Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmull | Hacker News Reader

Apple's argument is basically, "It'll be chaos!!!"

But...

We don't have to wonder what it would be like. There's been mass use of platforms that allow "side loading" (AKA, just regular installing) and "third-party app stores" (AKA, just regular buying software) for decades.

No, it hasn't always been pretty.

Yet it just hasn't been that bad either, and the benefits have proven to be very substantial. There are incredible amounts of great software available that doesn't fit in to Apple's idea of what ought to be allowed.

And it's not like you can download with confidence from the Apple App Store either. They play a cat-and-mouse game with malware constantly and there's been plenty of collateral damage.

I think there's no question third-party app stores, or just direct side-loading would lead to a lot of new great software, without a ton more risk. I think the weakness of this argument document show that.

View on HN

> No, it hasn't always been pretty.

This also applies to Apple's app store/lockdown:

https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/apple-google-block-kremlin-cri...

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-pr...

https://9to5mac.com/2019/10/10/protest-app/

One may object that it's government's fault, not Apple's, as they're the ones pressuring for this kind of censorship. But it is Apple that made these chains for their own benefit, knowingly exposing their users to this risk.

This viewpoint is popular here, I think we all see that, but I find it to almost always come from the point of view of a technically competent power user who can 1) make use of the expanded capability and 2) have the knowledge and instincts to protect themselves in the face of reduced or no guardrails. That is not the profile of the average iPhone user.

For the layperson (90+% of iPhone users) I find the argument unconvincing. They don't understand how to protect themselves. And what software is it that they would substantially benefit from if only it were not for a manufacturer-controlled app store monopoly?

Don't we all have memories of looking at a relatives computer and finding half a dozen browser toolbars and some mysterious impossible-to-uninstall programs running on startup?

Why can't they make side-loading work the same way loading custom ROMs used to work on Android - very impractical setup phase, but allows for ultimate freedom to those who need it? You just need to have the setup be impractical enough for the layperson so that those who don't understand how to protect themselves don't stumble into a situation where they have to. Don't create a false dichotomy here. Also, most of people I know of don't side-load apps onto their Android devices, and it's still a shitshow security wise. Don't conflate side-loading with bad security.

I find it ridiculous that to run a bit of iOS code I have to spend hours chasing down someone with access to authorize my signing keys. It's a fruit company laptop using a fruit company IDE and a fruit company mobile device, yet I still have to jump through all of these hoops to run my own code on devices that I own?

The instant some hugely popular app (Fortnite?) needs to be installed this way, the app maker will make videos or tutorials on how to jump through the hoops. This will normalize the practice so that people also do it for a “fart app” that is really something more nefarious. Next thing you know, we’re right back to how Windows was, with a bunch of browser toolbars and now the need to sideload an antivirus app, which itself will drown the phone in glitches.

No thanks.

This is already possible on Android, and yet in practice, all major apps are available on the Google Play Store.

Then don't install Fortnite on your iPhone.

A consumer centric solution to this specific problem is to just allow Epic to sell Fortnite on the app store and stop holding them to ransom.

Back in the days when iOS jailbreaking was popular, there were people who would take 10 bucks to jailbreak my grandma's iPad for her.

But isn't the whole point that the average layperson is never going to sideload in the first place? If you make it just difficult enough, very few people that aren't tech-savvy will dare to try it, but then the rest of us can enjoy the benefits.

But isn't the whole point that the average layperson is never going to sideload in the first place?

If Facebook pulls its app from the Apple store and only releases it on a third-party store, those laypeople will follow. And much of the noise and content in the "sideloading" campaign for iOS comes from Facebook and similar companies with a monetary interest in getting around Apple's rules.

If this is actually the case, why does Facebook keep their app on the Play Store? I'm almost certain Facebook would not choose to take the path with more resistance for its users, because a significant percentage of them will simply not install the app.

Because it can spy on people if they install from the Play Store.

Facebook has spent millions on full-page newspaper ads this year attacking Apple's App Store anti-spying policies. It hasn't said peep one about Google.

> For the layperson (90+% of iPhone users) I find the argument unconvincing. They don't understand how to protect themselves.

I think this is by design. Stupid users make good consumers, so big tech has ignored improving, dumbed down, and removed the tools that would help users understand how to protect themselves.

Code signing and identity could be significantly better than it is, but no one wants to invest in improving that industry because it's much more profitable to convince people they need to rely on a huge tech company like Apple, Google, or Microsoft to be a curator.

