Hacker News Reader

Comment by bena | Hacker News Reader

I think you're missing something.

Meta makes the Facebook app. Currently, the only way to get the Facebook app on iOS is through Apple's App Store. Which means Meta has to follow all of Apple's guidelines.

Once sideloading is allowed, Meta can make a version of their app that does not follow Apple's guidelines.

Now, they can maintain two apps, but last time I checked, the cost of maintaining one app was lower than the cost of maintaining two.

Eventually, the App Store version will no longer work with Facebook's API. Or the iOS version, or a third thing. There will only be the sideloaded option.

I don't have the freedom to choose the version of the app I want. And now I can't actually trust any of the apps out there because none of them are required to follow any of Apple's guidelines.

View on HN

If Meta pulled from the official app store, their install rate would go to 0 overnight. And a third-party developer would quickly swoop in and take over the #1 search result for the word "Facebook" (plenty of such apps already exist), so oblivious users would still end up ahead.

Sure they could offer a sideloadable app on their website somewhere, but nobody will find it or use it. If your grandma searches for facebook and the top result says "Friendly for Facebook" instead of just "Facebook", do you really think she'll notice the difference let alone go on a wild goose chase of googling for alternative app stores and clicking through scary warnings?

I mean it didn't stop a lot of people from clicking through "scary warnings" to install Facebook's VPN app that hoovered up their data. I think you are vastly underestimating what people will go through for a minor benefit to themselves (in the case of the VPN it was low dollar amount gift cards).

FB won't remove their app from the app store but instead will add a new feature or offer a perk that is only in their side-loaded version and it will drive users in droves to install it.

Apple will likely make the sideloading process so involved that it’ll be outside of the competency of the vast majority of the users.

Facebook would just shoot themselves in the foot with having to support two apps for little value.

Something tells me the people who installed FB's shaddy VPN via sideloading weren't exactly what's I'd call "competent users".

FB complained about lost revenue from Apple locking down tracking so if $X is what they make per user via the official app store and $Y is what they make on the sideloading app store then there exists $Y-$X = $Z where $Z (or even $Z * some number) can be used for "customer acquisition" to convince people to switch with the goal of making more off them in the long run.

"Get $5 in FB Credit if you download this app", "Get access to this cool new filter if you install this app", etc. No, people here on HN won't be swayed by that but a good number of people will.

I would bet that Apple would still require developers to sign their apps, like they do on macOS.

That means you that if a vendor does something particularly egregious, stuff akin to malware, they can pull the certificate for that vendor. They don’t do that often: IIRC, they’ve only done that in macOS a handful of times.

> There will only be the sideloaded option

how did you come to that conclusion? certainly not true in the android world. I don't have the stats on prevalence of sideloadong vs. play, but all official apps are alive and well in play after decades of being able to sideload

Does Facebook have an ongoing dispute with Google about privacy controls on Android, though?

This hasn’t happened on Android where side loading and alternative app stores have been available for years. Why would iOS be different?

Because Google doesn't give a fuck about what apps pull off until there's media outrage. It took them years to implement basic privacy features.

Because play store have less rules? FB can steal all your photo and play store couldn't care less.

Facebook hasn't recently blamed the Play Store rules for their losing a shitload of money. They have so-blamed iOS App Store rules.

Basically, they have far less incentive to try to push a side-loaded version of their app, or to try to create an alternative app store, on Android.

Meta already does all sorts of stuff that violates Apple's TOS, they just do it server-side.

> I don't have the freedom to choose the version of the app I want.

Sure you do. You can either use it or you don't. Regulating data privacy isn't Apple's job, if you want that fixed then you should take it up with the government or someone who can actually hold them accountable.

> Regulating data privacy isn't Apple's job

It's part of why I pay them, so I say it is.

> if you want that fixed then you should take it up with the government

Yeah, I'd strongly prefer the government do what it obviously should and reign in abusive, dangerous stalking-at-scale across the entire economy, but absent that, it sure is nice to have a choice to still get some of that regulation in one area of my life, by going with Apple.

Take away that option and I'm sure as shit not going to feel more free.

