10 ms·

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 w

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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Put another way,Apple and iOS is becoming more like Google and Android. My privacy isn't happy about this.
- hoffs 3y ago
  Citation needed
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    For the money part, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ iOS is 15% of the mobile device market but generates 67% of the app revenue.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      Yeah, I suppose this stuff isn't common-knowledge outside the commercial mobile development space. There are complaints in this very thread about how shit the software selection is on the Play Store compared with iOS. This is why. Companies that have to, for whatever reason, pick only one platform to start on, usually pick iOS. If they add on Android later, they expect it not to make as much money as the iOS app, so may half-ass the port. In some cases, good apps that have enough revenue to keep them alive on iOS, may judge that an Android port won't be worth the added cost (especially smaller apps—think, one or two developer sorts of operations, they may run the numbers and project only a 20% revenue boost from adding an Android port, which may not be enough to cover the dev, testing, administrative, and support time the platform would require). There's a perception that, basically, Android users won't buy apps (which is... kinda true) and that's why the iOS version of an app might be ad-free and paid, while Android only gets an ad-supported variant—the vendor doesn't think creating and supporting a paid option on Android is worth the extra overhead.
      - eropple 3y ago
        I used to be a mobile developer, and I literally got death threats for charging $6 on Android. People just paid it on iOS and got on with using the app.
cronix 3y ago
> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? For one, DJI drone software. It's available in the Apple store but you have to sideload it for Android. DJI isn't a small company, and there is quite a large professional market. Edit: meant apple app store, not play store...fixed for clarity
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  Sorry, if it's available in the play store, why do I have to sideload it for Android?
  - cronix 3y ago
    Because Apple forced DJI to comply for their version, but since sideloading is available on Android as an alternative, they basically told Google to go pound sand. Edit: I misspoke in my original, which I fixed
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      I suspect as well the version is Android has features the iOS one does not due to limitation placed on it from the store, Issues they got around by simply removing it from the draconian store.
      - _rs 3y ago
        Is this actually true though?
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        Sure, but those are probably features good for DJI. It's far less obvious it would be features good for end users.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? Where do we see Android devices with apps like Facebook preinstalled, unremovable and granted root permissions? All over the ecosystem.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  Only Apple sells iPhones, so I wouldn’t worry about preinstalled 3rd party apps with root permissions like we see on Android phones.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Only Facebook makes the Facebook app, and I find it extremely easy to imagine a Facebook app that can only be sideloaded, so that Facebook can bypass the restrictions put in place by the App Store. For instance, Apps are currently not allowed to degrade functionality if the user says no to a permissions request (e.g. location tracking).
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      Perhaps, but what I was emphasizing was that on iPhone such apps will likely not come pre-installed; neither by Apple (vs e.g. Samsung) nor by a carrier because I seriously doubt Apple would allow that. Instead, what Apple is doing is finding a new balance that appease those who are attacking the legitimacy of the App Store (and its toll booth) while in practice the vast majority of iPhone users will retain their privacy.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        > Perhaps, but what I was emphasizing was that on iPhone such apps will likely not come pre-installed; neither by Apple (vs e.g. Samsung) nor by a carrier because I seriously doubt Apple would allow that. If Facebook is willing to pay to have their app preinstalled, unremovable, and granted root permissions on Android, why in the world wouldn't they be willing to force users to sideload their app on iOS?
kmlx 3y ago
> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? fraud. we'll see lots and lots of fraud. a new avenue will be open.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Just make it hard to sideload, like the android dev mode. Then your grandma won’t install anything, but power users can actually use their general purpose devices as such.
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    Power users can already sideload anything on iPhone. It's not even hard. I guess the whole talk is about making side-loading easier.
    - _fzslm 3y ago
      what you’re seeing in the iPhone sideloading space is a product of a lot of hard work by many different people over many years. AltServer and the like (what I assume you’re referring to) are the best solutions we have, but come with significant downsides - iOS updates breaking the software, limits on how many apps you can install (last time i checked, you could only install 3), time constraints (need to ”re-sign” apps every week), software constraints (still can’t use JIT or other private APIs without Apple’s blessing), and - relative to using the App Store or Android sideloading - the setup procedure is pretty complicated. on both Macs and PCs, AltServer can be kind of difficult to set up. all of this has prevented a legitimate sideloading scene from truly emerging on the iPhone - which, depending on where you ideologically stand on this, could be considered monopolistic. i think there’s definitely room to make the process a lot easier - even if it’s just for power users.
      - dvzk 3y ago
        When I first looked into this, free Apple developer accounts also could only use limited app entitlements: so no network extensions, VPN profiles, Apple push notifications, or other capabilities. NetworkExtension is basically the only reason I’m interested in iOS development at all, so a paid account was not optional.
brundolf 3y ago
Some things can be sandboxed in software, some things are only socially-enforceable. For example, look at Apple's requirement to list everything an app does with the user's data. It's impossible to enforce that in software and still have functioning apps (trivial example: an app's back-end sells every single request made to it to some third party), but Apple was able to enforce it anyway via App Store rejections
tshaddox 3y ago
It has been several years since I gave Android a try, but my experience was that the Android ecosystem (specifically the Google Play Store in the U.S.) was indeed much worse than iOS with apps distributing malware, destroying battery life and performance with background tasks, sending all your contacts off to their server, using push notifications for spam, etc. (To be clear, these things have also been problems on iOS, and my position continues to be that Apple should be even more restrictive about this stuff).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
soraminazuki 3y ago
We already have an example of what Meta would do with sideloading: trick clueless users into installing highly invasive spyware that inspects every traffic going in and out of your device, even MITM-ing TLS connections. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ They did this by abusing their enterprise certificate. As much as I'd like the ability to sideload apps, abuse by commercial vendors is a very real concern. With a few exceptions, commercial software has proven itself to be untrustworthy with the growth of surveillance capitalism. I'd rather that sideloading be reserved for free software.
roamerz 3y ago
> I'm the opposite You already can side load apps. Just buy an Android device. I liken this to people who buy a house near an airport then lobby to get the airport closed because they do not like the noise. I bought into IOS because of the walled garden and without it some app that I would prefer to get through the sanctioned app store will now only be available by side loading.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > I liken this to people who buy a house near an airport then lobby to get the airport closed Well, no, in this case it’s the government going to see the pseudo-monopolist and telling them: "Party is over. There is going to be some competition there from now on." Something I most definitely cheer for.
  - roamerz 3y ago
    > There is going to be some competition there from now on. there already is competition- it’s called Android based phones. This is more akin the government telling Walmart they have to freely give shelf space away to anyone and everyone to sell anything they want.
    - dlubarov 3y ago
      In this scenario Walmart is one of only two stores in the country, and while Walmart usually pays a few bucks for shelves, the merchants in question are happy to bring their own. They just need Walmart to get out of the way, not incur any real cost.
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      > there already is competition- it’s called Android based phones. The law is about digital store and aims at stopping the close tie between platform and stores. Android is completely irrelevant here. > This is more akin the government telling Walmart they have to freely give shelf space away to anyone and everyone to sell anything they want. No, it's akin to the government telling a city they can't mandate than its inhabitants have to shop at Walmart. I don't understand why so many act as Apple apologists and feel the need to justify the current situation.
dhdhhdd 3y ago
DJI does not provide its app via play store and requires side loading :(
squeaky-clean 3y ago
Fortnite isn't as big as Facebook, but it's still side-load only on Android and not available at all on iOS
philwelch 3y ago
> Basically the risk would be someone like TikTok dropping out of the store, but I find that unlikely. Maybe it's the other way around. I don't know the current legislative status of the attempts to ban TikTok, but the most realistic mechanism for doing so would involve banning it from app stores. By enabling sideloading, Apple would be enabling TikTok to circumvent such a ban.
HWR_14 3y ago
> looking at android, where do we see this? Google doesn't prevent Meta or TikTok or any other apps from spying on you, as long as they also get to spy on you. So they have no incentive to build a competing store. Apple, on the other hand, limits what apps are allowed to do.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  What's preventing Apple from limiting what apps are allowed to do with iOS? It's got the same kernel as MacOS, presumably there's nothing stopping them from using the same venerated isolation technology, right?
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    What's the technology that enforces something like "apps are not allowed to degrade the user for denying permissions, except for features that actually use that permission". Or however Apple wrote the exact rule that prevents apps like FB from saying "give us access to all your contacts or we won't work at all". As one example.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Nothing. Just like the technology that enforces something like "apps cannot record from the camera and train it on AI off-device" or the technology enforcing well-written and clear EULAs. When an app on my phone asks for contacts access to work, I don't use it. The system works as-intended. Edit: > So Apple users can use FB on their phones According to your logic, this is a net-negative. Is Apple trying to help or hurt their users here?
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        And when you don't use FaceBook, then Mark Zuckerberg personally feels sad! No wait, no one cares. Meanwhile, Apple says "if you try that, you won't get access to all our customers". And FB and Mark Zuckerberg listen to that threat. So Apple users can use FB on their phones, deny access to location tracking and their contacts and feel safe that FB won't ever say "add them back or we'll stop working".

