38 ms·

I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As

I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Before there was a bit of a compromise, I could use evil apps with some peace of mind that they wouldn't do something egregious. Now I suspect evil apps just won't be available in the App Store, or Apple will be forced to relax their control.

throw10920 4y ago
What? The most meaningful privacy controls are enforced at the OS layer as technical controls. The thing that prevents Facebook from accessing all your contacts is the design of iOS, not the App Store. Allowing sideloading of apps does nothing to weaken the technical features meant to enable privacy and security that are already in place. In fact, you shouldn't have been relying on the App Store in the first place, as malware/spyware can and does slip through their very human and very fallible approval process. This talking point is so common in every thread about sideloading Apple devices that I can't determine whether it's propaganda or ignorance.
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have my government defending my (and most citizen's) interests (with laws such as GDPR) rather than a private company's rules which, as evidenced by this article's existence, have pretty big "collateral damage".
overthrow 4y ago
You're dreading giving other people the freedom to make one choice, and yourself the freedom to make a different choice (yours being the default option from the factory btw), and everyone gets the privacy/control tradeoff they want?
- Spivak 4y ago
  Software isn't fungible and right now today you have the ability to install facebook with app store restrictions on iOS and without on Android. If FB pulls from the app store that choice is taken away.
  - 1over137 4y ago
    >today you have the ability to install facebook with app store restrictions on iOS and without on Android You have a third choice: don't install facebook at all.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      You see how that's worse right? Either give up your privacy or don't use FB. On iOS you can have both.
      - dvngnt_ 4y ago
        you have zero privacy on Facebook.
      - lolinder 4y ago
        > On iOS you can have both. No, you can't. You can have some protections against the most egregious overreaches, but if you're concerned about privacy you shouldn't be on Facebook, ever, on any platform. Aside from that, there's no way Facebook will remove themselves from the app store. Apple isn't going to make sideloading easy enough for the average Facebook user.
        Spivak 4y ago
        No, you can't. And if you could, the protections aren't that good. And if they were, it's not going to happen anyway. And if it does, that's Apple's fault for making it too easy. And even so, you deserve it anyway for using Facebook. I don't think is the argument you think it is. It's basically "nuh-uh" while agreeing with all the arguments in favor no sideloading along the way. Facebook has 2.95 billion MAUs and 73% of the entire US population actively use it, 93% of businesses are on it -- "just don't use Facebook" is a woefully out of touch take. And this is only Facebook and doesn't include IG and WhatsApp. Meta is 4/4 of the most downloaded apps.
- bena 4y ago
  I think you're missing something. Meta makes the Facebook app. Currently, the only way to get the Facebook app on iOS is through Apple's App Store. Which means Meta has to follow all of Apple's guidelines. Once sideloading is allowed, Meta can make a version of their app that does not follow Apple's guidelines. Now, they can maintain two apps, but last time I checked, the cost of maintaining one app was lower than the cost of maintaining two. Eventually, the App Store version will no longer work with Facebook's API. Or the iOS version, or a third thing. There will only be the sideloaded option. I don't have the freedom to choose the version of the app I want. And now I can't actually trust any of the apps out there because none of them are required to follow any of Apple's guidelines.
  - cageface 4y ago
    This hasn’t happened on Android where side loading and alternative app stores have been available for years. Why would iOS be different?
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Because Google doesn't give a fuck about what apps pull off until there's media outrage. It took them years to implement basic privacy features.
    - j16sdiz 4y ago
      Because play store have less rules? FB can steal all your photo and play store couldn't care less.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Facebook hasn't recently blamed the Play Store rules for their losing a shitload of money. They have so-blamed iOS App Store rules. Basically, they have far less incentive to try to push a side-loaded version of their app, or to try to create an alternative app store, on Android.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    > There will only be the sideloaded option how did you come to that conclusion? certainly not true in the android world. I don't have the stats on prevalence of sideloadong vs. play, but all official apps are alive and well in play after decades of being able to sideload
- mattrighetti 4y ago
  > You're dreading giving other people the freedom to make one choice Users made this choice when they bought an Apple product in the first place. Everybody knows well in advance that this is the current state of things, that is a well-informed choice by the end user.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    I did not know that side loading was impossible when I choose the ios ecosystem. I mainly chose it because the green texts made communicating difficult. Now I'm locked in.
Silhouette 4y ago
This seems like the wrong target. A better solution might be to break the monopoly control that platform operators like Apple and Google have and impose proper laws and regulations to fight abusive behaviours by app developers (and the platform operators, if necessary). Even if this set of changes is coming out of the EU and the chances of getting good tech regulation any time soon might not be high it's probably still better than having all of the safeguards for millions of people using a platform depending only on the whims of companies like Apple, whose track record on user-hostile behaviours and issues like privacy has no shortage of concerning events.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Exactly. Recently there was a big drama by the US where they summoned TikTok app's management to answer questions publicly in a Congressional hearing. International media were commenting how America is getting ready to ban TikTok because of privacy concerns that allegedly even allowed spying. None of the major media in the USA even suggested that a strong data privacy act, and a general privacy regulation, could fix this for every app and be a better long-term solution.
arlcode 4y ago
I understand your concern and share some of them. However the solution to overreaching unaccountable private cooperations cannot be to hand all the power to another private unaccountable company. Apple is venturing into advertising and that'll tempt them to weaken privacy protections sooner or later. Additionally their app store rules went far beyond enforcing security and privacy. They gave themselves an advantage and removed competitors for commercial reasons. Given that the mobile market is pretty much a duopoly in Europe there were two (political) realistic alternatives: - Regulate tightly what apple/google are allowed to do with their stores (e.g. like a common carrier) - force them to give customers a choice by allowing side loading. The elected EU legislative took some points from both approaches AFTER the free market failed to implement a meaningful competition for central app stores.
- legutierr 4y ago
  > Apple is venturing into advertising and that'll tempt them to weaken privacy protections sooner or later. I hope they never become this short-sighted. I buy Apple primarily because I believe that they protect my privacy—or at least that they do a better job of it than everyone else.
  - toxik 4y ago
    The problem is that once the apple turns sour, and it will, you’ll turn around to see that all the fruit is spoiled. Some moldy, some maggot-ridden, but none made for you.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    The thing is, yes Meta/Google did make mistakes in the past and malicious players were able to gather individual information from them. But the current business of Meta/Google Ads is actually based on protecting your private information and curating it into anonymous Personas. They protect your privacy for the very same reason as Apple: To be the sole gatekeeper for effectively reaching you with Ads. There also won't be any "weakened privacy protections". The goal of Meta/Google/Apple is to reach maximum precision for those Personas they create from their users, and protect the underlying data for competitive advantage. Personas are legally not personal data, they are abstractions. Advertising to you via a cluster with other people who recently purchased a new car is not a legal violation of privacy. This is how Meta/Google advertising works and how Apple Ads works as well, their T&C already state this clearly ("your information will be used to show ads relevant to you").
nerdjon 4y ago
I agree with you and I hate that you are being downvoted. People love to say this is about choice for the consumer but it really is not going to be. My fear is that the choice will be taken away from my by companies that are no longer able to engage in shady behavior on iOS. Things like trying to collect all my data, forcing me into their billing system, shady subscriptions (like how I can cancel or reminders of it being about to charge). The Facebooks, TikTok, etc know that many of their users are addicted to their platform and it would not be a stretch for them to push users to download the app through a third party service. I could even see them going so far as to not be on the official store because they know they have the name recognition. Facebook could even make their own store for other apps that don't want to respect my privacy. This is a huge concern of mine that this could be a trend that starts small but overtime I no longer have the choice to avoid these alternate stores or to side load to be able to continue to get the full use out of my phone. Choice is great, but this is giving the choice to developers not consumers. This doesn't mean that Apple's solution is perfect, but just opening up the flood gates is not the solution either. If you really want to side load get an Android phone.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > but overtime I no longer have the choice to avoid these alternate stores or to side load Maybe Apple should update the terms of the App Store to be more competitive/attractive then.
