The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue.
These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this.
Most if not all apple/iOS users are happy with the closed garden approach apple has setup.
Aside from a handful of nerds who don’t want to pay a an apple premium to put their crappy home brewed app on their iPhone at the risk of making the entire system vulnerable for everyone else.
> These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this.
To give you a specific example, if I wanted to install a gameboy emulator on my iPhone, I wouldn’t be able to through the App Store as emulators are generally disallowed, but if I could side load then I could install an open source one.
This would benefit me, and wouldn’t benefit any corporations.
You are like 0.0000000001% of the usecase. You might benefit from playing retro Pokémon but Epic will benefit at least $10b more than you.
Also, you have the most innovative APIs available that you can use to make apps that can change lives or change the world and you want to make a fucking game boy emulator?
Society and the environment would benefit enormously by being able to repurpose old iPhones and iPads. Side loading would make these devices significantly less likely to end up in landfill.
Asking our corporate overlords to help save the earth is the most idiotic thing I’ve read her. Almost as dumb as looking at Hollywood to teach morals or accurate history
This is a very bad argument. The benefit of others, in this case, has nothing to do with your own benefit.
Its true, epic might profit for several millions, so what? How does that affect me or other users?
Apple keeps acting like the user is somehow this baby that needs to be protected, we're not. We're adults that can make our own decisions.
Android and iOS are completely different operating systems, iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy. BTW, open source apps have to go through hoops to be published on the appstore because of their rules and regulations.
> iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy.
YOU could do that, but as others have said, the problem is that other people are not going to do that. For the average user, it's a huge attack vector, or let's be honest, it'll be used to pirate apps.
The average user doesn't even know what open source is, and when they Goa head and side load some new game because their "neighbors son really knows computers" and their iPhone gets taken over by adware, who do you think they're going to blame? Do you really think they'll go "oh well, that was the risk I took by side loading." or something? Nope. They'll go "Wow, that was terrible. Apple sucks. The iPhone is insecure garbage!"
That's exactly what would happen and we all know this.
If anything, perhaps Apple could make an "iPhone 12 - Developer Edition" and only allow side loading in that version... and offer no warranty other than hardware. Keep it out of the hands of Average User but the ones that think they're such power users can buy it.
This change would actually fuck over the small independent developers the most who would see their apps being listed on forums availanle as .apks or whatever, the you download from a shady hosting website, from which some random guy will make ad dollars while infecting your device with malware.
The people who support this really just want a way to not pay for shit and we all know it. Epic and co don’t want to pay apple, and the rest don’t want to pay 1Password, etc
The “I’m a nerd and I just wanna put my cool apps on my phone and share with friends” is literally like 5 people.
You shouldn't protect people through forbidding them access. Make it relatively complex? Sure. Explain the risks? Sure. Forbid it? I don't think that's the best solution.
I mean, from a parenting perspective which is kind of the role that Apple seems to be claiming over its user, it's super diminishing. Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom". How is that an appropriate argument? We let people vote for a reason, freedom is not something that can be taken away just like that.
This issue to me is much more than just "oh, it's privacy" it's an issue on our fundamental rights of ownership and freedom to do with our devices what we want. The reality here is that Apple has captured the mobile market in the most lucrative country on earth (the USA) and they're ruling over people like a lord on its serf.
And to follow up on what you've said, you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention? People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know. More freedom is a good thing, these devices cost hundreds of dollars; they're computing devices why not treat them just like computers. Do you see people saying macbooks are "insecure garbage" because I don't? And you can install all kinds of apps on it, even from "untrusted" developers.
I don’t think forbidding access is a great solution, but I do think overall the cumulative choices Apple has made do indeed make a more secure device. I wouldn’t call Samsung “garbage” but I wouldn’t choose to use one either.
Apple has already made money by selling you the iPhone/iPad hardware.
If different app stores are allowed then Apple's app store does not host or review the app so they do not suffer any loss there.
So this just means that Apple wants the extra money from App store and they don't care what users want.
Now people say that Apple has the right to control their devices and that would be true...if they were leasing them but they are not, they are selling them and once sold the phones are not Apple's devices anymore. So when I ask Apple to allow me to use MY device any way I want they should not have the right to say no.
