iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

https://www.techradar.com/news/ios-17-app-sideloading-might-only-be-available-in-europe

by walterbell • 3 years ago

597 962 3 years ago

Hasn't Apple always said the reason they don't allow sideloading was that it'd be impossible without compromising security? So are they claiming their European iDevices won't be secure anymore, or are they admitting they were lying before and that the real reason was nothing but greed?

AniseAbyss• 3 years ago

iPhones been hacked for ages already.

danielheath2• 3 years ago

Perhaps "has it ever been hacked" is not the best metric, unless you prefer to keep your devices under armed guard, encased in several meters of concrete, without an internet connection.

IMO, https://zerodium.com/program.html is a good indication of "what would it cost to hack me using a never-before-seen exploit".

hammyhavoc• 3 years ago

Why couldn't both be true?

nomel2• 3 years ago

How would app review work?

ulfw2• 3 years ago

They are required by European law to allow it, wether they see it as compromising security or not. This isn't Apple's decision.

neximo644• 3 years ago

How they will do it likely is they will charge to install the App store app and assign it a CA and require it to sign the apps downloaded from that app store.

The sideloading of apps will technically be an apple approved app but enforced by another app store. To put it another way you would not be able to randomly download an unsigned app.

amelius3• 3 years ago

They will probably put all the side loaded apps in the same sandbox. Yikes ...

syrrim• 3 years ago

They're presumably claiming that european devices will be less secure.

AlfeG• 3 years ago

Or usability of this feature would be so frustrating, that no one will use. Constant security popups on every start, very limited available API for apps, etc...

charcircuit8• 3 years ago

Security isn't binary. European iDevices will likely have more malware installed on them on average than US iDevices.

awestroke• 3 years ago

I thought iPhone apps were sandboxed, making malware impossible?

asddubs• 3 years ago

I suppose it's true in the same way that having knives in your kitchen makes it more likely that you might cut yourself. but a kitchen without knives kind of sucks so

chronogram• 3 years ago

I don't think kitchens should have knives. I want my parents to be able to eat, but with knives in the kitchen they occasionally cut their fingers and I don't want to have to deal with that. You could make it optional but before you know it they'll get knives anyway. Besides, most people eat processed food and don't want to make meals from scratch so this is only a problem for a handful of people.

(yes yes this is satire)

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

You know what's the most secure device? The one that doesn't work.

alerighi3• 3 years ago

The claim is nonsense. If it was true Android devices would be full of malware, that is clearly not the case.

jb19913• 3 years ago

there’s a far greater chance that hackers can make it onto the [Android] platform to distribute malware through malicious apps [compared to iPhone].

https://nordvpn.com/blog/ios-vs-android-security/

2OEH8eoCRo0• 3 years ago

Is MacOS insecure then?

simooooo• 3 years ago

You could probably argue yes, since a 3rd party app isn’t validated in any way by apple

wrasee• 3 years ago

I think most would accept that iOS is more secure than macOS. But to flip the logic the other way around and put as you did is a little disingenuous.

vbezhenar• 3 years ago

It's one thing to provide security in the kindergarden. It's another thing to provide security in the jail. So far Apple's track record is kindergarden security. They do have tech in place, but how that tech would resist big bad world outside the wall remains to be seen. My guess would be that there will be apps breaking the jails in the first years and 10 years later things will settle on and it'll become relatively safe to sideload untrusted apps.

Of course if one's smart enough to only download apps from reputable websites, then the only worry will be privacy issues which are probably not important for most people

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 3 years ago

Good.

I personally agree with Apple’s stance. I don’t want developers of popular apps to be able to bypass Apple’s reviews and push dark patterns on users.

Before anyone talks about choice, I see this as akin to minimum wages and union memberships. There are some limitations of choices that often end up being beneficial to the average person. From the point of view of the user (if not the app developer) Apple’s walled garden provides me what I want.

If I wanted something more open, I would have gone with Android.

I am happy that Europe’s short-sightedness will not affect me.

Krssst• 3 years ago

I personally agree with Apple’s stance. I don’t want developers of popular apps to be able to bypass Apple’s reviews and push dark patterns on users.

They just have to make it hard to install apps outside the store, then apps that don't follow Apple's model won't get much of an install base and will have to comply anyway in the end.

Also, Android users seem to be discriminated in America for some reason (the green/blue bubble BS) , so the choice between Android and iOS is not as free as it seems.

Aeolun• 3 years ago

That’s dissapointing. Can I get the european firmware installed on my device then?

mattl• 3 years ago

Or buy a phone directly from Europe?

marinhero• 3 years ago

The feature will likely be tied to an European Apple ID which means you’ll need an European credit card in order to make this work.

irusensei• 3 years ago

You can pay using euro debit card from wise.

1letterunixname• 3 years ago

Sons of beaches! I'm moving to Europe across the pond. Swims faster

I would expect it to be piloted in one region first and then phase across regions. It's not exactly something you want to YOLO and deploy to the entire world fleet all at once with customer devices and server infrastructure.

fbdab103• 3 years ago

I am wondering if I could take a trip to Europe, side-load an app, and return to the states. Would Apple suddenly geo-block my already installed application?

superkuh2• 3 years ago

Even if this is small progress the headlines and framing of the story are still doublespeak. Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things. Walled gardens and not having control of your computer is the new weird thing. The word "sideloading" is a feudal concept and it's unquestioned use is dangerous for society.

Properly stated this story title is, "Installing applications on iOS 17 might be allowed Europe" which highlights the absurdity intrinsic in the practice of users not being able to install applications on their own computers as a default.

gary_03• 3 years ago

Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project).

If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server? Oh, but consent to these tracking cookies first.

userbinator4• 3 years ago

they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it.

The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.

kevingadd2• 3 years ago

Code signing and associated warnings are significantly different from fully prohibiting the execution of unapproved code, I'm not sure why people struggle with the distinction. Windows has been doing this mostly the same way for literal decades.

iOS has a full sandbox which would apply even to "side loaded" applications, which makes the arbitrary constraint even more ridiculous as a "for your own good" measure.

parker_mountain• 3 years ago

If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox,

these OSes were designed decades ago, before we really had a good grasp on security. there were other significant concerns as well, such as performance

also, modern OS toolkits, such as on macos and windows 11, are moving towards a permission and API model that will allow sandboxing. In fact, macos is moving quite quickly towards this.

And lastly, there is a widely deployed OS that runs all applications in a proper sandbox: chromeos

I think it's understood at this point by everyone in the industry that sandboxing is the future, but it's taking a while to get there.

cookiengineer• 3 years ago

Fun fact: This is the reason google pivoted to the web, after being blocked as an alternative office suite on Windows.

They realized that they need to change the platform for distribution, and hence this is why the web (post-chromium) is now what it is...with all its absurd redundancies of APIs and bloat.

Only because Microsoft can't keep their shit together.

Apple is more complicated, because despite the absolute control they've established (no other browser engine / JIT compiler process allowed for whatever made up reasons) they did not face the European courts that forced Microsoft for the exact same thing to allow to install other Browsers.

And now we are stuck with Safari, repeating the loop, because Apple can't keep their shit together.

mhoad• 3 years ago

If you hate cookies you’re going to be posted when you find out what’s happening in native apps. It’s an order of magnitude worse they just don’t have to ask or inform you first

charcircuit8• 3 years ago

Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things.

It really wasn't. It wasn't normal to install arbitrary applications on the computers in your fridge, dishwasher, game consoles, flip phones, washing machines, etc. Platforms have varied over time in how open they are to having other people developing for them. iOS is an example of a more closed platform and has shown that closed platforms can be successful. You can see Windows as a more open platform in comparison which was also successful. How open a platform is comes with different trade offs.

76SlashDolphin15• 3 years ago

The question is which of these is a general purpose computer and which isn't. IMHO if what people tend to do on a platform is the same as what they do on a PC then that platform should also be forced to be a general-purposed computer and allow (in some roundabout way) arbitrary application installation.

For example, a smartphone replaces a PC for a lot of people. I even know some people in their 20s that don't own a "normal" laptop/desktop and they do most of their general purpose computing on their phones. In the meantime, nobody uses a Nintendo Switch or their dishwasher to do a quick edit of an excel sheet or access their bank account even if they are technically capable of doing so.

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

iOS is an example of a more closed platform and has shown that closed platforms can be successful.

It is successful despite being closed, not because of it.

miramba• 3 years ago

I used to think the same way, but not anymore. The amount and variety of attacks on the devices have increased too much in the last years. The device could be encrypted, money could be stolen, some malware could sit silently and do surveillance for who knows. I always wanted to install software on my iPhone without the manufacturing company deciding what I can and can not have (according to californian standards!), but would I let my kids do that nowadays? No way! Stay on the app stores, also on Windows and MacOS is the first line of defense. It‘s sad but the safest approach. Regular users don‘t need to install software on their own anymore, the same as they don‘t need to put processors, storage and Monitors together or install a sound card.

newaccount742• 3 years ago

The security on the iPhone is from the app sandbox, not from app review.

It's trivial to get something past app review (eg. look at casino apps that were disguised as games)

On the Mac, staying on the Mac App Store makes sense because it is the easiest way to enforce you only install sandboxed apps.

On iOS, that's not going to be necessary, because every app on iOS is sandboxed.

heavyset_go19• 3 years ago

The App Store is a poor line of defense, because it isn't about user security, it's about securing Apple's billion dollar app distribution monopoly moneyhose. User security is just a rhetorical afterthought.

When we forgo real system safety in favor of gatekeeping corporate revenue, that isn't security. In fact, such a scheme is responsible for mass distribution of malware. Apple's App Store is responsible for distributing over half a billion copies of Xcodeghost to iPhone and iPad users[1], and that's just one piece of malware.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...

ihatepython2• 3 years ago

I used to think like you, but not anymore. I am not interested in installing random software from other people, I want to install my own software to be able to have full control over my own device.

I don't care about 'regular users'. I care about myself.

pseudo0• 3 years ago

So take five minutes to set up the parental controls on your children's devices. The idea that we should eliminate the ability to run arbitrary software "for the children" is completely ridiculous.

kaba09• 3 years ago

And how exactly the AppStore prevents it? By using the OSs sandbox, which will apply the exact same way to user installed programs — you won’t suddenly run as root.

AppStore checking is waaay overhyped as anything meaningful.

daveidol• 3 years ago

We should probably get rid of Safari / web browsers too in that case!

brucethemoose2• 3 years ago

I used to think that way, but then I realized the Android/iOS stores are absolute cesspools. I would not trust young kids on there either.

Others are right, sandboxing is the real saving grace (and only if apps dont ask for a bajillion permissions which users will just click through so it will work). Apple is slowly trying to isolate apps even more, like they were in the early iOS days.

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

Regular users don‘t need to install software on their own anymore, the same as they don‘t need to put processors, storage and Monitors together or install a sound card.

Uhuh, sure.

"Shut your mouth, pay and be happy"

alerighi3• 3 years ago

But it's an user choice! Same happens on Android. There is a settings that you have to enable to install applications from other sources.

This is pure nonsense... giving user more choices is never a bad thing.

davnicwil• 3 years ago

The issue with such a statement is that the terms can and do mean different things to different people. I probably have a similar definition of computer and application as you, but many people, maybe the majority, may not.

For one thing they might think of a phone as a fundamentally different thing from a 'computer' with a different role. In fact I strongly suspect this is the majority view.

Within that people probably think of an 'application' as fundamentally a pre-screened, pre-approved, piece of software to enable some function specifically on the phone and within the phone's ecosystem. Not as any arbitrary piece of software. In fact that might all be seen as a feature, not a limitation, in the majority of people's eyes. Again I strongly suspect that is the case.

aikinai6• 3 years ago

Installing whatever you want on your computer is not necessarily the natural state; it’s not even how the industry started and it’s not how any other industry or devices work.

I also prefer to be able to do whatever I want with my own devices, but pretending like it’s an inalienable right, or a natural state, or has no disadvantages is disingenuous and not helpful to the debate.

andai• 3 years ago

Are they real downsides or just excuses cooked up by Apple to increase profits, and accepted by apple users to minimize cognitive dissonance?

onlypositive• 3 years ago

Of course it's the natural state and an inalienable right to modify or do with the things you own in the way you see fit.

When was the last time you asked the builders association if you could remodel your kitchen?

When was the last time you asked Honda if you could put new mags on your car?

This whole idea that devices aren't owned when you purchase them is asinine and and insult to humanity.

Your counter arguments that it's new in the industry is simply due to the fact they thought they could get away with it. Not because they thought it was their right.