pjc50 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Put another way,Apple and iOS is becoming more like Google and Android. My privacy isn't happy about this.
hoffs 3y ago
Citation needed
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
  For the money part, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ iOS is 15% of the mobile device market but generates 67% of the app revenue.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    Yeah, I suppose this stuff isn't common-knowledge outside the commercial mobile development space. There are complaints in this very thread about how shit the software selection is on the Play Store compared with iOS. This is why. Companies that have to, for whatever reason, pick only one platform to start on, usually pick iOS. If they add on Android later, they expect it not to make as much money as the iOS app, so may half-ass the port. In some cases, good apps that have enough revenue to keep them alive on iOS, may judge that an Android port won't be worth the added cost (especially smaller apps—think, one or two developer sorts of operations, they may run the numbers and project only a 20% revenue boost from adding an Android port, which may not be enough to cover the dev, testing, administrative, and support time the platform would require). There's a perception that, basically, Android users won't buy apps (which is... kinda true) and that's why the iOS version of an app might be ad-free and paid, while Android only gets an ad-supported variant—the vendor doesn't think creating and supporting a paid option on Android is worth the extra overhead.
    - eropple 3y ago
      I used to be a mobile developer, and I literally got death threats for charging $6 on Android. People just paid it on iOS and got on with using the app.

