iOS & iPadOS devices would be so awesome if they could just run arbitrary software. The new iPad Pro is more powerful than my Lenovo T-Series laptop, and I would totally buy one if I could actually run e.g. Linux on it.
But unfortunately Apple deliberately cripples these devices. Really hope the EU will overthrow these hardware-facilitated software monopolies soon. The truth is Apple already makes quite sizeable profits with the hardware alone, so I think at least power users should be able to install arbitrary software on them. This whole "the hardware can only run software approved by us" is so ridiculous, really makes you wonder how companies doing this (not only Apple) can still get away with it.
Imaging Tesla would restrict which roads you can drive your car on, because just using arbitrary roads that haven't been thoroughly reviewed by them for security and safety would be a risk to you. That's essentially what Apple is doing with hardware that's perfectly capable of running general-purpose software.
I really don’t like the idea of the government dictating what a company does with it’s software, so the idea of forced side loading or other app stores doesn’t sit well with me.
However as far as installing your own OS on the hardware, that seems like something we could require without a downside. I don’t think the companies should be forced to provide anything, other than the specifications of the hardware, they just shouldn’t be allowed to stop it. If someone wants to write drivers and get an OS running on an iPad then they should be able to.
If it’s a security issue then the preloaded OS could disable sensitive thing, perhaps Apple Pay and stuff stops working, but your in your own OS anyway so why would it matter.
I think it should go for any hardware. You could do it in a tesla, the insurance companies could decide not to cover cars that have custom software on them, but someone racing them could run their own OS if they wanted.
I think allowing something like this could go a long way to stop the people that seem to want the government intervening with everything these days.
You can install anything on your hardware you want, assuming you find a way to do that - apple doesn’t have an obligation to make it easy, but they can’t go after you legally for using https://projectsandcastle.org/ on a supported device.
That’s the thing - I bought a completely locked down device where a central authority dictates what can be installed since I trust them to verify the app’s capabilities and the source’s identity. I know the software isn’t impenetrable nor apple infallible, but it reduces my threat model a lot compared to if I were running Android.
>I really don’t like the idea of the government dictating what a company does with it’s software.
Never ever understand this angle. Don't let a government put their toe in the business even when it's utterly unfair to the customer, the environment. Why not? The artificially ginormous and obscenely wealthy 'company' that brags about welfare, rights, privacy, can already almost do literally anything it wants, data mining, price gouging, holding back innovation, monopoly, screwing its users for every penny its AI can scrape from your children to your grandmother... stop me when I reach your melting point...
In my opinion, a large portion of the benefit I get from iOS is due to the fact it’s a secure, locked down platform. If there were a way to run unsigned code on iOS, people would build exploits around it and malicious apps would just tell you to enable whatever “advanced mode” or be able to install a bootloader that transparently loads the OS but with a malware layer between the bootloader and the kernel. By disallowing unsigned code, these less-technical exploits become impossible, which also limits the blast radius of any exploits that are found.
If I want general purpose computing, I have other devices that allow more freedom (like a laptop or cloud server). I don’t need to be able to do everything with one device.
The minute you buy something, what you do with it has to do with your rights and not the rights of the company that created that thing.
I don't get it this line of argumentation.
Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights.
Because this is what you are advocating here. That a company should have the right even to break your rights because they are a "good willing actor" or that they are doing it thinking in your well being (which you are inclined to think with tons of well crafted and manipulative propaganda towards this goal).
And its even worse because, its not the third party that its at fault according to your point of view, but the government that is trespassing by trying to force with laws, approved in a democratic regime, that your rights have to be respected and there are limits into how they can limit you or forbid what you can do with something that you bought and therefore its your property.
> I really don’t like the idea of the government dictating what a company does with it’s software
And I really don’t like the idea that an entity more powerful than most countries should be able to do whatever it wants and be unaccountable to the public just because it is not called “government”.
Software, especially closed source, literally dictates what your device does, and you don't know what most of that is. But you're sure that you wouldn't want the government regulating it any way ... whatever it is doing.
The “user journey” you talk about, the road traveled to a destination, is not the software, it’s the job to be done with the combination of software and hardware.
There may be roads less traveled or places off road, but Apple has no obligation to release some kind of universal automobile fit for highway comfort as well as every terrain.
Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage. They are designed together, and sold together.
