Apple makes its case against iPhone app sideloading

https://www.fastcompany.com/90649203/apple-iphone-sideloading-safety-apps-tech

by blinding-streak • 5 years ago

54 131 5 years ago

fastcompany.com

mimixco4• 5 years ago

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And Sideloading is Eliminating Choice. Yep!

randompwd• 5 years ago

What an unnecessarily trite comment.

Have you any comment on the actual article or the arguments contained within?

mimixco4• 5 years ago

Sure. They're ridiculous. You cannot call the absence of the choice to sideload an application "a choice." By the same token, it makes no sense to call having the choice to sideload an application an example of "eliminating choice."

Apple is very good at spinning their walled garden as a user benefit. In some cases, it is. Here, it isn't.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

Per site guidelines, please don’t feed the trolls: flag or downvote and move along.

perryizgr8• 5 years ago

I had the same reaction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535904

It blows my mind that there are people who defend these kind of statements.

antifa• 5 years ago

Maybe they have a point, I think it does actually eliminate Apple's choice to have authoritarian control over what software you run on devices you alldgedly own.

simonh10• 5 years ago

The thing is as a user I want Apple to vet the software I use. I’m hiring them to do that for me. I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me.

Note to ‘freedom’ activists. Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.

RealStickman_2• 5 years ago

Facebook does not have its own store on android and amazon's is pretty small and comes preinstalled with very few devices only.

Why would that be different with apple?

passivate9• 5 years ago

Then, for you, keep using Apple's store. For the rest of us, we'd like to shop at other stores too.

danShumway6• 5 years ago

I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls. If they moved to a ‘freedom store’ I’d probably have to use it and I’d lose the oversight Apple gives me.

This is the central conflict here, because only one of two things can be true. Either:

A) iOS is so big that companies can't afford not to target it, and that they're forced to follow Apple's rules, even if they don't like those rules.

B) the smartphone market is open, and companies can just decide not to target iOS, in which case there really isn't a way to force Facebook to give you a privacy-respecting app.

If B is true, then having 3rd-party app stores on the iPhone would change almost nothing. If A is true, then it would change everything.

----

Often, the pro/anti-Apple arguments boil down to one side saying, "just develop for Android if you don't want Apple's restrictions", and the other side saying, "just don't install a 3rd-party app store if you don't want one."

But both of those responses miss the point. The point is that Apple users want a monopoly. They want to be part of a restricted platform that is so big that Facebook and Google and Microsoft can't afford not to develop for it. Meanwhile, people like me want Apple's walled garden to be small enough that it can be ignored.

In that debate, it doesn't matter where you draw the lines around Apple's walled garden. "No one is forcing you to use iOS" and "no one is forcing you to install an app store" are basically the exact same argument; the only difference is whether they define Apple's walled garden as encompassing the hardware or the software. But the reason why Facebook can't abandon iOS is the same reason why Apple can be considered anti-competitive. It doesn't matter whether Apple's walled-garden is a device or a store, the question is whether or not companies are forced to enter it in order to remain competitive on the market.

On some level, we all know this -- that's why on the anti-Apple side we recognize that "just go to Android" isn't really a good argument. But that's also why the pro-Apple side doesn't accept "just use the official app store" as a solution to their problems. Because what they want is the complete opposite of what software-freedom advocates want. They want developers to be forced to target the walled garden. That's the conflict.

I have a locked down Linux box that only pulls software from a few sources. The difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is not the security, or the privacy, or anything like that -- the difference between my Linux box and an iPhone is that companies like Facebook do not feel obligated to write software for my Linux box.

----

And honestly, I don't know that there's a way around that conflict. Either you economically force Facebook to target iOS's walled garden, or you don't. The best middle ground I can think of is something like the Web, an aggressively sandboxed runtime that companies are economically forced to target the same way that they are forced to target iOS, but that is not controlled by a single corporation and that approaches security in a more equitable way. But even on the web, this conflict still exists a little bit. The web being an Open platform means that outside of the platform-level restrictions, I still can't force companies to build their websites/service exactly the way I want them to. At best I can use the Web platform itself to circumvent their services, block ads, etc...