>The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue.
NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store?
None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power.
I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.
Meh. Allowing me to have more control over the apps loaded / running on my phone is absolutely in my best interest. This stuff is exactly why I totally reject everything Apple and their "walled garden" ecosystem. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.
I'm sure he does. It would be hard to reject everything about Apple but still use their phone. Even though their privacy angle is strong, I'll never use one of the devices either for similar reasons.
> That would destroy the security of the iPhone and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store, where we have privacy nutrition labels and App Tracking Transparency... these things would not exist anymore.
Trying to give “Tim Apple” the benefit of the doubt, I seriously cannot see how his comments jive with reality. If you give me the option to side load apps (and hell, make it as obscure as running an app on macOS from an “unidentified developer”) then:
- The App Store is still as safe as ever
- The vast majority of people won’t sideload as getting an app on the App Store is the lowest-friction method
- iOS’ “sandbox” model and OS-level security settings still (approximately) guarantee some level of safety w.r.t. tracking, unauthorized file/camera/mic access, etc.
- This would finally allow the iPad to enter true “pro” territory.
I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security.
But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”
The app has to declare permissions before it's launched their 'nutrition' label could be shown based on that.
The only, debatably, valid part of this argument is those apps can't be vetted by apple for user safety before installation the same way apps on the app store are.
>But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”
I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple.
Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads)
The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.
But this stuff is a direction continuation of his policies. Tim Cook was clearly picked to be a safe pair of hands - Jobs would have been making the exact same arguments in the exact same way.
It was certainly the right policy in Steve Jobs era. But is it the right policy now? As a matter of fact Jobs fought internally for side loading. Even Phil Schiller argued they should run it a lower commission once they reach critical mass. And Tim Cook is looking at it as a lost of revenue only. This was also apparent when Tim Cook decide to start a whole 5+ years operation to undermine Qualcomm ( and later IMG and Dialog), something that Steve Jobs thought was worth it.
Jobs would have listened and rethink. Jobs is great for changing his mind. Tim Cook is taking a few of Steve Jobs last policy as gospel and counting pennies. ( Which is a good thing as a COO, not so much as an CEO ) In many ways Tim Cook feels more like John Sculley.
The iPad will never be a true “pro” device until any arbitrary code can be run on it without paying $99 per year to Apple for the privilege (Apple Developer Program).
The App Store profits and user privacy are two different issues. It's not all doublespeak:
Since an i-device is restricted to Apple's app store it's Apple who can make the call what kind of app behaviour is permitted. They communicate this very clearly and sell devices where the user can expect apps don't try to deceive them. (yes, this is fallible, but the App store is curated and offenders can be and are removed).
Allowing sideloaded apps will make it very easy to break these promises since users don't read the small print and will install whatever social app their friends are using. Already Facebook has expressed disagreement about the new app privacy labels, so I fully expect them to jump to sideloading as soon as Apple allows this (or is forced to allow this).
Consequence is users have no choice then to install Facebook apps from a non-privacy respecting source since there will be no messaging apps with privacy guarantees on the app store. At the least Facebook will have more leverage to press for less user protection.
I see this as a loss for users (like myself). I like having at least a bit of privacy protection and until there are other ways to guarantee this I will accept the App store model as the lesser evil.
> I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security.
I installed F-Driod yesterday on a new Nokia Android Phone. It requires you to confirm that you are happy to run the untrusted app, and away you go.
I guess a non-technical person could be tricked into performing the steps over the phone by a scam-artist...which is always the danger with these things.
I fully support Apple and the rules they have to protect the ecosystem they have created.
They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns.
Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup.
They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden they have built.
The entitlement that some of these companies think they have that they just show up with a crappy game and loot boxes and think they get to dictate the rules. Sit down young’n.
While this comment may have a little too much dramatic flare, it is one of the few contrarian comments that provides concrete reasons for the position.
It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful.
It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.
Not forever, they can only rent seek as long as they provide a compelling device to users. Too much rent seeking = fewer app developers = fewer compelled users.
> It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.
When I need a device I can completely control, I buy a device that I completely control. It’s not like there’s a shortage of options.
