6 ms·

Even if this is small progress the headlines and framing of the story are still doublespeak. Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of thi

Even if this is small progress the headlines and framing of the story are still doublespeak. Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things. Walled gardens and not having control of your computer is the new weird thing. The word "sideloading" is a feudal concept and it's unquestioned use is dangerous for society. Properly stated this story title is, "Installing applications on iOS 17 might be allowed Europe" which highlights the absurdity intrinsic in the practice of users not being able to install applications on their own computers as a default.

gary_0 4y ago
Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project). If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server? Oh, but consent to these tracking cookies first.
- userbinator 4y ago
  they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.
  - gary_0 4y ago
    Call me paranoid, but I see it as a slippery slope. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      They are certainly boiling the frog slowly. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways. On the other hand, I find it ironic how a lot of "security professionals" will complain constantly about users accepting security warnings with no thought anyway (and they usually use this argument to justify their increasingly authoritarian measures of controlling them.)
      - charleslmunger 4y ago
        It can be simultaneously true that a warning can be a barrier to adoption of your software product versus a competitor, and that a warning is not an effective barrier for a user who thinks they're installing an unreleased video game or going to receive millions of dollars of crypto from foreign royalty.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Actually, in a way, it is. All Microsoft has to do is revoke your application's signing certificate and Windows Defender will prevent it from running on Windows computers. Apple does the same thing with Notarization and Gatekeeper on macOS. If they choose to revoke your signing certificate, Gatekeeper will prevent your software from running on macOS. That means if you do, say or compete with something that Microsoft or Apple doesn't like, they can prevent your apps from running on their platforms.
    - cyberpunk 4y ago
      How come I can run so much software compiled from source then?
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        I don't know what platform you're using, what app distribution method you used, where the code was compiled, if the code was signed, where it was signed and by who, etc. A generic answer to your question is that the software was signed by whoever compiled or distributed the software, which can include your own machine. Your own key might be in your trust store or your app distribution method might put their key in your trust store. Both macOS and Windows will treat software compiled on the same system it is run on as blessed to run without strict signing checks. On macOS, ad-hoc certificates can be used, but the OS will treat those binaries as if they're radioactive. If you compiled code on macOS, the system will treat that software specially on that specific system and allow you to run it[1]. On Windows, certificates can be added to trust stores. Chocolatey, for example, has their own signing certificate for all of the compiled open source software they have in their repositories, so Windows allows their software to run. The biggest issue is what comes with software distribution itself, where your code isn't blessed by default by the system it was compiled on, or doesn't have signing certificates in the users' trust stores, and Gatekeeper and Windows Defender go out of their way to stop your users from running software with signing certificates they don't like. [1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854
        cyberpunk 4y ago
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Code signing and associated warnings are significantly different from fully prohibiting the execution of unapproved code, I'm not sure why people struggle with the distinction. Windows has been doing this mostly the same way for literal decades. iOS has a full sandbox which would apply even to "side loaded" applications, which makes the arbitrary constraint even more ridiculous as a "for your own good" measure.
- parker_mountain 4y ago
  >If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, these OSes were designed decades ago, before we really had a good grasp on security. there were other significant concerns as well, such as performance also, modern OS toolkits, such as on macos and windows 11, are moving towards a permission and API model that will allow sandboxing. In fact, macos is moving quite quickly towards this. And lastly, there is a widely deployed OS that runs all applications in a proper sandbox: chromeos I think it's understood at this point by everyone in the industry that sandboxing is the future, but it's taking a while to get there.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    > before we really had a good grasp on security Not just that, but before we realised just how many people there would be trying to claw their way into any gap for all manner of dark purposes. Early networked OS and protocol designers thought that people would, largely, cooperate with each other and share resources for the greater good. I wish to live in their naively optimistic future, instead of the one with real humans :/
- cookiengineer 4y ago
