14 ms·

Apple’s fight against iPhone sideloading was pointless at best, harmful at worst

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• FloatArtifact 3y ago
  I hope this leads to a thriving open source ecosystem like f-droid (open source apps store) for iOS.
  • Obscurity4340 3y ago
    iFOSS
• Pulcinella 3y ago
  Not entirely pointless. As a professional developer, I appreciate not having to support apps across multiple stores. And Apple’s rules have made it easier to explain to clients “yeah ‘sorry’ we can’t do [evil and/or privacy invading feature]. It’s against the App Store rules.” I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument. I just have also appreciated the professional fringe benefits of the walled garden. I do wish there was some way all the cool apps could run free while the ones we put up with are locked down and restricted even harder. Absolutely no one should install a side loadable version of the Facebook app.
  • seanalltogether 3y ago
    The only clients that will want to evade Apples app store in the future will have very specific requirements that Apple doesn't want to promote or be scam apps, so I wouldn't worry about your clients wanting to jump ship. It simply won't be worth it to them to lose the majority of ios users or support multiple deployment avenues.
    • joshstrange 3y ago
      Have you met "clients"? They might not want to jump ship but I can already hear "Why isn't our app in app store X as well‽". Dealing with 2 stores is already a pain, adding 2-3 more would drive me nuts. Both as a solo dev and for my company.
      • Teever 3y ago
        Sounds like another opportunity to make money. "Well I charge $x per store for testing.
        • jonny_eh 3y ago
          Exactly, if there's anything you hate doing for clients, put a sufficient price tag on it so it's worth your trouble.
      • seanalltogether 3y ago
        Yes I've had clients on Android for 14 years now and none of them want to distribute outside of Google Play. There might have been some flirting with the idea of publishing to the amazon app store or samsung app store, but it never happened cause there was no benefit. I do have one android app that has to be distributed on a separate app store in china but that's out of our hands and has to be passed off to a third party to accomplish anyway.
      • stametseater 3y ago
        When you say you "can already hear", what you mean is you can imagine hypothetically hearing it, not that you've actually been hearing it, right? Because multiple app stores already exist for Android and I've never heard anybody say what you're suggesting. People are usually just bewildered at the Amazon appstore even existing.
        • joshstrange 3y ago
          > Because multiple app stores already exist for Android and I've never heard anybody say what you're suggesting Ok, but there is a huge difference between iOS and Android. All my clients want it on Android and iOS but they only really care about iOS. iOS is normally the last platform that approves apps (web being immediate/no approval and Play being faster on average) and without fail my clients pretend there is no app until it's released on iOS. I'll even tell them "Go to hxxp://yoursite.com, it's pretty much exactly what you will see in the app" and they almost never even check the web, I know this because once the iOS app is release /then/ I hear "Can we change X? Let's move Y to X! I don't like the color here....". All that to say: multiple app stores on iOS /will/ be something I hear about whereas I bet I could forget to release on updates on Play and no one (clients themselves at least) would notice.
  • kipchak 3y ago
    Disabling by default but allow sideloading with some disclaimers and warnings seems like a fair compromise, similarly to how Windows will put up barriers and warnings if you try to install software from unknown sources. The downside is that you don't protect those who enable sideloading and see the warnings when installing Facebook sideload and tap through anyway.
    • gabeio 3y ago
      I would agree if you can't do it all on the device itself, the unlocking/sideloading initial warning bypass. The idea would be to prevent those who can barely work their phone from "accidentally" enabling sideloading and then downloading some random app off the internet or other app store by accident or being talked through it with a scammer.
      • kipchak 3y ago
        Maybe requiring approval from the iOS account that manages the device, signed in to some other device? I'm imagining something somewhat similar to the "ask to buy" feature for child accounts. That could also help with child or elder accounts if they're managed by someone else holding the keys. Downside is not everyone would have someone to manage their account for them. Having to call into Apple to confirm maybe?
