6 ms·

Exclusively Apple user here, couldn’t be more happier for the announcement. Keeps my favoured platform alive and innovative. Btw, you can keep using App Store

Exclusively Apple user here, couldn’t be more happier for the announcement. Keeps my favoured platform alive and innovative. Btw, you can keep using App Store so I don’t understand the issue here.

pchristensen 4y ago
With sideloading, developers with market power will be able to force iOS users into worse conditions than the standard App Store. You can bet that FB will get everyone onto their sideloaded version ASAP, and I doubt it will respect the "Ask App Not to Track Me". Then, once everyone has figured out sideloading with FB, the bar will be lower for other apps and suddenly the consumer protections of the App Store are weaker for everyone.
- neop1x 4y ago
  It has been like this on the desktop since forever and some apps are still not available from app stores like Adobe creative suite and it has worked fine. It has created new business opportunities for anti-virus companies initially but the need for those diminished over time as OS-level "defender apps" and overall 3rd-party app handling got better. I don't see any problem here. If Facebook forced users to install spyware and spy on users without their consent FB itself would be fined by regulators. And you can always use the web FB version if you are afraid of using their app or stop using FB completely.
filoleg 4y ago
>you can keep using app store, so I don't understand the issue Apps with massive following that are into the idea of violating privacy rights will leave App Store and its restrictions, and will be available only on third party app stores where they can do whatever they want. Imagine Facebook leaving App Store and becoming available only on Meta Store (or whatever they would call it). Oh, and they dont have to abide by Apple's privacy rules anymore. Oh, and you also got no choice now if you want to continue using it. I personally don't use FB, but it was a solid example, and it can apply to any other app. Facebook is almost definitely cheering now at this decision, because I remember they had a pretty bad earnings call last year after Apple added additional privacy restrictions to iOS/App Store. But worry no more, FB is back in the game as soon as they can release their unrestricted version on a third party app store. "More choice available", in this scenario refers not to my personal choices, but to more ways for companies behind those large apps to avoid privacy considerations and restrictions of the platform. Tl;dr: FB has only two options now - abide by the current privacy rules of App Store or not have an app for iOS at all. With third party app stores being available, FB has a new and way juicier option - publish a version in their own app store with zero restrictions. Why would they even consider the official App Store and follow the restrictions. Consumers lose a solid option here.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. Nobody is forcing you to download the Facebook app. It's perfectly usable inside a web browser, nevermind the fact that a sideloaded version of Facebook could still leverage the same security benefits provided by iOS' sandboxing model. At this point you're basically arguing that Apple should be the one who dictates what privacy should look like... which isn't the case. If you feel strongly that Facebook's data collection should be regulated more closely, you should take it up with local legislation. That's how systematic improvements like this EU bill get drafted, and it's how we force big companies to play fair instead of expecting other privately held businesses to hold them in check. That's not how antitrust action works.
  - stevewatson301 4y ago
    > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. And yet, people have a preference for installing apps, as evidenced by the populace that has the app on their phone as opposed to using m.facebook.com on their web browser. Sure, I, an experienced user, can still make that choice, but most won’t and it’s a net negative for the common user’s privacy.
  - musicale 4y ago
    > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here Probably because they got caught abusing enterprise certificates to sideload a spyware app: "Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple. Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data." https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/30/facebook_apple_enterprise_certificate_revocation/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/30/facebook_apple_enterp...
  - dwaite 4y ago
    > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. Nobody is forcing you to download the Facebook app. It's perfectly usable inside a web browser, nevermind the fact that a sideloaded version of Facebook could still leverage the same security benefits provided by iOS' sandboxing model. I'll see if I can help. 1. A lot of people feel forced to use the Facebook ecosystem - there are groups and markets that are only accessible to Facebook users, let alone the ability to stay up to date with family and friends. Facebook/Meta also provide internet services in some countries, making them utterly unavoidable 2. Facebook has caught in several privacy abuses in the past, including one that used enterprise certificates to side-load a non-reviewed app which set Facebook as a VPN to monitor internet traffic and app usage. 3. There is no guarantee that Facebook will continue to allow full accessibility via a browser if they have sufficient benefits to installing a native app. See Reddit heavily pushing for their native app over the browser on mobile, or Google blocking whole services (or essential features for some services, such as the ability to edit Google Docs) to "encourage" people into native apps. 4. There are many security and privacy features of the App Store that come not from technical measures but from Apple acting as a quasi regulatory enforcer. For instance, application developers must ask for consent for tracking, and the setting chooses whether an advertising identifier is released. But the App Store contract limits _all_ cross-party tracking methods without this consent, including things like sharing device fingerprinting and IP addresses with third parties. These protections only exist for iOS users because of Apple's ability to block publication.
corrral 4y ago
The concern is that e.g. Facebook will use their might to push a less-privacy-respecting app store, or use the threat of that to get Apple to loosen privacy protections. Google will almost certainly promote Chrome the same way they have everywhere else, and gain a lot of traction mostly from users who just did it because Google said to and they clicked "OK", not because they actively want Chrome (same as how they took over the desktop). The main argument against the first concern seem to be "there aren't any successful alternative app stores on Android (seems there are in China, but OK, let's allow that) so it doesn't matter", but 1) iOS is a different market—far more lucrative per user, far more spending by users so the ecosystem is less ad-dependent, and with more restrictions on bad behavior by apps than Google imposes and 2) if that's true, why is it important to do this in the first place? The main argument against the latter is... well, I haven't seen anything even as good as the above. Just "yeah but I hate Safari because I'm a web app developer, so I don't care if Google owns the entire web as long as it means I can use Bluetooth from the web browser on iOS"
- 8note 4y ago
  Isn't fdroid a successful android app store?
eklavya 4y ago
Replying to myself since it looks like the replies are making mostly the same point. > what if fb wants an exclusive, no privacy App Store for itself? What about it? Let them do that. Let the consumers decide? I chose Apple only and only for better privacy controls in the OS, not in the App Store. > dominance of chrome Chrome won because Firefox and IE were worse. A lot of improvements in Firefox are thanks to competition. Safari is still number one browser on MACOS. I agree with the point that google might make things incompatible for non chrome users. Then they will be hit via these same regulations.