The reality for me is that identity is worse on most of those systems and they end up being great for reputation laundering. App stores are basically the equivalent of 3rd party sellers on Amazon. Apple, Google, and Microsoft all lend credibility to bad actors when they allow them in their app stores.

Personally I don't even use the app stores for discovery. I look online for recommendations and a decent company presence. Basically I try to judge a company by how much money it looks like they spent on their brand. Using a dictionary word .com? That's reliable. Using supergameofthelegendsprohd.top? No thanks.

> And what software is it that they would substantially benefit from if only it were not for a manufacturer-controlled app store monopoly?

Look at all the software that is available for MacOS that is not available for iOS.

> Don't we all have memories of looking at a relatives computer and finding half a dozen browser toolbars and some mysterious impossible-to-uninstall programs running on startup?

No one is suggesting running Windows 98 and IE 6 on phones. It's weird, we literally have an apple-to-apple comparison with MacOS and iOS and instead we're dredging up a straw man of old software designed to be insecure.

The main argument for the decision against sideloading (which they allow on macOS) is on p.6, where the idea is that your iPhone contains more sensitive and personal informations than your computer.

The "fate of the PC" thing is funny because one might think that they're just throwing a jab at themselves, but they've campaigned very effectively for their customers to think that the Mac is not in the same category.

I noticed that too. I found it very distasteful and grossly misleading. It says:

When iPhone was developed, PCs were the world’s primary computing tools, and they were riddled with viruses.

Okay, but Macs managed to buck that trend because of your superior engineering, right Apple? Right? Hello? I mean... that's what you've been telling us for decades, Apple.

Oh, you meant PCs not Macs in the above quote? That's a bit disingenuous isn't it? It's (ahem) Apples to Oranges isn't it? Are you selling oranges or apples?

Note: I'm a fan of Apple's products but am getting tired of their sleight-of-word bullsh*t. This outright deceiving behaviour is disgusting.

I think the crux of this issue is that social engineering will always be a problem on a truly free platform. No matter what mitigations Apple puts in place, nothing stops me from just sending an iMessage to a few hundred people pretending to be the government, asking them to send me their SSN. Nothing stops me from emailing them a Google Form where they punch in their credit card info, and nothing stops me from making memes about how you can charge your iPhone in the microwave. That last echelon can never be conquered, so why play for table scraps in the first place? Simply put: control.

The incredibly public lawsuits Apple has found themselves in have only demonstrated how they fight tooth-and-nail to hide the most nascent of details. They fully intend to control their narrative from top to bottom, and it blows me away when I see politicians entertain this security theater.

> We don't have to wonder what it would be like. There's been mass use of platforms that allow "side loading"

Apple is a significant vendor of such platforms.

They have an A/B experiment running on the Mac. I prefer to buy directly to send more money to the developer, but I suspect most people prefer the (confusing) store.

In other words: what chaos?

> They have an A/B experiment running on the Mac

Kind of, in terms of sideloading restrictions; not at all in terms of software library, business model, and incentives.

Most (70%+) of Apple's iOS App Store revenue is from games (largely in-app purchases since mobile games tend to be "free to play.") In fact Apple's profits from iOS gaming are larger than the gaming profits of Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Activision combined.

You can ask any poor Mac gamer about the state of the Mac game business... it isn't great, and it certainly isn't Apple's bread and butter like iOS gaming.

From the perspective of Apple's business and profits, the iPhone is largely a walled-garden game system, much closer to the PlayStation, Switch or Xbox than to the Mac.

Apple isn't wrong about potential security and privacy threats, but the threats to Apple's business and profits are most likely the driving issue.

I think that there is great software that is available on separate app stores as third parties but to be honest your perspective is truly the issue .

The primary purpose of sideloading apps is to get the app downloaded and play it for free. This in turn creates a security problem when you allow for anyone to side load apps.

We can see this in Windows and macOS where people who have full access to a computer generally get malware onto their computers.

What macOS and even Windows is moving torward is a containerized system for programs to run. This is going to be the best solution eventually. This is at the cost of performance (especially Windows which sees a 30 percent drop in gaming performance ).

I think to allow external app stores would be a vetting service and also Apple would have to create a sandbox for the apps and also possibly some analysis to make sure that the side loaded apps aren’t just someone’s else’s stolen video game. Unfortunately until some kind of law is done Apple has no incentive to actually allow this to occur.

> The primary purpose of sideloading apps is to get the app downloaded and play it for free.

I don't believe this is true. This is demonstrated by open source software on many platforms installed directly by end users without a curated store.

Maybe you mean people only side load apps on iOS for piracy purposes? I'm interested in learning more about this assertion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com