29 ms·

Honestly, Apple could simply do exactly what they do for macOS now. The two are close enough to a merge at the architectural level that it would not be difficul

Honestly, Apple could simply do exactly what they do for macOS now. The two are close enough to a merge at the architectural level that it would not be difficult. macOS is one step away from removing the ability to install unsigned software by default. If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. The warning dialogs will be enough to discourage most use. Things like ApplePay and iCloud may be disabled depending how far you reduce security, but you'll be able to do whatever you want. I think it be a great solution to have a more uniform solution across all devices and platforms. It would create a boom in the hacker community, while still keeping >99.99% of users running from sealed system snapshots.

slg 4y ago
What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes. This change would shift even more power to those large developers. You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google.
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  > What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.
    - satvikpendem 4y ago
      Honestly, that's fine by me. Epic made the game, they process the payments, they're not using the Google Play Store's services and storefront at all (not to be confused with Google Play Services), so why would they pay 30% simply to be on a store they don't use? Same as on a computer, I use Windows, but it'd be absurd for me to download software only through the Microsoft Store app.
      - slg 4y ago
        Couldn't Meta follow the same path as Epic? Doesn't that have potential to create a situation that is worse off for consumers because their device theoretically would be less protected in terms of both security and privacy?
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        They could, but I argue that Meta requiring users to use a third party app store would likely be self-defeating for them. It could conceivably alienate a lot of users who don't want to deal with managing yet another account, let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
        judge2020 4y ago
        > let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. Why would EU Lawmakers be satisfies with some crazy process that requires rebooting the device or going through 10+ steps to enable sideloading? These EU laws will likely require low-friction alternate app stores, which means actually installing Facebook via an alternate method might mean something as low-friction as meta.com/store -> "trust Meta store" -> open and install Facebook.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  The market will decide that. You aren't alone. Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? They'll probably just be on both with some perk incentivising a switch.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? Moving from one store that takes a 30% cut to a store you own makes a lot of sense if you can carry over at least 70% of your paying customers.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      May not even need to be 70% of your customers if you have costs that scale with the number of customers. 30% is a fraction of revenue, not profits.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Is it worth losing the user entirely? What about putting the app on both?
  - pmontra 4y ago
    A perk? The app on its own store will cost 70, the app on the Apple store will cost 100. The app will be on both stores, people will decide where to buy from.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Exactly. One perk could be to pass the savings on to the user.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive business practices are actually good for the customers that are being fleeced by them. This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores.
  - atonse 4y ago
    I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
      - judge2020 4y ago
        So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
        4y ago
- themagician 4y ago
  I think the disabling of "secure" features will be enough of an inconvenience that people won't do this, and so mainstream apps would never bother. Some might be willing to give up ApplePay. But they could disabled FaceID as well. Or even iMessage. Whether this is "justified" or not would be a separate issue, but I can definitely see them doing it. I can see them going a step further and letting developers decide if they want to allow their software to be run on systems based on security model. Banks, for example, could simply set a flag in their app such that it will not run if the system is set to a reduced or permissive security setting.
  - albert180 4y ago
    Nobody cares about iMessage in Europe, everybody uses WhatsApp or Signal. A Apple-only messenger doesn't fly in a market where apple has <20% market share
    - themagician 4y ago
      Honestly surprising to me that any application owned by Meta is even allowed in Europe at this point.
      - maria2 4y ago
        Europe is basically a U.S. vassal state, so it shouldn't surprise you.
    - moogly 4y ago
      Not sure what Europe you're part of but it's way closer than that. And in some European markets, iOS has 60-65% share (like Scandinavia).
      - albert180 4y ago
        Europe as a whole has a 35% market share of iPhones, Sweden has 55%, tbh that was a surprise to me, but Germany on the other hand is 75% Android...
- aidenn0 4y ago
  I'm in the fortunate position of not needing any of those apps. I have never once in the US heard anyone mention WhatsApp as a potential form of communication, and I'm way better off without FB or Instagram on my phone. And as a side note, Amazon tried this on Android (requiring it for e.g. Prime Video), but gave up at some point.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    WhatsApp is exceptionally popular outside of the US, especially in Europe. There are more people outside the US than in it. PayPal sends me MFA-ish verification codes via WhatsApp.
- moogly 4y ago
  I mean, if you're already using WhatsApp...
- trap_goes_hot 4y ago
  Expecting Apple to fight your fights isn't going to solve anything. Apple only cares about money, and they're going to obediently abide by local laws (as they do in China). We need to take the power away from Apple and put it in an entity that we en-masse have influence with - such as a democratically elected government.
- amelius 4y ago
  The Meta store would still run under privileges set by the user (through Apple's controls). At least, that's how I expect it would work.
- error503 4y ago
  > You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google. I would say this is one, and by far the most important case, where Apple's incentives aggressively oppose those of the end users'. Whether this is enough to tip the balance of which company is 'worse' is a value judgment, but I cannot fathom how people argue in good faith for this blatantly anti-consumer and anti-fundamental-freedom vertical monopoly that is enforced with strong crypto. Crypto should be working for the user, not against them to secure Apple's ability to rent seek on all economic activity that passes through the user's device. And no, the two are not fundamentally coupled, as Apple will have you believe.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    When Apple talks about security, they aren't talking about user security, but the security of their App Store profit margins.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  If there are other app stores, does that mean they'll be able to have different privacy rules? Or would that be blocked at the OS level? It seems like some stuff (giving the app access to your location, contacts, etc.) would be subject to OS-level control, but the recent change to opt-in personalized ads would be easily reversible by any new app store.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  That’s not what we see on Android though where this has always been an option. Amazon tried to push their store hard at a time.