I would like to continue to be able to purchase a device that is well locked-down. If only for the benefit of my parents, who aren’t to be trusted to judge the privacy and security limitations for any given software.
Though, to be honest, I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.
Pretty much the only phone you have real control over and can buy with any moderate reliabilty is the pinephone. There absolutely is a shortage. Oh sure you can put a hacked rom on an Android but you can do the same with the iPhone. Even then you don't have control because the closed drivers are coupled to the userspace and there's a bunch of crap you can't get rid of combined with Google play and you effectively don't have much control at all.
> I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.
I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.
Tim Cook's argument doesn't hold up in the most likely scenario: if users get a choice to install third party apps, the risk to a user who exclusively chooses Apple's app store remains nearly as low as today.
And choice is what Cook does support when it comes to iOS privacy controls (except there the change to Apple is a leg up over Facebook and Google).
What's best for the user, Apple's profits aside, is to provide a choice in both scenarios.
This is fundamentally different as it’s asking to pic internal vs external whereas the Facebook choice is about controls that both parties have access to within iOS
It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part.
I mean, if the app I want is on a single store, do I have a choice? Are users really itching to install the Epic store so they can have more choices? The Epic store will be shoved down their throats.
As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.
I think Apple is clearly overplaying the role that their app store policies like the "nutrition label", reviews and app tracking transparency have in the iOS security model. To me, the security features that matter are from the operating system, its implementation of encryption and the sandboxing model that's enforced by it.
The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.
Sucks that html is out of the bag already, doesn't it Tim?
To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari.
Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.
55 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 95.6 ms ] threadThese corporations are the only ones to benefit from this.
Most if not all apple/iOS users are happy with the closed garden approach apple has setup.
Aside from a handful of nerds who don’t want to pay a an apple premium to put their crappy home brewed app on their iPhone at the risk of making the entire system vulnerable for everyone else.
To give you a specific example, if I wanted to install a gameboy emulator on my iPhone, I wouldn’t be able to through the App Store as emulators are generally disallowed, but if I could side load then I could install an open source one.
This would benefit me, and wouldn’t benefit any corporations.
Also, you have the most innovative APIs available that you can use to make apps that can change lives or change the world and you want to make a fucking game boy emulator?
Android this way ———>
That benefits everyone except corporations.
Oh … wait.
Go. Fucking. Vegan.
Asking our corporate overlords to help save the earth is the most idiotic thing I’ve read her. Almost as dumb as looking at Hollywood to teach morals or accurate history
Its true, epic might profit for several millions, so what? How does that affect me or other users?
Apple keeps acting like the user is somehow this baby that needs to be protected, we're not. We're adults that can make our own decisions.
Android and iOS are completely different operating systems, iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy. BTW, open source apps have to go through hoops to be published on the appstore because of their rules and regulations.
YOU could do that, but as others have said, the problem is that other people are not going to do that. For the average user, it's a huge attack vector, or let's be honest, it'll be used to pirate apps. The average user doesn't even know what open source is, and when they Goa head and side load some new game because their "neighbors son really knows computers" and their iPhone gets taken over by adware, who do you think they're going to blame? Do you really think they'll go "oh well, that was the risk I took by side loading." or something? Nope. They'll go "Wow, that was terrible. Apple sucks. The iPhone is insecure garbage!" That's exactly what would happen and we all know this.
If anything, perhaps Apple could make an "iPhone 12 - Developer Edition" and only allow side loading in that version... and offer no warranty other than hardware. Keep it out of the hands of Average User but the ones that think they're such power users can buy it.
Especially the point about piracy.
This change would actually fuck over the small independent developers the most who would see their apps being listed on forums availanle as .apks or whatever, the you download from a shady hosting website, from which some random guy will make ad dollars while infecting your device with malware.
The people who support this really just want a way to not pay for shit and we all know it. Epic and co don’t want to pay apple, and the rest don’t want to pay 1Password, etc
The “I’m a nerd and I just wanna put my cool apps on my phone and share with friends” is literally like 5 people.
I mean, from a parenting perspective which is kind of the role that Apple seems to be claiming over its user, it's super diminishing. Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom". How is that an appropriate argument? We let people vote for a reason, freedom is not something that can be taken away just like that.