pchristensen 4y ago

With sideloading, developers with market power will be able to force iOS users into worse conditions than the standard App Store. You can bet that FB will get everyone onto their sideloaded version ASAP, and I doubt it will respect the "Ask App Not to Track Me". Then, once everyone has figured out sideloading with FB, the bar will be lower for other apps and suddenly the consumer protections of the App Store are weaker for everyone.

neop1x 4y ago
It has been like this on the desktop since forever and some apps are still not available from app stores like Adobe creative suite and it has worked fine. It has created new business opportunities for anti-virus companies initially but the need for those diminished over time as OS-level "defender apps" and overall 3rd-party app handling got better. I don't see any problem here. If Facebook forced users to install spyware and spy on users without their consent FB itself would be fined by regulators. And you can always use the web FB version if you are afraid of using their app or stop using FB completely.

filoleg 4y ago

>you can keep using app store, so I don't understand the issue Apps with massive following that are into the idea of violating privacy rights will leave App Store and its restrictions, and will be available only on third party app stores where they can do whatever they want. Imagine Facebook leaving App Store and becoming available only on Meta Store (or whatever they would call it). Oh, and they dont have to abide by Apple's privacy rules anymore. Oh, and you also got no choice now if you want to continue using it. I personally don't use FB, but it was a solid example, and it can apply to any other app. Facebook is almost definitely cheering now at this decision, because I remember they had a pretty bad earnings call last year after Apple added additional privacy restrictions to iOS/App Store. But worry no more, FB is back in the game as soon as they can release their unrestricted version on a third party app store. "More choice available", in this scenario refers not to my personal choices, but to more ways for companies behind those large apps to avoid privacy considerations and restrictions of the platform. Tl;dr: FB has only two options now - abide by the current privacy rules of App Store or not have an app for iOS at all. With third party app stores being available, FB has a new and way juicier option - publish a version in their own app store with zero restrictions. Why would they even consider the official App Store and follow the restrictions. Consumers lose a solid option here.