  Fun fact: This is the reason google pivoted to the web, after being blocked as an alternative office suite on Windows. They realized that they need to change the platform for distribution, and hence this is why the web (post-chromium) is now what it is...with all its absurd redundancies of APIs and bloat. Only because Microsoft can't keep their shit together. Apple is more complicated, because despite the absolute control they've established (no other browser engine / JIT compiler process allowed for whatever made up reasons) they did not face the European courts that forced Microsoft for the exact same thing to allow to install other Browsers. And now we are stuck with Safari, repeating the loop, because Apple can't keep their shit together.
- mhoad 4y ago
  If you hate cookies you’re going to be posted when you find out what’s happening in native apps. It’s an order of magnitude worse they just don’t have to ask or inform you first
charcircuit 4y ago
>Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things. It really wasn't. It wasn't normal to install arbitrary applications on the computers in your fridge, dishwasher, game consoles, flip phones, washing machines, etc. Platforms have varied over time in how open they are to having other people developing for them. iOS is an example of a more closed platform and has shown that closed platforms can be successful. You can see Windows as a more open platform in comparison which was also successful. How open a platform is comes with different trade offs.
- eimrine 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - icehawk 4y ago
    Which ARM computers where you installing arbitrary applications on? What flip phones? They were all locked down on the carrier side. You're still not installing arbitrary applications on game consoles even now that they're running x86. Stop speaking like that please.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      What flip phones? They were all locked down on the carrier side. You seem to have missed the, admittedly brief, period where Java games on phones were extremely commonplace.
      - simondotau 4y ago
        If you think they were "extremely commonplace", you were living in a mid-2000s tech bubble. At best they were kinda commonplace among a narrow set of people who gave a shit, knew it was possible, happened to have devices which supported these games, happened to have a revision of the device which wasn't locked down by the carrier, and who had the time and patience to tinker with such unusable junk. If more than 1 percent of Java-capable handsets ever had third party software downloaded onto them post-purchase, I'd eat my hat. I wonder if even 1 percent of iPhones manage to get used without ever having at least one app installed from the App Store.
miramba 4y ago
I used to think the same way, but not anymore. The amount and variety of attacks on the devices have increased too much in the last years. The device could be encrypted, money could be stolen, some malware could sit silently and do surveillance for who knows. I always wanted to install software on my iPhone without the manufacturing company deciding what I can and can not have (according to californian standards!), but would I let my kids do that nowadays? No way! Stay on the app stores, also on Windows and MacOS is the first line of defense. It‘s sad but the safest approach. Regular users don‘t need to install software on their own anymore, the same as they don‘t need to put processors, storage and Monitors together or install a sound card.
- newaccount74 4y ago
  The security on the iPhone is from the app sandbox, not from app review. It's trivial to get something past app review (eg. look at casino apps that were disguised as games) On the Mac, staying on the Mac App Store makes sense because it is the easiest way to enforce you only install sandboxed apps. On iOS, that's not going to be necessary, because every app on iOS is sandboxed.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > On the Mac, staying on the Mac App Store makes sense because it is the easiest way to enforce you only install sandboxed apps. As an aside, I do believe you can use sandboxd with apps outside of the App Store, someone just has to write security policies for them. This page suggests that Apple might want to deprecate use of sandboxd in favor of just the App Store[1], though. [1] https://codeberg.org/valpackett/rusty-sandbox https://codeberg.org/valpackett/rusty-sandbox
    - newaccount74 4y ago
      > I do believe you can use sandboxd with apps outside of the App Store Yes, you can, it's trivial to do so. However, Apple does not make it easy to find out if an app is sandboxed or not, or what permissions it has. The warning that macOS shows when opening an app not from the Mac App Store does not differentiate between sandboxed and non-sandboxed apps.
davnicwil 4y ago
The issue with such a statement is that the terms can and do mean different things to different people. I probably have a similar definition of computer and application as you, but many people, maybe the majority, may not. For one thing they might think of a phone as a fundamentally different thing from a 'computer' with a different role. In fact I strongly suspect this is the majority view. Within that people probably think of an 'application' as fundamentally a pre-screened, pre-approved, piece of software to enable some function specifically on the phone and within the phone's ecosystem. Not as any arbitrary piece of software. In fact that might all be seen as a feature, not a limitation, in the majority of people's eyes. Again I strongly suspect that is the case.
aikinai 4y ago
Installing whatever you want on your computer is not necessarily the natural state; it’s not even how the industry started and it’s not how any other industry or devices work. I also prefer to be able to do whatever I want with my own devices, but pretending like it’s an inalienable right, or a natural state, or has no disadvantages is disingenuous and not helpful to the debate.
- andai 4y ago
  Are they real downsides or just excuses cooked up by Apple to increase profits, and accepted by apple users to minimize cognitive dissonance?
  - aikinai 4y ago
