Hacker News Reader

Comment by xethos | Hacker News Reader

That feels to me like Spotify saying you don't own the music, you paid for a license to listen to the music; to verify the license is still valid, you must connect to the internet periodically.

In this case, you do not own, or even control, the software you wrote or the device it's running on, and you must re-install it weekly. In my opinion, sideloading should completely bypass thr manufacturer. I do not need to email Linus to ask if I may run software on my Linux Mobile device, or Cook to run software on a Mac.

To call Apple's allowances sideloading feels disingenuous to me, because of how many asterisks there are attached to it. And I'm not even touching on the requirement that one support Apple's hardware business, either by directly buying from Apple, or keeping second-hand devices valuable and in-demand due to the development environment running exclusively on MacOS.

View on HN

> I do not need to email Linus to ask if I may run software on my Linux Mobile device, or Cook to run software on a Mac.

iOS follows the game console model (even though the iPhone is a "smartphone" with additional non-game features). Games are responsible for something like 70% of iOS app store revenue, which Apple taxes via its platform fees, which are comparable to game console platform fees.

Unlicensed games are, of course, the killer app for sideloading on game consoles. IIRC free developer provisioning used to last up to a year or so (?), but Apple reduced it to a week after someone created a competing app store or web site that distributed unlicensed commercial games (as well as other software) by leveraging developer provisioning. (IIRC Sony analogously killed off Linux for PS3 once someone figured out how to leverage it to run unlicensed commercial games.)

If you pay $100/year for an official Apple Dev account I think you can still get one year provisioning. This probably won't make you or anyone on HN happy, but it does exist.

It's certainly a shame that piracy is a real factor here :(

It should probably be noted, however, that from what I understand, technically speaking, the only reason that piracy is possible in the first place is due to Apple's failures to prevent jailbreaking? iOS apps are encrypted and you need a jailbreak to decrypt them and redistribute them on shady websites. If Apple finally stomps jailbreaking out for good one day (which they are trying to do), then piracy should become impossible even if sideloading becomes an option.

See also: Xbox One has a developer mode that allows unsigned code execution, but that still doesn't allow for piracy because nobody's hacked the console, so nobody can obtain the game binaries to pirate.

I like piracy as a means to punish these user-hostile practices like vendor-lockin and bait & switch.

That's why I started downloading netflix shows again after they doubled the price (I used to be on the 720p plan and now I'd have to pay more than twice to get ad-free netflix). These companies only care about their bottom line and this is where you can hurt them back the most.

> nobody's hacked the [Xbox One] console

It looks like that may have changed last year.

Not entirely surprising since there have been jailbreaks for most game consoles, including PS4/5 and Switch.

> In this case, you do not own, or even control, the software you wrote or the device it's running on, and you must re-install it weekly. In my opinion, sideloading should completely bypass thr manufacturer. I do not need to email Linus to ask if I may run software on my Linux Mobile device, or Cook to run software on a Mac.

The problem is, even the real sideloading as offered in Europe is still dependent on Apple's approval in every individual case through their "notarisation". This already existed by the way, even on Mac, but it was not mandatory on Mac where sideloading is normal. It's ridiculous, definitely malicious compliance IMO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com