- dbtc 4y ago
  > App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes Interesting. Hadn't thought about this before. Why? Is it the app store that makes their influence possible?
- smsm42 4y ago
  I am not sure, what is there to worry about? So, FB is going to independently distribute their own apps. You present it as it is an obvious evil, but tbh I fail to see what's evil about it? Yes, a little power would be shifted from all-powerful-now Apple to FB. Both probably not to be trusted, but at least it would be more federated now.
- saghm 4y ago
  > What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they have done it already on Android? > You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google This sounds like even more of an argument that your fear is unfounded. If Google doesn't care about users as much as Apple but still has managed to make it unappealing enough to have a separate Facebook app store, why wouldn't Apple be able to do the same?
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  Someone who’s so tied to Meta products already has Meta apps installed on their phone. All Meta would have done through this step is added more friction to the process of installing their apps. What am I missing here? What’s the problem?
- Siira 4y ago
  Not at all. The monolithic App Store has been terrible for users. They even impose censorship on social media apps. Having alternative stores by Meta et al is excellent. More choice, more competition, less rentseeking, more innovation.
stetrain 4y ago
Yep. I'm fine with my parents never venturing beyond the bounds of the app store, but if I want to run some dev tools on the iPad that don't fit into the app store model I should be able to choose an option where I can install signed software. I think this sort of relief valve will also breed interesting system utilities and user interface ideas for Apple's mobile OSes, provided that software using private APIs can still pass the signing process. Maybe they could have avoided some of the Stage Manager fiasco if they had years of third party experimentation to observe on their own platforms.
- themagician 4y ago
  I think, for me, the best example is actually the ACE (Audio Capture Engine) plugin by Rogue Amoeba, which is used by a lot of 3rd party apps. It's quite popular, and it requires Reduced Security to install. I actually HATE that there is no (good) alternative to this software yet that can run within the bounds of the Full Security model. But I like that it's still possible to run this software. It feels like the warnings are adequate.
anonymouse008 4y ago
Here’s the deal, ship one of each: Mac, Mac AppStore, iOS AppStore, SMS chat bot, WebApp, Windows, cross platform with Electron, cp with Tauri, with varying degrees of dynamic libraries, concurrency, mono-server and containerized APIs - then say something productive about each. (On your own, no help but you and and your online friend Eskimo) The ease of everything in iOS is 100% worth a 30% cut once you’re established (speaking to the small business program) - AND everyone forgets, Apple’s cut 15% after the first year of subscriptions, no matter how much you make. The reason the Mac “side load” exists is because of AppKit - and the hoops one must jump through to get things to run halfway decent with gatekeeper is maddening to the nth degree. Fine, let people side load and deal with that on their own - but do not act like it’s “a weekend” worth of development time to get right. Everyone is winging because they won’t (or know they can’t) make something damn good - take the time perfecting the craft and finding the targets no one can see rather than throwing stones.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  If Apple's value add is as great as you're saying, then they should have absolutely no problem competing on fair terms with other companies instead of dictating what users are allowed to do, and what competitors are allowed to exist, on their own hardware.
  - anonymouse008 4y ago
    Yes, a fair competition, I have no issue with. But here’s the rub - those competitor apps must use the “universal” apis. They don’t get to use UIKit, CoreData, Foundation (the full one), CoreBluetooth, CoreMotion, ML, etc … they need the open source community (as AshiLinux has done) to build the APIs apple is not paid to make. Then have those reviewed and dealt with in a Gatekeeper like fashion - absolute pain awaits. Writing Swift in Linux is both beautiful and humbling - there are horrible rough edges, you have to go lower more often than you’d like. My issue is everyone has it pretty good - and a loud voice is going to make the experience less great overall, at the expense of us all being more equal.
    - 4y ago
JohnTHaller 4y ago
Unsigned apps don't run by default. You have to control-click and then select Open to run them. https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/open-a-mac-app-from-an-unidentified-developer-mh40616/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/open-a-mac-app-from...
- judge2020 4y ago
  Which is why Apple's plan is likely to move it to the MacOS model, ie. notarization and code signing is required. Honestly this is such a great middle ground despite the level of malware that exists and is targeted to small groups of users.
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
>If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. The warning dialogs will be enough to discourage most use. Th I think all of this is implying that Apple can be the only company that iOS users trust to sign software. Its a false choice. Making things look "scary" to discourage users from trusting others is simply FUD.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Agreed. As it stands, macOS will treat un-Notarized apps as if they're radioactive, and the OS actively tricks the user into thinking such apps either don't work or are malicious. You have to pay the $100/year tax if you want your macOS app to compete on fair terms with other apps.
throwntoday 4y ago
> If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. I don't think you need to do this unless the application requires you to disable SIP which is extremely rare and I would do cautiously anyway.
Tagbert 4y ago
I could potentially see why Apple Pay might be disabled but why would iCloud? the only risk there is your own data files.
smsm42 4y ago
I don't think it's "one step". I do development on a mac, which means running unsigned software pretty much daily hundreds of times. Doesn't require any special steps. I probably don't need that capability on the phone though (that said, I don't use iOS either...)
bloppe 4y ago
The main problem with this is that it's still hugely anti-competitive. European regulators enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.