If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.

So what all of this boils down to is: I strongly suspect that if Android development was as economically viable as iOS development, and if it was genuinely possible for large companies to just stop supporting iOS and to "leave iOS users alone", that iOS users would be very unhappy with that outcome. You don't really want to be left alone, you want Facebook, Google, etc to be forced to build apps for you inside of your walled garden.

mthoms20• 5 years ago

I think the no sideloading thing is reasonable, but I have a sincere question -

Are you willing to compromise on anything else in the equation so that the "other side" gets something?

How about significantly lower App Store fees? What do you think about allowing PWA's and alternative browser engines? What about game streaming?

If your "opposition" is willing to admit that your position is understandable, would you be willing to do the same?

orangecat2• 5 years ago

I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls.

Should Apple block the websites of those companies and only allow you to use the apps that they've approved?

Don’t tell me what I want. Leave iOS the way I want it. If you want a system that works they way Android does, use Android and leave me alone.

You're welcome to hand control of your computing environment to a megacorporation. I'm going to continue to point out that that's a very bad idea for freedom and innovation.

paulddraper4• 5 years ago

I don’t want Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc to be able to do an end run around App Store controls

As evidenced by the fact that on sideload-enabled Android, Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. have done an end run around Play Store controls.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

It also eliminates the user’s choice to have a device within a walled garden.

It’d be like government restricting the right of OpenBSD to remove sudo.

ryankrage77• 5 years ago

Because Apple requires developers to ask the user for permission in a universal way before it can access such features as an iPhone’s microphone or camera, a user can identify if something shady is going on inside the app.

Does the average user really do this? In my experience they just allow everything, because every permissions pop-up is just a delay to whatever they're trying to do.

domano• 5 years ago

Also they could force such behaviour just by the usage of the relevant APIs even outside of App Store Apps or am i mistaken? Dont have a lot of iOs Dev experience.

thebean11• 5 years ago

I'm fairly certain these checks are completely iOS level, and have nothing to do with the App Store. Nothing is stopping Apple from enforcing the exact same checks for sideloaded apps.

smachiz• 5 years ago

They must, otherwise Facebook wouldn't freak out so much on the anti-tracking notices.

I routinely limit location on apps - as well as address book, microphone and camera.

stemlord• 5 years ago

Fast Company articles feel like their goal is to promote a business rather than disseminate valuable information.

lucasyvas• 5 years ago

One thing I don't understand is this:

Is this stance by Apple really the best for them? I'm an Android user only because of Apple's draconian closed garden. Surely there are lots of Android users that would happily buy from the AppStore by default and enjoy likely privacy benefits if they felt they had more freedom of choice while using their device.

Has Apple made the conscious decision to forego a massive market of users because the AppStore really rakes in that much cash?

Basically, how do they know this position is better - even from a shareholder perspective? They must have proof - and that's sad because there are many users who would love their core product that will not own one.

mimixco4• 5 years ago

The proof is in the pudding. Apple doesn't really sell products; they sell a lifestyle. This is in contrast to almost all other tech and PC brands which sell on the tech itself.

Because tech cannot compete with lifestyle, Apple is in a different business. Clearly, it's a profitable one. Changing to an open model or competing on raw hardware or software is never going to be their thing.

BTW, this is not to denigrate their hardware in any way as much of it is great. But, especially in recent years, the company has compromised the usefulness of its hardware through its walled garden approach to software.

karmakaze2• 5 years ago

They don't only sell a lifestyle. They could do that without being anticompetitive and creating a walled garden. They do sell a lifestyle but want to be the only one who can sell it.

I would really have to drink the cool-aid to work at Apple on their tech. I'm so annoyed by how Macs so commonly negotiate a low quality external display signal, e.g. YPbPr. It would suck to be told to make it do that in a plausibly deniable manner.

topicseed• 5 years ago

Apple doesn't really sell products; they sell a lifestyle.

