4 ms·

>, is that this clearly isn’t the case when you look at Android. Sideloading already exists The problem with using Android as a counterexample is that Apple i

by jasode 3y ago

>, is that this clearly isn’t the case when you look at Android. Sideloading already exists The problem with using Android as a counterexample is that Apple iOS is more restrictive (e.g. privacy settings) than Android. E.g. Facebook admitted they lost billions in revenue because of the Apple iOS ad tracking permissions change. That might be an example of Facebook forcing users to "sideload" Facebook+Whatsapp+Instagram to get around the privacy restrictions. In contrast, the Android platform didn't financially hurt them like that so there's less incentive to ask Android users to sideload Facebook apps. So even a mega giant like Facebook has to follow Apple's rules because there is no sideloading to bypass them. A somewhat analogous situation in 2019 happened when Facebook violated Apple's app store policy and spied on teenagers by abusing their Apple developer account: https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+revokes+facebook+certificate+vpn https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+revokes+facebook+certi... >Most users are not all that technical and the moment you require them to fool around with apks I think some conversations about "sideloading" are muddy because casual conversation around it mentally includes alternative app stores rather than end users literally downloading raw ".app" bundle files

hnra 3y ago
The first facebook issue that you mention is unrelated to the App Store, it’s an OS restriction. Side loading won’t affect this. Apple can clearly make the OS secure/privacy friendly if they want to. The only layer of security that you may lose is the dubious “review” process, which clearly doesn’t do anything considering the amount of scam apps on the store.
- jasode 3y ago
  >The first facebook issue that you mention is unrelated to the App Store, it’s an OS restriction. Side loading won’t affect this. Your sentences above are a prime example of a technology mindset being so familiar with the underlying technology that it actually handicaps the analysis of how people might use the tech in ways you don't expect. The way the sideloaded app gets around the os-level restriction is that they would force users to give permission to the ad-tracking. Otherwise, the sideloaded app has crippled functionality. That scenario can't happen on Apple's offical App Store because their policies don't allow apps to have crippled functionality when users opt-out of ad tracking. The theme is that the side-loaded apps can exercise way more freedom with clever psychological dark patterns that bypasses os-level settings. E.g. see related example from Twitter: https://www.techgoing.com/twitter-ads-may-track-users-in-violation-of-apples-rules-elon-musk-will-take-risks/ https://www.techgoing.com/twitter-ads-may-track-users-in-vio...
  - Gareth321 3y ago
    > That scenario can't happen on Apple's offical App Store because their policies don't allow apps to have crippled functionality when users opt-out of ad tracking. There is a simple solution for Apple: disable ad tracking on iOS. The DMA doesn't require gatekeepers permit ad tracking. It only requires gatekeepers provide the same functionality they provide themselves. Apple is still perfectly able to provide a safe and secure OS under the legislation.
mindslight 3y ago
I totally agree with this concern as things stand. But it's also been apparent that relying on code auditing wasn't going to be sustainable long term. The real answer is for Apple to beef up their sandboxing to prevent things like cross app tracking, coercing permissions from users, etc - independent of the app store review process or policies. This is what the Libre Android distributions (eg GrapheneOS, CalyxOS) have been (slowly) converging on.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > But it's also been apparent that relying on code auditing wasn't going to be sustainable long term. Why not? It seemed to be going fine. As the number of apps increases, so does get money the App Store receives. I don't see anything inherently unsustainable in it at all.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    For the same reason that all central planning ends up being unwieldy - the world is complex. It's not the work of doing the reviewing itself that is unsustainable, but rather crafting some singular policy that can reject all "bad" while allowing all "good", compounded by having to work with governments/corporations/etc that want increasingly fine-grained censorship.
jonny_eh 3y ago
There's zero chance Facebook removes themselves from the App Store in the expectation that their users will sideload instead.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Obviously they wouldn't remove themselves. If anything, they'd offer Facebook Plus via sideloading, which gives you amazing deals and new features in exchange for granting a few, totally harmless extra permissions.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonny_eh 3y ago
    Frankly, opting into app tracking in the iOS FB app already greatly improves the experience, merely by improving the quality of ads. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ad...
comte7092 3y ago
The thing is, Apple still controls how apps may be sideloaded, and what permissions those apps can use at the OS level. They have no obligation to make sideloading an easy process.
- lxgr 3y ago
  I generally agree, but one problem is that many of Apple's rules are enforced primarily or exclusively through policy, not actual technical permissions. This is especially true for all the high-level ones around tracking. Obviously, things like phone book access can be solved for sideloaded apps just as well as for App Store ones – just like Android has been doing for many years.
- Gareth321 3y ago
  They do, actually. The DMA is one of the most comprehensive and impressive pieces of technology focused legislation in a lifetime. It expressly forbids gatekeepers like Apple from making the process of installing applications any more difficult than it is for Apple's App Store. The purpose of the legislation is to foster fair competition. It's not fair competition if Apple is allowed to make the process prohibitively complex or cumbersome.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by jasode 3y ago