slg 4y ago

What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes. This change would shift even more power to those large developers. You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google.

satvikpendem 4y ago
> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. However, what I do like is that if I want to download some other client for Instagram from F-Droid for example, I can, unlike in the Apple App Store. Currently I use one that blocks apps, enhances image quality on upload and download, etc. Not really possible on iOS.
- slg 4y ago
  >Why do people continue to tout this as some sort of gotcha? Android has multiple app stores yet this doesn't occur. Maybe not yet specifically with Meta, but it absolutely does happen. Fortnite is the most obvious example.
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Honestly, that's fine by me. Epic made the game, they process the payments, they're not using the Google Play Store's services and storefront at all (not to be confused with Google Play Services), so why would they pay 30% simply to be on a store they don't use? Same as on a computer, I use Windows, but it'd be absurd for me to download software only through the Microsoft Store app.
    - slg 4y ago
      Couldn't Meta follow the same path as Epic? Doesn't that have potential to create a situation that is worse off for consumers because their device theoretically would be less protected in terms of both security and privacy?
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        They could, but I argue that Meta requiring users to use a third party app store would likely be self-defeating for them. It could conceivably alienate a lot of users who don't want to deal with managing yet another account, let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926
        judge2020 4y ago
        > let alone subject themselves to an environment run by Meta. Why would EU Lawmakers be satisfies with some crazy process that requires rebooting the device or going through 10+ steps to enable sideloading? These EU laws will likely require low-friction alternate app stores, which means actually installing Facebook via an alternate method might mean something as low-friction as meta.com/store -> "trust Meta store" -> open and install Facebook.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The market will decide that. You aren't alone. Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? They'll probably just be on both with some perk incentivising a switch.
- slg 4y ago
  >Why would an app move exclusively to some alternate pain in the ass store if the users don't want it? Moving from one store that takes a 30% cut to a store you own makes a lot of sense if you can carry over at least 70% of your paying customers.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    May not even need to be 70% of your customers if you have costs that scale with the number of customers. 30% is a fraction of revenue, not profits.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Is it worth losing the user entirely? What about putting the app on both?
- pmontra 4y ago
  A perk? The app on its own store will cost 70, the app on the Apple store will cost 100. The app will be on both stores, people will decide where to buy from.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Exactly. One perk could be to pass the savings on to the user.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Yet another example of the Facebook boogeyman being trotted out in an effort to explain why lack of user freedom, lack of consumer choice and anticompetitive business practices are actually good for the customers that are being fleeced by them. This didn't happen on Android, macOS, or Windows, despite all of them allowing alternative app stores.
- atonse 4y ago
  I keep hearing this – what exactly is the freedom or lack of consumer choice that's being stifled here?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Apple, and only Apple, gets to decide what is allowed to run on the devices consumers own. Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store. This duopoly quite literally prevents competition in the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      So if I make a competitor called the Avocado company, and my Avocado phone can only run third-party software I vet myself, and my entire marketing pitch is "this vetting process protects your security and privacy", would the same argument apply?
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Is your company a firm that has significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1], like the Apple and Google duopoly can and does? [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
        4y ago
themagician 4y ago
I think the disabling of "secure" features will be enough of an inconvenience that people won't do this, and so mainstream apps would never bother. Some might be willing to give up ApplePay. But they could disabled FaceID as well. Or even iMessage. Whether this is "justified" or not would be a separate issue, but I can definitely see them doing it. I can see them going a step further and letting developers decide if they want to allow their software to be run on systems based on security model. Banks, for example, could simply set a flag in their app such that it will not run if the system is set to a reduced or permissive security setting.
