Hacker News Reader

Comment by zarzavat | Hacker News Reader

An 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.

View on HN

The 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.

>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.

The problem is that if the sideloading avenue exists, what do you do when your bank says "from now on use our sideloaded app instead of the app store version"? Or when whatsapp (or telegram, or whatever) does this.

The App Store is a forcing function for app developers, because it's the only way to reach IOS customers. Without that forcing function, some app developers will circumvent, and if a critical mass does it, then you no longer have the option of opting out.

Apple can presumably make the warnings scary enough to make app developers reluctant to leave, but alternative less restrictive app stores and big-name developers will lobby to have those warnings removed for being deceptive.

And what do you do when your bank says "Apple no longer allows us to put our app on the Appstore"? This is not a hypothetical question but an issue millions of users are dealing with every day.

Apple should not have that kind of power over owners of the devices Apple manufactures.

That’s an interesting point.

If some game announced you could only get it through an alternative app store, I wouldn’t play that game.

Banking is critical functionality on the other hand. Under those circumstances, I’d change banks. The likelihood of any major bank attempting that seems awfully low and I’m sure it’d attract the widespread condemnation it deserves.

Android has sideloading. I don’t doubt some apps try to push users to an alternative marketplace but important everyday apps are where you’d expect them to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com