> Sure you do. You can either use it or you don't.

That's two choices, where now we have three. Buy Android and every app you download is malware; don't use apps; buy Apple and every app's trying to be malware, but at least they can't be nearly as good at it as on Android. Losing choice three doesn't increase my liberty.

> It's part of why I pay them, so I say it is.

Okay. It's meaningless in a legal context, completely unaccountable and contradictory to their own regulation.

You're welcome to insist otherwise but I don't think any just court would hear you further than that.

> Take away that option and I'm sure as shit not going to feel more free.

Nobody is taking away anything. These apps have always had the option to leave Apple's ecosystem, adding additional stores doesn't miraculously add that possibility. It's like saying that the Taco Bell opening up down the road is threatening your upscale Cantina burrito that you're eating as-we-speak.

> That's two choices

Okay, I'll amend it then. You can either use it, or you don't, or go buy an Android phone. Or degoogle your Android phone, that's 4 options.

Quit whining about liberty and put your stubbornness where your mouth is. Stay on the App Store if you insist, nobody will stop you. If you did it on a Mac, you'd probably look like a bit of a fool though. Plenty of longtime, respectful Apple devouts (see: Panic) acknowledge that the App Store is a raw deal and distribute their apps themselves. There are people other than bad actors advocating for this, as shocking as it may sound. It is possible to see the forest through the trees.

> Buy Android and every app you download is malware

This is really not true. Android has a thriving open source ecosystem of great free apps without any tracking. F-droid even has reproducible builds.

Apple doesn't have this precisely because the lack of sideloading. Not many open source devs want to pay the 100 bucks to offer something for free and to deal with the hit and miss app store review process.

> Take away that option and I'm sure as shit not going to feel more free.

No options will disappear. You don't have to use sideloading. The same way most users on Android don't do it. Even alternative stores like Huawei's are a fringe phenomenon.

> Regulating data privacy isn't Apple's job, if you want that fixed then you should take it up with the government or someone who can actually hold them accountable.

I live in the United States of America, where the government is bought and paid for by companies who dislike privacy for their users.

In the meantime, it may not be Apple's "job," but it's part of their value proposition, and the grumbling from software vendors indicates it's reasonably effective.

You live in the United States of America, which has had Google, Microsoft and Apple under it's thumb since Snowden's leaks. If you want to insinuate that Apple protects you against state-level actors, you should disprove that or at least refute their own transparency page[0].

> the grumbling from software vendors indicates it's reasonably effective.

If not the software vendors, who are you trusting to keep your best interests at-heart here?

[0] https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/

> I don't have the freedom to choose the version of the app I want. And now I can't actually trust any of the apps out there because none of them are required to follow any of Apple's guidelines.

You don't have that "freedom" right now either, it's just the Apple Store one. Also the law is about giving options on the distribution system, not on "app versions". So if Epic or 37 Signals use their own channel to distribute their own apps with subscriptions fees, they can do it and Apple cannot take its cut. So, Apple might want to reduce their fees there. You know, competition.

Right, but the person I responded to spoke as if this was going to be a way to increase consumer choice. It's not.

Everyone will not get "the privacy/control tradeoff they want". They're going to get whatever the creator of the app decides. And sure, for TODO apps, you can choose from the 15 billion ones out there. But if you want ride-sharing, you have Lyft and Uber. If you want specific services, you will have to use their app.

And after the shit Epic pulled, I don't really think I want them in control of the payment processing portion.

I would rather pay less for Ubers than have Apple’s protections. I would rather pay less for Uber and have Apple’s protections.

Apple will still offer Uber, but they will take a smaller cut. Uber will still be available on the App Store because it is the most common App Store.

Apple doesn't offer Uber. Uber offers Uber. Uber offers it through the App Store because that's their only option. And even if the only thing that happens is that Apple takes a smaller percentage, that doesn't impact me at all. I'd still pay the same.

So, in your best case, we have a scenario that is neutral for me. Excuse me for not being thrilled by that.

It impacts you in the form of lower prices.

Uber is going to collect the difference, not the customer.

Seems unlikely. Uber is facing significant price pressure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com