cronix 3y ago

> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? For one, DJI drone software. It's available in the Apple store but you have to sideload it for Android. DJI isn't a small company, and there is quite a large professional market. Edit: meant apple app store, not play store...fixed for clarity

rickdeckard 3y ago
Sorry, if it's available in the play store, why do I have to sideload it for Android?
- cronix 3y ago
  Because Apple forced DJI to comply for their version, but since sideloading is available on Android as an alternative, they basically told Google to go pound sand. Edit: I misspoke in my original, which I fixed
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    I suspect as well the version is Android has features the iOS one does not due to limitation placed on it from the store, Issues they got around by simply removing it from the draconian store.
    - _rs 3y ago
      Is this actually true though?
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      Sure, but those are probably features good for DJI. It's far less obvious it would be features good for end users.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? Where do we see Android devices with apps like Facebook preinstalled, unremovable and granted root permissions? All over the ecosystem.

andsoitis 3y ago
Only Apple sells iPhones, so I wouldn’t worry about preinstalled 3rd party apps with root permissions like we see on Android phones.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Only Facebook makes the Facebook app, and I find it extremely easy to imagine a Facebook app that can only be sideloaded, so that Facebook can bypass the restrictions put in place by the App Store. For instance, Apps are currently not allowed to degrade functionality if the user says no to a permissions request (e.g. location tracking).
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    Perhaps, but what I was emphasizing was that on iPhone such apps will likely not come pre-installed; neither by Apple (vs e.g. Samsung) nor by a carrier because I seriously doubt Apple would allow that. Instead, what Apple is doing is finding a new balance that appease those who are attacking the legitimacy of the App Store (and its toll booth) while in practice the vast majority of iPhone users will retain their privacy.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      > Perhaps, but what I was emphasizing was that on iPhone such apps will likely not come pre-installed; neither by Apple (vs e.g. Samsung) nor by a carrier because I seriously doubt Apple would allow that. If Facebook is willing to pay to have their app preinstalled, unremovable, and granted root permissions on Android, why in the world wouldn't they be willing to force users to sideload their app on iOS?

kmlx 3y ago

> I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? fraud. we'll see lots and lots of fraud. a new avenue will be open.

kaba0 3y ago
Just make it hard to sideload, like the android dev mode. Then your grandma won’t install anything, but power users can actually use their general purpose devices as such.
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  Power users can already sideload anything on iPhone. It's not even hard. I guess the whole talk is about making side-loading easier.
  - _fzslm 3y ago
    what you’re seeing in the iPhone sideloading space is a product of a lot of hard work by many different people over many years. AltServer and the like (what I assume you’re referring to) are the best solutions we have, but come with significant downsides - iOS updates breaking the software, limits on how many apps you can install (last time i checked, you could only install 3), time constraints (need to ”re-sign” apps every week), software constraints (still can’t use JIT or other private APIs without Apple’s blessing), and - relative to using the App Store or Android sideloading - the setup procedure is pretty complicated. on both Macs and PCs, AltServer can be kind of difficult to set up. all of this has prevented a legitimate sideloading scene from truly emerging on the iPhone - which, depending on where you ideologically stand on this, could be considered monopolistic. i think there’s definitely room to make the process a lot easier - even if it’s just for power users.
    - dvzk 3y ago
      When I first looked into this, free Apple developer accounts also could only use limited app entitlements: so no network extensions, VPN profiles, Apple push notifications, or other capabilities. NetworkExtension is basically the only reason I’m interested in iOS development at all, so a paid account was not optional.