  - nerdjon 4y ago
    Sure they could lower the percent from 30% but that doesn't address the privacy and shady practices that the free apps engage in. Apple should in no way loosen those terms.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Of course not! They have an image to uphold, as the stalwart tinfoil knights of user privacy. However they respond is up to them, their forced competition with the free market is inevitable though.
Karunamon 4y ago
App Store review was not stopping evil/scam apps, though. I would expect the system privacy APIs to clamp down on the worst of it (even Facebook can't violate your privacy if it can't identify your device, or access its contents or location). Normal users don't sideload on Android. Even the (objectively easy) steps for enabling it there are too much for the average user. Why do you think this would be any different?
m-p-3 4y ago
I don't think Apple will diminish their control on the App Store requirement, it's too much of a selling point to them. In fact I hope they keep their requirements the same, and I'm quite happy to see sideloading becoming a thing. More choice is nice. I'd be so happy to see F-Droid venturing on the iOS side, and distribute open-source apps you can trust that would otherwise not be available on the App Store (emulators, third-party YouTube clients, an actual Mozilla Firefox browser using its own rendering engine, etc).
- Loic 4y ago
  The only reason I am using an Android phone and not an iOS one is because of F-Droid to install the open-source app I like and need. I would definitely switch to iOS if I could have this freedom there. I hate that with Android I trust that Google will at some point succeed with a dark pattern in letting me agree to siphon my data without my real agreement.
- jclardy 4y ago
  TBH I'm hoping Apple will use this to actually improve the app store's position and security, get rid of all the garbage spam apps, fake clone games and whatnot. But I doubt they will, given they make a ton of money off the scam subscription apps.
Edd314159 4y ago
I agree, and the idea of a sideload-able iOS makes me very uneasy. I like the idea of Apple aligning itself with the user to protect me and, more importantly, my tech-unsavvy friends and family, from scams, data-hoarding apps, and just generally crappy software. I don't mind that they take a portion of revenue in return for providing that platform (30% feels too much, but you can't argue that it should be zero). Unfortunately, in practice, Apple have proven to be entirely incompetent at achieving that protection. The App Store is 90%+ garbage and scams. It's completely unusable for any form of discovery. Even when you know exactly what app you're looking for, you have to wade through copycats, typo squatters, and even paid adverts trying to distract you from your search. Sideloading is full of risks, and I don't love it. But it's at least a little bit of competition to push Apple towards make the App Store useful again.
- jamil7 4y ago
  > Sideloading is full of risks, and I don't love it. But it's at least a little bit of competition to push Apple towards make the App Store useful again. As someone who develops for the platform, I tend to agree, I'll probably never distribute apps with sideloading, but I think ultimately it's a good thing. I'd also be happy if it attracts more interest and developers to the platform who were previously turned off by the App Store process and Apple Tax. I also build for macOS, which has always allowed sideloading and don't see any major issues with it there.
  - michelb 4y ago
    I think the thing with macOS is, is that if sideloading ever became impossible on mac OS, they would instantly lose most, if not all of the major applications, making the platform irrelevant.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Are you worried about piracy or that your app may not be available to all platform users anymore? I bet that immediately after this feature comes countries, mobile providers, etc. will roll out their own app stores and many users will not go with Apple's. Those stores will probably incentivize big apps like Facebook get on them but not regular solo developers. You may have to distribute your app through a dozen of app stores and comply with all their differing regulations and review processes instead of one, or pass on user share... (Or more likely you'll need to pay up some app store distribution middleman who will capitalize on the situation)
sneak 4y ago
That's because you don't live in China where Apple is forced by the state to remove VPN apps (that bypass government censorship) from the App Store.
sergiotapia 4y ago
None of this affects you whatsoever. Just don't use a sideloaded apps. I don't see why this would bother you in any way. Personally if Apple finally allows me to install whatever I want on my phones then I may return to their phones. Until then, I will use Android since I can download and install any .apk I want on my device.
- mort96 4y ago
  > None of this affects you whatsoever. Just don't use a sideloaded apps. I don't see why this would bother you in any way. That's unfortunately wrong. Say you use WhatsApp to keep in touch with your friends. Say Facebook pulls WhatsApp from the app store and makes it only available via side-loading. What do you do? You have to decide between trying to move everyone you know off of WhatsApp, or you side-load.
  - sergiotapia 4y ago
    Why are you conjuring up this unprecedented hypothetical?
    - mort96 4y ago
      Because it doesn't seem implausible? Apple allowing side-loading is unprecedented, we can't say from experience how companies will respond to the ability to side-load. The closest analog we have is Android, where side-loading is permitted. Google Play is much more lenient than the App Store, so there's less incentive for companies to make their apps sideload-only than on iOS, yet some companies have already done it. Alternative software stores are also a thing there. I'm also not against side-loading. I think, as the owner of the device, I should be able to put software on it without Apple's permission. My only point here is that there are ways in which people who don't have to may be forced into side-loading software, meaning "just don't side-load if you don't want" is too simplistic.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Say Facebook pulls WhatsApp from the app store and makes it only available via side-loading. Say a meteorite hits the Earth and we all die. In a completely hypothetical scenario there are much worse things that can happen than Facebook voluntarily pulling WhatsApp from the App store, forcing their users to side-load it, gaining nothing on the permissions side of the bargain while at the same time losing a majority of their users or, even more probably, having users stuck on the last version they could install from the store and never update again.
comboy 4y ago
In theory you should be able to run untrusted code and be safe if permissions, sandboxes etc. are organized reasonably. The idea that you can tell if somebody's else code is malicious just by looking at it is flawed anyway and it's been shown many time over. Plus they still can automatically scan binaries of sideloaded apps (maybe that is what this is about, they automated enough)
asddubs 4y ago
the problem is that apple also heavily censors security unrelated things. e.g. art platforms and emulators, just to name two prominent examples.
jclardy 4y ago
I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? All big players are still in the play store, because the average user of those services doesn't want to be bothered going to a website, clicking scary looking buttons to enable third party installs, then manually update their own installed apps. Basically the risk would be someone like TikTok dropping out of the store, but I find that unlikely. Maybe at the best they will have an "unrestricted" version with bonus features outside the app store. Visibility for indie apps is basically zero on the big platforms, but for the large players, being in the app store is actually important, at least for now, as users are used to going to the app store to search for software, and not just typing something into google. The other thing is, these apps will still be sandboxed. Being available outside the store just means they can accept their own payments, they aren't going to have full system access to photos/contacts/files/etc. without explicit user permission, same as an app available via the app store.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Possibly this is preparation for TikTok being forced out of the store by the US government? But they'd still like to offer it, to avoid losing business to Android if that becomes the only platform with TikTok.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    It would be deliciously ironic if one hand of the US government forces Apple to allow side-loading while another other forces it to stop distributing apps. I appreciate it's not just the US in either case, but the irony is still delicious. (No way I'm allowing side loaded apps on my main phone though; would rather have a secondary phone for them if I'm forced to install them for whatever reason).
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? 1) Android hasn't made things as hard for malware vendors as Apple has, and 2) Android's not as lucrative a market as iOS Those together mean incentives are significantly different, so we might not see the same behavior on iOS as we have on Android, from companies that are upset about not being able to to distribute as-effective malware as they'd prefer. Like Facebook.
josephcsible 4y ago
Why is everyone so worried that Facebook, etc. will pull out of the App Store and require sideloading on iOS just because it'll be possible, when they haven't pulled out of the Play Store or required sideloading on Android where that's already been possible all along?
- onli 4y ago
  It's a talking point. I'm sorry that it is negative and it might not fair to the parent commenter, but it's obvious bs. It is a propaganda point that was placed somehow into the discussion and gets repeated again and again. In no world does it make any sense that an app like FB would not try to be in every big store, but here we are, having that "concern" repeated under every Apple sideloading discussion. Propaganda is fucking awesome in how effective it can be. And equally dangerous.