You don't see Klein putting limits on what nails you can use with a hammer but you can bet your ass they would if they could.

politician2• 3 years ago

it’s not even how the industry started

Which industry? The very earliest computers ran software written by end-users.

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

I also prefer to be able to do whatever I want with my own devices, but pretending like it’s an inalienable right, or a natural state, or has no disadvantages is disingenuous and not helpful to the debate.

I own the freaking thing.

ksec• 3 years ago

That is assuming Smartphone is a computer. Not agreeing or disagreeing, but the point is people have different interpretation. Some think it is an Appliance.

Sad that it has to come to this messy stage where the law has to be enforced. But then Apple isn't the same Steve Jobs Apple.

wilg4• 3 years ago

We focus too much on criticizing language instead of ideas. IMHO, this just leads to tiresome and hollow debates. So, I’ll call that out here.

Also, your proposed rewording isn’t correct either because installing applications is already allowed. You can debate the App Store all you want, but it definitely does let you install apps.

On topic: This is silly and Apple should allow sideloading. I don’t buy the security argument because the security comes from the sandbox, not Apple’s poorly-run approval process.

andrewmcwatters• 3 years ago

Don't be mistaken: if you control the language, you've set the tone.

superkuh2• 3 years ago

criticizing language instead of ideas.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. It's obvious that I'm criticising the idea of "sideloading" not the word. You can call it some other arrangement of letters and the concept is still very dangerous.

And in this case it is also definitely true that apple does not let you install applications without someone paying them $100+ and their continued approval. The "let" is the key here.

canucker2016• 3 years ago

From a personal-computer-user point of view, installing an app from any source is normal.

For pre-iPhone cellphone users, your cellphone network operator controlled access to what apps were available for installation. This is was the most common, if not the only, method for cellphone app distribution. App makers (mostly java games) paid to get on that first page of downloadable apps. I'd add some references but Google seems to have amnesia about anything cellphone app distribution pre-iPhone.

Apple didn't have an app store initially. How Apple convinced cellphone network operators to cede app approval/control, I don't know. Perhaps it was "apple's way - take it or leave it".

simondotau9• 3 years ago

Personal computers really are the exception which proves the rule. Whether it’s the software in your TV, your pre-smart phone, your car, or your game console, locked down has always been the norm.

JD5573• 3 years ago

It was the most common, but not the only method. You could (at least on Nokia phones) go to any wap site and download a .jad/.jar straight to your phone. I did that a lot on my series 30 (3510i).

I think other manufacturers allowed that as well, but I could only use the "free wap browsing trick" on Nokia phones, so I never explored that.

black3r3• 3 years ago

On most pre-iPhone cellphones you could install any .jar file, but there were 2 challenges:

Finding a .jar file that works on your phone was the biggest. Games often only supported a single screen resolution and so there were multiple .jar files for each game and you had to find the right one for your phone. Also sometimes even if you had the right screen resolution the .jar just crashed when you started it without any clue as to what's wrong (probably they needed more RAM or some platform specific code, but I was in high school back then so I didn't know much more about it)

In the early days, there was also the issue of how to get that .jar file to your phone. I distinctly remember old Nokia phones could download them through WAP (which was paid) or receive them through IrDA/Bluetooth, but themselves couldn't send applications through IrDA/Bluetooth (I think Sony Ericssons were the ones which could also send them....), This issue was later solved by microSD cards and USB cable transfers from PC.

alerighi3• 3 years ago

Pre-iPhone phones, for example Nokia phones with Symbian on it, did allow you to install applications. I remember when I was in middle school with a Nokia N70 exchanging games with Bluetooth with my friends. Who had internet at home (that was only a bunch of people) did download games from forums and then send to everyone else, as well as music and videos. Same for other models of cellphones, they all had some sort of application format.

Then the first Android devices arrived, with the Android Market (long before Google Play) that did allow you to download apps. But most people again maybe they didn't have internet, or more simply wanted pay apps but didn't want to pay for them, just exchanged .apk like it was the norm. (Pirating by the way was much more present than these days, for example I don't recall a single person having a PlayStation without the modchip, and burned PS1/PS2 games where the norm).

It's only with the arrival of the iPhone that this was no longer possible. In fact I recall that the criticism of the first iPhones, till the iPhone 4, was that it was an overpriced device and that it did lack of the possibility to install applications and exchange files with bluetooth, like everyone was used to do. The iPhone was a niche product that was not diffused (when I was at high school I recall maybe 1/2 people having iPhones, all other one Android devices).

The thing on cellphone operators is maybe an US specific thing, I don't recall having anything like that in Europe, more specifically in Italy. Quite frankly till 10 years ago using the cellphone network for internet was unthinkable, because the prices where so high. Then arrived the contract that give you 100Gb of data a month for 10 euros, but back in the day internet was expensive, to the fact that just by pressing the internet button on a phone it did consume all your credit. This is probably also the reason why WhatsApp become so popular (you could chat with your home internet connection that now everyone had without consuming expensive SMS)

daevout• 3 years ago

That is a good way of looking at it. What's missing is a catchy name to debase store-based installation similar to what was done through "sideloading". Perhaps "lord-loading", "begstalling", "babybiting", etc.

zamnos7• 3 years ago

Apple-blessed install

paxys• 3 years ago

I anticipate a huge market developing for unlocked second hand European iPhones in the US.

jacknews3• 3 years ago

The feature will be tied to your apple id, obviously.

1over137• 3 years ago

Oh that would suck. I've had an iPhone since the week they were first released, but never associated an Apple ID with one. My whole beef with the App Store is it requires telling Apple who I am. If you have to associate your phone with an Apple ID to get sideloading then this is hardly progress for me.

EMIRELADERO3• 3 years ago

That would actually be illegal under the DMA:

[...]gatekeepers shall:

[...](f) refrain from requiring business users or end users to subscribe to or register with any other core platform services identified pursuant to Article 3 or which meets the thresholds in Article 3(2)(b) as a condition to access, sign up or register to any of their core platform services identified pursuant to that Article

"Operating systems" is part of the "core platform services" definition. Locking the use of iOS or sideloading capabilities behind an Apple ID (another "core platform service") would be a violation of the provision.

josephcsible5• 3 years ago

I don't think that will happen, because I expect Apple will do something along the lines of "unless an iDevice is signed in with an account with a verified EU credit card, and/or has been in the EU for more than 50% of the time over the last year, disable the ability to sideload and wipe all existing sideloaded apps".

EMIRELADERO3• 3 years ago

I presume doing the latter would raise serious CFAA concerns.

stale20022• 3 years ago

They could try.

At which point they get fined billions of dollars.

The EU does not mess around.

And the more "clever" apple tries to be, the higher the fine will be.

zarzavat4• 3 years ago

Apple already has a system to set the region of a device. Go to Settings > General > Language and Region > Region.

Nursie5• 3 years ago

Define huge.

I think a small community of interested parties will pop up, but it’s unlikely to be more than a blip compared to device sales in general.

gnopgnip• 3 years ago

Can't you already sideload in the US, with a few restrictions like 3 apps max, you need to refresh the install every week?

layer83• 3 years ago

This will likely be tied to the same region setting that the App Store is currently tied to. If you want to use side loading, you'd be tied to a European region setting, and Apple's services will be restricted to the European versions.

jacknews3• 3 years ago

"It's for your safety and security"

Words that should send a chill down every spine. It's obviously just a monopoly. They could easily have an 'allow sideloading' option in the OS, and those that are happy with Apple's curation can leave it off, and everyone else can turn it on.

gary_03• 3 years ago

Monopoly? How about digital feudalism. "We've put ourselves in charge of protecting you, so we're going to help ourselves to a portion of everyone's gold, and make sure none of the serfs are up to anything we don't approve of."

waboremo• 3 years ago

Yes this framing makes more sense, especially since many get stuck up on the definition of a monopoly when that doesn't quite keep up with new tactics being utilized (ie keeping competition going but only superficially).

kevingadd2• 3 years ago

The way they aggressively police things on their app store, including "inappropriate" subversive content like Project Gutenberg, while taking 30% of everyone's revenue definitely sells the feudalism angle.

wruza5• 3 years ago

This is incorrect. Apple doesn’t force you to buy iphone, and there is plenty of alternatives.

Personally, I’d like to take full control over my iphone. And create apps for myself the way I see fit. But I’m afraid that with sideloading allowed, most software vendors will go sideloading-only. That means, nobody will have any control over their app’s privilege requests, behavior and other security related things.

Basically my concern is that when I need a “ruler app”, I just install it and am sure it couldn’t even be published with sms access request. Now with wild-west sideloading this restriction is over, so everyone and their dog will nag you to allow access to AB, calls, mic, etc. All dark patterns will break loose.

userbinator4• 3 years ago

Every time someone justifies something as being for "security", the old Franklin quote comes to mind. I know this wasn't the context he intended, but it's certainly quite appropriate.

m3kw9• 3 years ago

Move to Europe, get side loading

MBCook3• 3 years ago

Duh?

The EU has no jurisdiction over the US. So there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here. Just like they don’t allow alternate payment methods for dating apps in the US like some other countries required and Apple had to comply with.

The App Store is too critical to the way Apple sees things, they’re not going to just say “oh well”. I bet things are only open for EU residents with EU purchased phones. Buy an EU phone and activate with a US account? Bet it’s locked.

Also expect them to make hay over any security/scam issues with 3rd party stores/side loading. Something WILL happen and when reporters ask Apple they’ll be more than happy to point out how great the App Store is suggest users stick to it and blame bad regulations for making EU users less safe.

afavour3• 3 years ago

It’s absolutely not as simple as “duh”. Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly. Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge.

heffer• 3 years ago

Not to mention such a disparity in feature between different regions is pretty huge.

And at the same time not at all that uncommon. If you are in a market outside of the US I'm certain you will have experienced this first hand more than once. I have.

MBCook3• 3 years ago

Not giving users a feature they want because it’s in your business interests to deny it is a difficult PR move, to put it mildly.

They’ve managed it for 15 years so far. It may be crumbling, but this isn’t a new restriction or something that wasn’t possible in the past.

josephcsible5• 3 years ago

there will be no legal need for Apple to allow it here.

The point is that since Apple had to do the work to allow sideloading at all, most if not all of the lies they came up with for why they can't allow it for everyone won't work anymore.

AmericanChopper5• 3 years ago

I don’t believe they ever claimed that it was not possible. The position has always been that it is a compromise in security controls. The counter position to that has never been that it is not a compromise in security controls. I only hope they continue to sell devices that don’t allow it, because that’s what I would choose every time, unless that choice is taken away from me.

kaba09• 3 years ago

Take a look at the “Brussels effect”. The only reason it doesn’t apply in this case is that software changes are easy to made — but Apple might still have to eventually let it go even in the US, if for example people like it enough.

MBCook3• 3 years ago

Right. Apple was likely to go USB-C soon on the iPhone anyway, but the EU rule may have pushed it up. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to make two physical versions over the charge port so all iPhones are (allegedly) going USB-C.

They only made things different when they absolutely had two, like the radios. But software featured are really easy to differentiate in different countries.

The big risk, and I agree with you, is that this will prove that sideloading isn't the great evil they’ve been portraying and they’ll be forced to offer it in additional places by more laws until it becomes easier to just give it to everyone.

vivegi5• 3 years ago

From the article

In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says.

The statement is a bit ambiguous. Is it pay Apple extra or pay extra to the 3rd party to have their app listed in the 3rd party app store?

The former doesn't sound right; It is probably FUD.

Logically, a 3rd party app store could compete on significantly reduced fees relative to Apple (as one of the strategies). Those conscious of the quantum of current fees then have options of listing their app on both the Apple app store and the 3rd party store as part of their distribution strategy. Customers who trust the Apple appstore would get their app from there and those who like a 3rd party app store would get it from there. The app developer would have reduced their total fees (for distribution). Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store.

As far as the consumer is concerned, this becomes an OS setting like 'default browser/default text editor etc.,'.

Apple sticking to only the Apple App Store stance is only raising the cost for consumers. Consumers in other geographies will also wake up. Eventually.

thesuitonym• 3 years ago

If I were being extremely charitable on the phrasing, I think they might mean, for example, if you pay Apple 30% (or whatever the going rate is) you might have to pay an external app store an additional number.

Or, it might mean Apple will charge higher rates for apps that are also available on other app stores? Not sure if that's entirely legal, but since when have pesky things like the law stopped companies as big as Apple?

vivegi5• 3 years ago

I agree. As a dev, if I list my $3/mo subscription app on the Apple App store and they take 30% and I have 100k customers and I double-list the app in the 3rd party store + the Apple app store and gain 20k customers from the 3rd party store and the 3rd party store charges 10%, I have saved (30% - 10%) x 20k x $3/mo = $12k/mo on the new customers.