      • eli 3y ago
        Doesn't the Android process still involving tapping 7 times in a row on the build number in the About Device screen? There's definitely ways to create a feature that can't be found accidentally.
        • lxgr 3y ago
          You're probably thinking of activating developer mode. Sideloading doesn't (yet) require that, at least not on my Pixel (Android 12).
          • freedomben 3y ago
  • anonymouse008 3y ago
    Hear, hear! This is the same message Apple should deliver to every senator and judge: “developers are more productive on things that matter - this is the consumer surplus”
  • toddmorey 3y ago
    At the time, they really wanted to pivot from a computer company to a device company after the success they found with iPod. Remember at first they didn't even want to allow 3rd-party apps: that's how device-oriented they were thinking. The computer landscape in 2007 punted the problem of viruses and inability back on the user. I think Apple's goals when they finally did an app store were to (1) ensure iOs-specific native software (vs crappy ports), (2) prevent viruses and malware, and (3) keep the phone as stable as possible. I think you could argue that there were other ways to approach those goals, but I think it's harder to argue that preventing side-loading was entirely pointless.
    • wlesieutre 3y ago
      > they didn't even want to allow 3rd-party apps They had a "sweet solution" for 3rd-party apps! *drumroll* webpages!
      • emodendroket 3y ago
        Arguably could have saved the world a lot of man hours if that vision had prevailed.
        • illiarian 3y ago
          Except all the man-hours that would be spent on trying basic things like animations in lists work.
          • emodendroket 3y ago
            Well you’d just use some library that solves that problem instead of every app having to do it twice.
            • illiarian 3y ago
              There are no libraries that solve that in a generic easy-usable way. Because animations shift layout
  • sbuk 3y ago
    > I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument. More often, that argument seems to be used in bad faith. By that, I mean it comes across as a think of the children fallacy. It's developers wanting their own way ("why should I have to pay..."), and as you highlight, wanting to do things with other peoples devices that they really shouldn't.
    • mhoad 3y ago
      No really though… why SHOULD I have the pay the richest company in the world while helping them grow the value of their platform?
      • sbuk 3y ago
        Oh, I don't mind the argument itself and empathise with it somewhat, it's the hiding behind "user choice" that I take issue with. If the problem is the $99 fee, which for the actual cost of a signed certificate is quite low, just be honest about it.
        • piceas 3y ago
          It's high enough that I don't bother side loading my various, helpful to me, toy apps to my partner's phone. The inconvenience is small but real.
          • Affric 3y ago
            Truly this is the most cursed thing. Why can I not even make apps for me and my iCloud family for free? I own all these computers. I pay Apple for a few of their services. Why am I prevented from personal computing and only permitted to use these computers for their paradigm. But I don't think that this criticism of Apple's model requires alternate app stores (which I have seen first hand can be confusing for some users from the pre digital age). Just a side loading method.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • gloryjulio 3y ago
    I would support this if they didn't do the thing like banning original firefox on iOS. This was firefox's greatest moat, a complete browser with extension support
    • codetrotter 3y ago
      The reason Apple does not allow other browser engines is because JIT has historically been very prone to security vulnerabilities. That is why only Apple is allowed to make anything involving JIT on iOS. And that is why other browser engines, with their own JIT-powered JS interpreters are not allowed.
      • jeroenhd 3y ago
        And Apple's JIT engine has been as prone to security vulnerabilities as any other, diminishing any theoretical benefits to the point they don't matter. Apple clearly doesn't want competing JIT engines because Safari can't compete with Chrome in many ways. I get the idea behind unifying the browsing experience, but blocking V8 and SpiderMonkey isn't doing the end user any favours. In fact, because Safari is tied to the OS and isn't part of a separate app like on Android, if you find a vulnerability in your browser you have to report it to Apple and wait for an iOS security release cycle. On all other platforms you just push out the patch and your users are secured in a day or two.