  - op00to 4y ago
    The difference between the Play store and the Apple App store is that the Play store doesn't even pretend to protect against apps that do underhanded, unexpected, and intrusive things. There are numerous stories of iOS apps being pulled out of the store for using private APIs to bypass this or that protection.
    - onli 4y ago
      That's not true. The Play store absolutely promises such protection, and Google adds more protection measures every year. The Android system even warns you when you install apps from other sources. Also see the related https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en.
      - op00to 4y ago
        Running a "safety check" is not the same thing as the (admittedly opaque) Apple App Store review process. Based on the challenges developers have had with Apple getting certain apps approved, the Apple App Store review process is significantly more involved than Google's.
andsoitis 4y ago
> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Apple is a saint?
- r053bud 4y ago
  From reading through this thread, it sounds like most people think they are
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    That's why repetitive advertising is so effective - it starts to make you doubt reality.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    Apple's reality distortion field never really faded. Any Action taken by Apple Is Absolutely Righteous. Even if the very same action taken by another company would make them Absolutely Evil. The cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.
lbotos 4y ago
To support sideloading do they have to "Relax control" though? I think the fear is "sideloaded apps can do bad things" and my answer is make the OS better and more clearly manage bad things? What are the bad things we imagine a sideloaded app could do? Like it still has to follow the platform APIs right? It would have to ask for perms? Sure, it could have egregious tracking or spam, or hostile ads, but app store apps already have this?? I'm genuinely asking: What risk am I missing?
- willis936 4y ago
  The risk of big companies like Meta requiring users to sideload in order to use their service. To me the answer is obvious: don't use services provided by Meta. They can choose to race to the bottom all they want. I welcome the freedom to use my phone the way I want to. If bad actors choose to misbehave don't blame the medium they're misbehaving on. This line of thinking is similar to negotiating with terrorists.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
the_common_man 4y ago
Same. I wish all laptops and all electronics gadgets are totally locked down and only cozintrollable by the manufacturer. Like Lenovo laptop, should only have apps from Lenovo store. I would also say we should have only one editor. I don't see point of many. Like you, i am filled with dread about multiple choices! Edit: just thought of an idea. Maybe each ISP can provide a store and we can only install from those into our devices. After all, we trust ISP already
pwinnski 4y ago
Think about it this way: any app that refuses to go through Apple's store is telling you that you're not a customer they want. If Facebook makes that choice, it's a great time to give up Facebook!
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules I can't honestly understand this argument. Are you afraid of yourself? If you don't trust Facebook, don't install their app. App store or not, nothing changes, what the app is allowed to do is the exact same thing, they're asking for the exact same permissions, that you can grant or not on a per app/per permission basis. End of the story. But if I want to install an app that I completely trust, because I know the developer or I have developed it myself, I can't install it now.
bakugo 4y ago
The extent to which Apple has hammered the idea that any sort of freedom is unconditionally dangerous and undesirable into its users' heads is legitimately impressive.
WaitWhatHuh 4y ago
>I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. How about you spend 10 minutes looking at what Apple is actually doing and realize they are just as if not more "privacy hostile" as Facebook/Google/etc. They've been on a hiring spree since they announced their "privacy" update in 2020 to build out their own Ad Tech/DSP/Self Service Ad Platform. Yeah - Apple was pulling a monopolistic move and kneecapping their competition for profits sake. They realized "Hey, we can kneecap these guys and in the near future profit billions like they did with our own ad network". How is this good for privacy?
- brookst 4y ago
  > they are just as if not more "privacy hostile" as Facebook/Google/etc You're going to have to back that up. Apple is degrading their privacy value prop for sure, but show me their Cambridge Analytica or their "Incognito mode" that still ties web activity back to user identity. > How is this good for privacy? That's a straw man. It is possible to believe that 1) Apple is curbing the worst excesses of abusers like Facebook, AND ALSO 2) Apple is making some mistakes that weaken their own privacy story. > Apple was pulling a monopolistic move and kneecapping their competition for profits sake. This is a recurring theme on HN and I find it so strange. Are we really supposed to form opinions on what we imagine faceless committees motives are, rather than the actual corporate actions? I honestly don't care why Facebook does the things they do. My opinion would not change if it turned out it was from the most noble and altruistic motives. Just like I'll judge Apple for what they do. I don't think it's fruitful to argue about whether individual people are a "good person" or "bad person", and it's even less meaningful for giant multinationals.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > This is a recurring theme on HN and I find it so strange. Are we really supposed to form opinions on what we imagine faceless committees motives are, rather than the actual corporate actions? I’m unsure which side I fall on in this argument, since Apple has had an incredible run of customer-friendly decisions IMO (at least when compared to their competitors, and other near-monopolies). However, it’s important to learn from history too. Amazon was once one of the most revered brands in the world. They successfully priced out local shops and online retailers by stocking everything, having reliable and fast shipping, and good customer service. But now look at them. Fake products and reviews everywhere, 2 day shipping is no longer a thing, they’re purposefully making returns more of a hassle, and people outside of major metropolitan areas no longer have other options for many things. Companies with serious lock-in are bound to screw you eventually. Strong culture and product decisions can only last for so long until some minmaxer with no product vision or care for brand reputation starts calling the shots.
Rhedox 4y ago
It's the OS that enforces privacy and security, not the App Store. They won't be able to do much more than they can now. Besides, they'll stay on the App Store just like they are still on the Google Play Store on Android where side loading has been possible since version 1.0.
bastardoperator 4y ago
They're never going to which is why you just need to delete it and never look back. You're the product. As long as you keep coming back, they win.
jron 4y ago
Stop installing "evil apps" and stop believing Apple actually cares about you. Cheering for a corporation to control what you can and can't install on your phone is gross.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Why are you dreading it? It's not like Facebook can force you to sideload apps on your phone. If you don't want sideloaded apps, don't sideload them... The amount of people that try to make choice and freedom seem dystopian amazes me. Oh, no, others have a choice I disagree with! The end is nigh!
a_vanderbilt 4y ago
They could allow side loaded apps with the same notarization requirements as Mac apps. This could prevent the proliferation of outright malware. Even side loaded apps are still subject to the iOS app sandbox. The permissions APIs could still be enforced too. Done correctly, this could be like current side loading but without the need for a developer certificate to make apps last more than 7 days.
kyriakos 4y ago
Apple (and Google) blocks all sorts of apps from their stores that even though legal in nature are not allowed for some arbitrary reason that helps their bottomline. E.g. things like gambling, crypto, adult etc are all blocked. On Android you have the choice to side load them on iOS you can't. For this reason alone allowing sideloading will be a generally good thing. For the average user there will be zero impact and for the power users who wants to still to Apple's guidelines no one is forcing them to install anything they don't want to. If its any similar to Android it will take quite a few clicks to allow the installation which deters the average user from installing unwanted stuff.
- rched 4y ago
  How does blocking gambling, crypto, and adult content help their bottom line? Seems to me like these would be a lucrative source of income if they allowed them on the store. The risk to the average user is that an app they want is removed from the App Store and only available via sideloaidng.
  - kyriakos 4y ago
    Adult and Gambling have different compliance requirements with banks and payment processors, some outright don't allow dealing with these types of content/marketplaces (have a look at Stripe's T&C as an example). Apple and Google would rather not get into these markets than dealing with the legal complexities, this is the reason they are blocked. If they were doing it for the good of the users they would have just blocked them for underage users.
    - rched 4y ago
      > Apple and Google would rather not get into these markets than dealing with the legal complexities, this is the reason they are blocked I find this claim pretty suspect. What are you basing this on? I'm sure the extra income would be vastly more than the cost of dealing with legal complexities.
      - 4y ago
wkat4242 4y ago
They're got going to have such mainstream apps only available by sideloading. Not enough people do it. See how few people actually use this on Android. It's way too complex and scary for Joe Soap and Facebook won't want to lose all of them. The only big player I can imagine doing this is TikTok if they really get banned, they'll still lose a ton of users though. It's a great thing for the ecosystem because at least those who want to sideload can do it.