This issue to me is much more than just "oh, it's privacy" it's an issue on our fundamental rights of ownership and freedom to do with our devices what we want. The reality here is that Apple has captured the mobile market in the most lucrative country on earth (the USA) and they're ruling over people like a lord on its serf.
And to follow up on what you've said, you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention? People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know. More freedom is a good thing, these devices cost hundreds of dollars; they're computing devices why not treat them just like computers. Do you see people saying macbooks are "insecure garbage" because I don't? And you can install all kinds of apps on it, even from "untrusted" developers.
No, it's not.
> you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention?
Yes, actually, you do see this! Most of the Android malware is from sideloaded apps, although some of it comes from Google Play itself.
> People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know.
No, they're saying Android is insecure garbage instead. Just like they'll say iOS and Apple is garbage.
NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store?
None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power.
I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.
Trying to give “Tim Apple” the benefit of the doubt, I seriously cannot see how his comments jive with reality. If you give me the option to side load apps (and hell, make it as obscure as running an app on macOS from an “unidentified developer”) then:
- The App Store is still as safe as ever
- The vast majority of people won’t sideload as getting an app on the App Store is the lowest-friction method
- iOS’ “sandbox” model and OS-level security settings still (approximately) guarantee some level of safety w.r.t. tracking, unauthorized file/camera/mic access, etc.
- This would finally allow the iPad to enter true “pro” territory.
I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security.
But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”
………… literally so what? Welcome to capitalism. They built it. They reap the rewards, while paying devs who play by the rules $643 billion in 2020.
I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple.
Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads)
The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.
Jobs would have listened and rethink. Jobs is great for changing his mind. Tim Cook is taking a few of Steve Jobs last policy as gospel and counting pennies. ( Which is a good thing as a COO, not so much as an CEO ) In many ways Tim Cook feels more like John Sculley.
Since an i-device is restricted to Apple's app store it's Apple who can make the call what kind of app behaviour is permitted. They communicate this very clearly and sell devices where the user can expect apps don't try to deceive them. (yes, this is fallible, but the App store is curated and offenders can be and are removed).
Allowing sideloaded apps will make it very easy to break these promises since users don't read the small print and will install whatever social app their friends are using. Already Facebook has expressed disagreement about the new app privacy labels, so I fully expect them to jump to sideloading as soon as Apple allows this (or is forced to allow this).
Consequence is users have no choice then to install Facebook apps from a non-privacy respecting source since there will be no messaging apps with privacy guarantees on the app store. At the least Facebook will have more leverage to press for less user protection. I see this as a loss for users (like myself). I like having at least a bit of privacy protection and until there are other ways to guarantee this I will accept the App store model as the lesser evil.
* If the devices were secure enough, we could run untrusted code with no consequences. Like practically every website on the planet
* If side loading was so dangerous every windows and Linux machine would be filled with viruses.
* Apple and Google claim their app stores are "safe" from malicious apps. This is clearly not the case.
I guess a non-technical person could be tricked into performing the steps over the phone by a scam-artist...which is always the danger with these things.
They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns.
Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup.
They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden they have built.
The entitlement that some of these companies think they have that they just show up with a crappy game and loot boxes and think they get to dictate the rules. Sit down young’n.
It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful.
It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.
Yes, and?
Anything apple says is an attempt to keep it's shady business of a gold mine
I am still running windows phone and that is thanks to side loading and replaceable batteries. Tim Cook can go to hell with his lies
I would like to continue to be able to purchase a device that is well locked-down. If only for the benefit of my parents, who aren’t to be trusted to judge the privacy and security limitations for any given software.
Though, to be honest, I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.
This is definition of having your cake and eating it too.
> I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.
I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.
And choice is what Cook does support when it comes to iOS privacy controls (except there the change to Apple is a leg up over Facebook and Google).
What's best for the user, Apple's profits aside, is to provide a choice in both scenarios.
This is fundamentally different as it’s asking to pic internal vs external whereas the Facebook choice is about controls that both parties have access to within iOS
It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part.
The security thing is just a joke. The walled garden isn't safe (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...)
As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.
The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.
To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari.
Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.