        • codetrotter 3y ago
          > And Apple's JIT engine has been as prone to security vulnerabilities as any other, diminishing any theoretical benefits to the point they don't matter It matters because first-party (Apple) vulnerabilities can be fixed and rolled out with iOS updates. JIT vulnerabilities in third-party apps would leave those vulnerabilities up to the third-party developers to patch. And that is before we even consider the fact that Apple has shown itself resilient against pressure to introduce back doors in iOS. If third-parties were allowed to write their own JITs you can safely assume that those third-party developers will be pressured to implement intentional vulnerabilities in their apps. And some will fold to pressure. I am happy that Apple does this. I don’t understand why anyone has an issue with it. If you don’t like what Apple is doing, then don’t buy Apple products. Why should those of us who agree with Apple, and buy Apple products because we agree with them, suffer as a consequence of other people not agreeing with Apple?
  • kibwen 3y ago
    > we can’t do [evil and/or privacy invading feature]. It’s against the App Store rules. The App Store rules from before sideloading exists will still apply after sideloading exists. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that people could choose to bypass the App Store, and in practice every major app still wants to be on the App Store for maximum convenience. To wit, sideloading has existed on Android for ages, and nearly all apps still want to be on the Play Store. People should be allowed to do what they want with their own devices. If you own an iPhone, you deserve to be able to install whatever software you want on your iPhone, end of story.
  • simion314 3y ago
    Apple fans are very scared about FB going to leave the Store and forcing them to side load it. But this is FUD, Android has side loading and alternative stores and you can find FB apps on google Play. The facts are 1 the apps of the big bad tech companies are still on the google Store 2 the stores abused their power and pushed big apps out, not to protect the users, but because they might not be puritan enough, or that some legal but not correct speech was happening on that app.
  • rib3ye 3y ago
    I guess this is not really developer-friendly, but I only want to sideload apps with their source published on github. And in that case, I can download, sign, package, and load the app on my phone myself. I cringe every time I check the "allow packages from unknown sources" option on an Android device.
    • josephcsible 3y ago
      > I cringe every time I check the "allow packages from unknown sources" option on an Android device. I don't, because I trust F-Droid apps more than random Play Store apps, but that switch only restricts the former.
  • freedomben 3y ago
    I wish there was some way to have this benefit without the restrictions. I moved to Android because I wanted to run apps that could do cool things but weren't kosher with Apple's rules. I know pretty well what I'm doing and the implications of my decision, so it's not protecting me from anything, it's just robbing me of freedom of choice. But I would never in 100 years sideload the Facebook app. I won't even install it from the Play store. I highly applaud the recent Play store change now where it explicitly tells you what data can be accessed, how it will be used, if shared with third party, etc. It's helped me avoid some unknowns. What about some sort of master switch you could flip that would filter out apps based on behavior? Like the default could be something like "App Store rules" but you could override and allow seeing/installing apps that do other things? Eh, that wouldn't help with the people who want to use Tik Tok. If Tik Tok can tell them to "enable deep spying" to install the app, they probably will. Although, it would penalize them somewhat and it would make it clear to users what they're doing, so maybe it would help? Hard problem for sure.
  • Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
    As a professional developer you also have to appreciate the possibility that some competition will probably make AppStore a far better experience for developers, instead of a rather broken, restrictive and arbitrary one that we currently enjoy.
    • thewebcount 3y ago
      Maybe I'm just cynical, but I would not expect a far better experience for anybody with more competition. We have that in a bunch of other areas of tech, and it always ends up being a race to the bottom. You end up only being able to choose between ad and malware riddled garbage or being heavily surveilled, and yet still under the threat of losing everything if an arbitrary algorithm decides it dislikes you. I would expect the same for developer experiences with other app stores, but with less upside because nobody is going to install those other app stores.
