8 ms·
iOS 17.2 hints at Apple moving towards letting users sideload apps
- tech234a 3y agoDocumentation for the ManagedAppDistribution API: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/managedappdistribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/managedappdistribu...
- rcdemski 3y agoThat’s where my gut is landing on this one. They discussed managed app distribution at WWDC and that’s what feels like is coming with 17.2. In my enterprise land I’m excited for these cleaner integrations for MDM app distribution.
- hkchad 3y agoAs long as I can disable that in the MDM
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoThis article links to https://9to5mac.com/2023/04/25/ios-16-restrict-features-based-on-location/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/04/25/ios-16-restrict-features-base... which I find almost more interesting: > Currently, Apple uses hard-coding techniques to restrict iOS features in specific locations. This means that most restrictions are simply tied to the region of a device, either by software settings or where that hardware comes from. But the company has been working on a new, smarter way to precisely determine the user’s location. > Based on our findings, the new system internally called “countryd” was silently added with iOS 16.2, but is not being actively used for anything so far. It combines multiple data such as current GPS location, country code from the Wi-Fi router, and information obtained from the SIM card to determine the country the user is in. > But why exactly is Apple developing this system? Well, we now have a clue. [...] With the new “countryd” system, Apple will be able to easily determine if the device is being used in an EU country to allow sideloading. ...so here's what I want to know. I live in the US, but I absolutely must have sideloading if there is any chance it's possible. What unholy things will I have to do to convince my iPhone I'm in Europe?
- vasdae 3y agoIf you absolutely must have sideloading why don't you buy an Android phone?
- toast0 3y agoNeither Android nor iOS permit sideloading of iOS apps. Android doesn't help much if that's what you want to do.
- cherryteastain 3y agoUh what? Every Android phone lets you install apps via .apk files.
- mike_d 3y agoHow do you get them onto the iPhone tho?
- bottlepalm 3y agoCould be a huge opportunity for Valve to work their compatibility layer magic on iOS, and allow us to finally play sooo many quality games that the iPhone is perfectly capable of running - new and old.
- smoldesu 3y agoProton relies on DXVK, which needs relatively recent Vulkan coverage to work. You might be able to get Game Porting Toolkit to run on iOS eventually, but that's probably a matter of hardware compatibility (and of course, Apple blessing it).
- ThatPlayer 3y agoMoltenVK might work though that only does up to Vulkan 1.2, while DXVK requires 1.3. There is a legacy version of DXVK that only requires 1.1. Or maybe MoltenVK can be improved.
- guidedlight 3y agoMicrosoft is also known to be working on an iOS gaming store, as part of its Activision Blizzard acquisition.
- graphe 3y agoDoes anyone else read articles backwards? It seems to be the best way for me to read articles since most of the are padded. The last part was that it needs to be done by March 2024, if the was the relevant info you care about.
- frfl 3y agoRecipe blogs the are worst in this regard. Most have an essay that you have to scroll past. I'm guessing in both cases, it's about SEO.
- ziddoap 3y agoI've only heard this anecdotally, and specifically for recipes, but I've heard it's for copyright (and yeah, probably SEO too). You can copyright your long-winded explanation of your recipe, but not the recipe itself. A quick search seems to support the idea: >Tips for Protecting Your Recipes >1. Include Content Beyond the Ingredient List https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-protection-recipes/ https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-protection-recipes/
- Semaphor 3y agoJust in case you didn't know: almost all have a jump to recipe button at the top
- patrickmay 3y agoOne of my pet peeves is that online "journalists" have given up on the inverted pyramid format in favor of click bait. There is no pride in the craft anymore. shakes fist at cloud
- mrtksn 3y agoAlthough I'm generally happy with Apple's walled garden model, IMHO sideloading is getting much more important than ever for a few reasons: 1) Apple engaging in rent seeking may stifle progress and create another Nokia catastrophe. When a device is locked down, Apple can make you purchase inferior services and if they can do it for long enough they can end up irrelevant. Big things are happening in China, not good idea to milk customers instead of head on competition just because there's a political pressure on China and locked down devices in users hands. 2) Political instabilities all over the world. Apple services might not be available all the time and they might be limited due to political reasons. 3) Huge appetite by the governments to control user's devices and make vendors act as the police. Maybe you support this if you feel like the power is on your side but don't forget that your enemies can take over at any time. Locked devices are extremely risky for any kind of resistance. It's also very interesting if Apple can manage to make this EU exclusive. If Europeans manage to come up with actually popular use cases, can Apple deny this to US users? For how long? AFAIK in China WeChat can do a lot of stuff that it's not allowed in the West, can Apple pull this in EU-USA context? IMHO it would be much harder.
