NotPractical

Apple's own Swift Playground app does the exact thing that supposedly violates the rules, abusing an inconsistently-applied exception for "educational" apps [1].

Recent regulation doesn't help here, by the way. iOS apps submitted for "notarization" to be distributed in alternative app stores in the EU, Japan, etc. still must comply with a subset of the guidelines, including 2.5.2. EU is probably not interested in strengthening the DMA so that Apple doesn't have to approve everything because then it makes other EU regulations easier to bypass (e.g. Chat Control).

Looks like YC wasted their money on this one, unless it's exempt because one of the founders used to work at Apple or something: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45041185

[1] https://developer.apple.com/swift-playground/

But do they do it whether you're logged in or not?

I noticed the ChatGPT app also checks Play Integrity on Android (because GrapheneOS snitches on apps when they do this), probably for the same reason. Claude's app doesn't, by the way, but it also requires a login.

> 1. Gatekeeping. OK, fine

Proceeds to explain why your opinion is not "fine" but rather invalid, because Apple boiled you like a frog...

Every time someone mentions here that they're concerned macOS is becoming more like iOS, Apple apologists show up to explain how that's not actually happening. I guess now you guys have just accepted it.

From the article:

> While sadly, it doesn’t look like there will be any ADB command you can send to your phone to make it immediately jump to the end of that 24-hour delay

There's also no evidence that adb-sideloaded app stores will be able to skip PackageInstaller's developer verification enforcement, so no, you will have to wait 24 hours to install F-Droid and actually use it.

Wasn't most of the hype surrounding the Motorola partnership based on the idea that you'd be able to get a device with GrapheneOS pre-installed, boosting the legitimacy of GrapheneOS as a competitor to Google Android? Sure, "GrapheneOS adds several more supported devices" is cool and all, but it's not nearly as exciting...

> Apple's argument for locking down the iPhone but not the Mac has always been some variation of "Mac users are professionals and iPhones are for everyone."

That argument no longer holds water with the release of the Macbook Neo and the associated Tiktok advertising campaign [1].

[1] https://www.tiktok.com/@apple

That would be very similar to LiveContainer for iOS [1]. I think that unsandboxed JIT is still possible as of Android 16, but Google has been cracking down on it.

[1] https://github.com/LiveContainer/LiveContainer

Or at least include this flag in the system backups and restore it upon switching to a new device...

If you get most/all of your apps from F-Droid, they're essentially establishing a policy of "any time you get a new phone, you can't use it for 24 hours", which is... insane?

How do you know this? It's been confirmed that you can use adb to temporarily bypass verification on a per-app basis, yes, but from what I can see, there's no indication that sideloading one app over adb will also skip the 1-day period.

This matters if you're sideloading an app store like F-Droid, because sideloaded app stores still have to go through PackageInstaller [1], which probably still enforces verification checks for adb-sideloaded apps?

[1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/content/pm/P...

Google could easily put an end to that if they wanted. Just block adb access from the loopback address and VPN. I'm surprised this isn't already in place. The setup flow for those apps you're referring to is awkward enough that it's clear it was never intentional to be able to access adb on-device.

Before downvoting, consider providing evidence that sideloading comes anywhere close to being the root cause of most online scams.

Just yesterday I discovered that my grandmother had been receiving calls from "Google business support" on her iPhone. The fact that they can't get her to sideload some app doesn't seem to stop them.

Choosing an iPhone is not sufficient to avoid the risks of technology. The majority of online scams require nothing more than two pre-installed apps: Safari and Phone.

By "fundamental individual right", I believe they're referring to the first amendment. How we should interpret the first amendment is not something we can put up to a vote. Only the judicial branch holds the power to interpret the law. As the root commenter noted, the Supreme Court has already decided that sexual speech is not necessarily protected by the first amendment.

At the same time, you're allowed to disagree with their decision. The Supreme Court tries its best, but there is no "100% correct" interpretation and individual justices often disagree (as they did on Miller v. California).

You should probably ask the parent commenter. I think GrapheneOS is a good choice even for those that don't have something to hide. Reminds me of iOS, really (in a good way).

...apparently most of HN, judging by these recent threads?

They're encrypted using FairPlay, so you need either a jailbroken iPhone or a "jailbroken" (SIP bypass while SIP is enabled) Mac to decrypt them. The former will stop being possible soon enough, the latter will likely remain possible for quite some time.

Piracy is not the only risk when someone grabs your app binary, but also cracked versions with ads removed, or subscription checks disabled.

It makes it easier to pirate your app if you enable that checkbox. macOS attempts to disable iOS apps when SIP is disabled to prevent this but it's not difficult to bypass [1]. I don't necessarily agree with it but this probably does factor into their decision process.