      • earthnail 3y ago
        I think some competition would be healthy for the App Store. For example, referral systems for iPhone apps are basically impossible to write with Apple's in-app subscriptions: the App Store API only allows two requests per user per year for extending subscriptions, meaning I can only reward users for two invites, but not beyond that. I can only assume this limitation exists to avoid some other loophole, but still, basic referral systems - like Dropbox' "invite a user and get 100mb storage" style - don't work. Deferred deep linking is also broken. Of course, nobody likes tracking, but referral links also don't work anymore. You used to be able to send someone a single link to install the app and redeem a voucher/discount/special, now you always have to say "install the app, open it (!), then go back here and click this link". I soooooo hope that this will improve with competition - at least point 1). And my biggest hope is that Apple will fix it in their store because of competition.
    • TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      This is exactly what I am betting on.
  • dunham 3y ago
    I'm hoping the side-loaded apps are sandboxed. The facebooks of the world will cheat a bit harder to keep their apps running in the background, but at least I can control who gets access to files, contacts, and location. And even for apps that I trust 100%, including stuff I personally write, there is exposure to zero days if you do stuff like display images or web content. I'd like the extra safety net of sandboxing.
    • josephcsible 3y ago
      If such sandboxing doesn't have negative side effects like breaking some legitimate apps, then even apps from the App Store should be sandboxed. Otherwise, even if they're technically allowing sideloading, it's totally unfair and basically useless.
      • dunham 3y ago
        I'm not sure I understand, apps in the store are already sandboxed, which affords me some protection from them. I'd like the same protection from side-loaded apps. Perhaps relaxing the no-JIT restriction, though. I think I'd be ok with them relaxing that in side-load. It might be fine in normal apps too, since we have lockdown mode to disable it across the board (including MobileSafari) if extra security against zero-days is needed.
        • josephcsible 3y ago
          Ah, I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were advocating for sideloaded apps to be subject to an extra layer of sandboxing beyond what App Store apps are today.
  • rnk 3y ago
    No sideloading also means you have to give that high percentage of revenue to apple. You can't avoid that. It's the clear monopolistic behavior that should be legally blocked.
  • Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    Won't you be able to get more work and bill more for the additional support?
  • jerryzh 3y ago
    Yet app store itself is violating the app store rule and being sued in California for this. So the walled garden didn't work that well right?
• anonymouse008 3y ago
  [edit] Literally do a side by side of CSS, HTML, and JS vs SwiftUI or storyboard to all the Senators and ask “which one do you understand better” - that’s the point. Then take them through the deployment and ask again This is the biggest modern PR blunder in some time. Do we not get insane productivity as devs from their platform vs others or not? I say emphatically, yes. That’s all you have to do, repeat over and over until blue.
  • smcleod 3y ago
    Honestly I doubt 90% of people that own a phone would even know which App Store they use let alone if they have more than one. From a PR point of view I highly doubt it will have any negative impact.
    • anonymouse008 3y ago
      Regulation is just codified PR
• vlunkr 3y ago
  This is a pretty shallow assessment. They acknowledge the malware argument, but don't address it at all. Remember that the iPhone was introduced at a time when Windows was absolutely plagued with trojan scams.
  • WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    But Windows had none of the sandboxing and white-listing oriented capabilities iOS has.
    • orev 3y ago
      Even with those protections, we still had apps like LinkedIn Intro which was designed to man-in-the-middle all email connections. And these are supposedly legitimate companies. I can’t wait to see what apps try to do when there are no restrictions.
      • jeroenhd 3y ago
        Look on Android! There's Fortnite, that's a big app you need to sideload. It's also the only big app I know of. I suppose some copycat apps send tons of notifications, but you can easily uninstall those. As far as I know, iOS sandboxing is better than Android's, so I don't think there's any greater risk.
• Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  What puzzles me to no end is how many people were happy not only with having no control over their device (which is fine if they don't want it), but also other people not having control over their devices (which is totally not fine if they do want it).