kaba0 4y ago
You do realize that the sandbox won’t seize to exist, right? Apple does jackshit at censoring the App Store, they run some routine checks on the code and disallow upload if it has “porn” in the title, the real security is the sandbox.
yunohn 4y ago
> privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy Currently and historically, Facebook’s apps have been provided purely through the App Store and have been following Apple’s privacy guidelines. Surely then, you can’t criticise their approach to privacy? After all, Apple has always approved their apps.
Eric_WVGG 4y ago
Has everyone forgotten that bit where Facebook sent representatives out to college campuses and paid students twenty bucks to install their VPN app (distributed via Apple's beta or testflight or whatever)? Apps like Instagram are popular enough that, if Meta wants to move them to their own app store (possibly incentivized via exclusive new features), people _will_ follow. And the VPN thing shows that there's no depths to the level of trickery and and violation of privacy that they will indulge in.
- Aachen 4y ago
  You're phrasing that as though paid market research is on the order of living through war. If we don't all remember that continuously in the context of how dangerous app installs are, it might not be warranted. I kinda like being able to install open source software without agreeing to anyone's terms of service. I'm typing this from an open source browser going through an open source firewall that blocks trackers which both came from an app store that I contributed to, for example. That's a lot more benefit than letting a bigcorp from another continent with a very different culture decide the rules about everything you can do with every unit sold. There are paths where you can prohibit businesses you deem evil from paying people to study their lives that don't involve letting your device's content rules be set by an undemocratic and profit-oriented company.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps. Honestly, given things like this ... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/montana-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-tiktok-in-the-state/ar-AA19Yepp https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/montana-lawmakers-vo... I think Apple may not have a choice. This is a move that will leave Apple free (or freer) of liability in various situations. For example, Apple is no longer liable if you sideload an app that is outlawed by your locality, and Apple removing apps from the App Store for violating App Store TOS can no longer be as strongly framed in a censorship debate. I'm looking forward to it because quite a few apps that feature adult content can exist on iOS now and not have to be clunky web apps.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  > The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps. Apple phrased that as peculiarly as they did for several reasons. "Ask App Not To Track" is not "Force App Not To Track", it relies a lot on self-disclosure from apps and some discovery from App Store testing cycles and apps already currently lie about it and things are missed in App Store certification. There's less reason for self-disclosure by sideloaded apps and no certification process to spot-check such self-disclosures even if a sideloaded app provided them. "Ask App Not To Track" does feel like a vulnerable tool if sideloading is allowed and certain major apps create pressure to encourage average users to sideload some common apps. Whether or not you are looking forward to capabilities that sideloading would grant, it is fair to lament the possible loss of how good "Ask App Not To Track" has been so far and assume it will get worse in a sideloading world.
hparadiz 4y ago
Why do you hate freedom?
015a 4y ago
I don't see a reality where companies like Facebook or Snapchat start distributing their applications outside the App Store. Maybe we see something where e.g. Facebook tries to spin up their own App Store, for them and anyone else who wants to join, but I would bet every dollar I have that this would simply be a failed venture. Because ultimately most people think, intentionally or not, like you do: Apps come from the App Store. Leaving would be suicide. The company to watch is Epic Games. If they have the opportunity to bring a new gaming-focused App Store to iOS, to get Fortnite and other games back on the platform: I think they'll take it, and its possible it will do rather well. Giving game devs a distribution channel with a far lower cut of revenue is tempting, and may open the door to higher quality games on mobile. That could pivot to companies like Facebook distributing Instagram through something like the EGS for iOS; but again, I wouldn't bet on it. Three industries will be massively benefited by this change: Gaming, Gambling, and Porn.
- M3L0NM4N 4y ago
  Gaming, Gambling, and Porn also happen to be my 3 larges sources of dopamine.
bonestamp2 4y ago
I'm less worried about the large companies than the scammers. If we look at Android, the big name apps will stay in the OEM app store and the scammers will trick the young and old into installing their janky app from an untrusted source. Hopefully Apple will have a setting in parental controls that prevents side loading.
simion314 4y ago
No such thing really happened on Android. Facebook is still there. But the opposite happened , apps were pushed out from the Store and if you are using iOS you are screwed but on Android you could decide to take the risk and side load the app from the official website. I just had to do this, I installed solar panels and they are made by Huawei, thx to USA-China wars , Huawei apps are no longer in google Play and Huawei phones do not contain Google Play support anymore (or last time I checked)
webmobdev 4y ago
> I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. If Apple did just that, it would have been ok. But they didn't stop at that - they decided to do the very same thing that Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft etc. - after partially preventing their competitors from getting hand on some data they started to deliberately invade our privacy and collect as much of our personal data as they can to mine it. They self-appointed and forced themselves to be our conservatorship ( https://medium.com/@tonytyre9/what-is-conservatorship-legal-definition-of-conservatorship-687131f35d54 https://medium.com/@tonytyre9/what-is-conservatorship-legal-... ) because we have all been judged too stupid to manage it ourself. And like any abusive conservatorship they also exploit us.
gerash 4y ago
This reminds me of the "protections" real estate agents provide by taking a "meager" 5% commission on a home sale. Right now it seems practically impossible to sell a house without the involvement of an agency. I wish we could get rid of these overpaid middle men for filling out a bunch of forms and taking zero risk. I feel what Apple is doing is taking 30% of what you pay to e.g. Spotify as a middle man because they made the device and can dictate whatever terms they please. How are people ok with this is beyond me.
WheatMillington 4y ago
You know it's optional, right? No one is forcing you to do anything.
pie_flavor 4y ago
You can tell by how it hasn't happened on Android once in its fifteen-year lifespan.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zackees 4y ago
[dead]
danShumway 4y ago
> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. Just as a general reminder, I heavily recommend that you not install Facebook on your phone even if you have an iPhone. There are good things Apple is doing with enforcing privacy controls, the controls aren't useless, but there are still loopholes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-yea... To provide a counter silver-lining to the concerns here, I'm hoping that if iOS gets sideloading that maybe apps like NewPipe could start becoming more commonly available for iOS users. Right now, iOS is sort of stuck in this middle ground where Apple does legitimately do some excellent work reducing the privileges of apps, but also... you still have to use those apps if you want access to the services. It would be good to see more unofficial clients for some of these services like NewPipe or Twire get better support like they have on Android. I'm not knocking Apple here, they're trying to hit a middle ground between accessibility and privacy, but I don't want people thinking that the iOS version of Facebook isn't still tracking them. It's (hopefully) tracking less than it would on Android, but it's still tracking.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
clcaev 4y ago
In response to Facebook or WhatsApp requiring side-loading, one might remark: > "Just don't use services provided by Meta" There are insurmountable network effects. For example, I must keep WhatsApp on my phone if I want to know when child's swim practice is moved/canceled/etc. There is only one swim team in the area. Getting other parents to use Signal ain't happening unless the head coach requires it. The head coach isn't moving to Signal unless parents already use it. Moreover, I'm a coach, so I have more say/power over this than typical. Of course, I could always force my kid to find another after school activity... or, I can buy an iPhone. At least with an iPhone I can deny Meta access to my Contacts, which it incessantly requests. This is just one concrete example. There are plenty of organizations land-locked to Facebook for the same reasons; dropping Facebook is tantamount to collapsing the community they built. For me, checking the monopoly power of Meta by using an iPhone is the least worst option. At least Apple has interests that are partially aligned with mine... as they want me to buy my next mobile device from them.
crossroadsguy 4y ago
Apple is only trying to open up how the apps can be distributed to the phone. It’s not removing restrictions around how an app tuns on the phone. From what I guess (reading around so far) these apps might as well have it tougher because the sandbox for these could be more restrictive. However there could be things like — e.g. TrueCaller might refuse to work without contact permission and call log etc (just like on Android; on iOS it works just fine) but when side-loaded these could demand all those permissions to run. Well that is something we may have to see how such changes pan out.
morbicer 4y ago
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin

throw10920 4y ago

What? The most meaningful privacy controls are enforced at the OS layer as technical controls. The thing that prevents Facebook from accessing all your contacts is the design of iOS, not the App Store. Allowing sideloading of apps does nothing to weaken the technical features meant to enable privacy and security that are already in place. In fact, you shouldn't have been relying on the App Store in the first place, as malware/spyware can and does slip through their very human and very fallible approval process. This talking point is so common in every thread about sideloading Apple devices that I can't determine whether it's propaganda or ignorance.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have my government defending my (and most citizen's) interests (with laws such as GDPR) rather than a private company's rules which, as evidenced by this article's existence, have pretty big "collateral damage".

overthrow 4y ago

You're dreading giving other people the freedom to make one choice, and yourself the freedom to make a different choice (yours being the default option from the factory btw), and everyone gets the privacy/control tradeoff they want?

Spivak 4y ago
Software isn't fungible and right now today you have the ability to install facebook with app store restrictions on iOS and without on Android. If FB pulls from the app store that choice is taken away.
- 1over137 4y ago
  >today you have the ability to install facebook with app store restrictions on iOS and without on Android You have a third choice: don't install facebook at all.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    You see how that's worse right? Either give up your privacy or don't use FB. On iOS you can have both.
    - dvngnt_ 4y ago
      you have zero privacy on Facebook.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      > On iOS you can have both. No, you can't. You can have some protections against the most egregious overreaches, but if you're concerned about privacy you shouldn't be on Facebook, ever, on any platform. Aside from that, there's no way Facebook will remove themselves from the app store. Apple isn't going to make sideloading easy enough for the average Facebook user.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        No, you can't. And if you could, the protections aren't that good. And if they were, it's not going to happen anyway. And if it does, that's Apple's fault for making it too easy. And even so, you deserve it anyway for using Facebook. I don't think is the argument you think it is. It's basically "nuh-uh" while agreeing with all the arguments in favor no sideloading along the way. Facebook has 2.95 billion MAUs and 73% of the entire US population actively use it, 93% of businesses are on it -- "just don't use Facebook" is a woefully out of touch take. And this is only Facebook and doesn't include IG and WhatsApp. Meta is 4/4 of the most downloaded apps.
bena 4y ago
I think you're missing something. Meta makes the Facebook app. Currently, the only way to get the Facebook app on iOS is through Apple's App Store. Which means Meta has to follow all of Apple's guidelines. Once sideloading is allowed, Meta can make a version of their app that does not follow Apple's guidelines. Now, they can maintain two apps, but last time I checked, the cost of maintaining one app was lower than the cost of maintaining two. Eventually, the App Store version will no longer work with Facebook's API. Or the iOS version, or a third thing. There will only be the sideloaded option. I don't have the freedom to choose the version of the app I want. And now I can't actually trust any of the apps out there because none of them are required to follow any of Apple's guidelines.
- cageface 4y ago
  This hasn’t happened on Android where side loading and alternative app stores have been available for years. Why would iOS be different?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Because Google doesn't give a fuck about what apps pull off until there's media outrage. It took them years to implement basic privacy features.
  - j16sdiz 4y ago
    Because play store have less rules? FB can steal all your photo and play store couldn't care less.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Facebook hasn't recently blamed the Play Store rules for their losing a shitload of money. They have so-blamed iOS App Store rules. Basically, they have far less incentive to try to push a side-loaded version of their app, or to try to create an alternative app store, on Android.
- twelve40 4y ago
  > There will only be the sideloaded option how did you come to that conclusion? certainly not true in the android world. I don't have the stats on prevalence of sideloadong vs. play, but all official apps are alive and well in play after decades of being able to sideload
mattrighetti 4y ago
> You're dreading giving other people the freedom to make one choice Users made this choice when they bought an Apple product in the first place. Everybody knows well in advance that this is the current state of things, that is a well-informed choice by the end user.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  I did not know that side loading was impossible when I choose the ios ecosystem. I mainly chose it because the green texts made communicating difficult. Now I'm locked in.

Silhouette 4y ago

This seems like the wrong target. A better solution might be to break the monopoly control that platform operators like Apple and Google have and impose proper laws and regulations to fight abusive behaviours by app developers (and the platform operators, if necessary). Even if this set of changes is coming out of the EU and the chances of getting good tech regulation any time soon might not be high it's probably still better than having all of the safeguards for millions of people using a platform depending only on the whims of companies like Apple, whose track record on user-hostile behaviours and issues like privacy has no shortage of concerning events.

webmobdev 4y ago
Exactly. Recently there was a big drama by the US where they summoned TikTok app's management to answer questions publicly in a Congressional hearing. International media were commenting how America is getting ready to ban TikTok because of privacy concerns that allegedly even allowed spying. None of the major media in the USA even suggested that a strong data privacy act, and a general privacy regulation, could fix this for every app and be a better long-term solution.

arlcode 4y ago

I understand your concern and share some of them. However the solution to overreaching unaccountable private cooperations cannot be to hand all the power to another private unaccountable company. Apple is venturing into advertising and that'll tempt them to weaken privacy protections sooner or later. Additionally their app store rules went far beyond enforcing security and privacy. They gave themselves an advantage and removed competitors for commercial reasons. Given that the mobile market is pretty much a duopoly in Europe there were two (political) realistic alternatives: - Regulate tightly what apple/google are allowed to do with their stores (e.g. like a common carrier) - force them to give customers a choice by allowing side loading. The elected EU legislative took some points from both approaches AFTER the free market failed to implement a meaningful competition for central app stores.

legutierr 4y ago
> Apple is venturing into advertising and that'll tempt them to weaken privacy protections sooner or later. I hope they never become this short-sighted. I buy Apple primarily because I believe that they protect my privacy—or at least that they do a better job of it than everyone else.
- toxik 4y ago
  The problem is that once the apple turns sour, and it will, you’ll turn around to see that all the fruit is spoiled. Some moldy, some maggot-ridden, but none made for you.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  The thing is, yes Meta/Google did make mistakes in the past and malicious players were able to gather individual information from them. But the current business of Meta/Google Ads is actually based on protecting your private information and curating it into anonymous Personas. They protect your privacy for the very same reason as Apple: To be the sole gatekeeper for effectively reaching you with Ads. There also won't be any "weakened privacy protections". The goal of Meta/Google/Apple is to reach maximum precision for those Personas they create from their users, and protect the underlying data for competitive advantage. Personas are legally not personal data, they are abstractions. Advertising to you via a cluster with other people who recently purchased a new car is not a legal violation of privacy. This is how Meta/Google advertising works and how Apple Ads works as well, their T&C already state this clearly ("your information will be used to show ads relevant to you").

nerdjon 4y ago

I agree with you and I hate that you are being downvoted. People love to say this is about choice for the consumer but it really is not going to be. My fear is that the choice will be taken away from my by companies that are no longer able to engage in shady behavior on iOS. Things like trying to collect all my data, forcing me into their billing system, shady subscriptions (like how I can cancel or reminders of it being about to charge). The Facebooks, TikTok, etc know that many of their users are addicted to their platform and it would not be a stretch for them to push users to download the app through a third party service. I could even see them going so far as to not be on the official store because they know they have the name recognition. Facebook could even make their own store for other apps that don't want to respect my privacy. This is a huge concern of mine that this could be a trend that starts small but overtime I no longer have the choice to avoid these alternate stores or to side load to be able to continue to get the full use out of my phone. Choice is great, but this is giving the choice to developers not consumers. This doesn't mean that Apple's solution is perfect, but just opening up the flood gates is not the solution either. If you really want to side load get an Android phone.

smoldesu 4y ago
> but overtime I no longer have the choice to avoid these alternate stores or to side load Maybe Apple should update the terms of the App Store to be more competitive/attractive then.
- nerdjon 4y ago
  Sure they could lower the percent from 30% but that doesn't address the privacy and shady practices that the free apps engage in. Apple should in no way loosen those terms.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Of course not! They have an image to uphold, as the stalwart tinfoil knights of user privacy. However they respond is up to them, their forced competition with the free market is inevitable though.