If I release my next version update and post it to just the 3rd party app store, I could then theoretically move the 120k customers to download the update from the 3rd party store and then save $72k/mo.

That is what Apple is afraid of. I think.

xenonite6• 3 years ago

No, my interpretation is that Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere.

I don't see a problem with that.

If a producer grants exclusive distribution rights to a seller, the typical consequence is that the seller gives the producer a greater profit share in return.

On ending those terms, the seller may rightfully reduce the profit share, in my opinion.

ko27• 3 years ago

The problem is that EU law requires Apple to not restrict sideloading for selected apps. It doesn't matter if they pay or don't pay Apple. You have to be able to sideload them.

vivegi5• 3 years ago

... Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere

I don't get why anyone should be paying Apple a rent for using a 3rd party app store (lets say exclusively).

As a hypothetical, lets say Epic Games or Steam launches an Alt App Store for games that can be installed on ios. Why does any gamedev using those stores have to pay Apple any transaction fee?

Just doesn't make any sense and would just be rent-seeking on Apple's part.

mijamo• 3 years ago

A distributor cannot strong arm producers into exclusivity contracts while in a dominant position, this is text book example on how to get fined heavily in most countries, and would not fly at all in Europe.

madeofpalk2• 3 years ago

Even if there are signup fees, the share of revenues that Apple is today taking away from the developer would go down in absolute terms with a 3rd party store.

I guarantee you Apple will find a way to still make the same money.

Just like how in the Netherlands dating apps don't have to use IAP, but the apps need to pay Apple a 28% royalty on all in app purchases that don't go through them.

gregsadetsky• 3 years ago

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/04/apple-to-charge-27-fee-for...

Thanks, really interesting

_fat_santa• 3 years ago

In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store, Gurman says.

How I read this is that they are basically creating a 3rd category of apps. Up until now you could sideload apps on an iPhone via an enterprise cert (though it carries some major restrictions that would make it unsuitable for general distribution). With this they are likely creating something like that enterprise cert but for all app developers.

edandersen• 3 years ago

I wonder if they considered an "iPhone Europe Edition" - USB-C, side loading, physical SIM cards. Sounds like a good phone!

kaba09• 3 years ago

What’s good about physical SIMs? I do like apple for daring to improve the status quo there, so I want my European Edition with only e-simsz

W4RH4WK552• 3 years ago

That I can just take the SIM out and put it in a different phone?

what's the migration process for eSIMs?

Moldoteck5• 3 years ago

Some people value privacy and can buy phisical sims from stores without id's and it's perfectly legal

ulfw2• 3 years ago

My China iPhones don't even have any eSIM support. Instead we get a dual nano SIM card slot.

https://support.apple.com/en-hk/HT209086

Personally I'd love for eSIM to be there in ADDITION but not replacing the nano SIMs.

pmontra• 3 years ago

The last time I dropped my phone and broke its screen I took out the SIM and left the phone in a repair shop. I went home, put the SIM in an old phone. If the broken phone had an eSIM, would I been able to use the old one as a backup? Maybe by going to a shop and askig for a physical SIM. That would be slower and less convenient. A physical SIM fits in a Samsung A40 which is probably the smaller and lighter Android phone available today and in much smaller phones of the past so it's definitely not a burden.

reustle2• 3 years ago

If you travel to more than 1 or 2 countries per year, especially less developed countries, you'll learn that your life (connection) depends on picking up cheap $5-15 sim cards at the border for each country.

I couldn't imagine them jumping on the esim train in any useful way in the near term.

worble• 3 years ago

I know nothing about esims, what makes them so much better than a physical sim? I can't say I have any major qualms with what I have right now, I just shove it in my phone and forget about it.

dontlaugh2• 3 years ago

They’re actually supported by carriers. In the UK there’s only EE and only with a contract. I can’t use eSIM with EE pay as you go.

zarzavat4• 3 years ago

In many countries there are zero local carriers that support eSIMs. Maybe in some hypothetical future this is not the case, but at least in this decade a phone that has a physical SIM is essential.

artdigital• 3 years ago

Recently moved to a new country (non-EU). The carrier I'm using does not offer eSIM and shipped me a physical SIM card. This is not an outlier, I have a couple of physical SIM cards, some US, that I wouldn't be able to use if the phone was eSIM only, like the recent US iPhone.

Also moving a eSIM from iOS device to non-iOS device (for example to plug into my secondary Android) is a massive PITA. I always have to re-issue the SIM which I often can't do and need to jumps through customer support queries and hoops. My current provider back home doesn't even give me the option to do it while abroad and support told me to come back for a day, then finish the eSIM reissuing application, so I'm stuck with the physical SIM anyway.

eSIMs will be great one day, but that day is not now. I much rather pop the SIM out of phone 1 and move it into phone 2, or iPad when I want, than wait hours (or sometimes days) to get a new eSIM approved, and repeat that process every single time I want to move a connection to another device

baby7• 3 years ago

If you’re traveling and want to buy a cheap esim, good luck.

madeofpalk2• 3 years ago

Why would you want it with only esim? Seeing as esim still works in iPhones with a phyiscal sim card slot, what benefits does dropping it get you?

Sporktacular3• 3 years ago

Physical SIMs are convenient, especially for travellers and facilitate competition through super-easy carrier switching. What are the improvements of e-SIMs for customers? Please don't say size.

s3p4• 3 years ago

Not much. Apple wanted eSIM for years but carriers fought them over it. They like the physical lock-in of SIM cards. Customers can't easily switch because they have to wait for a SIM to ship or go to a carrier's brick and mortar presence to replace it.

Now? People can switch carriers while in their living room. Takes a matter of minutes. Absolutely frictionless.

doubtfulcan• 3 years ago

It allows for pseudonymous internet access on devices and does not tie you to any carrier for any length of time

bee_rider2• 3 years ago

Sounds like a lot of changes, wonder how big the lag between the world and European version will be.

Havoc• 3 years ago

I wouldn't count on Europe being the odd one out here. World vs US is a bigger gap than World vs EU given mmwave and cdma.

neximo644• 3 years ago

It will be quite undesirable to distribute apps through a means where economies of scale are not available for example if there is no US market

jrockway2• 3 years ago

I don't think things will be a problem. Distributing software is fairly easy; for most apps, uploading the app binary to their website as though it's an image file or video will be sufficient. And, then you get 30% more money for your business. It will be quite popular just for the cost savings.

(Distributing software is not always easy, as game companies that have 100GB game downloads on launch day will tell you. But, for most apps, it will be easy enough.)

WastingMyTime895• 3 years ago

Europe is a large enough market by itself. It’s slightly bigger than the US one.

Agingcoder3• 3 years ago

if you’re nvidia and want to provide a proper cloud gaming app (not browser based, which has resolution limitations), it might be worth it. Apple’s conditions tend to be quite restrictive (which is why they’re having problems in the first place), so I somehow suspect there’s a rather large market, and the eu is very large anyway.

hcks• 3 years ago

Literally just buy an Android and stop imposing it on others

tehlike• 3 years ago

Open app markets act and American innovation and choice online act cannot come soon enough

nuker2• 3 years ago

I bet you a tenner Facebook immediately moves out of EU App Store and will be sideload only, with all privacy related permissions required for the app to run.

simion314• 3 years ago

They did not done this on Android.

But you know what is reality and not FUD? App Stores pushing legal apps out, at least people in EU could have an option when this will continue to happen.

oefnak• 3 years ago

Sure, I'll take that bet. Can you definite 'immediately'? Would a month suffice?

nuker2• 3 years ago

When the first iOS version with sideloading will roll out.

Barrin92• 3 years ago

Given that this is Europe where the GDPR requires consent regardless of how any app is installed you stand to lose that bet (which is why this is not the case on Android).

The Apple cartel protection-racket framing makes only sense in a market without privacy regulations, in the EU choice and privacy aren't mutually exclusive.

jeffybefffy5192• 3 years ago

Exactly!

MikusR4• 3 years ago

And? It will also allow stuff like the smart voting app that apple removed because a dictator told them to.

iaml• 3 years ago

It won’t, because the smart voting app was not blocked in eu. The markets where these kinda app would be needed are also the ones where sideloading will likely not arrive.

walterbell2• 3 years ago

Option 1: one-time cost for EU compliance, applied uniformly in other countries without geo-specific overhead, reducing ecosystem pressure for additional litigation and regulation.

Option 2: minimal EU-only compliance, generate A/B economic data for antitrust lawyers and regulators in other countries to compete on platform neutrality, which can be incorporated by EU in a spiral of regulatory FOMO.

Vespasian3• 3 years ago

Since Option 1. require them to look further than the next 1 or 2 years it'll absolutely be Option 2 I think.

hooby5• 3 years ago

I think the central question here is:

.) whether you buy a phone as a piece of hardware and then own that hardware - which gives you certain rights regarding the usage of that owned hardware

.) whether you are just paying some sort of admission fee to a tightly controlled service, and are basically "lent" a piece of hardware that you have no ownership rights over.

All the other stuff about walled gardens, monopolies and security is related - but still acts as a red herring when discussing what rights a person should get for a piece of hardware they bought.

tpxl• 3 years ago

As far as I'm concerned if you 'bought' something, it should be yours to do as you please, including reselling and destroying it. If you didn't buy something, but rented it - for example a game on Steam or Epic Games store - then it should damned say so. It's a straight up lie to say you purchased something if you didn't.

rTX5CMRXIfFG2• 3 years ago

Haven’t you always been able to resell and destroy the Apple products that you buy?

vladvasiliu2• 3 years ago

I don't think those alternatives are the right ones.

You can sell your iphone without any issue, there are plenty of stores around me offering to buy used models to resell. I'm actually contemplating buying a used model. Can't do that with steam games.

I'm also pretty confident that if apple and their services disappeared tomorrow, my iphone would keep on working just like it does today. Sure, no more updates, no more new apps, it would be frozen in the state it's in.

Therefore, I think the question is whether an iphone is a "general computing device", or "an appliance". I can see the arguments for both, even though I tend to treat mine as the latter.

hooby5• 3 years ago

I agree. Anyone should be allowed to repair, tinker with and modify anything they own - at their own risk.

When it comes to software, that's only possible to do with open source. With closed source you're only ever buying a perpetual usage license. (Unless you are a company buying out another company or it's assets, that is).

It's complicated, because software and digital data is inherently different from physical goods - and all those concepts of "selling" a "copy" are just rather ramshackle attempts at making digital goods compatible with laws designed for physical goods.

mrighele3• 3 years ago

"If you didn't buy something, but rented it - for example a game on Steam or Epic Games store"

I don't know about the other one, but in the Steam store I see "Buy" buttons, not "Rent". "Buy <game name>" in the store page, then when you go a "Shopping Cart", where you can "Purchase" the game.

To me (and to the average people, I guess) it doesn't sound as a rental service at all.

I'm sure that their ToS says otherwise, but I wonder how it would fare in a court case...

beebeepka3• 3 years ago

Games on steam are not rented

hayst4ck7• 3 years ago

If we were being very pedantic, what would you say is the test of ownership? If you buy an iPhone you can sell it or destroy it, so it meets those requirements of ownership. You can't destroy something you're renting, so you clearly aren't renting an iPhone.

How would I know if I own a device or not?

If you buy an iPhone, but don't think you own it. Why don't you think you own it? If your response is "because I can't run the software I want to on it," is that a problem with the perception of what you bought or is that a violation of the idea of ownership? If that's a violation of the idea of ownership, why?

justeleblanc5• 3 years ago

Do you buy movie tickets, or do you rent them?

rTX5CMRXIfFG2• 3 years ago

Yes. The HN crowd is overcomplicating the issue, and Apple has as much a right as an individual to design their platform as they wish. We like to talk about giving businesses the freedom to build the products that they want and keeping regulators out of the picture and instead letting people vote with their money, yet when people actually vote with their money to buy Apple products precisely for how they are built, we want to regulate the crap out of the company. It doesn’t make sense.

wvenable3• 3 years ago

I see no moral issue with government regulation to make our lives better.

People would still buy cars if seatbelts weren't a standard feature. They'd still by deodorant if it put holes in the ozone.

Vote with their money only works if companies make a product you can buy. Where's the iPhone "unlocked edition" that costs $20 more that I can buy? They don't make it.

pjerem4• 3 years ago

I disagree. The mobile OS market is just not open and big enough to vote with my money.

