6 ms·

I doubt this is "Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps", so much as "Apple doesn’t want dev accounts to be an easy backdoor for sideloading apps" and hob

• JohnFen 4y ago
  That's a distinction without a difference.
  • outime 4y ago
    The difference is that not being able to develop hobby apps is a side effect of that policy, not that the policy's main aim is to prevent hobby apps from being developed.
    • piuantiderp 4y ago
      We don't know either way. The reality is they're being hindered
    • smoldesu 4y ago
      The side-effect is in the eye of the beholder. Apple claims they lock down the App Store for security, and a convenient "side effect" is that their stranglehold on platform transactions makes them upwards of $80 billion annually. From the perspective of the shareholder, it's obvious that Apple's motivations are more driven more by profits than ensuring universal security. Regulators worldwide agree!
      • cortesoft 4y ago
        The original comment didn’t say that Apple was doing it for security, just that they were doing it so people couldn’t sideload apps easily. I think you are both right. Apple wants to make sure all app sales happen through their App Store so they get a cut, and they are willing to make hobby apps difficult to load in order to make that happen. They don’t care about stopping hobby apps, but they care about making sure they get a cut of all sales.
      • x0x0 4y ago
        It's not obvious at all. All of us who still have to help people in our lives -- particularly elderly parents -- are very grateful for a platform where the users are not expected to be sysadmins. Which they will do quite badly. We have a 25+ year history of trying to get most people to not install random spyware/crapware/viruses on their computers, and it's fair to say the results are a complete and total failure. Except for ios and sometimes android. Which is not to justify Apple's attempt to tax every dollar that flows through their platform, but something can be two things at once.
        • smoldesu 4y ago
          iOS isn't impervious to malware either. Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, and the App Store had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, Apple still green-lights exploitative gambling and lootbox services as long as they're promised a cut of the loot. There is merit in pursuing a more secure future for computing, but there is zero merit in doing so alone.
          • bananapub 4y ago
            > iOS isn't impervious to malware either. fortunately no one made this hyperbolic claim. > Pegasus was deployed effortlessly to tens of thousands of iOS devices, I can't stop a G20 nation or the people they pay from hacking my mum's phone to steal from her bank account, but I can offer to buy her an iPhone and have her be immune to nearly all real world attacks. it's of course fine if you don't care about the security difference (or think Google does nearly as good a job with their first party phones), but not sure why you're making hyperbolic posts arguing against some strawman?
            • smoldesu 4y ago
              [flagged]
              • dang 4y ago
                Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    • varispeed 4y ago
      Policies are often designed so that their main goal is seen as a side effect. They probably can't say explicitly that they don't want sideloading, as this could turn an eyebrow of a regulator, but making it more difficult to create hobby apps, which achieves the same effect does not explicitly show an intent and may keep regulator at bay.
    • marcosdumay 4y ago
      Talking about "side effects" in systematic policies is meaningless. There may or may not exist someone that wants those, and you are not inside everyone's brains to decide for yourself.
    • JohnFen 4y ago
      Sure, it's a difference, but not one that is actually meaningful to anyone outside of Apple. An affected customer doesn't care about why the policy exists (nor should they have to). The effects are the same regardless.
      • robertlagrant 4y ago
        It's just a comment on the title of the posting. The title assumes an intention that's possibly incorrect. If intention doesn't matter, then why is it in the title?
        • horsawlarway 4y ago
          Actions speak louder than words. The actions Apple has taken prohibit using self-written apps without paying Apple a relatively large yearly fee (and in many cases, also going through pointless store review). So at best - Apple does not care about hobby apps (written by owner, for owner) because they have taken no actions to mitigate this impact if it truly is just a side effect and not intended. At worst - Apple is actively hostile to this usage and the policy is working as intended. That distinction is mostly moot from the view of a user outside of the internal discussions at Apple regarding that policy. The impact of the policy clearly discourages hobby app usage. Because the policy exists, a reasonable interpretation is that Apple does not want you developing hobby apps.
        • JohnFen 4y ago
          I'm not the author, so I don't know. But I would say the title is intended to be provocative and, in terms of what this looks like from the outside, isn't an unreasonable supposition. But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.
          • robertlagrant 4y ago
            I think intention is important, and in many ways more important than the end result, and it's worth highlighting potential mischaracterisation. If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.