hnra 3y ago

The first facebook issue that you mention is unrelated to the App Store, it’s an OS restriction. Side loading won’t affect this. Apple can clearly make the OS secure/privacy friendly if they want to. The only layer of security that you may lose is the dubious “review” process, which clearly doesn’t do anything considering the amount of scam apps on the store.

jasode 3y ago
>The first facebook issue that you mention is unrelated to the App Store, it’s an OS restriction. Side loading won’t affect this. Your sentences above are a prime example of a technology mindset being so familiar with the underlying technology that it actually handicaps the analysis of how people might use the tech in ways you don't expect. The way the sideloaded app gets around the os-level restriction is that they would force users to give permission to the ad-tracking. Otherwise, the sideloaded app has crippled functionality. That scenario can't happen on Apple's offical App Store because their policies don't allow apps to have crippled functionality when users opt-out of ad tracking. The theme is that the side-loaded apps can exercise way more freedom with clever psychological dark patterns that bypasses os-level settings. E.g. see related example from Twitter: https://www.techgoing.com/twitter-ads-may-track-users-in-violation-of-apples-rules-elon-musk-will-take-risks/ https://www.techgoing.com/twitter-ads-may-track-users-in-vio...
- Gareth321 3y ago
  > That scenario can't happen on Apple's offical App Store because their policies don't allow apps to have crippled functionality when users opt-out of ad tracking. There is a simple solution for Apple: disable ad tracking on iOS. The DMA doesn't require gatekeepers permit ad tracking. It only requires gatekeepers provide the same functionality they provide themselves. Apple is still perfectly able to provide a safe and secure OS under the legislation.

mindslight 3y ago

I totally agree with this concern as things stand. But it's also been apparent that relying on code auditing wasn't going to be sustainable long term. The real answer is for Apple to beef up their sandboxing to prevent things like cross app tracking, coercing permissions from users, etc - independent of the app store review process or policies. This is what the Libre Android distributions (eg GrapheneOS, CalyxOS) have been (slowly) converging on.

crazygringo 3y ago
> But it's also been apparent that relying on code auditing wasn't going to be sustainable long term. Why not? It seemed to be going fine. As the number of apps increases, so does get money the App Store receives. I don't see anything inherently unsustainable in it at all.
- mindslight 3y ago
  For the same reason that all central planning ends up being unwieldy - the world is complex. It's not the work of doing the reviewing itself that is unsustainable, but rather crafting some singular policy that can reject all "bad" while allowing all "good", compounded by having to work with governments/corporations/etc that want increasingly fine-grained censorship.

jonny_eh 3y ago

There's zero chance Facebook removes themselves from the App Store in the expectation that their users will sideload instead.

lxgr 3y ago
Obviously they wouldn't remove themselves. If anything, they'd offer Facebook Plus via sideloading, which gives you amazing deals and new features in exchange for granting a few, totally harmless extra permissions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jonny_eh 3y ago
  Frankly, opting into app tracking in the iOS FB app already greatly improves the experience, merely by improving the quality of ads. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ads.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/11/technology/bad-digital-ad...

comte7092 3y ago

The thing is, Apple still controls how apps may be sideloaded, and what permissions those apps can use at the OS level. They have no obligation to make sideloading an easy process.

lxgr 3y ago
I generally agree, but one problem is that many of Apple's rules are enforced primarily or exclusively through policy, not actual technical permissions. This is especially true for all the high-level ones around tracking. Obviously, things like phone book access can be solved for sideloaded apps just as well as for App Store ones – just like Android has been doing for many years.
Gareth321 3y ago
They do, actually. The DMA is one of the most comprehensive and impressive pieces of technology focused legislation in a lifetime. It expressly forbids gatekeepers like Apple from making the process of installing applications any more difficult than it is for Apple's App Store. The purpose of the legislation is to foster fair competition. It's not fair competition if Apple is allowed to make the process prohibitively complex or cumbersome.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]