Karunamon 4y ago

App Store review was not stopping evil/scam apps, though. I would expect the system privacy APIs to clamp down on the worst of it (even Facebook can't violate your privacy if it can't identify your device, or access its contents or location). Normal users don't sideload on Android. Even the (objectively easy) steps for enabling it there are too much for the average user. Why do you think this would be any different?

m-p-3 4y ago

I don't think Apple will diminish their control on the App Store requirement, it's too much of a selling point to them. In fact I hope they keep their requirements the same, and I'm quite happy to see sideloading becoming a thing. More choice is nice. I'd be so happy to see F-Droid venturing on the iOS side, and distribute open-source apps you can trust that would otherwise not be available on the App Store (emulators, third-party YouTube clients, an actual Mozilla Firefox browser using its own rendering engine, etc).

Loic 4y ago
The only reason I am using an Android phone and not an iOS one is because of F-Droid to install the open-source app I like and need. I would definitely switch to iOS if I could have this freedom there. I hate that with Android I trust that Google will at some point succeed with a dark pattern in letting me agree to siphon my data without my real agreement.
jclardy 4y ago
TBH I'm hoping Apple will use this to actually improve the app store's position and security, get rid of all the garbage spam apps, fake clone games and whatnot. But I doubt they will, given they make a ton of money off the scam subscription apps.

Edd314159 4y ago

I agree, and the idea of a sideload-able iOS makes me very uneasy. I like the idea of Apple aligning itself with the user to protect me and, more importantly, my tech-unsavvy friends and family, from scams, data-hoarding apps, and just generally crappy software. I don't mind that they take a portion of revenue in return for providing that platform (30% feels too much, but you can't argue that it should be zero). Unfortunately, in practice, Apple have proven to be entirely incompetent at achieving that protection. The App Store is 90%+ garbage and scams. It's completely unusable for any form of discovery. Even when you know exactly what app you're looking for, you have to wade through copycats, typo squatters, and even paid adverts trying to distract you from your search. Sideloading is full of risks, and I don't love it. But it's at least a little bit of competition to push Apple towards make the App Store useful again.

jamil7 4y ago
> Sideloading is full of risks, and I don't love it. But it's at least a little bit of competition to push Apple towards make the App Store useful again. As someone who develops for the platform, I tend to agree, I'll probably never distribute apps with sideloading, but I think ultimately it's a good thing. I'd also be happy if it attracts more interest and developers to the platform who were previously turned off by the App Store process and Apple Tax. I also build for macOS, which has always allowed sideloading and don't see any major issues with it there.
- michelb 4y ago
  I think the thing with macOS is, is that if sideloading ever became impossible on mac OS, they would instantly lose most, if not all of the major applications, making the platform irrelevant.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Are you worried about piracy or that your app may not be available to all platform users anymore? I bet that immediately after this feature comes countries, mobile providers, etc. will roll out their own app stores and many users will not go with Apple's. Those stores will probably incentivize big apps like Facebook get on them but not regular solo developers. You may have to distribute your app through a dozen of app stores and comply with all their differing regulations and review processes instead of one, or pass on user share... (Or more likely you'll need to pay up some app store distribution middleman who will capitalize on the situation)

sneak 4y ago

That's because you don't live in China where Apple is forced by the state to remove VPN apps (that bypass government censorship) from the App Store.

sergiotapia 4y ago

None of this affects you whatsoever. Just don't use a sideloaded apps. I don't see why this would bother you in any way. Personally if Apple finally allows me to install whatever I want on my phones then I may return to their phones. Until then, I will use Android since I can download and install any .apk I want on my device.

mort96 4y ago
> None of this affects you whatsoever. Just don't use a sideloaded apps. I don't see why this would bother you in any way. That's unfortunately wrong. Say you use WhatsApp to keep in touch with your friends. Say Facebook pulls WhatsApp from the app store and makes it only available via side-loading. What do you do? You have to decide between trying to move everyone you know off of WhatsApp, or you side-load.
- sergiotapia 4y ago
  Why are you conjuring up this unprecedented hypothetical?
  - mort96 4y ago
    Because it doesn't seem implausible? Apple allowing side-loading is unprecedented, we can't say from experience how companies will respond to the ability to side-load. The closest analog we have is Android, where side-loading is permitted. Google Play is much more lenient than the App Store, so there's less incentive for companies to make their apps sideload-only than on iOS, yet some companies have already done it. Alternative software stores are also a thing there. I'm also not against side-loading. I think, as the owner of the device, I should be able to put software on it without Apple's permission. My only point here is that there are ways in which people who don't have to may be forced into side-loading software, meaning "just don't side-load if you don't want" is too simplistic.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Say Facebook pulls WhatsApp from the app store and makes it only available via side-loading. Say a meteorite hits the Earth and we all die. In a completely hypothetical scenario there are much worse things that can happen than Facebook voluntarily pulling WhatsApp from the App store, forcing their users to side-load it, gaining nothing on the permissions side of the bargain while at the same time losing a majority of their users or, even more probably, having users stuck on the last version they could install from the store and never update again.

comboy 4y ago

In theory you should be able to run untrusted code and be safe if permissions, sandboxes etc. are organized reasonably. The idea that you can tell if somebody's else code is malicious just by looking at it is flawed anyway and it's been shown many time over. Plus they still can automatically scan binaries of sideloaded apps (maybe that is what this is about, they automated enough)

asddubs 4y ago

the problem is that apple also heavily censors security unrelated things. e.g. art platforms and emulators, just to name two prominent examples.

jclardy 4y ago

I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? All big players are still in the play store, because the average user of those services doesn't want to be bothered going to a website, clicking scary looking buttons to enable third party installs, then manually update their own installed apps. Basically the risk would be someone like TikTok dropping out of the store, but I find that unlikely. Maybe at the best they will have an "unrestricted" version with bonus features outside the app store. Visibility for indie apps is basically zero on the big platforms, but for the large players, being in the app store is actually important, at least for now, as users are used to going to the app store to search for software, and not just typing something into google. The other thing is, these apps will still be sandboxed. Being available outside the store just means they can accept their own payments, they aren't going to have full system access to photos/contacts/files/etc. without explicit user permission, same as an app available via the app store.

pjc50 4y ago
Possibly this is preparation for TikTok being forced out of the store by the US government? But they'd still like to offer it, to avoid losing business to Android if that becomes the only platform with TikTok.
- ben_w 4y ago
  It would be deliciously ironic if one hand of the US government forces Apple to allow side-loading while another other forces it to stop distributing apps. I appreciate it's not just the US in either case, but the irony is still delicious. (No way I'm allowing side loaded apps on my main phone though; would rather have a secondary phone for them if I'm forced to install them for whatever reason).
yamtaddle 4y ago
> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? 1) Android hasn't made things as hard for malware vendors as Apple has, and 2) Android's not as lucrative a market as iOS Those together mean incentives are significantly different, so we might not see the same behavior on iOS as we have on Android, from companies that are upset about not being able to to distribute as-effective malware as they'd prefer. Like Facebook.

josephcsible 4y ago

Why is everyone so worried that Facebook, etc. will pull out of the App Store and require sideloading on iOS just because it'll be possible, when they haven't pulled out of the Play Store or required sideloading on Android where that's already been possible all along?

onli 4y ago
It's a talking point. I'm sorry that it is negative and it might not fair to the parent commenter, but it's obvious bs. It is a propaganda point that was placed somehow into the discussion and gets repeated again and again. In no world does it make any sense that an app like FB would not try to be in every big store, but here we are, having that "concern" repeated under every Apple sideloading discussion. Propaganda is fucking awesome in how effective it can be. And equally dangerous.
- op00to 4y ago
  The difference between the Play store and the Apple App store is that the Play store doesn't even pretend to protect against apps that do underhanded, unexpected, and intrusive things. There are numerous stories of iOS apps being pulled out of the store for using private APIs to bypass this or that protection.
  - onli 4y ago
    That's not true. The Play store absolutely promises such protection, and Google adds more protection measures every year. The Android system even warns you when you install apps from other sources. Also see the related https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en.
    - op00to 4y ago
      Running a "safety check" is not the same thing as the (admittedly opaque) Apple App Store review process. Based on the challenges developers have had with Apple getting certain apps approved, the Apple App Store review process is significantly more involved than Google's.