Other brands sell products, just products. Apple sells a lifestyle, on top of great products. Many of their products are leading technologically their specific category (e.g., Watch, iPad). Others are amazing products, sure pricier at times, but great nonetheless (e.g., iPhones, computers).

So yes, Apple definitely sells a lifestyle and coolness but that's also backed up by real tech.

karmakaze2• 5 years ago

That's a good point. I've made the same choice. I don't know that we amount to a large number who choose Android out of any principle. If nothing else, it has to outweigh principles against Google/Play Services--I'm not on AOSP.

I suspect that Apple does in fact make enough for this to be a no-brainer at the moment. It will take a shift in general public sentiment (and to some extent behaviour) to tip the balance. They wouldn't wait until it's strictly financially better because trust is hard to regain after losing it.

Grustaf• 5 years ago

I think you're a tiny minority. At most 1 in 20 wants to side-load apps, the other 19 prefer simplicity and safety.

simonh10• 5 years ago

Right, I don’t want app developers to be able to do an end run around the App Store scrutiny and privacy vetting. If I had to side load Google and Facebook apps I probably would, but I want them to have to go through the App Store to get on my phone.

I don’t want the ‘freedom’ of everything working like Android.

simonh10• 5 years ago

If Android suits you better then use Android. As Steve once said, to paraphrase, if Apple is making a mistake then users will buy something else and they’ll learn, and the market will sort this all out.

passivate9• 5 years ago

if Apple is making a mistake then users will buy something else and they’ll learn, and the market will sort this all out.

That is wishful thinking. There are plenty of examples of giant corporations existing even when their customers dislike them or their products. I'm confident you could think of a few.

paulddraper4• 5 years ago

And to Steve's credit, they do and Android is the market leader.

Seems fine to me.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

I’m an Apple user because of the walled garden and foundations in Unix/BSD philosophies.

I’d honestly switch to a flip phone and remove myself from the app market entirely, if it came down to a law preventing walled gardens.

muro• 5 years ago

It's unfortunate that what has some security benefits is also a such a gold mine for Apple. If they ran th still in a from developers yearly subscription costs + users paying for hardware, this would be so much easier to agree with.

One example: DJI's app for their drones. They are forced to follow Apple's rules on iOS, but don't offer the same app on Google's play store. I trust the iOS version much more for that reason alone.

But as long as they take 30% from developers on the platform and expanding the scope who needs to pay, they fully deserve monopoly investigations and eventually fines for their greed.

villgax• 5 years ago

The hearing is pretty good since we now get on record admissions of stupid from every company

camgunz3• 5 years ago

The entire "eliminates choice" argument here is "some people want to choose a platform where you can't sideload apps, and if you make us support it that choice is unavailable". Ugh.

I wish businesses would start considering the corrosive effect this kind of "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is peace" newspeak has on society. Hearing corporate spokesperson after corporate spokesperson (or their toadies in the press) parrot this kind of junk generates untold cynicism. How are we supposed to believe corporations are an important part of a just human society when they have whole departments scheming on how to bamboozle us with this kind of brainwashing? And what does it do to the people who start out earnestly believing in a company's mission, who start internalizing that they need to say whatever they have to to protect the company?

It would be way more straightforward to say "we have a lot of non-technical users [referred to as 'your 15-year-old nephew or 75-year-old father' in the article] and they're at risk from exploits via sideloaded apps".

Or I mean, it's probably even more straightforward to say "we make lots of money on the App Store; why would we enable competitors when we don't have to?"

People are just so tired of everything coming down to "freedom" and "fairness"; this stuff has just lost all meaning. Let's take this seriously and start working against it.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

It seems to me that continuing to press on this specific goal of using legal force to induce Apple to allow sideloading could induce extreme opposition from the right. In particular from those that embrace Ayn Rand and her parable of Roark.

camgunz3• 5 years ago

I see what you're saying (and understand you're not arguing that) but, I'm not interested in having a freedom of speech argument with people who want to dictate what content Twitter/Facebook must have on their platform. The American right is philosophically and politically bankrupt; we should stop both sides-ing them until they dig out of their ditch.