The old school insistence on an arbitrary division between hardware and software is like the 1900s division between carriages and bolt on engines before Ford and others realized designing them together made a better car. In modern computing, this false division forces a constraining snapshot of where that line happens to be drawn on this model, instead of recognizing the line is moving all the time as hardware is virtualized and software becomes firmware, all in pursuit of a better journey to the user’s destination, the job to be done.
With the majority of firms and devices selling badly matched hardware and software you can readily strip apart, Apple is making a user experience choice rather unique in the industry and their market success because of this thesis should not be resented or begrudged.
If you believe in general purpose hardware for arbitrary software, if you think Linux has done fantastically with, say, touchpads, touch input, and pen devices relative to Apple with the Magic trackpad, multi-touch screens, and Pencil with the hardware+drivers+OS+apps ecosystem to manifest user intent, invest in that. Buy that, code for that, advocate for that.
If you believe in a customer centric emphasis on “job to be done” and giving less technical end users frictionless tools that get out of their way, appliances for accomplishing their goals, advocate for Apple and the like.
Or don’t advocate, but at least don’t try to tear it down.
> Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage. They are designed together, and sold together.
Computing is relatively new in historical terms, and I think we're still figuring out what the legal boundaries should be around it.
One huge thing which separates networked computers from pretty much every other product which has ever existed is that it allows other actors to "do stuff" with with your property, with or without your consent. Google can install software remotely, and use my electricity, my network connection, and my CPU cycles to do something on my device. I think in the next few decades, we will see some regulations around "freedom from" certain types of actions like this on computer hardware that you own.
On the other side, hardware and software vendors have taken a place as gatekeepers about what you can and can't do with your computer hardware which you own. Smartphones are the main way most people access computing, and currently there are two companies which decide what you can and can't do with them. There has been a long history of regulations to prevent companies which hold this kind of advantaged position from using it to gain undue power over the market. For instance, the railroads cannot bias which customers have access to transportation, and the phone company cannot decide who can and cannot make calls. I think we will see similar regulation, establishing a "freedom to" do certain things with your own computer hardware.
This. I have recently gone back to the Apple walled garden and it's a next gen experience that transcends platforms. Now I only have to worry about what I want to do, never about how it should get done. I never 'see' the actual technology: hard- and software are designed together so well, it just works. There is no other platform in a position to offer that.
The thing is, just like a car can travel on any road a computing device can execute any software. Apple deliberately breaks this functionality.
Apple does not sell a subscription to me, they sell a physical product that can perform computing. That device is absolutely able to run a Linux kernel (in fact people already have made Linux work on M1), so why can't I just flash a new operating system and do that? I'm owning the device already and I don't have any obligation to Apple to buy more software from them, and I don't think Apple does me a favor by offering me an iPad to a "subsidized" price (like other people are arguing). Of course right now it's legal to do this kind of shenaningans, but I surely find it absurd.
Also, having used Cyanogenmod and LineageOS while I was an Android user I can tell you the Linux community would design a working OS for Apple tablets in no time if there was a legal way to do that.
Compelling argument. I think it would be fine if Apple hardware didn't look and feel so good in itself, without the software. It's just a shame we can't use them with anything else we might prefer - I really dislike macOS and Windows and I wish these devices could run Linux simply.
But as you say I buy Asus or Lenovo and they work very well too, and they're starting to look and feel good too nowadays, so like you I won't care for long. Apple can try to solve specific problems with hardware-assisted software, and I can do my work on an Asus.
I just wish my thousand dollar “not a computer” could keep three tabs open in safari without reloading them all every time I switch to check a text message.
I’ve been a very heavy iPad user for over a year now. I keep telling myself things will get better. And you’re right, Apple doesn’t owe me. But I wish they’d just hear what people are asking for.
It would be no problem if Apple were just doing their best to deliver the best experience to their users as you are implying they are doing here.
The problem here is that they are deliberately crippling and limiting what the hardware can do in a way that avoid any possibility of competition.
Limiting JIT's and external web engines are an example of not allowing the devs to have an option to develop for web SDK forcing them to stick with the apple SDK.
So, there's no problem in Apple trying to do things better. The real problem is the limitations imposed to curb competition and freedom for the developers to use the hardware the best way they can.
