Does iOS have sideloading yet?
doesioshavesideloadingyet.com
doesioshavesideloadingyet.com
A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Maybe we need less bureaucracy and more building. Send some of that sweet EU funding towards companies building open source tech.
Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it?
Why stop at app for 30% fees? It puts a lot of work into Safari too, why not 30% of every purchase made through safari?
> Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying ...
that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
It's your phone that you bought from Apple with full knowledge of the restrictions beforehand. If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't.
>that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
Sounds like a "we should improve society somewhat" moment. https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/257/342...
If you have two choices and one is barely better than the other, you think people shouldn't be allowed to acknowledge the negative aspects of the thing they chose?
If you want a phone built by someone who doesn't know how to design a phone, I'm sure there are already lots of tiny and irrelevant players already in the EU that you can patronise. The phone probably won't be particularly good though, evidenced by the fact that most people with a choice prefer to let Apple make all the decisions. Or various Asian groups who have a knack for tech.
If customers choose to go with USB-C, a thicker phone, larger battery etc, that is all and well, I feel that will happen anyways. But it should be up to the customer & manufacturer, not the government.
Yeah, no. In this specific topic, we've had plenty of time to establish that it is isn't the case. Power is not balanced between individuals and manufacturers.
USB is a horrible mess but for the first time in my life, I can travel with one charger that works with all the devices I take with me. I could even travel without a charger and be pretty sure I will be able to find one at the destination.
People around me seem as happy as me about this and it wasn't the case as long as manufacturers were not forced to use USB. Nobody complains about the port form factor. That's simply not a concern.
I have an older micro-USB Kindle that annoys me. Of course, for most trips I never need to charge it, as long as I charge it before I leave, so for all practical purposes it's fine.
My wife just bought an iPhone 16 to replace her iPhone XR, and if it weren't for her AirPods from a few years ago, she'd be able to avoid carrying around that extra lightning cable too.
This might feel like a minor, first-world problem, but it is annoying. And when you scale it up, there's so much waste with so many people needing two cables, one of which could have never been manufactured, had we all been using the same ports all along.
My expectation would be that Apple could quite easily design the phone independently of the safety regulations, then do a review and determine that they have effortlessly complied with them. Otherwise it is more likely to be a defect in the regulation than with Apple.
I just don't think this logic works. It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
It makes me laugh because back in the day people would have been complaining about Apple assembling their phones in Chinese sweatshops. But in the intervening time it turned out that working hard generates lots of wealth and now the conversation is how to sabotage the Chinese to stop them getting too wealthy, technically advanced and powerful. Those sweatshops meant business.
But to your actual point, you feel a need to compare sideloading apps to promoting war and conflict on an international sale you might want to reset your sense of proportion. If the EU wants to focus on promoting global peace I would strongly advise that they go do that rather than trying to backseat design iPhones. There is a major land war in Europe right now that involves pretty much every nuclear power except Pakistan they might like to turn their attention to. Some might say it involves resource rights too.
> It's basically advocating for self-regulation, and that's historically not worked that well.
The EUs regulators aren't so crash-hot either historically speaking. They've managed a grand transition from unchallenged global power to a 3rd tier continent over the last hundred years. They're doing something wrong. Telling Apple how to manage a phone is the least of their problems, but neatly emblematic of their strategy of having people who don't know how to make things work overulling the people who do.
There is nearly always something more important to do, no matter what you are doing. That doesn't mean that what you're doing is a waste of time.
This statement is a bit much. I don't think we can really have a productive discussion about this with you, because it seems like you've put Apple on such a high pedestal that you won't accept any criticism of them.
The idea that if a company -- at least one you hold in high regard -- would naturally design a product that would violate some regulation, then that regulation must be wrong... wow, that's an incredible statement to make.
Apple's market share is like 20%, 30% globally. There is clearly a lot to criticise; most people don't use iPhones. If you want to compare an Apple phone and a Huawei phone then Huawei has them beat on a number of things. One of them can probably makes a phone detectably safer than the other too.
The issue is the criticism being used to justify going from decisions being made in Apple (capable of getting double digit percentages of the world that they make the best smartphone) to the EU (incapable of convincing anyone they know how to make a smartphone & a track record of driving business out of Europe).
What if we let people who don't have a proven track record of gross incompetence make the decisions? I think that is a good starting point. Giving design decisions to the only group of people to have destroyed and bungled their own smartphone industry is a bad idea.
In this instance, you can still give Apple your money - NOT sideload anything - and live life exactly as before. People - lots of people - just want an option.
I love what the EU has done for standardising charging bullshittery. I hope it can make an impact here.
Indeed we did pay more. They bought Apple phones.
Some people want sideloading. Some people want "lock it down so I can't fuck it up".
They are just software options. Why can't we all just have what we want?
Edit: added commentary below
Other general purpose computers have Adminstrator/root vs standard user accounts. Why is this not a thing for phones?
> Why can't we all just have what we want?
We have it. I compiled and installed an open source app on my iphone. There is a barrier which is just perfect because it means no matter how hard they try no one can manage to get my mom to install some shady app that abuses private apis and such in order to hack her unless they first get this app on app store
Making it an option would threaten safety and life savings of millions of people who don't give a flying duck about your or my undying love for full hardware ownership but will instantly become targets for mass hacking campaigns ("just press this button and OK 3 times to the red warning")
"if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs. If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it. If you care about these things and insist on using this brand then you can afford it
(I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
It seems we're actually in agreement here :)
You say that any option will be social engineered, and then you go on to explain an option that Apple has already implemented that you don't believe is susceptible to social engineering.
Grandma could theoretically install AltStore, and then proceed to install malicious apps from unknown sources, right now, if she really wanted to. But she won't, because it's too complicated.
I'm not asking for an easy way to sideload. I wouldn't mind if it was made even more difficult than it is now, in fact. All I want is an officially-supported option to do so that isn't prohibitively expensive. An example I provided on the website is Google's ChromeOS. They make it difficult enough to enable developer mode that it's practically invulnerable to social engineering attacks. It's much more difficult to enable sideloading on a Chromebook than it is on an iOS device.