[1] https://github.com/paradiseduo/appdecrypt

This site claims to list them out: https://eylenburg.github.io/countries.htm

I cannot vouch for its accuracy but I thought it was interesting.

I don't take issue with the idea of something like this (assuming it isn't expensive and is more of an information center than anything else), but yeah it is funny that while they evidently made this in response to the EU, if it ends up being what it sounds like it will, it's going to enable Americans to circumvent their own state's laws as well.

Non-preloaded apps can't access your camera feed unless they are open in the foreground (zero days aside, but you're probably not interesting enough to burn one on).

Previously:

Apple pulls iPhone torrent app from AltStore PAL in Europe (268 pts) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45098411

Apple revokes EU distribution rights for an app on the Alt Store (249 pts) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45040064

> I can’t say for sure that preferring web versions of services helps with censorship

The linked article isn't enough to convince you? Look up Gab or Parler. (Yes, I find most of the speech there reprehensible. No, I don't think they should be denied the right to publish and distribute an app.)

Using a social media app instead of a website, as most people do, means that everything you are seeing has essentially been pre-approved by Apple and Google.

If the tide swings even a little further to the right on X, expect the X app to be banned as well. I was secretly hoping that it would be banned when Musk took over just to remind the right of why centralized app stores are a terrible idea. But with ICEBlock the left has finally been alerted to that fact as well, which might be even more beneficial to the cause of software freedom in the long run, since the left is generally less afraid of the proper solution to this problem, regulation.

In the meantime, keep using web apps instead of native apps.

> 4chan does provide access to people in the UK

That's the default when you host an app on the world wide web, though. Regardless of how big of a burden it is for 4chan (I would think it's as simple as flipping a switch in some control panel blocking UK access?), it still does compel the US-based company with no commercial presence in the UK to consider complex international law and to make changes to their US-based web app in response to a foreign jurisdiction's regulations, which feels wrong to me.

This is tangential to whether it affects "free speech" outside the UK, though, and I'm inclined to agree that it doesn't, but I guess it depends on how you define free speech. If 4chan's web app itself is considered speech, and not just the content that's posted there, maybe. But I think free speech advocates are a lot more concerned with the content.

> It is possible to enforce UK judgements and fines in the US, though my understanding is that it is not simple or guaranteed.

I am curious as to how that could possibly work. Is there some trade agreement that requires the US to respect UK court rulings? Generally the US has sought to distance itself from any kind of foreign influence or control.

> I can always "apt-get install".

I don't think you can reliably fix a specific version of a package though, meaning things will still break here the same way they did before containers.

Nearly anything that isn't end-to-end encrypted is fair game, assuming there is probable cause. Access to your physical location history (even if you weren't suspected of a crime) wasn't off limits until 2024 [1]. (It still isn't off limits if you are suspected of a crime, but is no longer collected at the scale of "most Android users" [2].)

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/federal-appeals-court-...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/16/google-geofence-warrants-l...

A law with more teeth than the EU's Digital Markets Act (which, contrary to popular belief, does not actually require sideloading) could theoretically be passed. The current (pre-lobbying) iteration of the App Store Freedom Act looks pretty good (ctrl+f "security", "safety", "integrity" returns zero results).

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...

Realistically speaking, that probably won't happen, though. What can you, yourself do to mitigate the impact?

Install a forked version of Android without Developer Verification. LineageOS, GrapheneOS and CalxyOS are all pretty good options. Stop using any apps with remote attestation via Play Integrity, which will mean sacrificing more and more functionality as time goes on. Try to use mobile sites instead of mobile apps as much as possible. Watch the F-Droid catalog get smaller and smaller until it crumbles completely when it becomes unusable by >80% of Android users.

> Basically all antitrust actions thus far regarding mobile platforms have been regarding their gigantic commercial app stores. That is entirely unaffected by these changes.

This is more or less true. Epic Games is most likely not going to fight Google any further in the U.S., assuming they actually get what the recent injunction promised them (which does not include unrestricted sideloading, but does include better protections for verified third party app stores on Android).

But at the same time, I don't think it's invalid to say that antitrust law provides a pretty solid framework for a hypothetical "sideloading mandate". The EU's Digital Markets Act comes very close, but falls short of declaring exactly what a "third party app store" should be. That is, "an independent source of applications without any oversight whatsoever from $BIG_TECH_CO".

However, they probably specifically avoided doing that because they knew it would lead to malware on iOS, and a huge win for Apple in the court of public opinion. Will the EU or any of the other regulators actually ever go any further than "third party app stores"? Probably not, to be honest.

What? The parent comment alleges that your claim that Google engaged in fraudulent marketing is false, but your reply just restates your original claim without addressing their argument.

> except the EU

Also Australia, Japan, Brazil, and the United Kingdom, with others sure to follow.