    The downsides are the obvious; security and privacy are better protected, malware is much harder to distribute and easier to shut down, fraud is more difficult. You can absolutely disagree with the trade off, but pretending like it’s purely greed is obviously disingenuous.
    - wiseowise 4y ago
      > The downsides are the obvious; security and privacy are better protected, malware is much harder to distribute and easier to shut down, fraud is more difficult. Is that so? https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-malware-too-1849386738 https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-mal...
      - aikinai 4y ago
        If the App Store had zero impact on the proliferation of malware, finding malware in the App Store wouldn’t be a news story in 2022. It would be well-known and expected to be teeming with just as much malware as the open Internet for the past fifteen years.
- onlypositive 4y ago
  Of course it's the natural state and an inalienable right to modify or do with the things you own in the way you see fit. When was the last time you asked the builders association if you could remodel your kitchen? When was the last time you asked Honda if you could put new mags on your car? This whole idea that devices aren't owned when you purchase them is asinine and and insult to humanity. Your counter arguments that it's new in the industry is simply due to the fact they thought they could get away with it. Not because they thought it was their right. You don't see Klein putting limits on what nails you can use with a hammer but you can bet your ass they would if they could.
ksec 4y ago
That is assuming Smartphone is a computer. Not agreeing or disagreeing, but the point is people have different interpretation. Some think it is an Appliance. Sad that it has to come to this messy stage where the law has to be enforced. But then Apple isn't the same Steve Jobs Apple.
wilg 4y ago
We focus too much on criticizing language instead of ideas. IMHO, this just leads to tiresome and hollow debates. So, I’ll call that out here. Also, your proposed rewording isn’t correct either because installing applications is already allowed. You can debate the App Store all you want, but it definitely does let you install apps. On topic: This is silly and Apple should allow sideloading. I don’t buy the security argument because the security comes from the sandbox, not Apple’s poorly-run approval process.
- andrewmcwatters 4y ago
  Don't be mistaken: if you control the language, you've set the tone.
  - wilg 4y ago
    Yeah, sure. I get it. But I see a lot of people wasting a lot of time arguing about the definitions of words and how to spin them to try to gain the upper hand in The Discourse. I’m not sure it’s worth it. 1984 may not be a good guide anymore.
- superkuh 4y ago
  >criticizing language instead of ideas. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. It's obvious that I'm criticising the idea of "sideloading" not the word. You can call it some other arrangement of letters and the concept is still very dangerous. And in this case it is also definitely true that apple does not let you install applications without someone paying them $100+ and their continued approval. The "let" is the key here.
  - wilg 4y ago
    Responding even though I know it’s not going to be fruitful. The way I came to that conclusion is I read what you wrote, which primarily discusses the language, not the idea. See your references to “doublespeak”, “framing”, “headlines”, and “the word sideloading”. You claimed “Installing applications on iOS 17 might be allowed in Europe” would be a more accurate headline. It wouldn’t be, because you can install applications via the App Store. If you wanted your headline to be both accurate and to discuss the approval process and fee, you would need to include that, as the original headline does by mentioning “sideloading”, the word that you take issue with but does at least actually raise the issue you’re concerned with.
canucker2016 4y ago
From a personal-computer-user point of view, installing an app from any source is normal. For pre-iPhone cellphone users, your cellphone network operator controlled access to what apps were available for installation. This is was the most common, if not the only, method for cellphone app distribution. App makers (mostly java games) paid to get on that first page of downloadable apps. I'd add some references but Google seems to have amnesia about anything cellphone app distribution pre-iPhone. Apple didn't have an app store initially. How Apple convinced cellphone network operators to cede app approval/control, I don't know. Perhaps it was "apple's way - take it or leave it".
- simondotau 4y ago
  Personal computers really are the exception which proves the rule. Whether it’s the software in your TV, your pre-smart phone, your car, or your game console, locked down has always been the norm.
  - ckolkey 4y ago
    The pc predates all of your examples, so I don't think it makes sense to say "has always been the norm". Has _become_ the norm, perhaps, but thats the entire point. It's not great that it has.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      Being first doesn't make an example the most canonical.
- JD557 4y ago
  It was the most common, but not the only method. You could (at least on Nokia phones) go to any wap site and download a .jad/.jar straight to your phone. I did that a lot on my series 30 (3510i). I think other manufacturers allowed that as well, but I could only use the "free wap browsing trick" on Nokia phones, so I never explored that.
- black3r 4y ago
suction 4y ago
[dead]
daevout 4y ago
That is a good way of looking at it. What's missing is a catchy name to debase store-based installation similar to what was done through "sideloading". Perhaps "lord-loading", "begstalling", "babybiting", etc.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Apple-blessed install