I don’t buy iPhones because I like being unable to side load apps. I miss it a lot.

The point is that when I make my list of pros and cons of buying Android vs iOS, I still prefer iOS because, as much as I dislike Apple commercial policies and artificial lock-ins, I just loathe Google for what they are.

And don’t even call me some sort of "fanboy", I’ve used and loved Android as an OS since basically the first versions.

It’s just that iOS have a quantity of advantages I’m not willing to lose by going back to Android and that there are basically no alternative platform to run apps on.

matsemann3• 3 years ago

How can you "vote with your money" in these cases? Most of the problems here stem from Apple misusing their monopoly against other app makers. Only indirectly harming consumers.

For instance, when purchasing a music subscription through an apple device, they receive 30% and the developer 70%. Apple have their own competing service where they make 100%. This makes it impossible for others to compete on equal terms, hence you as a consumer probably see less choice than you could have.

WastingMyTime895• 3 years ago

and Apple has as much a right as an individual to design their platform as they wish.

Well, no, actually they don’t. The EU just passed a law mandating competition on platforms when it comes to store because as often in a duopoly the ability of people to vote with their money is significantly limited. That decidedly solves this question.

KyeRussell5• 3 years ago

We aren’t overcomplicating the issue. The premise of this question is wrong, and you like it because it has a very obvious “winning side”, which happens to be the “side” that you’re on.

hayst4ck7• 3 years ago

While that might be the choice we're making and it seems like the first is obviously what owning a device should be like.

What if I actually want to pay a fee to a tightly controlled service? Like what if I do the math and determine that that benefits me more than actually owning the device? Should a regulatory agency be able to come in and tell this tightly controlled service they aren't doing it right when I am a happy customer?

when discussing what rights a person should get for a piece of hardware they bought.

You already pre-decided that the first answer is correct without actually asking if anyone prefers the second.

atoav• 3 years ago

What if I actually want to pay a fee to a tightly controlled service? Like what if I do the math and determine that that benefits me more than actually owning the device? Should a regulatory agency be able to come in and tell this tightly controlled service they aren't doing it right when I am a happy customer?

I think the default should be protection. Just like it is okay for a BDSM-scene to exist where people inflict consensual pain onto each other — the default must still be to protect the individual's right to bodily autonomy and protection from harm — even if some people, sometimes opt to waiver these rights

Signing away those rights should always remain a special case and not the default. Same for ownership rights, because if the only choice is leasing, ownership ceases to exist. While when ownership exists you could still easily enter a lease.

hooby5• 3 years ago

No, the second is perfectly fine.

I pay a monthly fee for internet - and that's the admission fee I have to pay to access the service. And I get sent a modem/router - a piece of hardware - that I don't own, but that's only being lent to me.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

jkaplowitz2• 3 years ago

Then Apple should have to call it “Subscribe to iPhone “ or “Gain admission to iPhone” or “Use iPhone” - but not “Buy iPhone” as they very much do. If you buy a piece of hardware, you buy a piece of hardware.

wvenable3• 3 years ago

The hardware and software, in any device, should not be so inextricably linked as to prevent the hardware from working at all without the software. Regardless of whether we are taking about iPhones, computers, cars, or farm equipment.

chenzhekl• 3 years ago

But it is way too hard to cleanly separate the hardware from the software without introducing extra complexity and security issues.

NovemberWhiskey6• 3 years ago

Remember, in the US at least, you might own the physical hardware, but you're only licensing the software.

seydor3• 3 years ago

you are just paying some sort of admission fee to a tightly controlled service

iphones act as social signaling for alot of people

fortuna86• 3 years ago

I've heard this, I haven't seen this.

Maybe a smart phone was a status symbol 10 years ago, they are just commodities today.

baby7• 3 years ago

Related question: what does the user want? I doubt a majority of users are against side loading.

meling• 3 years ago

I don’t think users really want to have to use 5 different app stores. I’ll probably opt to not buy an app if I first have to download another App Store app.

yreg• 3 years ago

I'm not sure what I want. I'm not against sideloading, but I very much like how Apple forces the developers to comply to their rules*.

I don't want to download Instagram from Meta store where anything goes. (And yes, perhaps someone is going to tell me to simply not use Instagram. But I _want_ to use Instagram, I just want to do it on terms that Apple negotiates for me.)

*ofc I don't agree with 100% of their rules (especially the way they split revenue), but I'm mostly happy with them.

sbuk3• 3 years ago

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” attributed to Henry Ford.

While listening to feedback is not a bad thing, design by focus group rarely works out well. You risk ending up with things like this https://i.imgur.com/IoPkza2.png! While this is obviously a joke, it does contain grains of truth.

The other problem with this argument is how the question is framed? Are the majority of users armed with all the facts and details? While I'd agree many are overstating the issues, there are equally as many dismissing any issues out of hand. IMHO, it behooves any one suggesting what "the majority" want to at least do a thought experiment around the pro's and con's and be honest about what they are. We cannot have this here, sadly. This should extend to any government that are enforcing something like this to transparently lay out the pros and cons and maybe accept some of the liability. That though, is asking too much of politicians...

criddell6• 3 years ago

I doubt a majority of users want side loading. It’s available on Android and very few (relatively speaking) take advantage of that feature.

pierrebeaucamp• 3 years ago

I disagree. While this dichotomy might hold true in other examples, in the case of iPhones it was always possible to push custom software to your own device for development purposes. There is a somewhat arbitrary limitation that those apps only work for a week until the process needs to be repeated (unless you enroll in Apple's Developer Program), but that's a different topic.

The main demand in these "sideloading" discussions is therefore that Apple ought to make installing unlisted Apps easier. Personally, I don't understand why this should be of Apple's concern though. They already present a choice to app developers: Either go through their walled garden or impose a technical process on your (non-technical) end-users. Interestingly, there are already projects like AltStore that try to make the latter easier, which should be taken as proof that the whole "sideloading is impossible" argument is not really truthful.

Why this rose up to the highest ranks of the political system is beyond me.

PS: The existence of Jailbreaks further undermines the argument that you cannot control the software on your device.

gambiting• 3 years ago

>PS: The existence of Jailbreaks further undermines the argument that you cannot control the software on your device.

How? It's like saying car manufacturers aren't really locking down their cars to hardware that only official dealerships own, because after all you can just buy a coding tool from some random AliExpress seller so it's fine. What are people complaining about.

> in other examples, in the case of iPhones it was always possible to push custom software to your own device for development purposes.

Sure, which is still a process 100% controlled by apple and which they can pull out at any moment. Also let's not pretend it's anywhere near as easy as installing Galaxy Store on android and instantly getting out of Google's restrictions on the play store. Hopefully we'll get legislation that removes that possibility entirely.

>The main demand in these "sideloading" discussions is therefore that Apple ought to make installing unlisted Apps easier.

I have no idea where you've seen such demands, because it's not true. No one wants apple to host apps which would otherwise be unlisted or outright banned. That wouldn't make any logical sense and would be an unjust cost on apple. I do however want to be able to install an alternative app store and install apps from it without apple butting their nose into it. Like courts have ruled in the past already - if I make some software for iOS and a person wants to buy that software, why should apple control whether I can sell them that software or worse - get a cut of the sale[0]. Because they made the platform? Well, you don't pay anything to Mercedes for making mercedes-compatible wipers, and I really struggle to see how this is any different.

[0] assuming you don't use the app store of course in which case they should absolutely be paid.

DCKing• 3 years ago

Is that the central question?

Most people using Android or Apple's very own macOS today use their device as if they're in the second situation with not a care in the world.

Anyone's walled garden experience isn't meaningfully dependent on anyone else's sanctioned sideloading or not.

mark_l_watson• 3 years ago

I more or less agree that most people just don’t care. It surprises me that maybe I don’t care anymore either. It has been years since I was a FSF member, and even though I have 3 Linux laptops that I enjoy occasionally, so much of my digital life is spent on a very nice iPad Pro, with just a few apps, besides Safari, that I use: a Mosh client because I always have a few screens open on a powerful remote server available with a perfect tmux and Emacs setup, the Chess.com app, ProtonMail and Calendar apps, and entertainment: YouTube and YouTube Music apps, and the Disney and many other streaming apps.

Apple’s walled garden is most of my digital life, and at least for now, that is good enough. I can imagine switching to a Samsung foldable phone with a good docking story, but that will probably not happen.

EDIT: another things that keeps me from caring about being in a walled garden is that so much of my Intellectual life is serviced by the cloud: Colab Pro for most deep learning experiments, the web based Leanpub authoring system, etc. Choosing devices and operating systems seems less important. When I travel, it does not matter much if I grab my smallest Linux laptop or my iPad Pro to take on a trip.

Nursie5• 3 years ago

I don’t think it’s accurate to say you are conferred no ownership in the current model - this reads as typical tech binary thinking.

It’s either fully under my control or I have nothing!

For most people the ownership aspect is covered by being able to buy and sell the devices freely, and decide what apps to put on them.

They are (and before I’m accused of being patronising, I am in this group) happy with a device that is capable but more or less on rails and has the sort of security provided by third party vetting. And we don’t care at all that it’s the device vendor doing it.

I get the arguments about monopolies and the whole thing being damaging to business, which is in the end damaging to consumer choice.

But honestly “I should be able to do whatever I want at all layers of the stack on my phone” is waaaay down the priority list compared to “I want a secure device that does bank stuff, generates tokens and whatever else without me having to be vigilant like I am on an open system”.

So to me the rights argument is the red herring.

And yes, “choice” quickly becomes an avenue of exploitation for the less tech savvy.

bjornsing• 3 years ago

I agree. Legal ownership rights do not guarantee a particular feature set. For example your ownership of a car does not entail a right to easily install whatever software you want on all the CPUs in it.

But I don’t think it’s right to call this binary thinking. It’s just incorrect thinking.

NovemberWhiskey6• 3 years ago

Of course you own the hardware; you have the right to do whatever you want to it. If you want to use iPhones for target practice, have at it. You don't have the right to insist the manufacturer make it easy for you: your imagination about the uses to which the hardware could be put doesn't oblige the seller.

Terretta4• 3 years ago

Just like a PS5.

No, the iPhone and iPad are appliances, not general computing, forcing division between hardware, firmware, and software is a technical design decision that prevents users from choosing a fully vertically integrated appliance device.

People who choose consoles over building PCs, and pick iPhones over tinkerable Android, have a right to that choice, and corporations have a right to market to them.

ohgodplsno2• 3 years ago

You don't have the right to insist the manufacturer make it easy for you

I do, and it's easy, look: I believe Apple should let me install DOOM on the bootloader and make it easy for me to do so. If I had time to waste, I'd send emails every day, go protest in front of their HQ until I get what I want.

Apple's allowed to not do anything about it, and I'm allowed to lobby my legislators to force Apple to do so. Because Apple's wishes are not law, not in any functioning country that I know of.

Terretta4• 3 years ago

See deeper comment below, but yes, a corporation should have a right to market a curated console experience to mobile device consumers who prefer the fully vertically integrated experience.

Especially thanks to other options and the small share Apple has by volume, it's no more appropriate to crack apart this appliance than it is to force PS5 or Xbox Series X to run PC games or support Steam.

anonymousab2• 3 years ago

it's no more appropriate to crack apart this appliance than it is to force PS5 or Xbox Series X to run

Those platforms should also be opened up, yes.

sdeframond• 3 years ago

I believe lawyerspeak has three separate concepts of "ownership":

- usus, the right to enjoy the thing,

- fructus, tge right to reap the fruits from the thing

- and abusus, the right to sell, alter or destroy the thing.

To "own" something generally means all of the above, althought it might not always be the case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct

FriedPickles2• 3 years ago

As the developer of a subscription app, if unfettered side-loading is allowed I'd be worried about cracked versions of my app being distributed.

We've done everything in the client for privacy and reliability, but the obvious countermeasure would be to move functionality over to a backend. This would be history echoing the transition from boxed software to SaaS.

mrtksn3• 3 years ago

Isn’t it a bit like the movies and music? Those who will steal will steal and those who will pay will pay anyway.

There are great pirate movie websites where you can watch all the movies at about the same user experience or even better but Netflix etc are doing just fine.

Piracy isn’t what it used to be but I do enjoy these sites.

The real problem is the subscription fatigue and fragmentation. I won’t subscribe to all the services and Even if I have a subscription it’s easier for me to find the movies in one place.