Apple is ur-facism encoded in a private company. Google or Microsoft dont get away with half of what Apple do, so people should look more carefully to what is beneath.
To those who would say "but people would be manipulated into installing malware".
Firstly, Apple could make the unlocking process purposely hard. Many Android phones come with unlockable bootloaders, but the average person has no idea because you need a computer with the SDK to run that specific command to unlock it.
Secondly, people do get scammed on iOS devices anyway. Both through the web, and through poorly reviewed apps that slip to the app store every now and then. Moreover, Apple has a vested interest in not policing these thoroughly because they get to keep the 30% cut from the scammers' earnings.
My concern here is that Facebook will require their app to be sideloaded so that they can continue abusing their users. Now I don’t use Facebook, but at least I know my family members are somewhat protected from Facebook by Apples rules. If their Facebook app were sideloaded it would be open season for Facebook.
You have the choice to purchase something else, though. Why is it a problem that Apple sells a product which comes with restrictions and intentions? Silly argument.
These people are annoyed because they know all the other hardware is terrible. They want the good hardware but don't want the software that it comes with. Essentially they just wish Apple were a completely different company.
As a developer, you don't have this choice. You have to support the devices that people already have. Which, for iOS, means inevitably playing by Apple's stupid rules.
I really don't like product design through antitrust. Consumers had a choice in more than half a dozen smartphone operating systems, and iOS (alongside Android) won, with its locked down (Apple would say safe and secure) nature being a cornerstone feature of the platform.
That said, I think this hack is really cool. I don't think an Apple sanctioned sideloading method would be the worst thing in the world, so long as its cumbersome enough to prevent companies like Facebook from circumventing the App Store to avoid Apple's pesky rules.
>Imaging Tesla would restrict which roads you can drive your car on, because just using arbitrary roads that haven't been thoroughly reviewed by them for security and safety would be a risk to you
I just switched from Android to iOS, after a period of adjusting I only miss f-droid and the gems it brings (like GadgetBridge, OsmAnd full, a good Bitcoin wallet and my dear Firefox).
Ok, maybe I also miss that the auto correct does not correct things AFTER I press send ;)
Other than that I’m pretty happy, most of my foss/self-hosted needs are taken care of (Home Assistant, Nextcloud, WireGuard)
I never understood this argument. Many products in the past have failed because they were too restrictive. Apple’s current suite of products are doing very well, so they must be doing right.
If you don’t like Apple’s approach or products, then don’t buy them and let the market decide. No company is under obligation to do business according to what you or I think is correct.
If you think the market for a good phone with open hardware is there, then by all means go ahead and build such a product. There is plenty of VC money these days.
If Apple allows arbitrary OSes to be installed I would want a hardware indicator that that has happened. Perhaps a tiny LED on the back that is permanently on as long as the phone hasn’t been tampered with. I wouldn’t want to buy a secondhand phone to find that it’s a fake malware OS.
I mean the whole restriction on which roads tesla can drive on kind of exists in the form of chrysler's autopilot which uses only specific roads for its own self driving ... imagine a future when the data about certain roads is somehow restricted by intellectual property and certain car companies refuse to license whatever source contains that data.... this isnt entirely unthinkable
on the other point you make as someone who uses their ipad for actual professional work (3d artist, film industry) there is absolutely no reason to update from my 2018 ipad pro that I bought second hand, because there's nothing the M1 does that adds anything significant to my life.
worse than that, the ipad is really only useful because of its apps and power, while the OS itself feels like it actively hinders anything I really want to do with the device and in many ways feels mildly broken!
> the ipad is really only useful because of its apps and power, while the OS itself feels like it actively hinders anything I really want to do with the device and in many ways feels mildly broken!
It's weird for sure. The underlying problem is the latency of the pen, which is very hard to manage in 3d sculpting software.
Talking with "hardcore" Apple products users you find that they are the first ones who doesn't want it, arguing that this could make their products less safe, so I don't think Apple would change that in a near future.
I'm hoping that AMD/Intel would be able to build a competing CPU (Single threaded) for Apple's M series SoC otherwise their laptop manufacturers are going to loose their bottom-line to Mac books at least starting with the mid-high end.
I'm hoping that there's enough pressure from Microsoft for that to happen since their surface line-up is not where it needs to be for them to take walled-garden approach like Apple 'yet'. Although, I personally want better performing laptop CPUs to run only Linux.
