Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

Note that Firefox is distributed outside the Mac App Store, otherwise the use of private functions would be disallowed by Apple.

View on HN

It's so clear how Mac OS and Windows both can function without app stores that it's obvious that app stores are a rent-seeking middle men. Terrible that they've been normalized for mobile devices.

F-Droid though is awesome!

I think the problem is locking us to one app store - because the app store does provide some added functionality (easy of use - one place to go for all apps - security vetting - automated update settings across apps)

The App Store on macOS is a convenient distribution channel. It’s helpful to have, especially because alternatives exist if it doesn’t have the right tradeoffs for you.

I don't see any issue with the app store models for macOS (mostly) and windows (could be useful, but not in its current implementation). They act as more curated package managers with a GUI, and an added bonus of taking care of payments (a hard problem!).

App stores allow users a centralized place to both acquire known and verified applications as well as get updates for them. They are a safe place to buy things - Apple is not going to steal your credit card. For developers, they are a convenient place to park your app, without having to manage your own distribution services. And payments is always pain - it's probably the single biggest value add that the app stores cover it for you.

And you can always circumvent it on these platforms. It's just an addition. I'd prefer to get an app on the mac app store if it is there, if it is not then that is fine as well, but will require more digging to verify it's authenticity.

Mac App Store has a ton of scams. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/04/15/mac-app-store-ransomware/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/08/10/the-top-pdf-reader-in-the...

iOS App Store too. They're not safe. Apple isn't going to steal your credit card, but they'll happily charge your credit card for these scams.

And that’s fine. It’s a heuristic. A coarse filter. But a filter none-the-less.

These scam apps are literally #1 in the App Store. The filter ist practically useless, if not outright harmful in this case.

These stores are not curated. They can catch the most egregious things, but they also are not really "safe" either. It would totally be worth 30% of my payment for a truly curated app store. However the Apple app store takes a lot of income for providing a negligible quality filter, updates, and taking payments (most payment processors take single digit percentages).

Windows store got a lot more useful since it started allowing regular Win32 desktop apps.

While I'm all for opening devices up the fact that app stores exist on platforms like Windows or Mac disproves the rent-seeking thesis if anything. Steam commands a 70/30 cut while software can be distributed freely on Windows which was in fact the normal situation on desktops before the advent of app stores.

App stores are distribution mechanisms and advertisement channels, same value proposition as Spotify compared to shipping your music on your own website.

I am sure Apple's own Mac App Store apps are free to use those though right?

Apple, of course, is free to do whatever they want.

A fair and efficient market /s

Since side loading is a thing on macos this is a nonissue for the users, ios on the other hand... They're really only hampering adoption of the app store by placing ridiculous restrictions.

You can’t sideload NetworkExtension VPN apps on macOS, the entitlements for them to work are only distributed for App Store apps.

This is why you can’t download WireGuard from the WireGuard website. You have to identify yourself to Apple with an Apple ID (which requires a non-disposable email and working phone number) to download free privacy software.

> You can’t sideload NetworkExtension VPN apps on macOS, the entitlements for them to work are only distributed for App Store apps.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It's really a matter of how the extension is packaged: app extension for App Store or system extension for Developer ID.

"On macOS most Network Extension provider types can be packaged as either an app extension or a system extension. App extensions run in a user context; if the user logs out, the provider is terminated. System extensions run in a global context, completely independent of the logged in user." https://developer.apple.com/documentation/technotes/tn3134-n...

It is the case that Safari web extensions are Mac App Store only, as opposed to Safari app extensions, which can be Developer ID.

I have to disagree with you here. Sideloading is either "too hard" or "too scary" for many users.

It's standard practice when installing things on macos. Although it's typically signed .dmg's

this is an example of a reddit comment on hacker news, there are many more every day

It's a private flag. Doubtful Apple's review process would be able to catch that.

The flag itself no, but trying to link in os_unfair_lock_lock_with_options could be caught.

Plausibly they could get around it by doing a dlsym() or something. In general it's not possible to prevent private APIs from being used if they underly public APIs, but perhaps if Firefox tried to evade the rules they could be sanctioned.

I think the day that Apple completely bans non-App Store apps is approaching very quickly. It became apparent when Mac OS started checking app signatures with a remote server a couple of OS releases ago and wouldn't let you open them in some cases even if you right click-opened. I wonder how many technical users will stay with Mac OS if Apple decided to go that route.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com