the rest of their walled garden. (0) https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489595417117483010 https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489595417117483010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30334683
    - acdha 4y ago
      > Most people do not bother to root their Android phones, and it's perfectly possible to pirate iOS apps on non-jailbroken phones, so that point is also moot. The people who are technically savvy enough to pirate apps are already doing so whether sideloading is made possible or not. Your second sentence contradicts the first: the difference is not whether it’s theoretically possible but whether it’s easy and thus widespread. That’s the important distinction and it deserves more careful thought when you’re talking about devices large percentages of the population trust heavily. > By simply changing non-Messages texts to green, they created an entire dichotomy between messages from iOS devices, and non-iOS. Similarly, this deserves more careful thought: is the difference the color or the fact that one which isn’t controlled by the phone companies is faster, more capable, more secure and cost less for years? Again, I’m not saying that Apple is perfect but it’s not as simple as people like to portray it, either. Multiple of the topics here are market failures where governments were deterred from stepping in. What Apple has done is not purely benevolent but it’s also satisfying a lot of users - they didn’t go from niche to one of the most important tech companies because they weren’t doing what people liked (and, no, it’s not “just” marketing or design).