  • jutrewag 3y ago
    It’s a device for convenience. I want the critical functions work well. If you can make that work in an open system, great but I haven’t seen that being successfully done.
  • squokko 3y ago
    One argument for this position is that this policy essentially gets people to trust iOS software more, and to buy more of it (sideloading will certainly increase at least the absolute amount of malware out there, or apps that don't meet Apple's criteria). This position is somewhat supported by the fact that iOS users spend MUCH more per user on software and in-app purchases than Android users even of similarly expensive phones.
    • ReptileMan 3y ago
      Umm ... the sandboxing on ios is extreme enough that malware is just not having much to do.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • kennend3 3y ago
    This is what i find most interesting about this whole debate. Read the comments on the article itself, it is just full of "i dont want to do this".. so great, don't sideload apps (no one is forcing them to), but why are they so keen on preventing others from doing it as well?
    • JohnMakin 3y ago
      > Read the comments on the article itself, it is just full of "i dont want to do this".. so great, don't sideload apps (no one is forcing them to), but why are they so keen on preventing others from doing it as well? because it's going to make unscrupulous companies like google/fb/etc all force you to go through their app clients to install their sideloaded apps, without any of the scrutiny and control the apple store has provided historically. that's not really a world I want to live in. While yes, I can just uninstall those apps, some are nearly intrinsic to a mobile experience, like the youtube app.
• spaceribs 3y ago
  Apple really set themselves up as a "Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory", spending a lot of time presenting marvels (both helpful and useless) to hide the dirty secrets under the surface. Near slavery conditions in manufacturing, arbitrarily applied clauses and rules, and technically enabled limitations to even repair their "Intellectual Property". For years you had to accept the rules of the factory or get shoved down an egg chute, while fanboys laugh at you all the way down. Times have changed though, Willy Wonka is gone now, phones are nearly identical in specs across the board, and there aren't that many more marvels to distract with.
  • augment002 3y ago
    [dead]
  • turtlesdown11 3y ago
    meanwhile over here in reality: 1) all manufacturers have dirty manufacturing, 2) people bought iPhones for the walled garden, 3) three year old Apple chips are faster than anything competitors make today...
• DangitBobby 3y ago
  I don't think it was pointless. It's probably made them a good bit of money, and since they got ahead of the narrative anyway (as the article concludes) it really seems like fighting it tooth and nail was a great option for them.
• binkHN 3y ago
  I have to concur with the article. That said, this likely won’t get far. Google has allowed multiple app stores for years and, still, the vast majority of purchases come from the Google Play Store—so much so that the vast majority of developers don’t even bother putting their apps on other stores.
  • atomicnumber3 3y ago
    Yeah I really don't get where all the fearmongering is coming from. People seem terrified we're going to end up in some kind of federated decentralized App Store "hell"scape instantly. Vs the reality where the thought of posting on even the Amazon App Store literally sounds like a joke to me. Apple is still going to have the best integrations for their own App Store and even if eg Epic manage to get close (I kind of doubt it even if it's technically possible) all it will do is force Apple to actually compete on eg take % and developer experience. Versus right now they can tell you to go pound sand for no reason when you're releasing a 1-line bug fix revision for your 10 year old app.
• hendersoon 3y ago
  Apple has always been incorrect in their arguments. How do I know? Android allowed sideloading since day one and most people have never even considered sideloading. I've never seen any news articles about Android security incidents related to sideloading an trojaned app as the initial vector. I'm sure it's happened, but it is not widespread. Those who did sideload were forced to do so by the extraordinarily popular app they wanted to run not being on the Google Play Store at all. Yeah, I'm talking about Fortnite. Sure there are techies like us who will sideload apps to skip YouTube ads or covertly save Snapchat nudes or sniff wifi packets or whatever, but we're a vanishingly small minority. Most android users didn't even know sideloading was an option and wouldn't care if they did. It's not zero risk, no arguing that. It's just pretty small, and (IMO) not worth the loss in user choice.