The worst part is all these people wanting to restrict my freedom to run what I want on my hardware just because of some dubious claims about security.
You can use the app iSH to run an Alpine Linux in an x86 emulator. However it’s tedious to use because most keyboard shortcuts are not working.
I agree to you and would love to use Linux on the iPad similar to how it works on chrome OS where you can use LXD containers in a highly secured KVM VM.
> I would totally buy one if I could actually run e.g. Linux on it.
I would totally buy one if I could actually run Mac OS X on it. But I'd also have a wireless mouse and a keyboard of some sort so... at that point, is it really a tablet anymore? lol
I have the iPad 8th gen and this one is also super smooth, I wish I could make it my default personal laptop as it is pretty damn good but I can’t. The apps are still very limited compared to their desktop counter parts.
That's not even the same thing. That's like saying imagine Apple won't let you peel fruit with an iPad.
It would be much closer to imagine Tesla not letting you install whatever custom OS onto the computer so that you can enable all features, bypass any safety features builtin to the stock system.
They're able to 'get away with it' since their profit models isn’t just the profit from the initial sale. If Apple didn't have their 30% cut of apps and in-app purchases, they would have to increase their margins on the product to make up for the years of income they otherwise would've gotten - I wouldn't be surprised if that meant a $500 increase since they're losing out on multiple years of income.
It's the same for consoles - PS5 and Xbox Series consoles are quite literally sold at a lost or at-cost, and that miniscule amount they make off the consoles doesn't pay for the servers, software, or the margin they actually would want for engineering the hardware if they didn't lock purchases to their own stores and take 30% of those sales.
The only difference between iOS devices and these is that you can see an upfront profit on the purchase for iOS devices, even if that doesn't include the margin Apple actually expects over the lifetime of the device.
Nonsense, Apple prices the iPhone at a level they think the market would bear. Unless it's clients valued the ability to freely install any software at $500 (which I think is highly doubtful) there is no way they could increase their prices by that much without losing a lots of sales. And in any case Apple's profit margins on their hardware are considerably higher any other smartphone manufacturer's.
I don’t have the calculations handy but at one point I was able to figure that the average iPhone user in the US spends (very roughly) $30-$40 per year in the App Store. Even at a 30% cut over the 3-4 year lifespan of the phone it’s not anywhere near $500.
Besides, the hardware itself is already very profitable. The argument that the phone is subsidized by the additional revenue Apple gets is not very good. Apple aren’t entitled to make a certain level of profit. They should have to earn it. Every step of the way.
Are you serious about this? They charge 400 USD for a plastic keyboard. I have a hard time believing these are subsidized prices, Apple has some of the highest profit margins in tech, some say only the drug cartels generate more profit per dollar of revenue.
> AltStore is an iOS application that allows you to sideload other apps (.ipa files) onto your iOS device with just your Apple ID. AltStore re-signs apps with your personal development certificate and sends them to a desktop app, AltServer, which installs the re-signed apps back to your device using iTunes WiFi sync. To prevent apps from expiring, AltStore will also periodically refresh your apps in the background when on the same WiFi as AltServer.
Note that this is also completely at Apple's whims, so if they ever decide to lock down their signing process or cut off non-developer IDs, the whole concept would fall through.
It's a hack with a nice UI, really - which doesn't mean that it doesn't work quite well, just that it's unsustainable and annoying, especially with non-developer ID limitations.
Needing a desktop to install is not a deal breaker for a large fraction of users, even if it's not as convenient as having a phone-only solution. According to the FAQ, you don't also need to keep the (phone) apps running. Keeping the desktop app running doesn't seem like a problem.
Cercube which is basically equivalent to youtube vanced on android (no ads, background play, downloads etc) - its not on altstore (nothing really is) but you can use altstore to sideload it
I wonder if you could "abuse" a service like GH Actions to replace an always-on Mac. I'm not an Apple user, so I don't know how feasible it is.
But using such a (freely provided) service for something it wasn't meant to do is unethical, even tho I think it's a lot less unethical than mining crypto on it.
This looks great, but I think the website could be improved with a bit more explanation about what it actually is and who it's aimed at. EG. does this need an Apple Developer account? Do you need Xcode on the "Server" machine?