smoldesu 4y ago
I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. Nobody is forcing you to download the Facebook app. It's perfectly usable inside a web browser, nevermind the fact that a sideloaded version of Facebook could still leverage the same security benefits provided by iOS' sandboxing model. At this point you're basically arguing that Apple should be the one who dictates what privacy should look like... which isn't the case. If you feel strongly that Facebook's data collection should be regulated more closely, you should take it up with local legislation. That's how systematic improvements like this EU bill get drafted, and it's how we force big companies to play fair instead of expecting other privately held businesses to hold them in check. That's not how antitrust action works.
- stevewatson301 4y ago
  > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. And yet, people have a preference for installing apps, as evidenced by the populace that has the app on their phone as opposed to using m.facebook.com on their web browser. Sure, I, an experienced user, can still make that choice, but most won’t and it’s a net negative for the common user’s privacy.
- musicale 4y ago
  > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here Probably because they got caught abusing enterprise certificates to sideload a spyware app: "Facebook has been using their membership to distribute a data-collecting app to consumers, which is a clear breach of their agreement with Apple. Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data." https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/30/facebook_apple_enterprise_certificate_revocation/ https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/30/facebook_apple_enterp...
- dwaite 4y ago
  > I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone cites Facebook here. Nobody is forcing you to download the Facebook app. It's perfectly usable inside a web browser, nevermind the fact that a sideloaded version of Facebook could still leverage the same security benefits provided by iOS' sandboxing model. I'll see if I can help. 1. A lot of people feel forced to use the Facebook ecosystem - there are groups and markets that are only accessible to Facebook users, let alone the ability to stay up to date with family and friends. Facebook/Meta also provide internet services in some countries, making them utterly unavoidable 2. Facebook has caught in several privacy abuses in the past, including one that used enterprise certificates to side-load a non-reviewed app which set Facebook as a VPN to monitor internet traffic and app usage. 3. There is no guarantee that Facebook will continue to allow full accessibility via a browser if they have sufficient benefits to installing a native app. See Reddit heavily pushing for their native app over the browser on mobile, or Google blocking whole services (or essential features for some services, such as the ability to edit Google Docs) to "encourage" people into native apps. 4. There are many security and privacy features of the App Store that come not from technical measures but from Apple acting as a quasi regulatory enforcer. For instance, application developers must ask for consent for tracking, and the setting chooses whether an advertising identifier is released. But the App Store contract limits _all_ cross-party tracking methods without this consent, including things like sharing device fingerprinting and IP addresses with third parties. These protections only exist for iOS users because of Apple's ability to block publication.

corrral 4y ago

The concern is that e.g. Facebook will use their might to push a less-privacy-respecting app store, or use the threat of that to get Apple to loosen privacy protections. Google will almost certainly promote Chrome the same way they have everywhere else, and gain a lot of traction mostly from users who just did it because Google said to and they clicked "OK", not because they actively want Chrome (same as how they took over the desktop). The main argument against the first concern seem to be "there aren't any successful alternative app stores on Android (seems there are in China, but OK, let's allow that) so it doesn't matter", but 1) iOS is a different market—far more lucrative per user, far more spending by users so the ecosystem is less ad-dependent, and with more restrictions on bad behavior by apps than Google imposes and 2) if that's true, why is it important to do this in the first place? The main argument against the latter is... well, I haven't seen anything even as good as the above. Just "yeah but I hate Safari because I'm a web app developer, so I don't care if Google owns the entire web as long as it means I can use Bluetooth from the web browser on iOS"

8note 4y ago
Isn't fdroid a successful android app store?

eklavya 4y ago

Replying to myself since it looks like the replies are making mostly the same point. > what if fb wants an exclusive, no privacy App Store for itself? What about it? Let them do that. Let the consumers decide? I chose Apple only and only for better privacy controls in the OS, not in the App Store. > dominance of chrome Chrome won because Firefox and IE were worse. A lot of improvements in Firefox are thanks to competition. Safari is still number one browser on MACOS. I agree with the point that google might make things incompatible for non chrome users. Then they will be hit via these same regulations.