5 ms·
On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you. On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree.
by andrewla 3y ago
On the one hand, as a developer, I agree with you.
On the other hand, as a user, and one who has to do de facto IT support for my family, I strongly disagree. Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. You could argue that it's a question of Apple having an incomplete security model, in which they enforce through human review that apps do not perform malicious behavior. But Apple is just pretty good at this -- the rare app that slips through their net is usually quickly caught and killed, and their security on-first-use opt-ins "Allow this app to access your camera", along with enforcing that apps for whom the permission is denied must still function, is critical, compared to the Android "Allow this app to access all device state forever including private information and your entire DNA sequence" that you get on app install.
On the gripping hand, advanced users, like developers, can basically sideload whatever the hell they want. The barrier here is a lot stronger than a checkbox in settings saying "allow sideloading apps" and thus is intrisically more difficult to access, and then only by people who know what they're doing anyway.
- kibwen 3y ago> Having an off-store method of installing apps is just dangerous. I can't help but find this to be extremely infantilizing. The whole point of a democratic society is that we believe that we can educate people rather than relying on some authoritarian dictator to decide the limits of our freedoms. What you appear to be suggesting that your family is too stupid to be educated? Are you sure about that?
- andrewla 3y agoI think my reply to the sibling comment covers most of this. But I am not suggesting that my family is too stupid -- rather, that the level of expertise required to safely determine whether a given app is safe to sideload is not only beyond the reach of a casual user, it's beyond the reach even of an experienced expert. Is my family too stupid to understand quantum field theory? I don't know -- maybe? Does the framing of "too stupid" make sense with that question?
- archagon 3y agoShould you also allowlist their internet use, then?
- andrewla 3y agoWhat's the "sharp edge of the knife" here? For use of web sites, the assumption has been that the user agent is responsible for preventing websites, no matter how malicious, from performing harmful operations. Even before there was a formal concept of "sandboxing" this was the basic assumption, and the biggest violation of it always came from "hey, download this executable and run it on your machine". Maybe someday we'll have sufficient app isolation that there will be no worries about the idea of running completely untrusted native-code apps on your device. But this is not that day.
- archagon 3y agoIt looks like the off-store app installation method that Apple is developing has exactly the same system protections as App Store apps, including the capability to kill malicious apps. Just as with websites, I think the biggest threat would be deceit: phishing, credit card and identity theft, subscription schemes, etc.
- zarzavat 3y agoAn argument to danger also works for banning kitchen knives. That something is dangerous is only an argument against it if the danger outweighs the usefulness. Given Apple’s restrictive App Store policies, sideloading on iOS would be very useful indeed, more useful than on Android. To sideload on iOS via the developer tools you need a Mac, and the builds will expire. So it’s not a viable alternative to sideloading due to the cost and inconvenience.
- andrewla 3y agoThe comparison to knives, whose function and danger is completely obvious by inspection, is not really apt. Compare it to a home furnace or water boiler instead. These are regulated, both from the state and from independent testing labs. You can make and install your own if you know what you're doing, but no reputable installer or contractor will even consider installing some jury-rigged non-compliant contraption. A checkbox that says "I understand the risks involved" is never going to cut it, because there is 1) no way that the overwhelming majority of users understand the risk, and 2) the existence of the option puts us in a world where completely naive users are told "to install the cat-picture-a-day app, first click the 'allow sideloading' button and ignore the warnings, and then go to cat-picture-a-day.ru and install!" As the article notes, we saw this with malware and browser toolbars in the 90s, and we see it now with misbehaving sideloaded Android apps (and "repurposed" Android apps). I personally am happy to pay the premium to get a quality device that forces developers into a constrained environment for my benefit.
- nerdawson 3y ago>I personally am happy to pay the premium to get a quality device that forces developers into a constrained environment for my benefit. I too like the walled garden. I don't really see that as an argument against sideloading however. Presumably the first-party app store would continue to operate with the same restrictions and I'd happily avoid opting-in to sideloading. The people who want it are happy and I'm no worse off.
- andrewla 3y ago
- deutschepost 3y agoThen… don’t? The regulations are not about killing the App Store. It will still be possible to use the App Store while sideloading is a thing. See google play.
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y agoPeople who are happy with Apple's policies should be able to enjoy them and stay perfectly safe from malware and scam apps (sarcasm). Nobody is forcing them to install a third-party app. Others should be able to use their devices as they please. Also, the argument that 'you knew what kind of device you were buying' doesn't work, because Apple has shown time and again that whatever app is available at the moment of the purchase of the app can be later removed from Appstore by Apple for whatever reasons.