> If you are dead set on it just mentally map in your head the price of a 1000$ device to 1100$ and be done with it
No, it's $100/yr, every year into the foreseeable future, and the cost could change at any time without prior notice. If you stop paying, your apps will stop working, so if you've grown attached to and have become dependent upon your sideloaded apps, it's quite unlikely you'll stop paying.
The Apple Developer Program is not intended as an option to enable sideloading on your device, and it never was. Apple only wants you signing up if you plan on submitting apps to the App Store, which is a benefit you're completely missing out on if you use it exclusively for sideloading.
> "if you really care about it, you can do it" is a fair state of affairs
I would 100% agree, if that were an accurate description of reality, but unfortunately it's not. If you can't afford $100/yr, then no, you cannot do it. It doesn't matter how much technical knowledge you have; you simply cannot do it.
> (I am a bit exaggerating the point but just because it seems like almost everyone is on the other side of the argument)
You and I must not be reading the same website? There is a very large anti-sideloading presence here on Hacker News. Most of it is based on strawman arguments and flawed assumptions, but it's there, and surfaces on almost every thread discussing the topic.
An option like "a toggle in settings" like the other guy suggested will be social engineered. But option like "a possibility" available with hoops to software engineers or tech savvy people can't be.
> Grandma could theoretically install AltStore,
Only in EU I guess? Hopefully it stays there
> No, it's $100/yr, every year into the foreseeable future
OK. Add couple more hundred bucks. Doesn't change the point.
> and the cost could change at any time without prior notice
Well it all comes back to "we are at the mercy of the maker of the product we buy". From my vantage point allowing easy sideloading and alt stores are changes I don't want
> There is a very large anti-sideloading presence here on Hacker News
Maybe we read different sites...
Basically everybody is for sideloading and alt stores
1) big corporations who want to run their own stores and not pay Apple a cut for creating and maintaining the hardware and ecosystem
2) techie freedom maximalists
3) regular people who want to pirate apps and not pay small-time developers and don't realize security implications
Except for the second group I very much disagree with all of them and as I said the second group can already do it with some hoops
Okay, then the only disagreement we seem to have is that you think that everyone who sideloads should continue to give a yearly donation of $100 to Apple (which they don't need or want) for the rest of their lives?
That is a very strange perspective. Keep in mind that I would fully understand if you don't think Apple should be forced by governments to provide sideloading for free; that's a separate issue, and I don't explicitly advocate for it on my website. The EU legislation has already passed; I'm just explaining what it means for tech enthusiasts.
> Only in EU I guess?
I'm referring to the "classic" version of AltStore. The EU version only allows you to install Apple-approved apps and as such doesn't present any additional risk for malware. The classic version is available worldwide and it makes use of signing certificates from Xcode.
https://faq.altstore.io/altstore-classic/how-to-install-alts...
> OK. Add couple more hundred bucks. Doesn't change the point.
It absolutely does change the point. You claimed that anyone with the required technical skills can sideload, but that isn't true; they need to be able to afford and justify spending an additional $8.33 every month to access a feature which is free on every other mainstream computing device.
> From my vantage point allowing easy sideloading and alt stores are changes I don't want
I don't want that either, as I already said.
> 1) big corporations who want to run their own stores and not pay Apple a cut for creating and maintaining the hardware and ecosystem
I don't have any sympathy for Epic Games either.
> 3) regular people who want to pirate apps and not pay small-time developers and don't realize security implications
Sideloading doesn't inherently provide the ability to pirate apps. All iOS apps are encrypted and the binaries can't be accessed by other apps; the only way to obtain them is through jailbreaking, and that's something which probably won't exist forever. There's also of course unbreakable cryptographic measures such as remote attestation that Apple could employ if the problem grows into something too bad.
> I don't have any sympathy for Epic Games either
Maybe it was astroturfing but when this was on the news HN discussion was basically back to back people supporting Epic, one reason I feel like it's lopsided here...
I think it is! Certainly not on the level of eliminating feudalism, but it's an improvement.
You're also misusing the term "design" here. Apple's resistance to allowing sideloading has nothing to do with design. It's a business decision that helps them extract more revenue from their product.
And that's the real point: governments are free to restrict and dictate how companies do business. That's just how the world works.
> I'm giving Apple money specifically because they designed the phone.
And many people give Apple money somewhat grudgingly, because they know Apple offers a great experience, even though there are some things they don't like about it, and there's no reason -- aside from Apple's business model -- why those issues can't be fixed.
I don't think "barely better" accurately represents the situation, since the other choice here literally allows sideloading. It's not barely better, it is better if you want to sideload apps. To paraphrase your meme, society has already been improved somewhat.
So what do you do? Well, you have to compromise. And not for a real technical reason. You have to compromise because Apple's business model depends on being able to extract more money from customers and developers by being a gatekeeper.
Whenever a company's business model prevents me from doing something I want with a product they might sell me, I think twice about buying that product.
Yes, it's a powerful computing device that is probably much more capable and can be made to do more things than the intended purpose. That's fine to be curious about, and if you are feeling adventurous enough to fight against the system to get it to do more, go right ahead. However, I see no reason why Apple should be forced into helping you do that. It's not an OSS system.
The reason is that the discussion is nuanced, a smartphone plays a very different role in someone's life than a Nintendo Switch. For better or worse, a smartphone has become a requirement for critical services that we all rely on.
That doesn't really align with the arguments people actually put forth for sideloading on iPhones. "It's my device, I should be able to run whatever I want" is the most common, and doesn't leave room for the nuance you're referencing. Like it or not, most people arguing for iPhone sideloading are using arguments that also demand sideloading on game consoles. It's not at all a straw man.
Many people can get upset and complain about many things at the same time. For me I have a smartphone and it is essential to have one for everyday life now. Gaming devices are not playing the same role in people's life.
But in principle I would agree that people should advocate for more control over all their devices.
This is not an optimal solution, but it is more of a solution than, for example, the (maybe I'm wrong) lack of jailbreaks for iOS that are usable (eg. tethered jailbreaks are more work to maintain).
Meanwhile, old Switches have a hardware vulnerability [1] and all newer ones can be jailbroken to their fullest with a modchip. Such pervasive coverage doesn't exist for iDevices to my knowledge.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/1go8wy4/what_is_...