gary_0 4y ago

Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project). If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server? Oh, but consent to these tracking cookies first.

userbinator 4y ago
they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.
- gary_0 4y ago
  Call me paranoid, but I see it as a slippery slope. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    They are certainly boiling the frog slowly. And for most users that security warning is as good as a cryptographic lockdown anyways. On the other hand, I find it ironic how a lot of "security professionals" will complain constantly about users accepting security warnings with no thought anyway (and they usually use this argument to justify their increasingly authoritarian measures of controlling them.)
    - charleslmunger 4y ago
      It can be simultaneously true that a warning can be a barrier to adoption of your software product versus a competitor, and that a warning is not an effective barrier for a user who thinks they're installing an unreleased video game or going to receive millions of dollars of crypto from foreign royalty.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Actually, in a way, it is. All Microsoft has to do is revoke your application's signing certificate and Windows Defender will prevent it from running on Windows computers. Apple does the same thing with Notarization and Gatekeeper on macOS. If they choose to revoke your signing certificate, Gatekeeper will prevent your software from running on macOS. That means if you do, say or compete with something that Microsoft or Apple doesn't like, they can prevent your apps from running on their platforms.
  - cyberpunk 4y ago
    How come I can run so much software compiled from source then?
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      I don't know what platform you're using, what app distribution method you used, where the code was compiled, if the code was signed, where it was signed and by who, etc. A generic answer to your question is that the software was signed by whoever compiled or distributed the software, which can include your own machine. Your own key might be in your trust store or your app distribution method might put their key in your trust store. Both macOS and Windows will treat software compiled on the same system it is run on as blessed to run without strict signing checks. On macOS, ad-hoc certificates can be used, but the OS will treat those binaries as if they're radioactive. If you compiled code on macOS, the system will treat that software specially on that specific system and allow you to run it[1]. On Windows, certificates can be added to trust stores. Chocolatey, for example, has their own signing certificate for all of the compiled open source software they have in their repositories, so Windows allows their software to run. The biggest issue is what comes with software distribution itself, where your code isn't blessed by default by the system it was compiled on, or doesn't have signing certificates in the users' trust stores, and Gatekeeper and Windows Defender go out of their way to stop your users from running software with signing certificates they don't like. [1] https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854 https://apple.stackexchange.com/a/426854
      - cyberpunk 4y ago
kevingadd 4y ago
Code signing and associated warnings are significantly different from fully prohibiting the execution of unapproved code, I'm not sure why people struggle with the distinction. Windows has been doing this mostly the same way for literal decades. iOS has a full sandbox which would apply even to "side loaded" applications, which makes the arbitrary constraint even more ridiculous as a "for your own good" measure.
parker_mountain 4y ago
>If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, these OSes were designed decades ago, before we really had a good grasp on security. there were other significant concerns as well, such as performance also, modern OS toolkits, such as on macos and windows 11, are moving towards a permission and API model that will allow sandboxing. In fact, macos is moving quite quickly towards this. And lastly, there is a widely deployed OS that runs all applications in a proper sandbox: chromeos I think it's understood at this point by everyone in the industry that sandboxing is the future, but it's taking a while to get there.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > before we really had a good grasp on security Not just that, but before we realised just how many people there would be trying to claw their way into any gap for all manner of dark purposes. Early networked OS and protocol designers thought that people would, largely, cooperate with each other and share resources for the greater good. I wish to live in their naively optimistic future, instead of the one with real humans :/
cookiengineer 4y ago
Fun fact: This is the reason google pivoted to the web, after being blocked as an alternative office suite on Windows. They realized that they need to change the platform for distribution, and hence this is why the web (post-chromium) is now what it is...with all its absurd redundancies of APIs and bloat. Only because Microsoft can't keep their shit together. Apple is more complicated, because despite the absolute control they've established (no other browser engine / JIT compiler process allowed for whatever made up reasons) they did not face the European courts that forced Microsoft for the exact same thing to allow to install other Browsers. And now we are stuck with Safari, repeating the loop, because Apple can't keep their shit together.
mhoad 4y ago
If you hate cookies you’re going to be posted when you find out what’s happening in native apps. It’s an order of magnitude worse they just don’t have to ask or inform you first

charcircuit 4y ago

>Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things. It really wasn't. It wasn't normal to install arbitrary applications on the computers in your fridge, dishwasher, game consoles, flip phones, washing machines, etc. Platforms have varied over time in how open they are to having other people developing for them. iOS is an example of a more closed platform and has shown that closed platforms can be successful. You can see Windows as a more open platform in comparison which was also successful. How open a platform is comes with different trade offs.