However apps are different, you are expected to open different apps for different things anyway. In apps, the danger could be something like ChatGPT becoming the main UI and doing everything the user wants from there.

bluesign• 3 years ago

It is same if you have big audience, it is very different if you are developing for a niche market.

tonyedgecombe5• 3 years ago

Those who will steal will steal and those who will pay will pay anyway.

That's not been my experience. Every time a crack appeared for my software sales went down. Every time I strengthened the licensing software sales went up. This is for B2B software, god knows what it is like if you sell to consumers.

brenns10• 3 years ago

Except, side-loading has already existed on Android for... a long time. I regularly install from F-Droid, and it's totally possible to download an .apk from the Internet and install it. If your client was getting "cracked" it could already have been happening on Android for years (assuming you have an Android app). See also: Youtube vanced.

So really what you're saying in this comment is that you've written your backend APIs with the assumption that the only user is a benevolent app which you wrote. If it's possible for somebody to take your app and tweak it to circumvent your subscription's restrictions, then what prevents a person from hooking up their phone to a development HTTPS proxy, intercepting the API requests, and making their own cracked client without side-loading at all?

Side-loading is NOT a problem for subscription apps done properly, and it's NOT a problem for privacy or security, so long as the side-loading implementation is done responsibly.

FriedPickles2• 3 years ago

what prevents a person from hooking up their phone to a development HTTPS proxy, intercepting the API requests, and making their own cracked client without side-loading at all?

SSL pinning, essentially.

Totally true about Android--it's the smaller platform for us, but the fact we have not seen piracy there yet gives me hope.

To be clear I am in favor of sideloading, and we would benefit from it in several ways.

realusername4• 3 years ago

No study managed to prove a loss of revenue with piracy, you are not going to be the first app in the world to experience it.

tonyedgecombe5• 3 years ago

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3577670

MikusR4• 3 years ago

Sideloading/piracy is already possible on ios with stuff like altstore. It just needs to resign the app every 7 days.

zamnos7• 3 years ago

Piracy was the funniest part. Originally Apple claimed they needed to control the platform and sign binaries to prevent piracy. Then, someone realized that if the pirated app didn't need to be modified, then the pirates could reuse the original signature. There was still the issue of getting the ipa onto the device, but that wasn't too hard back in the Cydia days.

xenonite6• 3 years ago

Ingenious!

What if a security incident happens just in Europe but not elsewhere?

Then it becomes instantly clear that Apple’s argument against sideloading was not a strawman.

tigrezno• 3 years ago

hasn't happened on android with sideloaded apps. Stop fearmongering.

vultour• 3 years ago

Android has so much malware in the play store the argument is moot.

xenonite6• 3 years ago

Android is another system, and yes, there have been breaches.

Lets say it like that, and I know I am simplifying quite a bit:

Apple checks security at "compile time", during the App Store checks.

Android checks security only (or mostly?) during "run time".

"Compile time" can give good guarantees because the "compile time" can quite long. Then, during program execution, there need to be less run time checks (and a program can be much faster, by the way).

What do you think happens when allowing sideloading on Apple iOS devices? Suppose there are much less run time checks available because compile time checks are expected?

whazor• 3 years ago

I am looking forward! I tried side loading the YouTube with sponsorblock and adblock, which worked but renewing the apps weekly is too much effort.

ec1096853• 3 years ago

YouTube Premium is a pretty good deal and actually pays the creators when you watch their videos.

tgv• 3 years ago

Except a lot of it isn’t theirs to publish.

MikusR4• 3 years ago

sponsorblock, sponsorblock, sponsorblock. YouTube Premium doesn't have it.

Gareth321• 3 years ago

I pay for Premium but creators still include sponsored content, and it's getting egregious. I will continue to pay for Premium, but I want ALL the ads gone. The only way to achieve this is with Sponsorblock.

walterbell2• 3 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35553758

MikusR4• 3 years ago

Altstore does it automatically

c-hendricks• 3 years ago

I use Vinegar to remove ads and SponsorBlock, but just access youtube via the web interface. PIP, background audio, all those native OS features that Apple's developer terms forbid companies from charging for but let YouTube charge for, works.

jpalomaki• 3 years ago

I think Apple has also done good things with their strict app store policies (from my consumer point of view).

Apple has been for example putting limits on data collection and tracking. The main mechanism is to kick apps out from Apps store if they don't play by the rules.

I'm worried that side loading will be a step back here. Strong players, like Facebook, may just take their app away from the official store and distribute it through other ways. With their strong position I don't have much choice - it's not like there would be five competing apps serving the same purpose (connecting to the people and communities on Facebook).

heywoodlh2• 3 years ago

I don't have much choice

I hope I don't come across as snarky -- I am genuinely curious -- but why don't you have a choice? Are you unable to contact friends, family, etc. any other way outside of FB? The phrasing seems so strong, I am second guessing if I am just privileged/lucky (location, friend/family circumstances, etc?) to be off of social media but still have friends and family that I stay connected to.

EDIT: fixed grammar

jb19913• 3 years ago

I would normally agree with you, but a friend of mine is an immigrant from a south east Asian nation and the only way to easily communicate is through Facebook with the family there. It’s like saying, sure we can take away your phone and you can still write letters, but at some point communication is also about convenience.

YeBanKo2• 3 years ago

Here is an example: we are invited to my kid’s friend’s birthday. They manage the event on facebook. They had to change location and time couple of times already. We don’t want to miss it and alternatives to facebook just aren’t any better. Sometimes it’s just convenient.

Derbasti2• 3 years ago

Looking at Android, where sideloading has been available forever, there doesn't seem any evidence of your worry.

Joeri• 3 years ago

Apple will make it annoying enough to sideload that no meaningful amount of users will do it, causing it to be largely irrelevant.

It’s only worth it to app makers to have side loading if they can do it for large numbers of users, bypass the app store’s rules, and bypass apple’s take. I’m expecting apple to set it up in a way they can do none of those things, by making it cumbersome to sideload, not giving entitlements to apps not published through the store, and by taking a cut for sales from sideloaded apps.

ivlad3• 3 years ago

Recent example: https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-suspends-chinas-pi... Malicious app in alternative store, the one in Google Play is different.

cageface2• 3 years ago

Defenders of Apple's policies always say you can just use other tech if you don't agree with them. The same principle applies here. If an app requires you to use a third party app store and you don't like it then choose another app.

If you feel compelled to use a product with policies you don't agree with then now you understand how many of us feel about iOS.

Spivak3• 3 years ago

But there's no push, you can literally ignore Apple's existence and use none of their products and you'll have no care in the world. Apple's network effect is basically zero. There's always one Android user in the friend group that spoils iMessage and FaceTime so we have to use something else anyway.

If you mean you feel compelled to sell in their store which requires a laptop, a business relationship with Apple, and realistically a phone because emulator only sucks then that's a business decision if the juice is worth the squeeze.

m4632• 3 years ago

This is naive. Apple doesn't protect you.

The prime example is that apple gives apps unfettered access to network connections. And YOU are unable to block this in any meaningful way.

What apple doesn't give you is the ability to manage your own phone. You cannot really manage what apps are doing yourself. You cannot even find out what apps are doing. And you definitely will not be able to manage apple apps, they get a free pass in all ways.

But yes, if there's a sideloaded facebook app, or a facebook store, you will be given more rope to do with as you want.

Aaargh203182• 3 years ago

The prime example is that apple gives apps unfettered access to network connections. (…) You cannot even find out what apps are doing.

Settings -> Privacy & Security -> App Privacy Report

It shows you per application what data they are accessing, which sensors they are accessing and which domains the app is contacting. It also reports when they were doing this and how often. You can even export this data as a JSON file.

heywhatupboys• 3 years ago

This is naive. Apple doesn't protect you.

Apple has no commercial interest in breaking the users privacy and trust. Their business model is not to sell ads or work with 3rd party advertisers.

Razengan3• 3 years ago

You cannot even find out what apps are doing.

Wrong. You CAN find out what apps are doing: Settings → Privacy → App Privacy Report

And you definitely will not be able to manage apple apps, they get a free pass in all ways.

You can outright delete most Apple apps.

Apple doesn't protect you.

said the wolf about the fence.

Twisell• 3 years ago

Actually privacy relay is currently in public beta as a part of Apple iCloud subscriptions plans.

Unless I got it wrong when enabled it reroute all Apps trafic through this "limited VPN" to prevent tracking and access to local network.

Apps that require access to local network must ask that permission explicitly. Streaming service (Netflix, Disney+,etc) do that for obvious performance gain. I noticed Microsoft Teams did it also (and I just revoked that thanks to this thread, it's a work app I better keep that out of my home local network).

mrbombastic• 3 years ago

So because they don’t have fine grained permissions around network connections (which sounds like a usability nightmare) they don’t protect you?

What about:

- Apple’s limiting of advertising identifiers and requiring permission to track users across apps

- increasingly fine grained location access including ‘Only allow once’ and warnings when an app is tracking you in background

- sandboxed photo access so apps don’t get access to all your photos

- requiring developers submit privacy questionnaires with their app updates and showing how data is collected in each app

- supporting creating private email aliases for signing up for services

Just to name a few in the last few years.

iLoveOncall• 3 years ago

Obvious astroturfing.

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

Strong players, like Facebook, may just take their app away from the official store and distribute it through other ways. With their strong position I don't have much choice - it's not like there would be five competing apps serving the same purpose (connecting to the people and communities on Facebook).

iPhone is THE hottest device on the planet, I can’t believe anyone can seriously consider Facebook challenging its position.

snemvalts• 3 years ago

Apple's security and data collection argument for their walled garden is null and void.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2023/02/27/beware-rogue-2fa...

They don't look at API calls made by the apps. How can they be your sure of the security then?

Only after this was published were the apps removed.

stefan_2• 3 years ago

Every jailbreak ever has been on the magical secure "app store", too. It is really weird that people on here of all places believe in this garbage performative "app phrenology" they are doing over there.

ntauthority• 3 years ago

I don't have much choice - it's not like there would be five competing apps serving the same purpose (connecting to the people and communities on Facebook).

The same legislation that is requiring Apple to allow sideloading also requires other large players (like Meta) to open their communication platforms up to other service or application developers.

In this hypothetical case, there actually would be five competing apps, some even still distributed on the App Store.

DuckFeathers• 3 years ago

I think Apple has also done good things with their strict app store policies

Apple could have hidden the settings to enable it behind two levels of menu settings and anyone like you would never get to it. The only reason they have "strict" policies, as has been shown over and over again, is for their commercial benefit.

Apple has been for example putting limits on data collection and tracking.

I want to be tracked by apps, because it leads to better ads for products that I am actually looking for (than some random garbage that I don't care about)... and better usability in general. Apple put those rules in place so that their ad business has the edge over competitors. If Apple was running in a country that was not corrupt, this would be seen as anti-competitive and they would be sued.

Strong players, like Facebook, may just take their app away from the official store and distribute it through other ways.

And? If you want clear rules on tracking, go talk to your politician. Apple is blocking competitors from tracking users while it has access to all of users data and uses it for their $5 billion revenue business.

xorcist• 3 years ago

putting limits on data collection and tracking

You know who's really putting limits on data collecting? F-Droid.

If that's actually your argument, that's what you should use. It's quite practical.

Strong players, like Facebook, may just take their app away from the official

That argument really has to explain why this has not happened on every other operating system under the sun, including Android. They all suffer pretty strong monopolistic network effects.

Spivak3• 3 years ago

Because the Play Store lets Facebook have the data they want, this isn't that hard.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/facebook-says-apple-ios-priv...

iamnotsure• 3 years ago

What if Apple registered a religion with apps qualifying as pages of holy scriptures, should then they be allowed to have their walled gardens?

hurtuvac78• 3 years ago

Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this.

There is a great tool to increase security: the browser and its sandbox. You don't need to install anything fishy on your phone, and the sandbox rights coukd be sufficient for many apps.

But as an example, Apple denies the full screen feature for websites and even PWA... only installed ones. There's no good reason except favoring apps/appstore. For security? Works great on Android.

And you cannot use a third party browser, since they forbid that (all are Safari based)

Thank you, EU!!

amelius3• 3 years ago

I sometimes feel that some HN folks need to consider a job inside EU committees. It's probably boring work, but even if you spend 10% of your time in meetings and the remainder on a secret side project, you will be doing society a great service.

timwis• 3 years ago

How would you recommend going about that?

KyeRussell5• 3 years ago

This is a hilarious instance of the “I could build that in a weekend” mindset.

zeta01342• 3 years ago

The full screen feature works fine on websites for me? Well mostly fine, it's rubbish for games in particular due to a user hostile feature that forbids rapid screen taps, insisting that you might be using an on screen keyboard and denying you the autonomy to tell Safari to please not. But ignoring that, the feature seems to exist. What am I missing?