[1] https://switch.hacks.guide/user_guide/rcm/entering_rcm.html
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SwitchPirates/comments/13n1smv/plea...
The game console business model is an historical anomaly. In the beginning, all console games were produced in-house by the console manufacturers. The consoles weren't "platforms" at all. However, 4 Atari programmers got wind that the games they wrote made tens of $millions for Atari while the programmers were paid only a relatively small salary. When Atari management refused to give the programmers a cut, they left and formed Activision. Thus Activision became the original third-party console game development company.
Atari then sued Activision for theft of trade secrets, because the Activision founders were all former Atari programmers. The case was settled, with Atari getting a cut of Activision’s revenue but otherwise allowing Activision to continue developing console games. I suspect this was because the 4 programmers were considered irreplaceable to Atari (albeit too late, after they already quit).
Ironically, yes, from people who don’t like paying for things. It’s a booming market on Android.
And yes, I absolutely believe that saying Nintendo and Sony are allowed to make a locked down device, but Apple is not, is an arbitrary double standard, setting up a potential legal victory for Apple.
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.
> And yes, I absolutely believe that saying Nintendo and Sony are allowed to make a locked down device, but Apple is not, is an arbitrary double standard, setting up a potential legal victory for Apple.
What are you replying to? I didn't make any such claim in my comment. I wasn't defending the console business model, just explaining how it came about, which is very different from most computing platforms.
B. The law makes no distinction between a game console and a computing platform, nor should it. There is also no such thing legally as a “general purpose computer” like I’ve seen some people try to define iPads as, so as to somehow justify iPad sideloading but not Switch sideloading.
C. I don’t buy the 30% cut argument, because we have a counter example: Steam on PC. How many companies sell their games directly outside of Steam? How many give you a 25% discount on top of that? Nobody.
I can't speak for game consoles, but this is absolutely false with regard to iPhone lockdown.
Why do you think mobile games are so full of ads? In part, because ads stick around and are profitable, no matter where you got your app. As long as sideloading files is so heavily connected to piracy, we’ll be lucky to see alternative app stores, but never direct installation on iOS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/5hozvo/absolutely_...
So they have no copy protection at all? Well, sure, if you rely on OS lockdown as your sole copy protection, and the OS is unlocked, then of course you're open to piracy.
Yes, they do need to "waste their time", as it were, protecting their own apps. This is something desktop developers figured out ages ago.
It's funny, because I remember computing in the 80s and 90s, when most software came in a box and was bought from a store or through mail order. Piracy was a problem then, and companies tried to invent all sorts of copy-protection schemes. Some of them worked decently well, but most (all?) were eventually defeated. That didn't stop the world from having a healthy market for software.
Phones are no different. If Android developers have a piracy problem, they should develop strong copy-protection schemes. Sure, none of those schemes will be perfect, but they generally have the effect of moving piracy further out to the margins.
Otherwise: tough shit. If people pirate your app, explore avenues through the legal system to get them to stop. If that doesn't work, that's just a cost of doing business.
Because most games are not games, but clones of other games purely as vehicles to show ads. The goal is to show ads more than it is to be a game.
Because they are not allowed to sell the game cheaper elsewhere if they also want to sell on Steam. Their dev ToS require that.
1. There are lots of people who get upset that their Nintendo won't let them install other things. There are hacker/homebrew communities that have formed around pretty much every console.
2. Phones are general-purpose computing devices. Consoles are not, even though modern consoles have hardware that is more or less the same as what you might find in a general-purpose computer.
> However, I see no reason why Apple should be forced into helping you do that.
It's the opposite problem: the default is to just let people do that. Apple has instead gone to the effort and work to lock down iOS to prevent sideloading. So no, Apple shouldn't be forced to help people sideload, but they should be forced to stop hindering people from sideloading.
Now you sound like FBI director "we need backdoors for the good guys". By allowing a mechanism for side loading weakens the security of the device. If a good guy can use it, so can a bad guy.
No device manufacturer should have more control over that device's code execution than the end user of that device does after the sale.
This is an unfair argument. No consumer can be expected to do hours of research on every purchase they make and understand the implications of everything. Manufacturers can say almost anything they want as "marketing" and can/do change the terms at anytime they wish.
> Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
Yes and motherboard manufacturers have also offered BIOS options to bypass those kneecaps. I remember having fun unlocking the fourth core on my AMD Athlon II x3 455 and getting the "whole chip".
It's not quite the same scenario though. Some of those CPUs/GPUs have hardware issues such as an unstable core and the company is making the best of it by selling them as lesser models instead of trashing them.
And yet you expect them to do that research for EVERY APP someone on the phone tells them to install?! That is how scammers walked my grandma through installing a fake banking app on her android phone, and stole all her money. Luckily iOS stops that!
Sorry to hear about your Grandmother but just because someone has an Iphone doesn't mean the scammers will give up. They'll just pick another attack vector.
No, we're expecting people who don't want to do that research to only install from an official, vetted source, like the Apple App Store.
> That is how scammers walked my grandma through installing a fake banking app on her android phone, and stole all her money.
That genuinely sucks, but I don't think keeping people from fully owning their devices is the answer to that problem.
Put another way, if this is your position, then you should also support the idea of Apple also locking down macOS so it will only run apps installed through the Mac App Store. And Microsoft should do something similar with Windows. But I sincerely hope you wouldn't support that... that's just absurd.
The funny thing is that directing people to malicious websites is generally a lot easier than getting them to sideload a malicious app. If Android were to suddenly start disallowing sideloading, I'm sure the people who tricked your grandmother would have based their scam on a malicious website instead. If she trusted some rando on the phone to download and install a malicious app, I'm sure she would have been tricked by that same rando directing her to a malicious website.
But I guess we can just ban web browsers too, right?
So you're just ignoring how the app store regularly has outright scam apps in it like : https://blog.lastpass.com/posts/warning-fraudulent-app-imper...
Apple's limitations demonstrably are not protective.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that we don't have much choice. iPhone or Android. That's it. Someone can very reasonably want the sideloading ability of Android with the stronger privacy stance of an iPhone.
Someone who has Macs might like Android's sideloading abilities, but also value the iPhone's integration with macOS and the larger Apple ecosystem.