  • atomicnumber3 3y ago
    I always thought the "spam click the android version then accept the prompt" as a very clever way to hide the developer mode from even the most clueless users. They'd never even be looking at their android version anyway :P
    • hendersoon 3y ago
      Right, it's hidden and has a warning prompt, and I expect Apple to do something similar. Probably with an even more ominous warning.
• cuoco 3y ago
  Will they allow sideloading on older iphones too? And old unsupported iOS verdion?
  • The_SamminAter 3y ago
    You already can. However, if you’re asking if they’ll bring down certificate-less sideloading, the answer is no. It should be noted TrollStore does also enable this in certain versions of iOS, and jailbreaking enables this in older and newer, up to 15.x on arm64e devices (iPhone 11 and up), and up to 16.4.1, the latest version, on older arm64 devices.
• m3kw9 3y ago
  If you have Xcode you can already side load
  • The_SamminAter 3y ago
    {TrollStore, ESign+certificate, jailbreak}
• fmajid 3y ago
  Did I miss something and Apple now allows sideloading now (as opposed to allowing it in the future)?
• hnbear 3y ago
  My worry here is how the big apps will just publish instructions on how to sideload and then escape the controls and safety that the App Store provides. We know from years of phishing attacks how easy it is to convince people to click links to non-official sites. The App Store already is doing a poor job at trying to prevent copycat apps, this makes it so much worse. For the majority of my family the App Store provides a huge amount of safety, as no cost. They have no concept of the protections it provides, but equally will just blindly follow instructions online as well. My mother was convinced for years her iMac and MacBook were from Microsoft because every doc she opened said "Microsoft Windows" and she knows Microsoft. Weren't Facebook caught teaching people to use TestFlight to install VPNs to circumvent rules before? This feels like it'll play out similarly to Binance teaching users to install VPNs to circumvent trading controls, for the big official apps, and simultaneously open the floodgates to a ton of spam/phishing/fake apps. Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen. Then it'll normalize it, which is the worst outcome.
  • stametseater 3y ago
    Just don't do that. Advise your family to not do that. Accept that some of them may choose to anyway, and that's their choice to make. "Think of my elderly mother!" is the apple fanboy's version of "think of the children!" No. Get over it. Talk with your mother and explain your concerns. Do you have power of attorney over your mother? If you think she's too mentally feeble to be responsible for herself, then maybe you should think about that instead of advocating for the imposition of these rules on everybody else. Edit for response: phone8675309: If scammers can talk your mother into sideloading an application, then they can also talk her into emptying her bank account. Get power of attorney over her, if you care.
    • phone8675309 3y ago
      The fact that anybody here would say "she's too mentally feeble to be responsible for herself" to "my mom would be confused by this tech thing" really says a lot about the type of people here at Hacker News.
• Maursault 3y ago
  I think the antitrust argument has always been specious at best. Apple doesn't control Android or Microsoft Windows Phone OS. If Apple's control over its own package manager can be accused of antitrust, why not the Apple Store? Does McDonald's have a monopoly over Big Macs? Why can't I buy a Big Mac at Hardees? These antitrust accusations stem from a deep misunderstanding of law and exhibit an entitlement to corporate IP. If I have storefront that sells handpicked fruit, you can't legitimately claim antitrust and force me to sell your alfalfa. It's absurd.
• wfh 3y ago
  The lasting legacy will be persuading everyone that installing apps should have its own scary word like "sideloading" rather than just "installing".
• emodendroket 3y ago
  Ultimately I support the change but, however self-interested it may be, their argument is probably true that people will get social engineered into side loading stuff they don’t want to.
  • kahrl 3y ago
    And their argument is a load of horseshit. The lowest common denominator will always be the lowest common denominator. They're using these hypothetical dummies as a scapegoat in order to ensure a monopoly on software distribution for their hardware.
    • emodendroket 3y ago
      I think we’ve seen ample evidence that these “dummies” are not hypothetical.