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

Interesting. You say it works fine and then in the same breath you make a point to show it isn't and then choose to ignore it. What you're missing is that Safari shouldn't have that bit hard wired in.

PlutoIsAPlanet• 3 years ago

And you cannot use a third party browser, since they forbid that (all are Safari based)

I think this has turned out to be the current barrier in preventing Google from completing taking over the web standards space.

heavyset_go19• 3 years ago

Apple's ban of all browsers but Safari turned out to be the main barrier preventing progressive web apps from being viable, deepening the duopoly power of themselves and Google, because Apple refuses to implement basic browser standards that are necessary for PWAs.

And then when they do implement similar browser standards, they don't follow any web standards, they instead make their own proprietary bespoke web standard for Safari[1].

And they also did other fun things like wait until nearly 2021 to support WebP and let Safari be the the #1 source of one-click exploits on iOS.

It's weird to see Safari trotted out in defense of web standards of all things.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/notifications/safari-push-notifi...

Matl• 3 years ago

Is Apple a significant player in proposing new standards and working with say Mozilla to get consensus as a genuine alternative to Google or are they simply not implementing much? The latter is certainly my impression.

hh3k0• 3 years ago

I think this has turned out to be the current barrier in preventing Google from completing taking over the web standards space.

"I used the monopoly to destroy the monopoly."

lxgr4• 3 years ago

That may well be true, but in my view, upholding a native app monopoly for the sake of preventing a web browser one isn't a sustainable strategy (and never has been a conscious choice by anyone).

mnd9993• 3 years ago

Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.

matsemann3• 3 years ago

If they want it, download the app then. Allow others to not download it and use a PWA if they'd like.

Actually I believe you're wrong: if people actually preferred Apple's way of doing it, Apple would have no reason to restrict other ways.

They restrict it because people prefer the other way, and that would harm Apple's profits.

jakub_jo2• 3 years ago

If users don't want crappy PWAs than they wont use them. It's common sense to let "the market decide" -- why not in this case?

colordrops• 3 years ago

No thanks, freedom of choice should surpass UX in importance here.

synecdoche• 3 years ago

Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer to make my own choice over others "care".

alluro2• 3 years ago

I see this argument often, but I'm genuinely curious if it's actually the case - at least in my experience, a huge amount of apps nowadays have custom-designed UIs and very little conformance to "platform UI conventions". And that's even an expectation - if you see an app that uses standard UI controls, navigation etc - it comes off as basic and probably not really polished. I might be completely wrong.

On the other side, if users want standard UI and that's a factor in adoption, wouldn't people making PWAs then just make the apps in such a way - there's nothing stopping them, and there's no lack of UI libraries enabling that.

IceWreck• 3 years ago

So you're saying Apple knows what I like and what I don't ?

It should be my choice

Cort3z3• 3 years ago

I want good PWAs. I don’t want borderline spyware-apps with access to all kinds of apis. There is no reason why a messaging app needs my gyro data, or gps, or all of the other stuff they just implicitly get because they are an app. I’m starting to think that some of the worst that ever happened was that Firefox OS failed.

JoeyJoJoJr• 3 years ago

Games are an obvious example where platform UI conventions aren’t applicable, and where Apple’s restrictions hinder not just UX (see discoverability in the App Store) but also incentivise shitty monetisation practices.

Gaming on mobile friggen sucks and that is primarily because Apple wants to retain control and the biggest piece of the pie.

Gaming in mobile browsers, in 2023, should be as easily accessible as it were in desktop browser in the Flash days. Apple just won’t come to the table to facilitate a decent gaming experience in Safari.

Let’s also not forget Steve Jobs was all for web standards in his letter against Flash. Apple should make good on what was promised in that letter instead of dragging their feet.

https://newslang.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thoughts-on-F...

fuzzy22• 3 years ago

Just some anecdata: I use the Outlook PWA (on an iPhone!) to access my work mail and calendar. It does not have notifications, which I really liked for calendar events (because I’m forgetful), so that’s a bit sad. However, there is a decisive pro: It cannot enforce restrictive device policies. What a great feature!

UX isn’t half bad either. It actually feels pretty native most of the time.

sirsinsalot3• 3 years ago

OK, so let people choose. They'll consistently choose native apps and PWAs will become second class.

It doesn't need Apple to white Knight on behalf of their poor, dim, uninformed users.

Because they're not.

tyingq• 3 years ago

Aren't there a lot of "native apps" that just launch a webview though?

iSnow5• 3 years ago

"Users" don't fall in one bucket. Me, I do want some PWA's, not least because Apple's prudish stance disallows anything sexual or adult on the App store.

dgellow2• 3 years ago

Users mostly want the app features, the rest is secondary.

Cthulhu_3• 3 years ago

the browser and its sandbox.

A lot of viruses (and jailbreaks on iOS amongst others) are distributed via this browser / sandbox; it's only secure in theory and it took decades to get to that point.

Sure (before the Rust evangelists swoop in), part of that was due to using unsafe languages; part was due to extension frameworks that had too much power (ActiveX, which was even used to update your operating system, I can't fathom why they thought that was a good idea). But it'll take many more years of zero incidents, jailbreaks, etc before I'd trust the browser over Apple's app sandboxing and app review and distribution approach.

peoplefromibiza3• 3 years ago

a bit of history massaging in this comment.

Chrome and Firefox are as secure as Safari, if not more, banning them is a commercial choice not a technical one.

iOS exploits still exist, there's no real advantage in Apple sandboxing apps, they are routinely leaking users data and being exploited as well.

OTOH Apple refusing to implement certain web standards is proof that they cannot guarantee a safe implementation, which is a reason more to allow better browsers on their platform.

stefan_2• 3 years ago

This is funny because by far the most impactful breaches of security on iOS phones have been due to the Apple components, like the messaging app that inexplicably is still written in ObjectiveC as it's ever been, or the image framework found to contain various bits of opensource code they never updated, never audited, or the various terrible magic "serialization" features.

This Apple native crud they force every app to use (up to the whole browser engine, like in the IE days!) is truly the ActiveX of our times. Only you can't even get rid of it.

kmeisthax• 3 years ago

Microsoft thought ActiveX was a good idea because they built Internet Explorer out of OLE and COM. Everything in that era of Windows was built to be embeddable and composable - "compound documents" being the original design goal. If you needed to stick, say, a video into a web page, COM/OLE was the obvious way to do that on Windows in 1996. It's not any different from, say, early Firefox extensions being built out of XUL - in fact, I recall XUL extensions for Firefox that would literally add ActiveX support back in. It wasn't until Chrome came along where extensions didn't get to muck about with browser internals.

You can exploit in both native and browser contexts. Most jailbreaks nowadays are assisted by a native application that you dev-sign to deliberately pwn yourself with. In the past we had websites that you could use to jailbreak with. Both are sandboxed environments with significant attackable surface area, so one is not necessarily more trustworthy than the other purely on measures of exploitability.

xattt• 3 years ago

Thank you, EU!!

I think this plan will move forward because of consumer protections afforded in the EU (ie including sideloaded apps) not available elsewhere.

tonmoy• 3 years ago

Are you sure PWA doesn’t work on iOS? I remember installing websites as apps on my iPhone. According to this SO answer I think one can even make it full screen (with a workaround at least): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53061258/pwa-not-opening...

loganwedwards• 3 years ago

I “installed” drop.com as a PWA on my iPhone. It gets full screen real estate and a launcher icon.

Terretta4• 3 years ago

A non-app-store web app on iPhone has been able to be full screen since initial release of Home Screen web apps. When you launch from Home Screen, it gets the whole screen.

See the Xbox Cloud Gaming "app" for instance, which is outside the App Store, just launch then "Add to Home Screen", close, and run from Home Screen.

https://www.xbox.com/en-us/play

As for what can be done with browsers, see the venerable iCab but also Kagi's Orion browser which runs Firefox and Chrome extensions, even on iOS. Yes, it's WebKit based, but so was Chrome for a long time.

https://help.kagi.com/orion/browser-extensions/macos-extensi...

Given you can run Xbox games or arbitrary extensions from other browsers, it's clear the web app and WebKit limits are less restrictive than most discussion acknowledges.

For the last few features that used to be missing, like notifications or other native hooks, notice Microsoft has the sidecar native app for iOS that handles in-game chat, LAN discovery for Xbox setup, and notifications.

afavour3• 3 years ago

To be clear you absolutely cannot run Xbox games in a web browser. The service you’re talking about is just streaming video from a remote Xbox to the phone.

You and the OP are both right about fullscreen. There is a web fullscreen API, which Apple does not support. However, PWAs strip out the browser UI so you’re effectively fullscreen. Though you can’t do anything about the status bar, nor can you lock screen orientation.

But more to the original point, none of this has anything to do with security. Apple disallowed a native Xbox streaming app because they demanded a cut of the revenue and MS wasn’t willing to give it.

Agingcoder3• 3 years ago

For xcloud, the resolution is limited (by apple’s streaming rules, and not by MS) so it’s not as open as it looks.

voytec3• 3 years ago

Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this.

It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt.

Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists (which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permission of all people in your address book to share their names and phone numbers), disguised as helping users check if their friends are using a service, or to even allow user to use some app functionality.

Unimaginative accountant that currently leads Apple on one hand bullshits public opinion when disallowing Facebook to steal data from users' devices and, on the other hand, after blocking Zuckerberg's ability to do so, he disgracefully used children protection to announce that Apple will now inspect users' data under the pretense of looking for child porn.

Apple users are being deprived of OS control with most of updates and it's always done under the untruthful pretense of increasing security or protecting users' privacy.

When this little man finally pushes ads to core macOS, he'll state that it's to help users.

augment0032• 3 years ago

It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt.
Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists

This is actually proof that users don’t make good choices when it comes to privacy and security even when they have the necessary information.

s3p4• 3 years ago

Applications still require payments in form of contact lists

What? It seems like you were trying to make a coherent argument but a list of contacts is in no way comparable to a paid subscription. Microsoft doesn't allow you to buy O365 with your contacts, do they?

precommunicator• 3 years ago

which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permission of all people in your address book to share their names and phone numbers

[source needed] as GDPR doesn't apply to private individuals and private databases

exabrial• 3 years ago

PWAs and SPAs are awful. And to think they’re not downloading and executing code is foolish. There is no memory model for a browser. Each browser implants is sandbox however it wants.

arcticbull• 3 years ago

There is a great tool to increase security: the browser and its sandbox. You don't need to install anything fishy on your phone, and the sandbox rights coukd be sufficient for many apps.

To this day the browser is still a second-tier experience to native apps. But that's fine, because anything you get from the macOS and iOS app stores are sandboxed too. So are non-App Store apps on macOS that choose to run in sandbox.

tolmasky• 3 years ago

The AppStore, in its current incarnation, almost certainly decreases security. And I mean this in a very concrete and demonstrable way. Apple on the one hand insists on touting the safety of the AppStore, and its reliance on app-review for this safety, to people (and Congress!),creating the reasonable expectation that if something has made it onto the AppStore, then it it’s gone through this stringent analysis and should be considered safe by default.

However, they then bizarrely and deliberately refuse to actually police the store, to an alarming and almost cartooninsh level. We’ve seen this time and time again: scan apps remain on the store for months despite being reported. Take just last month when fake Authenticator apps flooded the AppStore to take advantage of Twitter getting rid of mobile phone based 2FA, and not only were those apps allowed on the store, but often managed to get top recommendation.

At least on the web the expectation is that it’s the wild west and you should be careful what you install. On the AppStore it’s as if Apple has purposefully invested effort into creating the perfect mark for von artists: convincing their customers that a shark infested pool is totally safe to swim in.

And this is the undeniably bad stuff, it doesn’t even touch on the “grey area” of these disgusting children’s casino apps that dominate the AppStore, and that Apple shares the profit on to the tune of 15-30%. The incentives are all broken. Apple profits when scam apps buy ad-placement using real apps names for keywords. Apple profits from apps that convince kids to buy garbage IAP.

It would be one thing if the AppStore actually lived up to its supposed principles, at the cost of hurting competition, innovation, and the occasional frustrating developer rejection. There’s actually be a trade-off to discuss, and we’d actually be arguing about principles, and whether safety matters vs. freedom blah blah blah. Hell, as a parent, there’s versions of a well managed AppStore that I’d probably begrudgingly accept.there be a “can’t argue with the results” thinking there.