Sure, your stance can be, "too bad; you still have to make a choice, knowing the pluses and minuses of each platform". And yes, that's where we are today. But we don't have to be, and there's mostly no reason (aside from Apple's business model) that we can't have more choices and more freedoms.
Yes, and I and plenty of others are arguing that these restrictions are anti competitive and anti consumer, and should be illegal.
Nothing about the hardware benefits, longer term software support, and aesthetic qualities of iPhones requires these restrictions.
> voted with your wallet, but you didn't.
Instead I’m voting with my vote.
> are not exclusive to Apple
And they are as much of a problem there as they are here. There are lots of right to repair laws being put forward to try to stop this shitty behaviour.
Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are.
You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.
That's not their problem.
Cars are not phones, and your analogy here is missing the point.
No one should have to make hardware modifications because they want to put code on their computer without paying Apple for the privilege.
It's not more complicated than that. As I said, you can still have your device in nanny mode if you need it.
Step two: Your car breaks down, because everything in the engine is connected and finely tuned by the microsecond to function as one integral unit.
Step three: Blame Toyota and petition the EU to force Toyota to help you bore out your cylinder.
That's pretty much the equivalent. You hackers already have hundreds of Linux distros that are destroyed-on-deilvery because of the endless tinkering and programmer-first mindset. There's Android, Windows, and a plethora of other systems for you.
Why can't we have at least one computer (Mac) and one phone (iPhone) that is not destroyed by FOSS and corporate people, and is actually useful for normal people who want to get things done?
I don't get it. Why don't you direct your efforts into fixing Linux or Android? Then you wouldn't have to think about Apple and their devices.
No, it isn't. Your example is not analogous at all.
No one wanting to sideload is talking about blaming Apple for anything, this is purely an invented argument because your excuse of vulnerable family members doesn't hold up.
> You hackers already have hundreds of Linux distros that are destroyed-on-deilvery because of the endless tinkering and programmer-first mindset. There's Android, Windows, and a plethora of other systems for you.
Irrelevant.
An iPhone is a computer, a far more general purpose computer as opposed to something like a playstation (although I believe that should be open enough that people can put Linux on it as with the PS3).
It's simply unacceptable that a manufacturer dictates the code we can run on hardware we paid for. That's it.
> Why can't we have at least one computer (Mac) and one phone (iPhone) that is not destroyed by FOSS and corporate people
Giving people extra freedom isn't 'destroying' anything. Your concerns are incredibly misplaced.
> and is actually useful for normal people who want to get things done?
Your iPhone won't be any less useful if people can sideload apps on it. Your concerns are incredibly misplaced.
> I don't get it. Why don't you direct your efforts into fixing Linux or Android? Then you wouldn't have to think about Apple and their devices.
People are not just randomly wanting to tinker, they want to get full functionality out of the hardware they already paid for.
> the hardware they already paid for.
There's no rule saying you are only allowed to have one piece of hardware. You can also buy an Android phone for cheap for your uses where you find iOS lacking.
There is always an assumption here on HN that you are only allowed one of anything, and that you have to stick to that for life. Whether that is software or hardware. I have Android devices and Apple devices, because even though Android is destroyed as an operating system, there are some hardware features that Apple doesn't offer.
I assume you've already heard the argument that nobody is forced to buy Apple hardware, so I'll skip that. Just remember that you can have two phones if you want, or as many as you please.
I. Don't. Care.
If I have an iPhone, I should have the right to run whatever the hell I want on it. I own it. That I can buy other phones is completely irrelevant - the point is all hardware for devices like this should be unrestricted to the consumer, period.
You've yet to give a convincing counter-argument as to why.
So far your attempts have consisted of:
- My naive family member might be tricked
- Claiming allowing sideloading will ruin the platform for 'normal' people
- Now claiming it's not an issue because I can buy an alternative
Do you have any argument that can actually defend why someone shouldn't be able to put whatever OS or apps they want on a computer they bought?
What are you going to do about it? Are you going to kick Tim Cook's ass?
> - My naive family member might be tricked
That was probably somebody else, I didn't say that.
> - Claiming allowing sideloading will ruin the platform for 'normal' people
The proof is in the pudding: Every other platform is destroyed, because they are made chiefly for corporate and for programmers. Since there is one platform that is actually good, among hundreds of alternatives, they probably know what they're doing and should continue doing that.
> Do you have any argument that can actually defend why someone shouldn't be able to put whatever OS or apps they want on a computer they bought?
You can put whatever OS or apps on any device from Apple, if you have the skills. If not, buy something else. Or try to kick Tim Cook in the ass.
No, just wait for the EU to force Apple to do something since the US is too busy failing at more basic things.
This is also a really weird response. I was just pointing out your previous reply was a red herring, not any kind of actual argument.
> That was probably somebody else, I didn't say that.
Nah, it was you, right here[1] where you said "A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are."
> The proof is in the pudding: Every other platform is destroyed
Far from it. What a ridiculous claim.
> You can put whatever OS or apps on any device from Apple, if you have the skills.
No, because Apple makes it too hard. There has to be a specific kind of vulnerability and there isn't always.
> Or try to kick Tim Cook in the ass.
Or root for the EU. And honestly users like you are more of a problem than Cook will ever be.
The reason I inquired for your intentions regarding Mr Cook's backside is that in all these comments, you sound exactly like Steve Jobs shouting down his dictation.
Not in the least.
I said I don't care in response to your saying I could but an alternate phone. That's not an argument in response to what I said, it's a red herring, a distraction, a whataboutism, and a completely irrelevant point. That's why I said I don't care, and why you asking "what I was going to do about it, kick Cook's ass" is just silly and irrelevant.
You mentioned Cook's ass because you lost track of the context of the conversation and didn't have any actual argument. Aside from the one you cut short to drink beer that I didn't get to see, I guess.
Yes, you can run software on phones via a web browser. But Apple largely control the features of the web browsers that run on phones, too, and arguably limit those features so that browser apps are never quite as good as native apps.
This is "gatekeeping" and while it isn't illegal in all jurisdictions, it is anti-consumer, hence the consumer backlash.
I write this as someone who is a major open source contributor and advocate. There are somethings I just want to work, and my primary phone is one of them. I have other play devices.
I haven't checked in some time but why don't you just jailbreak your iphone if you want it to be "yours".