- yladiz 3y ago> It's also very interesting if Apple can manage to make this EU exclusive. I imagine it will be configurable, since I would guess there will be region specific rules (for example China might only want to allow App Store apps, which they can completely control the distribution of).
- Terretta 3y ago> Locked devices are extremely risky for any kind of resistance. Tell that to the surveillance states that hate your iPhone.
- mrtksn 3y agoThe same states that just purchased the Pegasus software from Israel and breached the iPhones anyway? O.K. I'll tell them. Meanwhile there are real wars happening in Europe and the Middle East, people are hacking phones to fly drones, trigger devices or detect enemy. It would suck badly if you are the one who has no access to an Android device, and you have to wait for Apple reviewers to approve the app that can use the seismometer to detect and rely the tank positions in your neighbourhood. It's 2025, the war still goes on and Trump decides that Putin is right, to de-escalate the situation orders Apple to stop providing services to users in Ukraine because people are using their phones to film and locate Russian soldiers, prolonging the war. There you have it, someone on the other side of the planet just cut your communications as they see fit so you can be exterminated without causing much trouble. Very dangerous stuff. These devices are expensive, people can't just get something that will work at whim. Unfortunately, Apple's walled gardens can't protect you against tanks or missiles.
- apple4ever 3y agoI certainly hope so! Apple's App Store has repeatedly had ridiculous rejections which stifles innovation, and their policy of not allowing apps to purchase outside the App Store (such as for Kindle and Netflix) is entirely customer unfriendly. Nothing changes for people who want the full security, but for others it allows a massively better device with the tradeoff of lower security.
- endisneigh 3y agoI wonder why people keep repeating this. By this logic you could also say why not use android if you care about such things.
- crossroadsguy 3y agoOr rather, another way to look at this is, if one is worried of demons lurking in the shadows of non-Apple-apps then stick to the one which are iBlessed™. Right?
- stranded22 3y agoI just want a proper browser on my iPad rather than reskinned safari.
- tech234a 3y agoIt's possible to build an experimental Blink-based version of Chromium for iOS, but it seems to require an entitlement not available for free Apple Developer accounts [1]. Additionally, JIT and WASM are currently disabled, the current browser UI is very minimal, and various system integration features are incomplete according to the list of issues that are blocking [2]. 9to5Google demonstrated it earlier this year [3]. [1]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/ios/build_instructions.md#building-blink-for-ios https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i... [2]: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1411704 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=141170... [3]: https://9to5google.com/2023/03/03/first-look-google-chrome-blink-engine-iphone-ios/ https://9to5google.com/2023/03/03/first-look-google-chrome-b...
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoSame stuff with the VPN. Entitlement not available.
- musicale 3y agoIt's time to run Chrome everywhere and hand control of browser technology back to Google where it belongs.
- stranded22 3y agoJust saw this. Good god, no - I want Firefox with extensions, or perhaps Vivaldi (yes, I know - chromium)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nerdjon 3y agoSide loading is fine, but I am legitimately worried about being forced to get apps from outside of the App Store. Forcing that all of the applications I use on my phone (and most of what I am subscribed too) has to go through Apple's systems is a win for me since I can very easily cancel subscriptions. Same for billing so I can minimize the places that have access to my credit card information. But if more services force me to give them my credit card information or just use an outside App Store that doesn't enforce these things, a major reason I stick with iPhone will be lost (and it isn't like moving to Android will be a solution to this problem). If I can still get every app and every subscription I want to use on my phone through the App Store than I have no issue with this. But as soon as a developer takes that option away from me because they want to use a dark pattern on canceling or do something shady with my credit card information this is no longer about the consumer. And don't try to say that I am coming up with a theoretical problem to be mad about considering Epic games tried this exact thing on Android.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoChoosing to pay through Apple or not should be the consumer's decision, not Apple's. Especially when you're paying extra for it, which is how it is hurting consumers. The whole reason Apple removed Epic's Fortnite from the Apple App Store was an additional payment method that didn't use Apple's. I'm sure legitimate developers would be fine using Apple's payment as long as they can pass those additional fees to the customer. YouTube does that now for example with higher rates on iOS. The issue is that apps aren't allowed to advertise that they can get it cheaper elsewhere. That's why some apps like Netflix and Kindle refuse to let you purchase on iOS at all, because it would artificially increases their prices with those additional fees. If Apple have to compete with other payment processors, that's good for consumers too because it'll lower fees.
- nerdjon 3y agoYou’re right and we are in agreement. It should be the choice of the consumer. As a consumer I made the choice to use Apple system. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that once the floodgates are open and developers are no longer forced to use Apple’s system that they will. Removing the choice from consumers. Developers will jump at the chance to “forget” to tell me my yearly subscription is about to renew or not give me a one click option to remove subscriptions. Something I get with the App Store. Also I have said it before and will continue to repeat this. Developers think they will get more money by being out of the App Store but there is a lot of subscription I use now that I would never pay for if I couldn’t through the App Store. For myself and many others their choice is to take the 30% (really it’s less considering there are still credit card processing fees and unless you make your own billing system the fees of other systems) or nothing.
- Apocryphon 3y agoI've argued extensively before that allowing sideloading and even third party app stores would not be nearly a threat to security and quality user experience as it's been hyped. Instead, I'll repeat a suggestion of a potential model of Apple getting behind sideloading itself, rather than being dragged screaming and kicking into openness: > Really, Apple could have headed off regulators at the pass if they had embraced the semi-opening of their platform themselves. Allow third party app stores but on their own terms, providing SDKs and APIs for creating your own iOS App Store with security checks baked in and mandating privacy protections built in. Sort of like a software services equivalent to Apple Authorized Service Providers and Apple Authorized Resellers. They would have then controlled this debate, and there would have been less room for the Epics of the world to complain about the platform being locked down. Not to mention users would benefit from greater choice. Imagine boutique third party app stores springing up devoted to specific interests and niches such as F-Droid, promising better curation or quality. Companies who refuse to use the AppStoreKit that Apple so beneficently provided would then be seen as malefactors seeking to subject their users to lack of privacy and security, rather than Apple trying to uphold their 30% cut and restrictive behavior. Instead, Apple tried to control everything and not only did they expose themselves to regulation like this, they deal with customers annoyed at scammy apps on their own App Store, and third party devs crying foul at inconsistent policing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33978588 Maybe this is sort of happening now, if Apple is providing an app distribution framework. They're embracing managed openness. Lifting some side gates in the walled garden.
- bradknowles 3y agoApple has had an Enterprise private App Store solution for years. How is this any different?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Apocryphon 3y agoIf you’re asking about OP, that’s what it says > By analyzing the new API, we’ve learned that it has an extension endpoint declared in the system, which means that other apps can create extensions of this type. Digging even further, we found a new, unused entitlement that will give third-party apps permission to install other apps. In other words, this would allow developers to create their own app stores. > The API has basic controls for downloading, installing, and even updating apps from external sources. It can also check whether an app is compatible with a specific device or iOS version, which the App Store already does. Again, this could easily be used to modernize MDM solutions, but here’s another thing. > We also found references to a region lock in this API, which suggests that Apple could restrict it to specific countries. This wouldn’t make sense for MDM solutions, but it does make sense for enabling sideloading in particular countries only when required by authorities – such as in the European Union. If you’re asking about my proposal, an MDM solution is certainly a far cry from Apple endorsing and selectively approving third party app stores as a means to essentially outsource the duties of running the App Store to other parties while taking a cut through different means.
- cwales95 3y agoI’d love to side load my own apps for personal use. There’s a hundred use cases for my home in which our my side loaded apps would be very beneficial. I have a few network restricted websites set up for me and my partner but an app would bet better I think. The mobile web is still quite frustrating to use so a native app would be ideal.
- TechRemarker 3y agoApple documentation shows this is for organization use not for third party stores: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/managedappdistribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/managedappdistribu...