Dracophoenix2• 5 years ago

I would also like to point out that Apple is lying here. Apple does allow sideloading via Xcode. They just limit it to 3 apps for non-developers.

musicale• 5 years ago

IIRC they cracked down on the duration of certificates for testing purposes after someone used this loophole to create an alternate app store.

It's a shame because I thought it was a nice solution for sideloading emulators and the like - just compile them yourself!

Enterprise certs were also misused by Facebook, etc..

blizdiddy• 5 years ago

I want to choose a phone where i cant sideload apps. I don't want competing app stores, i want all purchases and subscriptions in one place. But hey, screw what i want, nerds need leet decentralized apps to project their identity.

camgunz3• 5 years ago

I do think the "I like walled gardens" (or maybe more charitably the console experience over the PC experience) position is interesting. Like I think the "leet nerd"--and also my--rejoinder to your post is: the answer isn't walled gardens, the answer is open standards that let consumers choose their experiences.

But, does that exist at scale anywhere? It might be that this is a false option. If that's the case, and our options really are walled garden vs. balkanization, walled garden doesn't look too bad.

Or I could also reframe it as the reason the open standards choose your own experience option doesn't exist is that there's no financial incentive to build it, and capitalism has failed us yet again.

Jcowell2• 5 years ago

While slightly off topic , I wrote about this subject on Reddit when someone said Android allows it and hasn’t lead to serious App Store fragmentation on that platform so I’ll just copy and paste here:

There’s a reason for this that I’ve been thinking about and it all comes down to Pushing Power. Android , on its own, doesn’t have a lot of “pushing” power because it’s not monotheistic. It requires all the players in the game to play nice in order to make something the norm. If Samsung or Google does something in their own, it doesn’t have the pushing power to turn the industry (only really Androids). Google could have that pushing power, but their reputation of killing and rebranding services hurt them. There aren’t assurances that they won’t kill something so there’s no backing of it. And this affects everything down to the developers of the platform.

How can one push anything on such a platform ? The Google play store will probably have the average consumer’s wants and there’s too much friction of installing another store for one thing. This lack of Pushability works since Android likes to churn out razor-edge and innovation features, even if these features don’t talk to each-other like iOS users often expect, and it doesn’t matter if these features are 100% baked.

But iPhones is a different story. It’s probably one of the most powerful pushing platform there is. Think about it. Apple was able to remove the headphone Jack and sell the solution. Neither Google nor Samsung has the pushing power to do that since their customers can just get a similar experience elsewhere. They need Apple to do the “crazy” thing first and just follow suit down the line once Apple has successfully done it. Because in the end , no matter what Apple does, there is no where else we can ever get the parity with the seamlessness that is the iPhone. And as a result it has pushing power.

And this extends to its Apps to. I bet Android Tablets are great (I actually own one my self but never use it). But I’m also willing to bet an artist is going to Choose the iPad every single time because in the end Android does not have Procreate nor an App that can approach the experience of procreate. Procreate, by being an Apple exclusive app , has Pushing power and if it were to move to an alternative store , users will follow. Mobile Gaming is probably the most popular gaming platform there is (crazy right) and I’m willing to bet a tenth of what whales put down that they would download a third party store if a game like Genshin Impact were to move and I’m willing to pay another tenth that they would absolutely become and Epic Games Store exclusive if they we’re offered.

Every one’s thinking that this will lead to more competition and better things for the consumer but that’s not how it’s going to go down. Here’s what’s going to happen:

If Sideloading and third party stores are permitted Epic will immediately start securing exclusive third party apps—not just games but apps to promote their store. They will pay the exact same book they play on Desktops because it’s the smartest play there is. Eventually they will get the app (I predict Spotify) that will make everyone have to download their store in order to use. They of course will also do this on Android as well but will be more successful this time since their success on iOS will go mainstream and affect android as it always does (think removing the charging brick). Other companies (I predict Google and Nintendo) will do this also and find success and the mobile device app Ecosystem will become exactly like the browser app Ecosystem (minus PWA probably).