Are you implying that iPhone isn't "hackable"?
I can totally imagine "side loading" meaning, my mother gets scammed into installing some malware and losing her savings.
1. The app review process is largely ineffective. The idea that it protects anyone is a myth encouraged by Apple to feed their profit margins. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a...
2. If Apple ever allows sideloading, it will inevitably involve installing Xcode, connecting your phone to your laptop with a USB cable, running obscure shell commands and clicking through scary warnings. Do you really think your grandparents are capable of doing this, let alone being tricked into it?
From the perspective of software makers, to fight oligopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony
Because it is too large in terms of market share. In an ideal world, there would be so many alternatives, that I could just choose whatever ecosystem I want. However, we can't really reach that state of affairs easily. Without interference, the gap between the phones that support software freedom and those which do not will increase.
The "Apple should be allowed to set whatever terms" argument sounds like this: "We shouldn't impose any food safety or agricultural standards. If you care, you can just grow your own crops and cook your own food"
EU is already on a back footing. We are too reliant on American technology, and we don't have any players in the smartphone market. If consumers want something we should build it.
You don't like the phone system? Maybe you can go and make your own phone network. You don't like this forum? Go start your own forum.
Do you see the problem here?
Network monopolies are pretty much impossible for a newcomer to compete with, even for a rather resourceful entity, like Microsoft and their phones.
It’s not practical to run five sets of power lines to each house so that utility companies can compete in a free market. Thus utility companies are heavily regulated.
But it’s also not practical for each person to carry five smartphones. So, maybe we need to regulate this space as well?..
Except people don't actually buy in a way that's consistent with enlightened self interest, making the free market at best a poor approximation to reality.
Consumers buy what's advertised, what's 'influenced', what their friends have and what's shiny, ahead of what might actually be useful for them. Micro-level decisions people make rarely take into account macro-level consequences.
This is not to say I think regulation is an amazing solution to everything, but more that I think there is a religiosity to free-market proponents that credits market participants and markets themselves with more than their due.
The free market is a myth. We have a smartphone OS duopoly, and neither one needs to provide what customers actually want in order to be successful.
A new company entering this market will have essentally no chance of being successful.
We don't have a healthy, competitive market here. If I want to buy a new couch, I have hundreds of manufacturers to choose from, with a wide variety of styles and colors. I can pretty much find my perfect couch, given enough research. And if for some reason I can't, I can hire someone to make me a fully custom couch.
Obviously furniture and phone OSes are not the same thing, and it isn't feasible to expect there would be a market for hundreds of different phone OSes. But the principle is the same.
1) It's not a simple thing to do.
2) The opening of platforms can be considered a way of encouraging free market dynamics.
Currently sideloading is a pain so I still haven't done it. If it becomes as easy as Android I personally would be pretty happy just for this use case.
Ironically I'm a bit disappointed by how powerful the hardware is getting these days because of the software limitations. Don't get me wrong, I fully admit my days of running custom OSes is over, I only use my iPad as an entertainment device and am happy to keep it very simple. I just feel power users should be able to sideload an app or two without needing to use an Xcode debugger or whatever.
This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing.
>Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules.
Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.
When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities.
The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend.
I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
At some point, we have to accept that to operate things in mainstream society requires capability. It is sad when aging parents no longer meet that minimal bar, but it is part of aging for all of us if we live long enough.
At some point, we can no longer drive a car, we can hand over responsibility for finances, and medical decisions. We need a better way to manage old people on their phones.
Maybe sideloading AND "old person mode" should be options on all phones.
You're right, the problem is not her phone, because she has an iphone.
> It is sad when aging parents no longer ...
Her problem is less to do with ageing and more to do with not being interested in or exposed to technology in general throughout her life. And it's not just old people, lots of people have issues in those sorts of directions, are we saying "throw them to the wolves" or even "my freedom trumps their safely own a phone at all"?
Personally, I would opt in to "old person mode" on my phone these days, if by that we mean the current state of the iphone ecosystem, as it's a tool and I use it just fine on rails. I think we need to get rid of this toxic idea that 'personal responsibility' is a solution to all things all the time, and that people need to be constantly on guard about scams
25 year-old me would be the opposite of course, attitudes do change, and I'd like to see both approaches accounted for. I agree wholeheartedly that monopolies are bad and that markets need to be managed for both people and economies to thrive. But I'm also perfectly happy with a walled garden for myself and my less capable family members.
We do all sorts of things in life (that have nothing to do with technology, even) where we are required to develop, at minimum, some sort of basic understanding of the safe way of doing those things. And then we take responsibility, and follow those safety guidelines. Or we don't, and then have no one to blame but ourselves if it blows up in our faces.
There certainly should be guardrails on phones that can be enabled for people who are aging and suffering mental decline, or just have developmental disabilities in general. Or, sure, for people who just don't care, and want someone else in their family to "deal with all that nerdy stuff" for them. But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution.
> 25 year-old me would be the opposite of course
I'm in my 40s, so I don't think my take on this has much to do with age.
Actually we have scammers to blame, this is pure victim-blaming on your part. I find it pretty awful when this sort of attitude is displayed towards people who are the victims of crime.
One perfectly valid way to take responsibility for oneself is to choose a secured platform that precludes these sorts of problems happening in the first place. Given that people must use technology to interact with their government, and increasingly their finances, this seems a great way to go about things.
> But building systems for the lowest common denominator is rarely the right solution.
This is a moral viewpoint, not a practical one. Pragmatically, it clearly is a perfectly fine solution for a lot of people. Myself included.
None of this is to say you shouldn’t e able to buy an open platform if you want one, but not everybody does, and it’s not to everyone’s advantage.
The problem is her. If she is gullible enough to be talked into sideloading she is vulnerable enough to be talked into worse. You don't need to sideload anything to make a bank transfer.
The problem is scammers. We have a lot of vulnerable people in this world, saying “well obviously they’re too stupid to participate in modern society” isn’t really a good answer.
That doesn't really matter, and it may not even be a preferred method if they make the warnings sufficiently scary.
More importantly, the cost is too great to justify such a small and questionable benefit.