But that’s not what this is, and I’m tired of pretending toy is in arguments that defend the AppStore. It’s been 15 years, the AppStore isn’t in beta, it’s not “a work in progress”, there’s no room for arguing about its vision vs it’s “current” reality. The AppStore has shown us what it actually is: a supremely lazy and un creative business cudgel that serves neither developers nor customers, and instead serves Apple first and ironically Apple competitors and criminals second. How does it serve Apple competitors you ask? Consider that companies like Amazon are offered special AppStore rates. Little developers don’t get that, big companies do. So not only does the AppStore exhibit monopolistic behavior, it also props up other monopolies.

Also, the search sucks and it’s ugly. It feels like a free samples booth at a Costco. No one at Apple has any taste anymore. Not really relevant to the argument, but just want to point out there’s zero to be proud of in that product.

tempodox• 3 years ago

Don't celebrate just yet, Apple will drag their feet and make this as painful as they possibly can for everyone involved.

roamerz2• 3 years ago

>Apple being motivated by improving security are BS

Their motivation is most definitely money now. Maybe not in the start though. Whatever their motives are though I’m super satisfied as a customer that they haven’t went down the android path of version calamity, an app store that I have zero trust in as an app buyer. Also tell me an android flavor the supports devices purchased 6 years ago? It’s a package deal. Having the wealth that is generated by the things that the EU has mandated will cause cuts in other areas of device support and/r&d. The option is making less profit or bumping prices to offset. In time we will see.

I think it would be great of Apple to just stop selling devices in the EU as a thanks to politicians who voted for this ill advised rule. I’d like to see how long it would take for them to roll it back because you know they would eventually buckle to the people.

To you and those of like thinking just assert your freedom of choice and go buy an android device along with the shit show it is and leave us to our relatively safe walled garden.

pxoe2• 3 years ago

definitely money now

wait, so it wasn't money before? when they ran all those ads and did all of that 'we're the only privacy company' marketing? i guess it worked really well. when some of it was kinda just, reframing of lacking features and capabilities, and their 'closed ecosystem/walled garden' structure, as 'more secure'.

tim333• 3 years ago

Apple being motivated by improving security are BS

I'm not sure how they are motivated but in a report Apple cited:

In Nokia’s 2021 threat intelligence report, Android devices made up 50.31% of all infected devices, followed by Windows devices at 23.1%, and macOS devices at 9.2%. iOS devices made up a percentage so small as to not even be singled out, being instead bucketed into “other”.

I personally use iOS and got it for my mum and aunt etc as it seems to suffer much less from malware in normal usage. I'm not sure if there is any evidence to the contrary?

quitit• 3 years ago

Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this.

Genuinely looking for evidence of this counterpoint you're making. As the evidence for the security angle is proven. iOS takes less than 1% of malware, Android takes nearly 50%, in between we have Windows, IoT devices and even MacOS taking more malware than iOS.

So where's the data that this strategy isn't working to protect iOS devices? I want to see it.

seydor3• 3 years ago

App tourism when

hiram112• 3 years ago

I imagine the real reason here is that EU companies want to avoid the 30% fee Apple collects on all online purchases with IOS apps. It's doubtful any savings will be passed on to consumers, anyway.

It's likely Apple will do what Google does and instead tie their app store into various apis and services (e.g. Google Play) so that side-loaded apps have a very difficult if not impossible time integrating with the phone in a way that users expect and desire.

Seems like the EU bureaucracy goes after big entrenched US tech companies again and again, but they never really obtain any W's. They spent years fighting against Microsoft's bundling of IE and Media Player, and all that ever happened was that MS released some Euro-only version of a few Windows releases without the bundling. But both IE and Media Player were displaced within a few years anyway, regardless of any EU rules.

Likewise, all the GPDR rules seemed to have accomplished is that every site now has an annoying-as-hell "click here to accept all cookies" button that everyone has learned to just auto accept. I doubt Europeans have anymore actual privacy compared to the rest of us, especially since their own governments are far more interested in tracking their citizens online behavior with regard to tax avoidance, hate speech, etc - they absolutely require US Big Tech to keep track of all this info for them to quietly subpoena as needed.

mirekrusin5• 3 years ago

They should just allow installing other operating systems instead.

If you want out of their platform, install Linux OS on your phone and have whatever you want there.

Wouldn't that make everybody happy - Apple, EU and customers?

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

That should be the next step, yes.

mirekrusin5• 3 years ago

My argument is that it should be the only step that is fair for both sides, efficient to implement, collapses bureaucratic policy to single sentence, doesn't create "issue created here - must be solved somewhere else" problems, nourishes progress, gives true freedom to purchased item owners, preserves good capitalistic incentives and many more.

Sideloading will be full of complicated very important details sucking out live from all parties involved.

I think we all agree that it should not be possible to unintentionally click or autoload link that downloads some settings app that looks like ie. iOS settings app but is developed by some shady party that has access to ie. your biometric security primitives, can look like/impersonate any built-in app/OS behavior etc.

jeroenhd8• 3 years ago

I would love that option, but even with Ahasi for iPhones you'll still need to deal with the horrific kludge that is the modern modem. Open source networking stacks exist but they're still extremely limited. Just look at how long it took for the Pinephone to receive calls, and they interface with the modem over a standard protocol like USB.

The ability to install your own OS would be a nice end goal, but at this pace it'll take at least another 10 years of government regulation before Apple would even consider allowing that.

mirekrusin5• 3 years ago

It would create incentives to explore and benefit from those efforts creating healthy non-monopoly ecosystem.

It would likely create second market for their devices that Apple doesn't care about (because they don't release new iOS updates for old devices), it would create incentive for vendors to support open source through legacy hardware reuse (what is your hardware legacy reuse score as opposed to destroy-recycle-as-minerals score kind of thing).

We live in times where shoes have longer life span than many billions transistor devices which is mad, non eco friendly status quo where government should be stepping in instead of some cherry picked nonsense that will take endless decades to iron out and at the end of the day will make all parties simply unhappy.

Kwpolska3• 3 years ago

Nobody wants Linux on an iPhone. People want both the Apple ecosystem, but also apps that do not want to participate in it or apps that Apple does not like.

mirekrusin5• 3 years ago

People would also want to bring their own wine to every restaurant and some would love to bring their own eggs and ask kitchen to make it for them at a discount - isn't it better to just put few benches as picnic area outside to make everybody happy?

You can't meet all demands of everybody at the same time because what they think they're entitled to is mutually exclusive.

Let's not kid ourselves - Apple won't give full, unrestricted access for sideloaded code ever. It's going to run in some kind of highly isolated enclave at best, with grayed out icons, warning sign overlay, scary long list of permissions given when installing, untrusted code popups when launching, permission re-confirmations when running, without access to ie. background code execution, limited apis etc. - they must be brainstorming any loopholes left by snail speed EU bureaucracy as we speak to make it as user unfriendly and limited as possible.

All that wasted energy could be channeled into something that actually is good for people, gives them freedom while preserving Apple's deserved profit participation in the market they've created themselves out of thin air.

zgk7iqea2• 3 years ago

Linux on mobile is a major step back both in terms of security and usability. Modern smartphone App Sandboxes are immensely better than desktop paradigms. Sideloading should be allowed, tho.

mirekrusin5• 3 years ago

Security and usability are not the only dimensions that matter.

There are people who would like to use devices they own in alternative ways ie. to develop, experiment or simply not to throw perfectly functioning, un-updatable, just few years old hardware to the trash bin.

Apple doesn't want their platform to be polluted with privileged, unsigned code. They don't want next security breach news headline to include their name in it if it originated from code they haven't verified/signed/created - because they put a lot of effort into securing their platform and profit out of it.

Allowing running alternative OSes would make both sides happy, no?

wildpeaks• 3 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Google pushes its own iOS marketplace: first by making an exclusive Blink-based Chrome to get people to open up their phones if they want to download "the real Chrome".

Then there is little friction to get people to install more (because the hard part is already done), and they could even merge Android and iOS into a single marketplace for mobile apps.

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Google pushes its own iOS marketplace: first by making an exclusive Blink-based Chrome to get people to open up their phones if they want to download "the real Chrome".

Who even cares about Chrome on iOS?

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/north...

Kwpolska3• 3 years ago

People who want their bookmarks and tabs synced between desktop Chrome and mobile?

cubefox• 3 years ago

What does this graph have to do with your question?

dontlaugh2• 3 years ago

I think a Play Store on iOS is possible, but unlikely. Google haven’t done it on any of the open platforms they have Chrome on.

[edit] Ultimately, they have almost no incentive. They can install their apps just fine and they don't make their money by users paying them. Epic care because players do pay them directly.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK3• 3 years ago

Do they determine that you are in Europe by the credit card you attached to the App store? Seems easy to fake.

seydor3• 3 years ago

Sideloading should be mandatory and opt-in. Arguing that it should be closed is basically people wanting to control other people's computers (even though that is a popular opinion in this "hacker" forum).

It's going to be interesting when some sideloaded app starts becoming popular and e.g. americans miss out on it. I can already imagine a lot of AI and nsfw stuff in that category

anomaly_• 3 years ago

Wall Europe off and let them suffer their government regulated mobile phone. Anyone cheering this has a short memory.

peoplefromibiza3• 3 years ago

that's a textbook example of a punishment that in reality is a long awaited gift.

Edit: funny that people on HN, that should be smart enough to know about the World, imagine that everything that it's not from the USA must be automatically coming from Stalin.

Like no other place in the World has industries, it's either US products or the government making stuff.

If Apple stops selling devices in Europe I will celebrate, for us Europeans that's the opposite of something we are worried about.

We'll buy them from Samsung or some Chinese manufacturer, who cares.

jeffybefffy5192• 3 years ago

I wonder how the apple store operates in the EU on devices that have sideloaded apps. Theres a bunch of liability apple can effectively shift to the end user everytime without question “sorry you sideloaded this app which may have given your malware, we cant help you”. It’s ridiculous i know but also seems plausible.

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

That's fine, as long as they stick to the hardware warranty requirements as spelled out in the law.

flohofwoe4• 3 years ago

Since this is an example of increasing individual freedom at the cost of corporate freedom, I wonder about the silence of US citizens about the whole topic. I always thought the 'land of the free' slogan is about individuals, not companies ;)

solarkraft5• 3 years ago

(american voice)

You're free to buy another product!

_piif2• 3 years ago

So I have a choice between a walled garden (for my best interests of course) and straight up spyware - unless of course I'm willing to play a game of "where's waldo" where I find the perfect combination of android phone with a model number which does not have a locked bootloader, good prolonged community support, custom ROMs with a good reputation and not just a bunch of modifications thrown together by some random XDA user, no weird hardware attestation shenanigans and then participating in the eternal cat and mouse game of SafetyNet breaking my apps because I am not running on a supported configuration (again for my best interests). How flattering.

I know your reply was meant to be satire but I've heard that argument used legit for this case many times. I just don't know how it can be taken seriously in a duopoly like this - unless they are seriously considering GNU/Linux phones to be ready as a primary daily driver or want me to carry around a dumb phone instead?

standing_user• 3 years ago

It's the land of the free until you touch the turf of some lobby or the interests of a big company then you can see the average Joe on social media, maybe not on HN, that would fight on the internet ring defending the same companies that are triyng to screw him over It's amusing to watch

solarkraft5• 3 years ago

In addition, developers may have to pay extra if they want their apps to be available outside of the iOS App Store

If Apple gets a say in what I "sideload" (it's called installing), that's against the spirit of the law. Hopefully the EU lawmakers were competent enough to also make it against the text of the law. It would be outrageous.

Vosporos• 3 years ago

Another W for Europe

MagicMoonlight• 3 years ago

If you want to continue to browse this website, please download MetaBrowse from the Meta Store.

elisaado• 3 years ago

This has not happened on Android and it will not happen on iOS.

_piif2• 3 years ago

You are free to not browse the website just as I am free to not purchase an iPhone.

jug• 3 years ago

So only Europeans get to play Secret of Monkey Island on ScummVM? Well I guess I'm grateful for being a Swede but this will feel weird...

Sporktacular3• 3 years ago

I wonder if security code will now become region-specific too. It would be a terrible pity if stats go on to show EU devices got hacked more than their Apple Store-only equivalents right around the time they opened up.