andsoitis 4y ago

> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Apple is a saint?

r053bud 4y ago
From reading through this thread, it sounds like most people think they are
- webmobdev 4y ago
  That's why repetitive advertising is so effective - it starts to make you doubt reality.
- lenkite 4y ago
  Apple's reality distortion field never really faded. Any Action taken by Apple Is Absolutely Righteous. Even if the very same action taken by another company would make them Absolutely Evil. The cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.

lbotos 4y ago

To support sideloading do they have to "Relax control" though? I think the fear is "sideloaded apps can do bad things" and my answer is make the OS better and more clearly manage bad things? What are the bad things we imagine a sideloaded app could do? Like it still has to follow the platform APIs right? It would have to ask for perms? Sure, it could have egregious tracking or spam, or hostile ads, but app store apps already have this?? I'm genuinely asking: What risk am I missing?

willis936 4y ago
The risk of big companies like Meta requiring users to sideload in order to use their service. To me the answer is obvious: don't use services provided by Meta. They can choose to race to the bottom all they want. I welcome the freedom to use my phone the way I want to. If bad actors choose to misbehave don't blame the medium they're misbehaving on. This line of thinking is similar to negotiating with terrorists.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

the_common_man 4y ago

Same. I wish all laptops and all electronics gadgets are totally locked down and only cozintrollable by the manufacturer. Like Lenovo laptop, should only have apps from Lenovo store. I would also say we should have only one editor. I don't see point of many. Like you, i am filled with dread about multiple choices! Edit: just thought of an idea. Maybe each ISP can provide a store and we can only install from those into our devices. After all, we trust ISP already

pwinnski 4y ago

Think about it this way: any app that refuses to go through Apple's store is telling you that you're not a customer they want. If Facebook makes that choice, it's a great time to give up Facebook!

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules I can't honestly understand this argument. Are you afraid of yourself? If you don't trust Facebook, don't install their app. App store or not, nothing changes, what the app is allowed to do is the exact same thing, they're asking for the exact same permissions, that you can grant or not on a per app/per permission basis. End of the story. But if I want to install an app that I completely trust, because I know the developer or I have developed it myself, I can't install it now.

bakugo 4y ago

The extent to which Apple has hammered the idea that any sort of freedom is unconditionally dangerous and undesirable into its users' heads is legitimately impressive.

WaitWhatHuh 4y ago

>I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. How about you spend 10 minutes looking at what Apple is actually doing and realize they are just as if not more "privacy hostile" as Facebook/Google/etc. They've been on a hiring spree since they announced their "privacy" update in 2020 to build out their own Ad Tech/DSP/Self Service Ad Platform. Yeah - Apple was pulling a monopolistic move and kneecapping their competition for profits sake. They realized "Hey, we can kneecap these guys and in the near future profit billions like they did with our own ad network". How is this good for privacy?

brookst 4y ago
> they are just as if not more "privacy hostile" as Facebook/Google/etc You're going to have to back that up. Apple is degrading their privacy value prop for sure, but show me their Cambridge Analytica or their "Incognito mode" that still ties web activity back to user identity. > How is this good for privacy? That's a straw man. It is possible to believe that 1) Apple is curbing the worst excesses of abusers like Facebook, AND ALSO 2) Apple is making some mistakes that weaken their own privacy story. > Apple was pulling a monopolistic move and kneecapping their competition for profits sake. This is a recurring theme on HN and I find it so strange. Are we really supposed to form opinions on what we imagine faceless committees motives are, rather than the actual corporate actions? I honestly don't care why Facebook does the things they do. My opinion would not change if it turned out it was from the most noble and altruistic motives. Just like I'll judge Apple for what they do. I don't think it's fruitful to argue about whether individual people are a "good person" or "bad person", and it's even less meaningful for giant multinationals.
- yunwal 4y ago
  > This is a recurring theme on HN and I find it so strange. Are we really supposed to form opinions on what we imagine faceless committees motives are, rather than the actual corporate actions? I’m unsure which side I fall on in this argument, since Apple has had an incredible run of customer-friendly decisions IMO (at least when compared to their competitors, and other near-monopolies). However, it’s important to learn from history too. Amazon was once one of the most revered brands in the world. They successfully priced out local shops and online retailers by stocking everything, having reliable and fast shipping, and good customer service. But now look at them. Fake products and reviews everywhere, 2 day shipping is no longer a thing, they’re purposefully making returns more of a hassle, and people outside of major metropolitan areas no longer have other options for many things. Companies with serious lock-in are bound to screw you eventually. Strong culture and product decisions can only last for so long until some minmaxer with no product vision or care for brand reputation starts calling the shots.

Rhedox 4y ago

It's the OS that enforces privacy and security, not the App Store. They won't be able to do much more than they can now. Besides, they'll stay on the App Store just like they are still on the Google Play Store on Android where side loading has been possible since version 1.0.

bastardoperator 4y ago

They're never going to which is why you just need to delete it and never look back. You're the product. As long as you keep coming back, they win.

jron 4y ago

Stop installing "evil apps" and stop believing Apple actually cares about you. Cheering for a corporation to control what you can and can't install on your phone is gross.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Why are you dreading it? It's not like Facebook can force you to sideload apps on your phone. If you don't want sideloaded apps, don't sideload them... The amount of people that try to make choice and freedom seem dystopian amazes me. Oh, no, others have a choice I disagree with! The end is nigh!

a_vanderbilt 4y ago

They could allow side loaded apps with the same notarization requirements as Mac apps. This could prevent the proliferation of outright malware. Even side loaded apps are still subject to the iOS app sandbox. The permissions APIs could still be enforced too. Done correctly, this could be like current side loading but without the need for a developer certificate to make apps last more than 7 days.

kyriakos 4y ago

Apple (and Google) blocks all sorts of apps from their stores that even though legal in nature are not allowed for some arbitrary reason that helps their bottomline. E.g. things like gambling, crypto, adult etc are all blocked. On Android you have the choice to side load them on iOS you can't. For this reason alone allowing sideloading will be a generally good thing. For the average user there will be zero impact and for the power users who wants to still to Apple's guidelines no one is forcing them to install anything they don't want to. If its any similar to Android it will take quite a few clicks to allow the installation which deters the average user from installing unwanted stuff.

rched 4y ago
How does blocking gambling, crypto, and adult content help their bottom line? Seems to me like these would be a lucrative source of income if they allowed them on the store. The risk to the average user is that an app they want is removed from the App Store and only available via sideloaidng.
- kyriakos 4y ago
  Adult and Gambling have different compliance requirements with banks and payment processors, some outright don't allow dealing with these types of content/marketplaces (have a look at Stripe's T&C as an example). Apple and Google would rather not get into these markets than dealing with the legal complexities, this is the reason they are blocked. If they were doing it for the good of the users they would have just blocked them for underage users.
  - rched 4y ago
    > Apple and Google would rather not get into these markets than dealing with the legal complexities, this is the reason they are blocked I find this claim pretty suspect. What are you basing this on? I'm sure the extra income would be vastly more than the cost of dealing with legal complexities.
    - 4y ago

wkat4242 4y ago

They're got going to have such mainstream apps only available by sideloading. Not enough people do it. See how few people actually use this on Android. It's way too complex and scary for Joe Soap and Facebook won't want to lose all of them. The only big player I can imagine doing this is TikTok if they really get banned, they'll still lose a ton of users though. It's a great thing for the ecosystem because at least those who want to sideload can do it.

kaba0 4y ago

You do realize that the sandbox won’t seize to exist, right? Apple does jackshit at censoring the App Store, they run some routine checks on the code and disallow upload if it has “porn” in the title, the real security is the sandbox.

yunohn 4y ago

> privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy Currently and historically, Facebook’s apps have been provided purely through the App Store and have been following Apple’s privacy guidelines. Surely then, you can’t criticise their approach to privacy? After all, Apple has always approved their apps.