But there are still solutions there: perhaps enabling sideloading should wipe the phone (like unlocking the bootloader does on Android). Or perhaps some sort of "parental controls" where it requires a PIN to enable, but people who set up phones for their parents can keep the PIN from them.
The solution doesn't have to be to lock it down for everyone, without any escape hatches. But Apple likes it this way, not for the safety it can provide, but because it's a part of their business model. But I don't care about their business model, and it's normal and right that governments regulate the kinds of things companies can do.
But proponents of opening it up need to realise that the status quo is a real, practical benefit to a portion of society as well.
By all means, let’s talk about ways it can work for everyone, monopolies are bad too. But while we’re doing it, let’s try not to blame or exclude people who aren’t computer-security savvy, or make their world worse.
A new building or machine is reviewed once just like a scientific publication. A book or article might never get even a superficial review.
People are even offended if their things or things they want are critically examined and more so when others block it. Business Models that depend on monopolies on the right to review are possibly the most hilarious.
Edit: Search engines even rank things by quality without review.
Both can be used to scam the scammable.
Apple's control of your iPhone hardware is not a natural state. They maintain that control through the power of copyright, granted by the government. Modifying iOS and iPhones to allow running arbitrary software is feasible, but distributing such modified copies is illegal due to Apple's copyright, enforced by the courts. If anyone could copy and modify iOS at will then they would soon lose that control.
Copyright is not an inalienable right like the right of ownership of real property. It is a monopoly granted by the government for a specific purpose. If it is being exploited in ways that are contrary to that purpose, or otherwise undesirable, the government should be looking at whether the copyright that they granted should be limited or rescinded.
Why shouldn't a country's people, through their government, be able to make rules about how Apple's products should work in their country? It's their country.
They think it's good for consumers for Apple's ecosystem to be more open to independent developers. I think it's easy to understand that, fears of Grandma loading a non-Apple approved app notwithstanding.
I like the fact I can more or less assume security. I really like the fact that my mum can. Any way of unlocking your phone for sideloading seems almost bound to be an avenue for scammers to talk people into installing malware.
But when a platform is so widespread, I don't think "they can charge whatever they like" is necessarily great.
It's difficult because you want the market dynamic (if they charge too much, we'll just take our app elsewhere and people will move to that platform) to be present in at least some way, but at the same time the real world isn't that simple.
All iPhones contain developer mode settings that can be activated with a little song and dance and compromise security. There is zero chance any of your relatives will accidentally turn off these settings if they are not actively looking to do so. Sideloading could easily be put under this mantle.
Potential counterargument:
"What if my nephew falls for some sideloading phish scam when trying to download hacks for COD mobile? Then he would be encouraged to follow any list of steps to compromise his security"
Response:
If someone is going that far out of the way to compromise themselves no amount of bubble wrap is going to fix it.
Take an IPA (iOS Packaged Application). Remove the identifying markers, digital signature, change the bundle ID. Lo and behold, it’s indistinguishable compared to an app you developed yourself. Install and pirate away.
On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. Possibly over 90%.
Apple will almost certainly, if necessary, allow 3rd party App Stores if the law requires - but direct IPA installation is a pirate’s dream, let alone the actual malware bundled with. Unless the law deliberately and specifically requires it, it’s not happening; and with the strong piracy connections, it’s very unlikely the law will ever specifically require that feature.
Software piracy is a fact of life. Attempting to protect against it, and eating whatever (possibly imagined losses) are costs of doing business. That's been that case as long as there have been personal computers.
> On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy.
How many of those would actually lead to a sale, though? This is the same argument the music and movie studios always trotted out, and it's just as invalid now. Many people just won't pay for things, and will otherwise do without.
Which is fine, you're not required to install sideloaded apps. You could even, for example, configure your phone to disable them in a way that can't be modified again without a factory reset.
But why shouldn't someone else who wants something else be able to do something else?
Notice that their ability to do it benefits you. Someone writes a crappy little open source app, without sideloading they don't even bother because the approval process is too much of a barrier. With it, they throw it up on github and then a dozen other nerds use it for a while and make contributions, until it starts getting popular and good. Then they have enough donations to pay somebody to push it through the approval process and you get to install it from the app store. But without that, it doesn't exist.
> Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform.
Corporations don't own you just because they sold you something.
> And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Phone platforms have a strong network effect. Microsoft is a trillion dollar corporation that made a serious attempt to do this and failed, what hope does anyone smaller have? Two platforms that already existed when app stores became a thing (iOS an Android) still have a combined ~100% market share almost two decades later. "Just make your own phone" is like "just start your own phone network" in terms of viability for ordinary people.
> Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
Okay, let's say you want to do that. The typical way to start a new platform is to create an abstraction over it that allows people to create apps that run on both your new platform and any incumbent platforms. Developers like this because they can use the new framework instead of having to create separate apps for each of the incumbent platforms, so they do, and then those apps also support your new platform and allow you to start building a network effect. Think Java, Qt, Gtk, HTML/JavaScript, etc.
Then all you need is the ability for users to side load the new apps independent of the platform corporation who is going to discourage that sort of thing (as, for example, Apple does by making features available to native apps that aren't available to web apps). Which is the thing being requested.
It's not about forcing Apple to do anything, it's about not preventing consumers from doing what they want with a device they bought.
If you worry about your family why apple cannot provide some similar but simpler tooling like parental control where (non-tech savvy) family will have to ask you for confirmation? In his situation you would be some administrator or guardian but will much less permissions.
Why bother? It's win win for user and developer because they can offer you something cheaper. They can advertise you that if you buy subscription from 1st hand it will be cheaper.
It would also allow different business model - instead of monthly / yearly subscription you can charge for app one time and then maybe for big upgrade every few years.
But it's not only that about the cost. You would be allowed to have apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have. It would allow to have browser that support fullscreen mode, push notifications like android, better PWA support, WebGPU support. Faster cross platform apps (react-native) that allow access to JIT. 3rd party keyboard that allow much better voice transcription even locally (all 3rd part keyboard have it kind of broken right now because of API limitation) and the list goes on.
macOS doesn't allow that by default, though unlike iOS it is possible to social engineer users to launch shady apps
> apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have
The range of spyware that will become possible is much bigger than potential new apps that somehow can do a good thing with a private API. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091
1) apps still notarised so if app later detected to be malicious it can be remotely uninstalled
2) if it's you grandma/grandpa phone - allow to setup iphone as more limited parental control that only other from family can install apps
3) do automatic apps scanning before installation to detect app is malicious - revoke developer certificate in this case or ask them for clarification
the world didn't collapse because the world is not using laptops/desktops as dominant computers for many many years.