eimrine 4y ago
[flagged]
- icehawk 4y ago
  Which ARM computers where you installing arbitrary applications on? What flip phones? They were all locked down on the carrier side. You're still not installing arbitrary applications on game consoles even now that they're running x86. Stop speaking like that please.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    What flip phones? They were all locked down on the carrier side. You seem to have missed the, admittedly brief, period where Java games on phones were extremely commonplace.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      If you think they were "extremely commonplace", you were living in a mid-2000s tech bubble. At best they were kinda commonplace among a narrow set of people who gave a shit, knew it was possible, happened to have devices which supported these games, happened to have a revision of the device which wasn't locked down by the carrier, and who had the time and patience to tinker with such unusable junk. If more than 1 percent of Java-capable handsets ever had third party software downloaded onto them post-purchase, I'd eat my hat. I wonder if even 1 percent of iPhones manage to get used without ever having at least one app installed from the App Store.

miramba 4y ago

I used to think the same way, but not anymore. The amount and variety of attacks on the devices have increased too much in the last years. The device could be encrypted, money could be stolen, some malware could sit silently and do surveillance for who knows. I always wanted to install software on my iPhone without the manufacturing company deciding what I can and can not have (according to californian standards!), but would I let my kids do that nowadays? No way! Stay on the app stores, also on Windows and MacOS is the first line of defense. It‘s sad but the safest approach. Regular users don‘t need to install software on their own anymore, the same as they don‘t need to put processors, storage and Monitors together or install a sound card.

newaccount74 4y ago
The security on the iPhone is from the app sandbox, not from app review. It's trivial to get something past app review (eg. look at casino apps that were disguised as games) On the Mac, staying on the Mac App Store makes sense because it is the easiest way to enforce you only install sandboxed apps. On iOS, that's not going to be necessary, because every app on iOS is sandboxed.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > On the Mac, staying on the Mac App Store makes sense because it is the easiest way to enforce you only install sandboxed apps. As an aside, I do believe you can use sandboxd with apps outside of the App Store, someone just has to write security policies for them. This page suggests that Apple might want to deprecate use of sandboxd in favor of just the App Store[1], though. [1] https://codeberg.org/valpackett/rusty-sandbox https://codeberg.org/valpackett/rusty-sandbox
  - newaccount74 4y ago
    > I do believe you can use sandboxd with apps outside of the App Store Yes, you can, it's trivial to do so. However, Apple does not make it easy to find out if an app is sandboxed or not, or what permissions it has. The warning that macOS shows when opening an app not from the Mac App Store does not differentiate between sandboxed and non-sandboxed apps.

davnicwil 4y ago

The issue with such a statement is that the terms can and do mean different things to different people. I probably have a similar definition of computer and application as you, but many people, maybe the majority, may not. For one thing they might think of a phone as a fundamentally different thing from a 'computer' with a different role. In fact I strongly suspect this is the majority view. Within that people probably think of an 'application' as fundamentally a pre-screened, pre-approved, piece of software to enable some function specifically on the phone and within the phone's ecosystem. Not as any arbitrary piece of software. In fact that might all be seen as a feature, not a limitation, in the majority of people's eyes. Again I strongly suspect that is the case.

aikinai 4y ago

Installing whatever you want on your computer is not necessarily the natural state; it’s not even how the industry started and it’s not how any other industry or devices work. I also prefer to be able to do whatever I want with my own devices, but pretending like it’s an inalienable right, or a natural state, or has no disadvantages is disingenuous and not helpful to the debate.