TL;DR: Android is not a good indicator of what would happen if iPhones did what it does because it never is nor was. iPhones has always been the “pusher” of the mobile device industry, not in that it releases cutting-edge features first, but that it pushes what features are the norm. What happens on iPhones have a far greater impact on Android consumers than the vice versa. If you don’t believe so see: Smartphone boom (don’t matter who did it truly first but who did it truly right), removal of headphone Jack, removal of charging brick, faster adoption of NFC in US despite years of Android Phones having them, And Airtags.

passivate9• 5 years ago

Interesting analysis. How do you see this 'pushing power' as it applies to hardware vs software features? I think with Google controlling Android it probably gives them equivalent pushing power - whats your take on that? IIRC They force other android manufacturers to pre-install google apps, no duplicate app stores, etc (not sure exactly whats in the contract).

I think Apple has to tread carefully if they want to continue imposing their crazy 30% revenue tax on app store sales. No company wants to pay a percentage fee (vs a flat fee) for a digital good that requires very little upkeep. With Steam i think the percentage goes down as the sales go up.

Jcowell2• 5 years ago

Interesting analysis. How do you see this 'pushing power' as it applies to hardware vs software features?

I think it depends on what the hardware and software is. One thing about pushing power is that it diminishes immensely if there are competitive alternatives. You can still have pushing power but probably not enough to push your overall industry. In Google Case while they have pushing power for Android via The Google Play store and playing Anti-trusty with manufacturers , they can’t pivot Android any way they want since if they go too off the rails there’s always Samsung to run to. And the same Vice Vera. The only way that either companies do so is by working together. If they were to remove the HJ at the same time , while not as powerful as Apple’s push, it might have worked. By on their own, they stand to lose. This is why Google’s pushing power is not as strong as Apples despite being the maker of Android. It’s fragmentation does not allow for any one manufacturer to guide the Mobile Industry as a whole, only in certain positions of power.

Mind you , Google has use It’s pushing power to keep its control on Android (hence the reason why Epic is suing them).

I think Apple has to tread carefully if they want to continue imposing their crazy 30% revenue tax on app store sales. No company wants to pay a percentage fee (vs a flat fee) for a digital good that requires very little upkeep. With Steam i think the percentage goes down as the sales go up.

I don’t think there’s a way for Apple to keep the 30%. It will fall eventually. The question is what will Apple Lose as well. At the end of all this all I see is Various Stores with Timed exclusivity agreements, and the loss of user privacy to third party developers (I will be surprised if any of these Store try to go toe to toe with Apple of Privacy Policy. I’m willing to bet one of their pitches to Devs will be that they will not require privacy nutrition labels and other stuff that mess with user data collection if they can help it. Apple should have allowed Third Party Stores but downloadable via the App Store and with the requirement to adhere to the same privacy requirements and reporting.

heavyset_go• 5 years ago

Meanwhile Google is forcing all app developers to adopt their payments service or be kicked off the Play Store, and developers are doing it despite having to give 30% of their revenue to Google, now. If that isn't pushing power, then I don't know what is.

DrBenCarson• 5 years ago

How hard is it to support a freemium model?

Lower fee plan from Apple that allows external payments, no enterprise support, no App Store promotion, limited iOS API access (nothing sensitive), etc.

Higher fee plan to give developers access to more sensitive APIs and Apple payments, etc.

Mark the latter apps as “supported by Apple” or something in the store. I know it doesn’t solve everything but it’s better than the current state of things.

HWR_144• 5 years ago

Doesn't it eliminate choice? Like, what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps instead of admitting to their privacy practices as required by Apple's latest updates?

blacktriangle• 5 years ago

That's exactly the issue. Individuals have 0 recourse against Facebook, but Apple does. Apple is basically selling you a collective action against the likes of Facebook to fight against having everything you do tracked and monitored. What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that.