I love the simple 3 images "explaining" the process but after that I'm still left with a lot of questions, which are not immediately addressed by the FAQs which seem to be worded with an assumption that you've already decided to install it.
That said, it's open source, it looks cool, and it may be useful to me in the future!
I've used this in the past for gameboy emulators. It worked, but there is a constant game of cat and mouse. Apple is aware of this and tries to make it harder to happen, developer convenience be damned.
Seems cool, but why not show the actual apps I can install using this? I’m not going to install it on my Mac just to find out there’s a bunch of stuff I don’t care about.
The problem with an unofficial side load like this is that it can get around some of the built in protections of iOs that I actually like. It opens up attack vectors that Apple hasn't considered yet.
I feel like with official side loading, Apple would be inclined to lock down what apps can do without explicit permission, or better yet, require more explicit permissions when an app is side loaded. Like make every API call require permission the first time it's called.
I'm fine with it being difficult to side load, but I really want it to be official so that Apple at least considers those attack vectors (like they've been doing on MacOS).
I think you missed the point. The point is that because this app exists, it allows Apple to ignore these possible attacks instead of having to confront them, like they would if there were an official side loading channel.
Readit News
But unfortunately Apple deliberately cripples these devices. Really hope the EU will overthrow these hardware-facilitated software monopolies soon. The truth is Apple already makes quite sizeable profits with the hardware alone, so I think at least power users should be able to install arbitrary software on them. This whole "the hardware can only run software approved by us" is so ridiculous, really makes you wonder how companies doing this (not only Apple) can still get away with it.
Imaging Tesla would restrict which roads you can drive your car on, because just using arbitrary roads that haven't been thoroughly reviewed by them for security and safety would be a risk to you. That's essentially what Apple is doing with hardware that's perfectly capable of running general-purpose software.
However as far as installing your own OS on the hardware, that seems like something we could require without a downside. I don’t think the companies should be forced to provide anything, other than the specifications of the hardware, they just shouldn’t be allowed to stop it. If someone wants to write drivers and get an OS running on an iPad then they should be able to.
If it’s a security issue then the preloaded OS could disable sensitive thing, perhaps Apple Pay and stuff stops working, but your in your own OS anyway so why would it matter.
I think it should go for any hardware. You could do it in a tesla, the insurance companies could decide not to cover cars that have custom software on them, but someone racing them could run their own OS if they wanted.
I think allowing something like this could go a long way to stop the people that seem to want the government intervening with everything these days.
That’s the thing - I bought a completely locked down device where a central authority dictates what can be installed since I trust them to verify the app’s capabilities and the source’s identity. I know the software isn’t impenetrable nor apple infallible, but it reduces my threat model a lot compared to if I were running Android.
Never ever understand this angle. Don't let a government put their toe in the business even when it's utterly unfair to the customer, the environment. Why not? The artificially ginormous and obscenely wealthy 'company' that brags about welfare, rights, privacy, can already almost do literally anything it wants, data mining, price gouging, holding back innovation, monopoly, screwing its users for every penny its AI can scrape from your children to your grandmother... stop me when I reach your melting point...
If I want general purpose computing, I have other devices that allow more freedom (like a laptop or cloud server). I don’t need to be able to do everything with one device.
Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights.
Because this is what you are advocating here. That a company should have the right even to break your rights because they are a "good willing actor" or that they are doing it thinking in your well being (which you are inclined to think with tons of well crafted and manipulative propaganda towards this goal).
And its even worse because, its not the third party that its at fault according to your point of view, but the government that is trespassing by trying to force with laws, approved in a democratic regime, that your rights have to be respected and there are limits into how they can limit you or forbid what you can do with something that you bought and therefore its your property.
And I really don’t like the idea that an entity more powerful than most countries should be able to do whatever it wants and be unaccountable to the public just because it is not called “government”.
Dead Comment
There may be roads less traveled or places off road, but Apple has no obligation to release some kind of universal automobile fit for highway comfort as well as every terrain.
Apple doesn’t owe you a computing device without a user experience any more than Mercedes owes you an engine without a carriage. They are designed together, and sold together.
The old school insistence on an arbitrary division between hardware and software is like the 1900s division between carriages and bolt on engines before Ford and others realized designing them together made a better car. In modern computing, this false division forces a constraining snapshot of where that line happens to be drawn on this model, instead of recognizing the line is moving all the time as hardware is virtualized and software becomes firmware, all in pursuit of a better journey to the user’s destination, the job to be done.