andai 4y ago
Are they real downsides or just excuses cooked up by Apple to increase profits, and accepted by apple users to minimize cognitive dissonance?
- aikinai 4y ago
  The downsides are the obvious; security and privacy are better protected, malware is much harder to distribute and easier to shut down, fraud is more difficult. You can absolutely disagree with the trade off, but pretending like it’s purely greed is obviously disingenuous.
  - wiseowise 4y ago
    > The downsides are the obvious; security and privacy are better protected, malware is much harder to distribute and easier to shut down, fraud is more difficult. Is that so? https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-malware-too-1849386738 https://lifehacker.com/great-now-the-apple-app-store-has-mal...
    - aikinai 4y ago
      If the App Store had zero impact on the proliferation of malware, finding malware in the App Store wouldn’t be a news story in 2022. It would be well-known and expected to be teeming with just as much malware as the open Internet for the past fifteen years.
onlypositive 4y ago
Of course it's the natural state and an inalienable right to modify or do with the things you own in the way you see fit. When was the last time you asked the builders association if you could remodel your kitchen? When was the last time you asked Honda if you could put new mags on your car? This whole idea that devices aren't owned when you purchase them is asinine and and insult to humanity. Your counter arguments that it's new in the industry is simply due to the fact they thought they could get away with it. Not because they thought it was their right. You don't see Klein putting limits on what nails you can use with a hammer but you can bet your ass they would if they could.

ksec 4y ago

That is assuming Smartphone is a computer. Not agreeing or disagreeing, but the point is people have different interpretation. Some think it is an Appliance. Sad that it has to come to this messy stage where the law has to be enforced. But then Apple isn't the same Steve Jobs Apple.

wilg 4y ago

We focus too much on criticizing language instead of ideas. IMHO, this just leads to tiresome and hollow debates. So, I’ll call that out here. Also, your proposed rewording isn’t correct either because installing applications is already allowed. You can debate the App Store all you want, but it definitely does let you install apps. On topic: This is silly and Apple should allow sideloading. I don’t buy the security argument because the security comes from the sandbox, not Apple’s poorly-run approval process.

andrewmcwatters 4y ago
Don't be mistaken: if you control the language, you've set the tone.
- wilg 4y ago
  Yeah, sure. I get it. But I see a lot of people wasting a lot of time arguing about the definitions of words and how to spin them to try to gain the upper hand in The Discourse. I’m not sure it’s worth it. 1984 may not be a good guide anymore.
superkuh 4y ago
>criticizing language instead of ideas. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. It's obvious that I'm criticising the idea of "sideloading" not the word. You can call it some other arrangement of letters and the concept is still very dangerous. And in this case it is also definitely true that apple does not let you install applications without someone paying them $100+ and their continued approval. The "let" is the key here.
- wilg 4y ago
  Responding even though I know it’s not going to be fruitful. The way I came to that conclusion is I read what you wrote, which primarily discusses the language, not the idea. See your references to “doublespeak”, “framing”, “headlines”, and “the word sideloading”. You claimed “Installing applications on iOS 17 might be allowed in Europe” would be a more accurate headline. It wouldn’t be, because you can install applications via the App Store. If you wanted your headline to be both accurate and to discuss the approval process and fee, you would need to include that, as the original headline does by mentioning “sideloading”, the word that you take issue with but does at least actually raise the issue you’re concerned with.

canucker2016 4y ago

From a personal-computer-user point of view, installing an app from any source is normal. For pre-iPhone cellphone users, your cellphone network operator controlled access to what apps were available for installation. This is was the most common, if not the only, method for cellphone app distribution. App makers (mostly java games) paid to get on that first page of downloadable apps. I'd add some references but Google seems to have amnesia about anything cellphone app distribution pre-iPhone. Apple didn't have an app store initially. How Apple convinced cellphone network operators to cede app approval/control, I don't know. Perhaps it was "apple's way - take it or leave it".

simondotau 4y ago
Personal computers really are the exception which proves the rule. Whether it’s the software in your TV, your pre-smart phone, your car, or your game console, locked down has always been the norm.
- ckolkey 4y ago
  The pc predates all of your examples, so I don't think it makes sense to say "has always been the norm". Has _become_ the norm, perhaps, but thats the entire point. It's not great that it has.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    Being first doesn't make an example the most canonical.
JD557 4y ago
It was the most common, but not the only method. You could (at least on Nokia phones) go to any wap site and download a .jad/.jar straight to your phone. I did that a lot on my series 30 (3510i). I think other manufacturers allowed that as well, but I could only use the "free wap browsing trick" on Nokia phones, so I never explored that.
black3r 4y ago

suction 4y ago

[dead]

daevout 4y ago

That is a good way of looking at it. What's missing is a catchy name to debase store-based installation similar to what was done through "sideloading". Perhaps "lord-loading", "begstalling", "babybiting", etc.

zamnos 4y ago
Apple-blessed install