brundolf 3y ago

Some things can be sandboxed in software, some things are only socially-enforceable. For example, look at Apple's requirement to list everything an app does with the user's data. It's impossible to enforce that in software and still have functioning apps (trivial example: an app's back-end sells every single request made to it to some third party), but Apple was able to enforce it anyway via App Store rejections

tshaddox 3y ago

It has been several years since I gave Android a try, but my experience was that the Android ecosystem (specifically the Google Play Store in the U.S.) was indeed much worse than iOS with apps distributing malware, destroying battery life and performance with background tasks, sending all your contacts off to their server, using push notifications for spam, etc. (To be clear, these things have also been problems on iOS, and my position continues to be that Apple should be even more restrictive about this stuff).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

soraminazuki 3y ago

We already have an example of what Meta would do with sideloading: trick clueless users into installing highly invasive spyware that inspects every traffic going in and out of your device, even MITM-ing TLS connections. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/ They did this by abusing their enterprise certificate. As much as I'd like the ability to sideload apps, abuse by commercial vendors is a very real concern. With a few exceptions, commercial software has proven itself to be untrustworthy with the growth of surveillance capitalism. I'd rather that sideloading be reserved for free software.

roamerz 3y ago

> I'm the opposite You already can side load apps. Just buy an Android device. I liken this to people who buy a house near an airport then lobby to get the airport closed because they do not like the noise. I bought into IOS because of the walled garden and without it some app that I would prefer to get through the sanctioned app store will now only be available by side loading.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> I liken this to people who buy a house near an airport then lobby to get the airport closed Well, no, in this case it’s the government going to see the pseudo-monopolist and telling them: "Party is over. There is going to be some competition there from now on." Something I most definitely cheer for.
- roamerz 3y ago
  > There is going to be some competition there from now on. there already is competition- it’s called Android based phones. This is more akin the government telling Walmart they have to freely give shelf space away to anyone and everyone to sell anything they want.
  - dlubarov 3y ago
    In this scenario Walmart is one of only two stores in the country, and while Walmart usually pays a few bucks for shelves, the merchants in question are happy to bring their own. They just need Walmart to get out of the way, not incur any real cost.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    > there already is competition- it’s called Android based phones. The law is about digital store and aims at stopping the close tie between platform and stores. Android is completely irrelevant here. > This is more akin the government telling Walmart they have to freely give shelf space away to anyone and everyone to sell anything they want. No, it's akin to the government telling a city they can't mandate than its inhabitants have to shop at Walmart. I don't understand why so many act as Apple apologists and feel the need to justify the current situation.

dhdhhdd 3y ago

DJI does not provide its app via play store and requires side loading :(

squeaky-clean 3y ago

Fortnite isn't as big as Facebook, but it's still side-load only on Android and not available at all on iOS

philwelch 3y ago

> Basically the risk would be someone like TikTok dropping out of the store, but I find that unlikely. Maybe it's the other way around. I don't know the current legislative status of the attempts to ban TikTok, but the most realistic mechanism for doing so would involve banning it from app stores. By enabling sideloading, Apple would be enabling TikTok to circumvent such a ban.

HWR_14 3y ago

> looking at android, where do we see this? Google doesn't prevent Meta or TikTok or any other apps from spying on you, as long as they also get to spy on you. So they have no incentive to build a competing store. Apple, on the other hand, limits what apps are allowed to do.

smoldesu 3y ago
What's preventing Apple from limiting what apps are allowed to do with iOS? It's got the same kernel as MacOS, presumably there's nothing stopping them from using the same venerated isolation technology, right?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  What's the technology that enforces something like "apps are not allowed to degrade the user for denying permissions, except for features that actually use that permission". Or however Apple wrote the exact rule that prevents apps like FB from saying "give us access to all your contacts or we won't work at all". As one example.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Nothing. Just like the technology that enforces something like "apps cannot record from the camera and train it on AI off-device" or the technology enforcing well-written and clear EULAs. When an app on my phone asks for contacts access to work, I don't use it. The system works as-intended. Edit: > So Apple users can use FB on their phones According to your logic, this is a net-negative. Is Apple trying to help or hurt their users here?
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      And when you don't use FaceBook, then Mark Zuckerberg personally feels sad! No wait, no one cares. Meanwhile, Apple says "if you try that, you won't get access to all our customers". And FB and Mark Zuckerberg listen to that threat. So Apple users can use FB on their phones, deny access to location tracking and their contacts and feel safe that FB won't ever say "add them back or we'll stop working".