- albert180 4y ago
  Nobody cares about iMessage in Europe, everybody uses WhatsApp or Signal. A Apple-only messenger doesn't fly in a market where apple has <20% market share
  - themagician 4y ago
    Honestly surprising to me that any application owned by Meta is even allowed in Europe at this point.
    - maria2 4y ago
      Europe is basically a U.S. vassal state, so it shouldn't surprise you.
  - moogly 4y ago
    Not sure what Europe you're part of but it's way closer than that. And in some European markets, iOS has 60-65% share (like Scandinavia).
    - albert180 4y ago
      Europe as a whole has a 35% market share of iPhones, Sweden has 55%, tbh that was a surprise to me, but Germany on the other hand is 75% Android...
aidenn0 4y ago
I'm in the fortunate position of not needing any of those apps. I have never once in the US heard anyone mention WhatsApp as a potential form of communication, and I'm way better off without FB or Instagram on my phone. And as a side note, Amazon tried this on Android (requiring it for e.g. Prime Video), but gave up at some point.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  WhatsApp is exceptionally popular outside of the US, especially in Europe. There are more people outside the US than in it. PayPal sends me MFA-ish verification codes via WhatsApp.
moogly 4y ago
I mean, if you're already using WhatsApp...
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
Expecting Apple to fight your fights isn't going to solve anything. Apple only cares about money, and they're going to obediently abide by local laws (as they do in China). We need to take the power away from Apple and put it in an entity that we en-masse have influence with - such as a democratically elected government.
amelius 4y ago
The Meta store would still run under privileges set by the user (through Apple's controls). At least, that's how I expect it would work.
error503 4y ago
> You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google. I would say this is one, and by far the most important case, where Apple's incentives aggressively oppose those of the end users'. Whether this is enough to tip the balance of which company is 'worse' is a value judgment, but I cannot fathom how people argue in good faith for this blatantly anti-consumer and anti-fundamental-freedom vertical monopoly that is enforced with strong crypto. Crypto should be working for the user, not against them to secure Apple's ability to rent seek on all economic activity that passes through the user's device. And no, the two are not fundamentally coupled, as Apple will have you believe.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  When Apple talks about security, they aren't talking about user security, but the security of their App Store profit margins.
gnicholas 4y ago
If there are other app stores, does that mean they'll be able to have different privacy rules? Or would that be blocked at the OS level? It seems like some stuff (giving the app access to your location, contacts, etc.) would be subject to OS-level control, but the recent change to opt-in personalized ads would be easily reversible by any new app store.
pantalaimon 4y ago
That’s not what we see on Android though where this has always been an option. Amazon tried to push their store hard at a time.
dbtc 4y ago
> App developers have a lot more influence on mobile devices than they do on desktop OSes Interesting. Hadn't thought about this before. Why? Is it the app store that makes their influence possible?
smsm42 4y ago
I am not sure, what is there to worry about? So, FB is going to independently distribute their own apps. You present it as it is an obvious evil, but tbh I fail to see what's evil about it? Yes, a little power would be shifted from all-powerful-now Apple to FB. Both probably not to be trusted, but at least it would be more federated now.
saghm 4y ago
> What I'm worried about is if the next time we open WhatsApp we see a splash message that says "Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp are moving to the Meta Store! Please restart your phone and follow these easy steps to continue using these apps." If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they have done it already on Android? > You can say a lot of negative things about Apple, but their incentives lined up with the end users more often than companies like Meta and Google This sounds like even more of an argument that your fear is unfounded. If Google doesn't care about users as much as Apple but still has managed to make it unappealing enough to have a separate Facebook app store, why wouldn't Apple be able to do the same?
rhaway84773 4y ago
Someone who’s so tied to Meta products already has Meta apps installed on their phone. All Meta would have done through this step is added more friction to the process of installing their apps. What am I missing here? What’s the problem?
Siira 4y ago
Not at all. The monolithic App Store has been terrible for users. They even impose censorship on social media apps. Having alternative stores by Meta et al is excellent. More choice, more competition, less rentseeking, more innovation.