Ordinary people use phones. Anyone using laptop is to a degree professional especially in any third world country. Somebody who mostly abandoned using laptop literally yesterday told me "I got a new laptop from work but I'll just get a virus in a week won't I". This is the adversarial reality the rose-eyed takes about freedom of computing are contending with. Maybe most of them live in the past when computers were used by tech literate and blackhat hacking was in intancy.
Yes and infected Xcode and various SDKs you get on your laptop are actually the biggest threat to iOS security (other than just literally malicious devs). Devs torrenting an xcode and then infecting their users is a thing.
> Smartphones were not main device 10 years ago and people did bank transfers on laptop and world didn't collapse 10 years ago
See blackhats in infancy part...
Would it happen as often if the tooling was free?
Xcode is free
From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations.
Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes.
Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.
I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked.
Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0]
Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1]
Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2]
Sources:
[0] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?...>
[1] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html...>
[2] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?ve...>
How many people are actively doing security research on each browser? Is the number of finds per browser more a function of how many eyeballs are on it than how many issues actually exist?
I don't doubt that there are actual, real differences here, but presenting context-free stats like that is misleading.
I don't think it matters if the vulnerabilities are JIT related - a process that can JIT can create code, so any exploitable (controllable) overflow or memory vulnerability CAN be pivoted into arbitrary code execution.
The problem with CVEs is that it is not required to prove exploitability to get assigned. It can take a lot of effort (single or multiple people) to prove exploitability. Earlier this week someone quoted "weeks" to me for each bug. They were quoting numbers for some of the Chrome bugs. These researchers said it was not possible to keep up with the number of bugs being found.
I believe (but cannot back it up) that security bugs follow a bathtub curve for each change set. If you've got a lot of change in your code-base then you'll pretty much be on a high bug point of the curve for the whole project. It also probably matters quite a bit about what sort of changes are being made. Working to get high performance seems (again a feeling) to increase the chance of creating a security vulnerability.
The level of public research is a tough metric. The reward / motivation factors are not the same. There is also an issue with internal research teams. They will find bugs before they are released, so they never really "exist". Does measuring the number of CVEs issued indicate the quality or level of internal research? What is a "good" metric for any of this?
Should ISP decide what websites are you allowed to visit? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it can use another ISP.
Imagine you bought a house from HomeCorp but if you want to buy furniture or anything else that goes in your house, food, toilet paper, etc, it has to be from HomeCorp, and they take a huge cut.
Furniture prices will be higher. You can expect everything that goes in your house to cost more.
If you find a cool couch from IKEA, you can't put it in your house. You're not allowed because HomeCorp says so.
There's no reason why IKEA can't just ship you a couch but HomeCorp says they haven't tested it so they don't know if it meets their standards. But they don't even LET YOU make your own decision about what goes in your house.
IKEA could technically build their own house selling operation but that's a massive undertaking and is incredibly expensive.
Not only that but homes built by HomeCorp have all these features that suck unless you use HomeCorp for other things like your car, or your job. Your car just works a little less well if it's not a HomeCorp car - but only if you have a HomeCorp house, otherwise it's totally fine.
If your friends don't have a HomeCorp house it's clunkier to have them over, they have to jump through hoops or get a worse experience. They can't send you videos in high definition. Because HomeCorp wants them to have a house from them.
... Honestly I just convinced myself. They make it so inconvenient to use any other option that you're strongly pressured to use them. Then because you are, they force decisions on you that you might not want, and take a massive cut of money. It's all shady business practices that are incredibly unfair and result in less economic freedom.
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls.
Why defend the indefensible?
The malware my family is most exposed to nowadays have names: Onedrive, iCloud, Google Drive. They are all designed to collect all the user's data, are all opt-out, opting out is filled with dark patterns. And regarding dark patterns, having recently gone through the motions of downloading all my data and then deleting my X, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, Google and Apple accounts, I can confidently say that Apple is by far the _worst_. Yes, when it comes to exercising one's rights, Apple is worst than even _Facebook_.
Users are much less exposed to non-branded malware nowadays, as the incentives to torrent random crap have mostly disappeared, and protection against spam/fishing has improved.
This is what has really stopped me from learning iOS development.
> I've built some of my home automation from scratch and I'm using a web app to control most of it from my phone. Do you have anything available/written up about this?
Apple went from "We <3 open source!" and "Number one place to run Java!" to "30% of your revenue or else" and "Java is like a heavyweight ball and chain." That really hurt. It felt like a major betrayal.
But like every other major change in my life, it turned out for the best. I have a much better understanding of what's going on in my computer since leaving Apple. I have more freedom. I'm not mad anymore. I'm glad they pushed me away.
Yes $100/year is too much, but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years…
Another misconception is that the App Store fee is 30%. It’s actually 15% for all but the top 1% revenue generating apps, at which point the fee becomes negotiable in reality.
I'd draw the parallel to root access on android: it gives a lot of freedom but is not a replacement for a blessed way for normal users to loads apps from third party stores and no business will bet on users rooting their phones to use their apps.
What if you just want to post some code on github and let anyone use it who wants to with or without their own modifications, but you don't want them to each have to pay $100?
But I had 200 friends.
> You can distribute to an unlimited number of devices if you leave the app in a permanent beta test without full App Store approval. You simply distribute via Test Flight.
How does each user modify the code you've given them without them each needing their own developer account? The goal here is low-friction bazaar-style development of open source applications, where new users who may not know how to develop an app and have never done it before now can figure out how two change two lines of code in an existing app, and will if it means they can fix a problem they themselves have and then run it on their own device.
"You have to pay $100 to attempt that" creates friction and inhibits opportunistic improvements, which is the evil to be prevented.
> $100/year is too much
That's the issue, really. If you're paying for the developer program but you aren't uploading apps to the App Store, then you aren't using the program for its intended purpose.
