7 ms·

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 ex

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?

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?