• tempodox 3y ago
  > Worse, by fighting the issue so loudly and for so long, Apple has actually given the issue way more publicity than it would ever have received otherwise. It has turned what would otherwise have been a boring technical detail covered only by the Apple press into a mass-media news story. Apple has effectively contributed to its portrayal as a bad guy, with zero benefit to the company. I can only agree with this conclusion. And I'm still somewhat surprised Apple would so intransigently do something that makes them look so utterly stupid and bad.
• bryan_w 3y ago
  It's always surprising how many times Facebook comes up in these conversations, even though Facebook has not said anything about creating its own store and Epic was the one that brought suit originally. It's almost like a talking point that relates this policy to the bad name of Facebook was seen as being effective
  • zerohp 3y ago
    Facebook has been a bad actor in this realm before: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/apple-bans-facebook-vpn/
    • bryan_w 3y ago
      Yes, that does keep being brought up, but I'm worried people will see this as an apple vs Facebook thing when Facebook isn't really involved. Other developers have complained about the fees, the arbitrary rejections and not being able to mention web signup
• diebeforei485 3y ago
  If the sole provider isn't acting responsibly, regulators have to allow alternatives. HOWEVER. This would have been a lot easier if Apple and Google simply reformed their commission models. A take rate of 10% instead of 30% would have prevented this.
• efitz 3y ago
  I’m happy about this, but I’m going to continue using the App Store unless they censor an app that I like. It’s a very personal decision, but I like iPhone/iOS because it feels like a device, not like a computer. Android still geeked computer-y the last time I tried it a few years ago. Different strokes. I like the level of review that apps get and the data shows a much lower prevalence of malware in the iOS ecosystem vs the Android ecosystem. I also like the integration and convenience. I’m mostly happy in my walled garden. What I don’t like is the political speech suppression. I was appalled when AWS, Google and Apple all canceled Parler. I was not a user of Parler but the arbitrary censorship was shocking. I am ok with protecting me from malware, but not happy with arbitrary editorial decisions about what speech I can see/participate in.
  • Gareth321 3y ago
    > What I don’t like is the political speech suppression. I was appalled when AWS, Google and Apple all canceled Parler. I was not a user of Parler but the arbitrary censorship was shocking. I agree. It was all the scarier because of how obviously coordinated the attack. It makes me wonder what else they are coordinating. Any move to wrest power from their hands and put it back in the hands of ordinary citizens is a very good move from a moral, legal, economic, and democratic perspective.
  • mikequinlan 3y ago
    Apps that you like are going to say that you can get them 15% cheaper if you side load them instead of using the Apple app store.
• throwaway67743 3y ago
  Apple has always had contempt for its customers, their argument is just an escalation of that which elevated the official company comment to "all of our customers are total idiots"
• ChicagoDave 3y ago
  How many of these fabulous side-loaded apps will have malware? Will 3rd party stores prevent crappy apps from being published? One reason I never bought an Android is because the Play store is rife with junk, spyware, and malware.
• DarkSideMoon 3y ago
  The only thing I find unfair (on what I understood) about the Digital Markets Act, it's how it looks like it was made to target Apple and only Apple Why I can't install Steam on my Xbox or PS5? Since we are here talking about open market, we should not target one company but make it all open.
• summerlight 3y ago
  Even if Apple allows third party stores or side loading, its portion is going to be negligible unless regulators force them to change the platform default store (which is not going to happen for a while). The only meaningful competitor in the current era is the Play Store but those duopoly effectively maintain non-aggression pact so they won't likely launch it on iOS. Yeah, finally some hackers may have fun on iOS, but I doubt if this will transform the landscape. I think allowing third party browser engines actually has much broader, significant implications here; Apple is already making aggressive investments into Safari in order to keep its edge against Chromium based browsers. Hopefully, PWA will finally become a viable development platform, which may weaken this "app store" economy in a long run.