HWR_144• 5 years ago

Most of the people who want sideloading on iOS have Android phones.

passivate9• 5 years ago

What I don't get is the people who so desparetly want sideloading on iOS. If that's what you want, AOSP is a thing, go use that.

Customers are demanding a feature from the manufacturer - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. More people should be doing this. Also using words like "desperately" is needlessly polarizing.

paulddraper4• 5 years ago

what are the odds that Facebook wouldn't just force people to sideload their apps

Zero, judging by Android.

HWR_144• 5 years ago

Does the Google Play Store require a privacy disclosure that Zuckerberg called a threat to Facebook?

mthoms20• 5 years ago

Remember: the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of Apples’ App Store commissions. This whole side-loading, “other App stores” thing is a distraction from the real issue. The main problem would (mostly) go away if Apple wasn’t gouging developers and users.

I’m sympathetic to the “I love my walled garden” crowd. There are good points being made on both sides.

The funny thing is that I never hear the pro-Apple side suggesting (or being agreeable to) lowering App Store fees as an acceptable compromise. Or suggesting the Apple should do the right thing and properly support PWAs.

Apple is redirecting the argument towards privacy/security and we are giving them a pass on the core issue.

Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible? Why does the pro-Apple side never seem to be willing to budge on anything? Allowing PWAs? Nope. Other browser engines? Nope. Lower fees? No way.

It’s infuriating.

Note: I use Apple products almost exclusively and love them. I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

Can the HN crowd not agree (in principle) that a compromise is possible?

I can envision a possible Nash equilibrium arising if, ceteris paribus, the fee was capped at the actual cost for running the App Store.

9wzYQbTYsAIc27• 5 years ago

I just don’t think Apple is entitled to take 30% from me for every thing I do on the $1200 phone I already bought.

Interestingly, 30% seems to be a common business threshold for acceptable profit margin in other industries, as well.

mthoms20• 5 years ago

30% is their commission, not their profit margin. Apple deliberately hides their App Store profit margin from everyone, including shareholders. Doesn't it make you wonder why?

danShumway6• 5 years ago

Just a quick note, this is the same company that until ~2016 was saying of video games:

"If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song."

This is the same company that has more recently described Itch.io as offensive and indecent. This is the same company that has gone out of its way to basically block game streaming entirely from its platform. It's the same company holding back web apps/experiences.

So I get the security angle here, I really do, but forgive me if I'm suspicious whether security is the primary reason why Apple is locking down their store. On my side of things as a game developer, I think Apple is a large part of why gaming on mobile phones looks the way it does today. They made one model economically viable, and they aggressively chased off anyone who was treating games like a serious medium, and they still have those attitudes towards gaming as an art form today.

So for them to act like this is just a debate about malware is really disingenuous. It's also a debate about the cultural control that Apple exerts, and their ability to basically shut down and manipulate markets by deciding what software innovations, game genres, and content in general are allowed run on their phones.

A lot of us don't want Apple to have the control it has, not because we don't care about malware, but because we fundamentally don't trust Apple to be a responsible moderator/gatekeeper to the mobile market. The company has the criticism it has about moderation because they've burned a lot of bridges with developer communities over the years. If Apple really was just caring about privacy/security, this debate wouldn't be as fierce as it is. I actually really like the direction iOS is going on privacy. The problem is that on multiple other moderation fronts, their developer policies are anti-competitive or puritan/regressive.

dang• 5 years ago

It looks like the related threads are:

Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 - June 2021 (35 comments)

Apple CEO Tim Cook: Sideloading Apps Would 'Destroy the Security' of the iPhone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 - June 2021 (1 comment)

Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 - June 2021 (44 comments)

Apple is blocking Apple Silicon Mac users from sideloading iPhone apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 - Jan 2021 (36 comments)

Apple begins blocking M1 Mac users from side loading iOS applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 - Jan 2021 (9 comments)

Apple makes its case against iPhone app sideloading

Related Stories