4 ms·

> If such a switch exists, EVERYTHING will use it. Absolutely everything. How do you explain that this hasn't happened on Android?

• rrdharan 3y ago
  It has.
  • detaro 3y ago
    No it hasn't. Play store is still utterly dominant, and very very very few apps are only available through other channels (I couldn't name any, but there probably are some open-source ones on F-Droid that didn't want to bother with the Google processes, and maybe some vendor has some exclusive apps on their store?). Side-loading is very much a niche thing.
    • rrdharan 3y ago
      https://www.tomsguide.com/news/hackers-have-developed-a-clever-new-way-to-add-malware-to-android-apps https://www.tomsguide.com/news/hackers-have-developed-a-clev... https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/07/be-careful-about-sideloading-popular-android-apps-unless-you-like-malware/ https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/07/be-careful-about-sidel... Yes it’s niche but it can be, and is, abused as a vector for this kind of stuff…
    • bandrami 3y ago
      There used to be a significant enterprise "Bespoke iOS app for inventory management/POS" market but I think that pretty much all migrated to Android in the past few years.
• rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  There is enough malware for stock Android. Here’s an example, a couple of months old: Android malware infiltrates 60 Google Play apps with 100M installs: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/android-malware-infiltrates-60-google-play-apps-with-100m-installs/amp/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/android-malwa...
  • detaro 3y ago
    And you claim that if there was less malware in the playstore people would use sideloading more?
    • rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      No, I claim that bad actors don’t need to come up with alternative because it’s easy enough to ship malware via official Android app store.
      • p_j_w 3y ago
        In that case, the point you are making is entirely off topic for what's being discussed.
  • lern_too_spel 3y ago
    Only a fraction as much malware on the iOS App Store, where xcodeghost infected hundreds of millions of users out of a smaller number of total devices. This makes sense because the Play Store applies the same review that the App Store does and has additional automated checks on top. Meanwhile, no devices have been infected with malware from F-droid, which Apple will not let you use.
• threeseed 3y ago
  One example unique to iPhone will be advertising. Apple has very strict controls which prevent tracking and mess with attribution. The second side-loading is permitted Meta and Google will spend billions in advertising convincing people to use it. Because for Meta at least it literally cost them $10b in revenue each year.
  • smoldesu 3y ago
    Thankfully Apple only sends tasteful ads, like the pop-up Apple Music modal when you put on headphones or that friendly perennial reminder to Try The New Safari. Then there's the total non-advertisement at the top of Settings encouraging you to try iCloud, along with the native and beautiful builtins like Apple News and TV+ that totally don't exist to upsell you on more services. > Because for Meta at least it literally cost them $10b in revenue each year. Is there any reason to believe Apple cannot stop them at an OS-level rather than a store-level?
    • threeseed 3y ago
      Apple doesn't track you to nearly the same extent as Meta does. And yes Apple can't stop them since with Objective-C you can call any private APIs dynamically at runtime.
      • piaste 3y ago
        > Apple doesn't track you to nearly the same extent as Meta does. How do you know?
        • sbuk 3y ago
          Can you explicitly prove the contrary?
          • smoldesu 3y ago
            Hitchen's Razor. If we cannot hold either company accountable for their data usage (we cannot), then we're fighting over which fairytale we like better.
• jahewson 3y ago
  One factor is that Google are more permissive about what apps can do, so the incentive is lower.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]