stetrain 4y ago

Yep. I'm fine with my parents never venturing beyond the bounds of the app store, but if I want to run some dev tools on the iPad that don't fit into the app store model I should be able to choose an option where I can install signed software. I think this sort of relief valve will also breed interesting system utilities and user interface ideas for Apple's mobile OSes, provided that software using private APIs can still pass the signing process. Maybe they could have avoided some of the Stage Manager fiasco if they had years of third party experimentation to observe on their own platforms.

themagician 4y ago
I think, for me, the best example is actually the ACE (Audio Capture Engine) plugin by Rogue Amoeba, which is used by a lot of 3rd party apps. It's quite popular, and it requires Reduced Security to install. I actually HATE that there is no (good) alternative to this software yet that can run within the bounds of the Full Security model. But I like that it's still possible to run this software. It feels like the warnings are adequate.

anonymouse008 4y ago

Here’s the deal, ship one of each: Mac, Mac AppStore, iOS AppStore, SMS chat bot, WebApp, Windows, cross platform with Electron, cp with Tauri, with varying degrees of dynamic libraries, concurrency, mono-server and containerized APIs - then say something productive about each. (On your own, no help but you and and your online friend Eskimo) The ease of everything in iOS is 100% worth a 30% cut once you’re established (speaking to the small business program) - AND everyone forgets, Apple’s cut 15% after the first year of subscriptions, no matter how much you make. The reason the Mac “side load” exists is because of AppKit - and the hoops one must jump through to get things to run halfway decent with gatekeeper is maddening to the nth degree. Fine, let people side load and deal with that on their own - but do not act like it’s “a weekend” worth of development time to get right. Everyone is winging because they won’t (or know they can’t) make something damn good - take the time perfecting the craft and finding the targets no one can see rather than throwing stones.

heavyset_go 4y ago
If Apple's value add is as great as you're saying, then they should have absolutely no problem competing on fair terms with other companies instead of dictating what users are allowed to do, and what competitors are allowed to exist, on their own hardware.
- anonymouse008 4y ago
  Yes, a fair competition, I have no issue with. But here’s the rub - those competitor apps must use the “universal” apis. They don’t get to use UIKit, CoreData, Foundation (the full one), CoreBluetooth, CoreMotion, ML, etc … they need the open source community (as AshiLinux has done) to build the APIs apple is not paid to make. Then have those reviewed and dealt with in a Gatekeeper like fashion - absolute pain awaits. Writing Swift in Linux is both beautiful and humbling - there are horrible rough edges, you have to go lower more often than you’d like. My issue is everyone has it pretty good - and a loud voice is going to make the experience less great overall, at the expense of us all being more equal.
  - 4y ago

JohnTHaller 4y ago

Unsigned apps don't run by default. You have to control-click and then select Open to run them. https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/open-a-mac-app-from-an-unidentified-developer-mh40616/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/open-a-mac-app-from...

judge2020 4y ago
Which is why Apple's plan is likely to move it to the MacOS model, ie. notarization and code signing is required. Honestly this is such a great middle ground despite the level of malware that exists and is targeted to small groups of users.

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

>If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. The warning dialogs will be enough to discourage most use. Th I think all of this is implying that Apple can be the only company that iOS users trust to sign software. Its a false choice. Making things look "scary" to discourage users from trusting others is simply FUD.

heavyset_go 4y ago
Agreed. As it stands, macOS will treat un-Notarized apps as if they're radioactive, and the OS actively tricks the user into thinking such apps either don't work or are malicious. You have to pay the $100/year tax if you want your macOS app to compete on fair terms with other apps.

throwntoday 4y ago

> If you want to run unsigned software or extensions you will have to boot into a recovery console and change the security model. I don't think you need to do this unless the application requires you to disable SIP which is extremely rare and I would do cautiously anyway.

Tagbert 4y ago

I could potentially see why Apple Pay might be disabled but why would iCloud? the only risk there is your own data files.

smsm42 4y ago

I don't think it's "one step". I do development on a mac, which means running unsigned software pretty much daily hundreds of times. Doesn't require any special steps. I probably don't need that capability on the phone though (that said, I don't use iOS either...)

bloppe 4y ago

The main problem with this is that it's still hugely anti-competitive. European regulators enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.