Eric_WVGG 4y ago

Has everyone forgotten that bit where Facebook sent representatives out to college campuses and paid students twenty bucks to install their VPN app (distributed via Apple's beta or testflight or whatever)? Apps like Instagram are popular enough that, if Meta wants to move them to their own app store (possibly incentivized via exclusive new features), people _will_ follow. And the VPN thing shows that there's no depths to the level of trickery and and violation of privacy that they will indulge in.

Aachen 4y ago
You're phrasing that as though paid market research is on the order of living through war. If we don't all remember that continuously in the context of how dangerous app installs are, it might not be warranted. I kinda like being able to install open source software without agreeing to anyone's terms of service. I'm typing this from an open source browser going through an open source firewall that blocks trackers which both came from an app store that I contributed to, for example. That's a lot more benefit than letting a bigcorp from another continent with a very different culture decide the rules about everything you can do with every unit sold. There are paths where you can prohibit businesses you deem evil from paying people to study their lives that don't involve letting your device's content rules be set by an undemocratic and profit-oriented company.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps. Honestly, given things like this ... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/montana-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-tiktok-in-the-state/ar-AA19Yepp https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/montana-lawmakers-vo... I think Apple may not have a choice. This is a move that will leave Apple free (or freer) of liability in various situations. For example, Apple is no longer liable if you sideload an app that is outlawed by your locality, and Apple removing apps from the App Store for violating App Store TOS can no longer be as strongly framed in a censorship debate. I'm looking forward to it because quite a few apps that feature adult content can exist on iOS now and not have to be clunky web apps.

WorldMaker 4y ago
> The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps. Apple phrased that as peculiarly as they did for several reasons. "Ask App Not To Track" is not "Force App Not To Track", it relies a lot on self-disclosure from apps and some discovery from App Store testing cycles and apps already currently lie about it and things are missed in App Store certification. There's less reason for self-disclosure by sideloaded apps and no certification process to spot-check such self-disclosures even if a sideloaded app provided them. "Ask App Not To Track" does feel like a vulnerable tool if sideloading is allowed and certain major apps create pressure to encourage average users to sideload some common apps. Whether or not you are looking forward to capabilities that sideloading would grant, it is fair to lament the possible loss of how good "Ask App Not To Track" has been so far and assume it will get worse in a sideloading world.

hparadiz 4y ago

Why do you hate freedom?

015a 4y ago

I don't see a reality where companies like Facebook or Snapchat start distributing their applications outside the App Store. Maybe we see something where e.g. Facebook tries to spin up their own App Store, for them and anyone else who wants to join, but I would bet every dollar I have that this would simply be a failed venture. Because ultimately most people think, intentionally or not, like you do: Apps come from the App Store. Leaving would be suicide. The company to watch is Epic Games. If they have the opportunity to bring a new gaming-focused App Store to iOS, to get Fortnite and other games back on the platform: I think they'll take it, and its possible it will do rather well. Giving game devs a distribution channel with a far lower cut of revenue is tempting, and may open the door to higher quality games on mobile. That could pivot to companies like Facebook distributing Instagram through something like the EGS for iOS; but again, I wouldn't bet on it. Three industries will be massively benefited by this change: Gaming, Gambling, and Porn.

M3L0NM4N 4y ago
Gaming, Gambling, and Porn also happen to be my 3 larges sources of dopamine.

bonestamp2 4y ago

I'm less worried about the large companies than the scammers. If we look at Android, the big name apps will stay in the OEM app store and the scammers will trick the young and old into installing their janky app from an untrusted source. Hopefully Apple will have a setting in parental controls that prevents side loading.

simion314 4y ago

No such thing really happened on Android. Facebook is still there. But the opposite happened , apps were pushed out from the Store and if you are using iOS you are screwed but on Android you could decide to take the risk and side load the app from the official website. I just had to do this, I installed solar panels and they are made by Huawei, thx to USA-China wars , Huawei apps are no longer in google Play and Huawei phones do not contain Google Play support anymore (or last time I checked)

webmobdev 4y ago

> I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. If Apple did just that, it would have been ok. But they didn't stop at that - they decided to do the very same thing that Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft etc. - after partially preventing their competitors from getting hand on some data they started to deliberately invade our privacy and collect as much of our personal data as they can to mine it. They self-appointed and forced themselves to be our conservatorship ( https://medium.com/@tonytyre9/what-is-conservatorship-legal-definition-of-conservatorship-687131f35d54 https://medium.com/@tonytyre9/what-is-conservatorship-legal-... ) because we have all been judged too stupid to manage it ourself. And like any abusive conservatorship they also exploit us.

gerash 4y ago

This reminds me of the "protections" real estate agents provide by taking a "meager" 5% commission on a home sale. Right now it seems practically impossible to sell a house without the involvement of an agency. I wish we could get rid of these overpaid middle men for filling out a bunch of forms and taking zero risk. I feel what Apple is doing is taking 30% of what you pay to e.g. Spotify as a middle man because they made the device and can dictate whatever terms they please. How are people ok with this is beyond me.

WheatMillington 4y ago

You know it's optional, right? No one is forcing you to do anything.

pie_flavor 4y ago

You can tell by how it hasn't happened on Android once in its fifteen-year lifespan.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

zackees 4y ago

[dead]

danShumway 4y ago

> I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. Just as a general reminder, I heavily recommend that you not install Facebook on your phone even if you have an iPhone. There are good things Apple is doing with enforcing privacy controls, the controls aren't useless, but there are still loopholes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-yea... To provide a counter silver-lining to the concerns here, I'm hoping that if iOS gets sideloading that maybe apps like NewPipe could start becoming more commonly available for iOS users. Right now, iOS is sort of stuck in this middle ground where Apple does legitimately do some excellent work reducing the privileges of apps, but also... you still have to use those apps if you want access to the services. It would be good to see more unofficial clients for some of these services like NewPipe or Twire get better support like they have on Android. I'm not knocking Apple here, they're trying to hit a middle ground between accessibility and privacy, but I don't want people thinking that the iOS version of Facebook isn't still tracking them. It's (hopefully) tracking less than it would on Android, but it's still tracking.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

clcaev 4y ago

In response to Facebook or WhatsApp requiring side-loading, one might remark: > "Just don't use services provided by Meta" There are insurmountable network effects. For example, I must keep WhatsApp on my phone if I want to know when child's swim practice is moved/canceled/etc. There is only one swim team in the area. Getting other parents to use Signal ain't happening unless the head coach requires it. The head coach isn't moving to Signal unless parents already use it. Moreover, I'm a coach, so I have more say/power over this than typical. Of course, I could always force my kid to find another after school activity... or, I can buy an iPhone. At least with an iPhone I can deny Meta access to my Contacts, which it incessantly requests. This is just one concrete example. There are plenty of organizations land-locked to Facebook for the same reasons; dropping Facebook is tantamount to collapsing the community they built. For me, checking the monopoly power of Meta by using an iPhone is the least worst option. At least Apple has interests that are partially aligned with mine... as they want me to buy my next mobile device from them.

crossroadsguy 4y ago

Apple is only trying to open up how the apps can be distributed to the phone. It’s not removing restrictions around how an app tuns on the phone. From what I guess (reading around so far) these apps might as well have it tougher because the sandbox for these could be more restrictive. However there could be things like — e.g. TrueCaller might refuse to work without contact permission and call log etc (just like on Android; on iOS it works just fine) but when side-loaded these could demand all those permissions to run. Well that is something we may have to see how such changes pan out.

morbicer 4y ago

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin