4 ms·

Third-party stores are nice to have but not as important, they are hard and expensive to run - not a thing any interested individual/company can afford to do fo

Third-party stores are nice to have but not as important, they are hard and expensive to run - not a thing any interested individual/company can afford to do for themselves and their peers. Sideloading, being able to just build your app and run it immediately (or put it on your own GitHub page for everybody to get) without asking Apple or any other store - this is the real game-changer.

lupusreal 2y ago
> [3P appstores] are hard and expensive to run - not a thing any interested individual/company can afford to do for themselves and their peers. F-Droid proves it can be done without much money.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  As I understand, this is only so because F-Droid itself is side-loaded. The conditions Apple enforces on stores are a different story.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    That's a trait of Apple restrictions, not an intrinsic trait of running a third party appstores.
bogwog 2y ago
Side loading isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the concentration of power in the app ecosystem or any of the abuses of that power Apple constantly wields to the detriment of users, businesses, the planet, and other stakeholders (e.g. censored, imprisoned and/or murdered dissidents). It'd be cool for people like you and me though. Aka nerds who know how this stuff works.
- qup 2y ago
  Short-term I agree, but long-term things can happen. The internet used to be cool for people like you and me, nerds who know how this stuff works.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > Side loading isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the concentration of power in the app ecosystem I'd say the opposite. The people concerned about the cut that Apple and Google are taking from developers, and that they have to write a privacy policy for a screensaver app rather than using it as a trojan to exfiltrate user data are "people like you and me." Normal people just don't want for people who are not them to be able to overrule them about whatever they want to do with their own phone. Multiplying the number of gatekeepers just gives opportunities to "people like you and me" who are equipped to become (and often dream of becoming) little bourgeois gatekeepers ourselves. "Sideloading" (aka loading, made a subclass of itself), is an answer to the general question, while "alternative app stores" is simply an answer to potential competitors being locked out of the market.
resoluteteeth 2y ago
Depending on how much discretion Apple is allowed, this might make it possible for anyone to run a free service that allows people to side load their own apps as an app store which would only be slightly less convenient than directly side loading apps. In the EU, Apple is attempting to superficially comply (I don't think it's really even complying with the letter of the law but I guess it thinks it's worth a shot) while keeping the ability to unilaterally block apps from third party stores, but that will likely get rejected by regulators, and it might end up being forced to allow anyone to operate an app store and having to give up any control over apps distributed that way. I haven't read the text of the Japanese lawbyet, however, so I'm not sure how much control apple will be able to exercise over third party app stores in Japan. I guess from the perspective of user control of devices it would be better if you could at least just enter a URL for an arbitrary self hosted "app store" and that seems unlikely since the laws are coming more from the perspective of antitrust law, but it still may be able to get closer to that.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  When I write an app, I usually don't want to distribute it outside my family. Ideally no party other than those I want (e.g. Apple) should even know it exists.
supermatt 2y ago
From the EU perspective, I dont believe the DMA definition for third party stores requires them to be an app on the device. In theory it should allow for exactly what you desire.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  Apple can require them whatever they want though, in any case they comply just by making alternative stores formally possible. But perhaps I'm wrong, I haven't done any serious research, I can only guess.
micromacrofoot 2y ago
Sideloading is outrageously dangerous for the vast majority of people. I'm a developer and the only time I'd want to do it myself is to avoid some silly Apple policy. Third party app stores wrest control from a single entity and still have some vested interest in doing the security and quality control that most people aren't capable of.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  Every person should have a right to consciously take responsibility over their own device and program it the way they see fit without asking anybody, based on their own judgement of how qualified they are. Unless only they are objectively disabled and obviously incapable of doing a sufficiently good job (maybe a child or a mentally senile senior).
  - micromacrofoot 2y ago
    I don't disagree with this, but there's such a wide gulf between theory and reality. I would wager that 90% of people or more, are incapable of doing a sufficiently good job at this. The OECD has done research on computer skills and even email is difficult to manage for most people. Sideloading becoming too accessible can be a major attack vector and there aren't good mechanisms for preventing this. Even with various protections there are a wide array of Windows scams that funnel millions and millions of dollars from luddites to scammers.
    - qwerty456127 2y ago
      > The OECD has done research on computer skills and even email is difficult to manage for most people. Yet nobody actively prevents them from doing it, or even running their own e-mail servers. There are many things in our lives which are dangerous and fairly difficult for average people yet are and should be left unregulated and unsurveilled. There are ways to protect the user from making dangerous choices without proper judgement, also to counter the threats as they materialize. I don't object recognizing the danger though. I've read border security services of some countries happen to install spyware on travelers Android devices this way. I believe there just should be a not-too-easy (while perfectly legal, not ridiculously complex and not breaking anything itself) way to unlock certain policies, lock them back and see what's set for people who know what are they doing. Making the whole system more transparent can also help to notice and sanitize it when it is compromised.
ccppurcell 2y ago
This is probably a very stupid question, but could GitHub claim to be, in effect, an app store, and force side loading? Not saying they would do that...
th3w3bmast3r 2y ago
> Sideloading, being able to just build your app and run it immediately (or put it on your own GitHub page for everybody to get) without asking Apple or any other store - this is the real game-changer. This would be awesome to have!
aalimov_ 2y ago
I’m not sure if I’m missing something here, but I am able to build my app and run it on my iOS device without going through the AppStore or TestFlight. Is what you are trying to do something different?
- jocoda 2y ago
  As long as you have an Apple developer account ($99/y) otherwise is silently deleted after 7 days.
  - aalimov_ 2y ago
    Ahh, I hadn’t noticed that. Thanks for clarifying.
fennecbutt 2y ago
Agree, why can't I just visit a website for x, hit a button in my browser to download and install their app. Security? Well, shouldn't the OS/sandboxing be handing that for me? Malicious apps or scam lookalike apps? Surely a similar system to ssl certs can be used.

lupusreal 2y ago

> [3P appstores] are hard and expensive to run - not a thing any interested individual/company can afford to do for themselves and their peers. F-Droid proves it can be done without much money.

qwerty456127 2y ago
As I understand, this is only so because F-Droid itself is side-loaded. The conditions Apple enforces on stores are a different story.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That's a trait of Apple restrictions, not an intrinsic trait of running a third party appstores.

bogwog 2y ago

Side loading isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the concentration of power in the app ecosystem or any of the abuses of that power Apple constantly wields to the detriment of users, businesses, the planet, and other stakeholders (e.g. censored, imprisoned and/or murdered dissidents). It'd be cool for people like you and me though. Aka nerds who know how this stuff works.

qup 2y ago
Short-term I agree, but long-term things can happen. The internet used to be cool for people like you and me, nerds who know how this stuff works.
pessimizer 2y ago
> Side loading isn't going to have any impact whatsoever on the concentration of power in the app ecosystem I'd say the opposite. The people concerned about the cut that Apple and Google are taking from developers, and that they have to write a privacy policy for a screensaver app rather than using it as a trojan to exfiltrate user data are "people like you and me." Normal people just don't want for people who are not them to be able to overrule them about whatever they want to do with their own phone. Multiplying the number of gatekeepers just gives opportunities to "people like you and me" who are equipped to become (and often dream of becoming) little bourgeois gatekeepers ourselves. "Sideloading" (aka loading, made a subclass of itself), is an answer to the general question, while "alternative app stores" is simply an answer to potential competitors being locked out of the market.

resoluteteeth 2y ago

Depending on how much discretion Apple is allowed, this might make it possible for anyone to run a free service that allows people to side load their own apps as an app store which would only be slightly less convenient than directly side loading apps. In the EU, Apple is attempting to superficially comply (I don't think it's really even complying with the letter of the law but I guess it thinks it's worth a shot) while keeping the ability to unilaterally block apps from third party stores, but that will likely get rejected by regulators, and it might end up being forced to allow anyone to operate an app store and having to give up any control over apps distributed that way. I haven't read the text of the Japanese lawbyet, however, so I'm not sure how much control apple will be able to exercise over third party app stores in Japan. I guess from the perspective of user control of devices it would be better if you could at least just enter a URL for an arbitrary self hosted "app store" and that seems unlikely since the laws are coming more from the perspective of antitrust law, but it still may be able to get closer to that.

qwerty456127 2y ago
When I write an app, I usually don't want to distribute it outside my family. Ideally no party other than those I want (e.g. Apple) should even know it exists.

supermatt 2y ago

From the EU perspective, I dont believe the DMA definition for third party stores requires them to be an app on the device. In theory it should allow for exactly what you desire.

qwerty456127 2y ago
Apple can require them whatever they want though, in any case they comply just by making alternative stores formally possible. But perhaps I'm wrong, I haven't done any serious research, I can only guess.

micromacrofoot 2y ago

Sideloading is outrageously dangerous for the vast majority of people. I'm a developer and the only time I'd want to do it myself is to avoid some silly Apple policy. Third party app stores wrest control from a single entity and still have some vested interest in doing the security and quality control that most people aren't capable of.

qwerty456127 2y ago
Every person should have a right to consciously take responsibility over their own device and program it the way they see fit without asking anybody, based on their own judgement of how qualified they are. Unless only they are objectively disabled and obviously incapable of doing a sufficiently good job (maybe a child or a mentally senile senior).
- micromacrofoot 2y ago
  I don't disagree with this, but there's such a wide gulf between theory and reality. I would wager that 90% of people or more, are incapable of doing a sufficiently good job at this. The OECD has done research on computer skills and even email is difficult to manage for most people. Sideloading becoming too accessible can be a major attack vector and there aren't good mechanisms for preventing this. Even with various protections there are a wide array of Windows scams that funnel millions and millions of dollars from luddites to scammers.
  - qwerty456127 2y ago
    > The OECD has done research on computer skills and even email is difficult to manage for most people. Yet nobody actively prevents them from doing it, or even running their own e-mail servers. There are many things in our lives which are dangerous and fairly difficult for average people yet are and should be left unregulated and unsurveilled. There are ways to protect the user from making dangerous choices without proper judgement, also to counter the threats as they materialize. I don't object recognizing the danger though. I've read border security services of some countries happen to install spyware on travelers Android devices this way. I believe there just should be a not-too-easy (while perfectly legal, not ridiculously complex and not breaking anything itself) way to unlock certain policies, lock them back and see what's set for people who know what are they doing. Making the whole system more transparent can also help to notice and sanitize it when it is compromised.

ccppurcell 2y ago

This is probably a very stupid question, but could GitHub claim to be, in effect, an app store, and force side loading? Not saying they would do that...

th3w3bmast3r 2y ago

> Sideloading, being able to just build your app and run it immediately (or put it on your own GitHub page for everybody to get) without asking Apple or any other store - this is the real game-changer. This would be awesome to have!

aalimov_ 2y ago

I’m not sure if I’m missing something here, but I am able to build my app and run it on my iOS device without going through the AppStore or TestFlight. Is what you are trying to do something different?

jocoda 2y ago
As long as you have an Apple developer account ($99/y) otherwise is silently deleted after 7 days.
- aalimov_ 2y ago
  Ahh, I hadn’t noticed that. Thanks for clarifying.

fennecbutt 2y ago

Agree, why can't I just visit a website for x, hit a button in my browser to download and install their app. Security? Well, shouldn't the OS/sandboxing be handing that for me? Malicious apps or scam lookalike apps? Surely a similar system to ssl certs can be used.