Not saying they would, but maybe something to watch out for.

ly3xqhl8g9• 3 years ago

That's good and all but when can we expect such a revolutionary feature as listening to two apps at the same time? Or at least not having the Podcasts app stop because some video autoplays in the browser. The fact that Apple still stubbornly calls this 30% fee-generator pretext an "operating system", shameless. (Been using an iPhone only for 3-5 core apps, Phone/messaging, Camera, browser, Podcasts, for a decade)

wahnfrieden• 3 years ago

This was reported months ago.

culopatin• 3 years ago

I hope we are able to develop a jvm for Apple so I can run Java apps. Probably a great thing for old enterprise apps but also for me to use an iPad to tune my ECU. The program runs on anything that runs Java but not iOS

stainablesteel• 3 years ago

sad about the difference but glad to see all the EU laws won't necessarily screw up the internet again for everyone else

kranke155• 3 years ago

The EU is bureaucratic and technocratic but it’s got more hits than misses for me. (Am European)

counttheforks3• 3 years ago

More proof that Apple should be broken up. Split them in two, a hardware company and a software company.

leoh3• 3 years ago

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making simple, non-controversial changes that improve everyone’s quality of life; but which corporations would otherwise refuse to accept. BTW — LAAS (lobbying-as-a-service) should probably exist.

dagorenouf3• 3 years ago

Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?

herbstein• 3 years ago

You mean like when everyone moved from mini-USB to USB-C? It's also good to remember that lightning connectors are USB2 in a different form factor - outdated and slow.

tiedieconderoga2• 3 years ago

They add another common standard, probably allowing manufacturers to choose between "old" and "new" for a little while.

Similar to the switch from microUSB-B to USB-C. Budget phones kept using the cheap option for awhile, but eventually costs came down and people settled into the new standard.

Not sure how it's done in the EU, but their legislature could delegate authority to make such decisions to an executive agency if the process of passing an amendment or new law is too slow.

xenadu02• 3 years ago

There will never be another one. Who would put R&D into something the EU might not approve?

DannyBee• 3 years ago

Ah yes, that magic new port that dose something we can't do, but nobody can pinpoint what it is or why we need it.

It's been a decade since a new port (lightning was 2012, usb-c is 2014). So apparently, they are doing pretty well!

I think my answer here would "enjoy the next decade of benefits and worry about it then?"

wiseowise18• 3 years ago

The issue with lightning is not that it is old, but because it is available only on Apple devices.

johndisko• 3 years ago

Here's a crazy idea. USB-C can coexist with the new port until the new port proves its worth standardizing to the same degree (as USB-C).

But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port.

leoh3• 3 years ago

Good point. Laws are immutable and can never be changed.

adam_arthur• 3 years ago

Then industry players would build consensus around a new standard and adopt that into law? Would you prefer a world where browser vendors are all designing their own HTML and JS features independently rather than working off a common spec too?

At a certain scale of adoption/societal impact, having a common set of agreed standards is much more important than fragmented "innovation". I would argue having a general and common way to charge devices qualifies for that level of importance. The incentive on Apple's side to stay off of USB-C can only be one of profit driven customer hostile design... as there's really zero technical or otherwise reason to have stayed on lightning this long.

One of the biggest annoyances in my daily life is having to swap back and forth between USB-C and lightning cables. These lightning cables being sold today are effectively trash to be thrown away in a year or two. Completely unnecessary, and hard to have any respect for the intelligence of people who defend it. There is no slippery slope here. If Apple wants to build a next gen port, then they do it alongside other industry players rather than monopolizing the technology so they can charge 10x markup on cables/accessories/licensing... which imparts zero benefit to the consumer.

DocTomoe• 3 years ago

I do not see USB-C coming. Apple will rather remove the jack altogether and go full Qi (and make the device 100$ more expensive because wireless loading adapter).

atyppo• 3 years ago

I think you greatly overestimate the importance the average American assigns to "superior functionality" on an iPhone. As important as it is to you or me, the average person doesn't know or care why they should have these features.

illiarian8• 3 years ago

I'm a programmer with 22 years of experience, and a member on HN... and even I don't care :)

sunshinerag• 3 years ago

Superior Functionality? That is subjective POV.

spartanatreyu2• 3 years ago

Hardly.

Apple made their app store incredibly restrictive and took a massive cut of any profits that anyone was making. Not just app sales, any profits. (This happened to hey.com, they wanted a cut of the subscription that users were getting outside of their app). Sometimes apple would just outright steal developer's apps by making their own version, then blocking the original developers by claiming that they were making rip offs of Apple's apps (you'll find a few stories of that happening here on HN).

Then to really rub salt in the wound, they started telling developers in essence: "If you don't like the way we run our app store then you can always make a web app", despite the fact that they had purposefully hampered web functionality on their devices to force developers to use the app store.

It's really strange how their browser only started getting better all of a sudden when they were getting sued for their anticompetitive behaviour and the EU said they were drafting up legislation to break their monopoly.

It is directly due to the efforts of the EU that Apple has been dragged kicking and screaming to add functionality to their own ecosystem that is objectively demonstrably superior to what was available before.

est312• 3 years ago

The EU is at the side of the customers as long as the companies making the product are not in the EU. Had the EU a strong phone manufacturer industry that didn't use USB-C, we still wouldn't have that requirement. Companies always maintain closest lobbying ties to the governments they reside in (at least if both economies are equally developed), and countries care less about companies that don't give many jobs to their residents or taxation revenue.

iSnow5• 3 years ago

I would like to see some solid proof on this, as I don't buy this claim.

The EU has squeezed telcoms on roaming charges which created a lot of howling. The EU also has rather strict regulation concerning gas use of cars, ICE emissions and so on, probably second only to California. The EU approach to food and pharma security is fundamentally different to that of the USA, and it impacts EU companies. Regulations around green GMOs are so strict they basically killed the European market for GMOs.

roguas2• 3 years ago

Show me example of a thing that would prove it. EU has tons of regulation on cars(most of manufacturers are EU based) - ask any car manufacturer how easy it is to get a car sold in EU(not saying that tons of regulation is good or that difficulty of producing is good, but it is an example that goes well against your argument).

dmw_ng• 3 years ago

The effort to standardize chargers in the EU began at least as early as 2009, 2 years after the original iPhone release and not long after peak Nokia.

mantas3• 3 years ago

Side-loading may bite back in nasty ways. Tiny but locally required apps may use it to work around legit limitations. Pay-for-parking apps, shop loyalty systems etc. Yay for more spyware and api exploiting.

asm0dey2• 3 years ago

But if it's my choice to take these risks?

rychco• 3 years ago

Regulatory capture is so pervasive in the US that I’m afraid there’s little chance that the law will ever change to benefit consumers in a meaningful way.

hailwren5• 3 years ago

But they’re also stuck with physical sims because of those same laws. I vastly prefer the esim in the US iphone to the tray.

selfmodruntime2• 3 years ago

I googled but I couldn't find anything about this. Source?

Sayrus• 3 years ago

eSIM is available in France [1] on many brands and devices, including iPhones.

[1] https://assistance.orange.fr/objets-connectes/installer-et-u...

golergka2• 3 years ago

I've travelled across Europe with eSims bought from Mobimatter, and I've also bought local Vodaphone eSim in Italy and some other operator Montenegro. In fact, I'm writing this from a eSim in my iphone while I wait for Airbnb to resolve issues with check-in on Cyprus. What are you talking about?

asm0dey2• 3 years ago

eSIMs are totally available here in Germany! Für example https://www.telekom.de/unterwegs/esim

SSLy3• 3 years ago

I guess the personal Orange and corporate Polkomtel eSIMs I have in my iPhone are fake.

microtonal• 3 years ago

The Netherlands also checking in, I have used eSIM for years, across various providers.

dwaite10• 3 years ago

For those replying, I believe the parent was saying that EU phones are stuck with a physical SIM slot because of regulations. In the US, iPhones no longer have a SIM tray.

Moldoteck5• 3 years ago

We have both esim and physical. Not only this, for people that want more privacy, some can buy physical sims without any documents at simple shops so that there is no risk for govt to track you

lumb63• 3 years ago

Let’s suppose you’re right that USB-C and side-loading are “superior functionality”. There must be some value to that superior functionality; consumers should be willing to pay extra for it if they value it. It seems logically like Apple ought to offer a USB-C iPhone if there is enough demand for it to generate more profit, except that it lowers the cost for customers to switch phones, which likely costs them more than they’d make in additional profit by having a USB-C version. This puts their interests at odds with the customer’s interests. There are a lot of other similar situations, e.g. most people would rather have cars that last longer, not have to deal with advertising, farmers want repairable equipment, etc., but the economics don’t work out well for the company. How does a market economy rectify that?

I’d argue that in theory, new upstarts ought to be able to enter the market and satisfy the demand if it exists. However, in many fields, there are substantial barriers to entry that prevent this. For instance, in the auto industry, it takes huge amounts of capital to reach the necessary scale, gain enough experience and reputation, etc., to be able to compete with existing companies. Similarly, it would be a monumental engineering effort to produce “iPhone with USB-C” due to the amount of intellectual property, goodwill, Silicon deals, integrations, etc., that Apple provides. It would be impossible, really, due to iMessage and FaceTime being proprietary. There could be new cable providers that don’t run ads, but they wouldn’t be able to compete on cost, and they would have trouble dealing with the regulatory environment for infrastructure, striking deals with networks, etc.

Banning companies from engaging in practices that benefit them once they become sufficiently adversarial to consumers isn’t a scalable solution. There are many instances of this across many industries; regulating them all would be like playing Whack-A-Mike. It also provides no recourse to the group of market participants who don’t care if their phone has Lightning or USB-C, and probably prefer Lightning since they already have a charger. It also leaves less room for innovation since companies will have to comply with standards, possibly preventing superior technology from being developed (that’s how we got Lightning to begin with).

I’d love to hear other/better solutions. I’ll throw one idea/observation out myself. A lot of these misalignments are because providing a better consumer experience today reduces the likelihood they will be a customer tomorrow. Either they will leverage the lower switching cost to switch, or they will be more loyal but purchase less in the future due to the increased quality. What’s a way to manipulate company economics to favor shorter-term views of the company, and disregard higher-growth plans? Higher interest rates. Maybe a higher interest rate environment could mitigate some of these issues by ensuring companies care about the business they have today, more than the one that they could have tomorrow.

deltree7• 3 years ago

No Thanks. Can you tell me how GDPR has made EU life better than US? It's a hot mess. Criminals of EU can now easily hide from the internet, while the innocent click through hundreds of cookie popups

hamilyon22• 3 years ago

Is something like early days mobile app development gold rush likely to happen? There is likely an enormous market for unofficial clients, foss games, game engines, emulators, and of course torrenting of all kinds.

Will European iPhone sales skyrocket? Will you be able to change region if you move to Europe?

So many interesting questions.

mrkramer4• 3 years ago

Apple's exclusivity on allowing and deciding what goes on the AppStore and on the iOS was their way of controlling the user experience and their way to ensure future sales of iPhones. They didn't want that iOS, AppStore and iPhones get flooded with low quality apps. Similar way of thinking that I know of was Valve and Steam, where Steam users needed to Greenlit a game before it came to the Steam store. Imo Steam had a better approach because it was community based not exclusive like Apple had and has. The story of Jobs' and Apple's skyhigh care for privacy and security was more of a propaganda and a marketing strategy than a true care for users' safety.

layer83• 3 years ago

They didn't want that iOS, AppStore and iPhones get flooded with low quality apps.

Well, they failed in that.

mikenew• 3 years ago

The major difference is that I can install whatever the hell I want on my own PC (including my Steam Deck!). Apple has an exclusive store and an exclusive device.

mrkramer4• 3 years ago

I never used an iPhone and I don't really know how horrible it is but if people are annoyed with iOS and iPhone, they can always use Android devices. Android devices are on a par with iPhones unlike 10 years ago.

ikurei2• 3 years ago

Similar way of thinking that I know of was Valve and Steam, where Steam users needed to Greenlit a game before it came to the Steam store.

Not the same at all. You can install whatever you want on the Steam Deck.

I'd fine with Apple just curating their App Store; I am not fine with them deciding what software I can run on "my" device.

mrkramer4• 3 years ago

I meant Valve didn't want Steam to be flooded with low quality games (back in the day) which would interest nobody and would only turn away people from Steam.

I'd fine with Apple just curating their App Store; I am not fine with them deciding what software I can run on "my" device.

Yea that's horrible, that's why Microsoft and Windows are great when speaking about PC industry and comparing it to the iOS and iPhones.

I personally only use Android for the same reason why I only use Windows and that is Android and Windows are open operating systems and I can install whatever I want.

jaChEWAg• 3 years ago

I think once they allow sideloading, folks in the open source community will eventually figure out ways to unlock it for other regions.

iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

Related Stories