• ravagat 4y ago
  +1 people who are largely consumers and not producers don't seem to understand the facets of filtering as a business. A necessary but practically essential part of staying successful as a business
• jtbayly 4y ago
  The policy is, we want to control what you can install on your device so that we can make more money. Both of the things you listed are side effects.
• ehsankia 4y ago
  The latest saga with Twitter's API going paid is a whole other can of worm, but APIs everywhere have been closing down and becoming more restricted in the past few years. I guess the bot and scam usage of APIs cause more headache for companies than the hobby usage benefit they get.
• smrtinsert 4y ago
  Apologist reasoning imo. Developers experiment and there should be a policy that encourages experimentation on the platform. Thanks apple for reminding me why I'll continue with the lesser evil for now.
  • duxup 4y ago
    The reasoning matters even if we agree the result is wrong.
• ozim 4y ago
  I would say "Apple doesn’t want dev accounts to be an easy backdoor for trash apps". It is all about quality of the app store. Downside is that I see bunch of corporate apps that are total trash on app store.
  • lnenad 4y ago
    This is a wrong take as these apps have nothing to do with the app store.
    • fsflover 4y ago
      Where are the trash apps and malware in F-Droid or Linux repositories?
  • dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
    Trash apps according to whom? Apple considers all browsers that don't use WebKit as "trash" as well as other entire categories. Apparently the nanny state is repugnant to many, but nanny corporations that don't trust us to make our own choices, or have our own tastes and standards, is much more acceptable. The huge loss of customer freedom doesn't actually achieve the exclusion of "trash" apps nor malware.
    • kube-system 4y ago
      Reasonably so. The last time the #1 browser in terms of market share did not abuse their position was Q3 1998.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• grishka 4y ago
  Sideloading should be allowed — that's non-negotiable for me. That's the main reason why I ended up with the configuration I have, a Mac but an Android phone. Apple tries really hard to pretend they own the relationship between the app developer and the user because they made the iPhone and iOS, when in fact, for most developers, the necessity to publish on the app store isn't the godsend Apple thinks it is. It's an asinine obstacle they have to clear to get their app out to the world. I've seen Apple reject iOS apps for nonsensical reasons on many occasions. For most developers, the discovery aspect of the app store is, in fact, irrelevant. They do their own marketing and user acquisition anyway. Mac shows this very clearly. There's the same app store, with the same rules, but with one exception: its use is not mandatory. So most developers end up simply ignoring it and doing their own app distribution. In other words, this model doesn't work very well when it's not the only distribution channel and when there's no draconian lockdown on the OS level. The notarization requiring a $100/year account is also optional. So you can, if you wish, distribute a Mac app without any Apple involvement whatsoever.
• superkuh 4y ago
  The casual use of the word "sideloading" is dangerous to society. It is literal newspeak with the intent to eliminate even the idea of "installing" and make it so people cannot even think of applications outside of a corporation (or institution's) walled garden. Users installing applications is the default. Walled gardens are the weird dangerous thing.
  • eddieroger 4y ago
    There was a time when you could only connect a Bell Telephone to the telephone network, too.
  • rchaud 4y ago
    Even the concept of 'installing' is rapidly disappearing. Most smartphone users aren't installing new apps or downloading music files. Most computer users don't install anything besides Microsoft Office, and in a lot of cases, it comes pre-installed and only requires activation. Video games seem to be an outlier, as the enormous size of most games means it can't be streamed well just yet.
    • pallas_athena 4y ago
      > Video games seem to be an outlier, as the enormous size of most games means it can't be streamed well just yet. Stadia worked great until Google did its thing...
• dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  Almost everything associated with the iPhone is a casualty of "We need to collect our 15-30%". They apparently strive for a superior user experience, and then go about destroying the customer experience of what they seem to consider is their phones.
  • dev_tty01 4y ago
    Yes, Apple wants their piece and I for one would like to see it at least reduced. I would also love to see an option to opt-in to at least sideloading personally built apps. That being said, what customer are you referring to when you talk about "destroying the customer experience." Hundreds of millions of users express very high customer satisfaction with the experience. The vast number of users have no interest in sideloading and they love the simplicity of the app store. Apple is bringing in about 85% of the smartphone market profits and they have huge repeat purchase numbers. That is not because those billion users are unsatisfied or feel the experience has been "destroyed." The numbers are just too overwhelming. Many HN readers are not the target market if openness is of paramount importance to them. It is hard to avoid, but we need to try and avoiding generalizing our preferences to the broader definition of "customer."