I honestly don't think Apple even wants to collect your $100/yr, which is a pretty insignificant sum from their perspective. It's probably just used as a basic anti-spam measure allowing their reviewers to keep up with the pace of App Store submissions and to do their job properly.
They certainly would be entirely unaffected if they stopped collecting developer fees from the people who only use their membership for sideloading, since that number is most likely low enough to be completely insignificant.
Anyway, I specify this under the "What would it mean for iOS to have sideloading?" section:
> For the purposes of this website, an operating system supports sideloading if it provides some means for technically-inclined end users to permanently install native apps without prior approval from any company or organization, either free of charge, or for a reasonable one-time fee. [...]
> Apple would not have to make sweeping changes to iOS in order to qualify; in fact, a minor policy change would be more than sufficient. For example, all it would take to qualify is for Apple to remove the unnecessary expiry dates from development certificates (which can only be used on the creator's own devices, and cannot be used for distribution). They currently expire after 7 days for free accounts, or 1 year for paid accounts.
---
> but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years...
I think this is unfair. iOS devices receive updates for at least 5 years, and they don't suddenly become useless after that point either. I for one don't upgrade my mobile devices until they stop getting updates, and I don't find myself yearning for the minor yearly upgrades we've been seeing lately (across the industry, not just Apple).
I also think that it is very hard to argue _against_ allowing sideloading.
These two opinions can co-exist.
Make it optional, make sure the user knows what they are doing, and has acknowledged multiple times that they understand the risks, and that they acknowledge support for any problems at all with the phone will be compromised as a result.
Realistically, 99% of iPhone users don't need to sideload, nor understand what it means, and would be worse off doing it on their phones.
Yeah yeah Apple the big corp walled garden big evil boo. Yes they make mistakes, yes they make a ton of money. But, their stuff works better than anything else on the market for the vast majority of people, and their decisions are almost always thoroughly thought through in favor of the customer experience, accessibility, security and safety.
and a Mac
and the knowledge and willingness to go through the hoops of installing and building and resigning every 7 days.
Sure Apple has some sus apps on the store too but it's still a million times better than if some random "friend" got her to install actual blatant spyware that siphons her bank info and snoops on our messages
Unless the website pays Apple a yearly fee and a 30% cut it shouldn’t be allowed to sideload itself into our browser. For the sake of security of course.
There's another idea for a website: how much does it cost to transfer your own app you compiled yourself over your own USB cable to your own device?
It's not clear why this doesn't count as sideloading.
My definition of sideloading would be that I am allowed to put a program on a device without any need to consult a 3rd party. A developer account can still be revoked, leaving you without the ability to load an app.
With an Android Phone or a Linux Mobile device, I can put an app on without the needing any account, so there's no way to retroactively take that away from me.
I'm all for sideloading, but saying you can't do stuff that you actually do feels bad. You might want to revise the way you write your complaints to avoid misinterpretation. There's a limit to how much detail you can add to a message until it becomes way to big to read, but I think you stopped too early by skipping "I can't distribute without paying apple a developer license".
That is literally already the case for many apps. Many offer a better price outside of the iOS ecosystem.
And why are you drawing the goalposts at EVERY developer?
Who knows whether or not current apps will have their prices lowered, but it would be better if in the future, new apps are not priced 43% higher than they would have been, like all the current ones.
* 1/(1-0.30) = 1.43
An awful lot of people do care about these issues, even if they never heard of sideloading they'll jump on it if offered the opportunity.
Many subscription services don't allow you to subscribe from your iPhone. Why? Because if they did they'd have to pay Apple 30% for the privilege. And Apple has made it against their rules to notify users of this.
And for the ones that eat it, they're not allowed to give users a 25% discount for going to their website.
This is what Epic did to prove user harm, they made it cheaper to buy currency through their processor than Apple's. Of course they were banned for it.
But I want a new laptop.
Really eyeballing a MacBook. But I fear the locking down of osx is likely to continue. But seems great hardware.
The other side of the coin I see is framework. Hardware maybe not as wow whiz bang, but future freedoms in all the ways.
Am I correct to worry about osx lock in, and 'sideloading' on osx being fully removed vs pain in the ass?
I can't seem to find the darn sweet spot.
It's more of a resource question. I tend to keep my hardware around for a long while. I like to repurpose it for various little things. A have a netbook grabbing sdr data in an outbuilding and shuffling data to living room server to be processed (goes weather). Server is an old Dell workstation. Etc.
My worry is the 2 i5 iMacs I have upstairs. Old, yes. Upgraded to the extent they can be? Yes! Useful hardware? Honestly, yeah.
Except they can't get newer versions of osx, this the cricut machine will not work on them. This I have to use parallels z with windows , to make the 27" iMac use the cricut because... Osx can't be upgraded. (Brave browser has hit its point too).
With the old stuff it's fine because I figure I'll eventually put some sort of Linux on it and have a useful thing, still.
The new m* looks so nice. And quick. And sleek. And I just fear 5 years down the road, when it's still nice, and fast and sleek but you can't even open a webpage because safari will not upgrade, and the world slowly crumbles around the hardware, which becomes. . Useless.
So it's not so much personalization but being able to just continue using that of which was purchased. I've been buying pixels because of the same reason. Maybe I won't keep it for forever, but I upgraded from a pixel 3 last year and that's only because I broke a BMS wire behind the battery and said "well, a new phone is cheaper than a new house when it burns down because I'm a cheap ass".
So, does one sacrifice some new shiney to have a device that you still can use if the apple gods (or whomever gods, it all seems to be forced obsolete).
Huge blabber rant, but it's such a weird market now it seems like. No problem going ARM on apple, just wish Linux efforts seemed to be heading in a more positive direction (hector, quit? Future? Unknown?).
ARM on 'wondows' seems like a not great idea, expecting weird sdr software to not work ,etc.
So that leaves paying decent $ for perhaps a lesser product..like a framework, but one that may last a longer time. Or at least work as long as the hardware works.
What do people do when faced with such (first world) things.
People have been saying this for as long as I can remember, and it has still never happened.
> Am I correct to worry about osx lock in, and 'sideloading' on osx being fully removed
Probably not
> vs pain in the ass
How is it even a pain in the ass now? Because you have to click through one dialog the first time you run an executable downloaded from the web?