With the majority of firms and devices selling badly matched hardware and software you can readily strip apart, Apple is making a user experience choice rather unique in the industry and their market success because of this thesis should not be resented or begrudged.
If you believe in general purpose hardware for arbitrary software, if you think Linux has done fantastically with, say, touchpads, touch input, and pen devices relative to Apple with the Magic trackpad, multi-touch screens, and Pencil with the hardware+drivers+OS+apps ecosystem to manifest user intent, invest in that. Buy that, code for that, advocate for that.
If you believe in a customer centric emphasis on “job to be done” and giving less technical end users frictionless tools that get out of their way, appliances for accomplishing their goals, advocate for Apple and the like.
Or don’t advocate, but at least don’t try to tear it down.
Maybe not the best analogy since auto makers have to sell spare parts to third part repair shops.
Computing is relatively new in historical terms, and I think we're still figuring out what the legal boundaries should be around it.
One huge thing which separates networked computers from pretty much every other product which has ever existed is that it allows other actors to "do stuff" with with your property, with or without your consent. Google can install software remotely, and use my electricity, my network connection, and my CPU cycles to do something on my device. I think in the next few decades, we will see some regulations around "freedom from" certain types of actions like this on computer hardware that you own.
On the other side, hardware and software vendors have taken a place as gatekeepers about what you can and can't do with your computer hardware which you own. Smartphones are the main way most people access computing, and currently there are two companies which decide what you can and can't do with them. There has been a long history of regulations to prevent companies which hold this kind of advantaged position from using it to gain undue power over the market. For instance, the railroads cannot bias which customers have access to transportation, and the phone company cannot decide who can and cannot make calls. I think we will see similar regulation, establishing a "freedom to" do certain things with your own computer hardware.
Apple does not sell a subscription to me, they sell a physical product that can perform computing. That device is absolutely able to run a Linux kernel (in fact people already have made Linux work on M1), so why can't I just flash a new operating system and do that? I'm owning the device already and I don't have any obligation to Apple to buy more software from them, and I don't think Apple does me a favor by offering me an iPad to a "subsidized" price (like other people are arguing). Of course right now it's legal to do this kind of shenaningans, but I surely find it absurd.
Also, having used Cyanogenmod and LineageOS while I was an Android user I can tell you the Linux community would design a working OS for Apple tablets in no time if there was a legal way to do that.
But as you say I buy Asus or Lenovo and they work very well too, and they're starting to look and feel good too nowadays, so like you I won't care for long. Apple can try to solve specific problems with hardware-assisted software, and I can do my work on an Asus.
I’ve been a very heavy iPad user for over a year now. I keep telling myself things will get better. And you’re right, Apple doesn’t owe me. But I wish they’d just hear what people are asking for.
The problem here is that they are deliberately crippling and limiting what the hardware can do in a way that avoid any possibility of competition.
Limiting JIT's and external web engines are an example of not allowing the devs to have an option to develop for web SDK forcing them to stick with the apple SDK.
So, there's no problem in Apple trying to do things better. The real problem is the limitations imposed to curb competition and freedom for the developers to use the hardware the best way they can.
Apple is ur-facism encoded in a private company. Google or Microsoft dont get away with half of what Apple do, so people should look more carefully to what is beneath.
Firstly, Apple could make the unlocking process purposely hard. Many Android phones come with unlockable bootloaders, but the average person has no idea because you need a computer with the SDK to run that specific command to unlock it.
Secondly, people do get scammed on iOS devices anyway. Both through the web, and through poorly reviewed apps that slip to the app store every now and then. Moreover, Apple has a vested interest in not policing these thoroughly because they get to keep the 30% cut from the scammers' earnings.
That said, I think this hack is really cool. I don't think an Apple sanctioned sideloading method would be the worst thing in the world, so long as its cumbersome enough to prevent companies like Facebook from circumventing the App Store to avoid Apple's pesky rules.
It has only been a corner stone feature since Apple realized they could combine marketing themselves with demphasizing their biggest competitor.
Unregulated duopolies suck.
Tesla has used their power to remotely dictate some odd policy. See https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-aut...
Ok, maybe I also miss that the auto correct does not correct things AFTER I press send ;)
Other than that I’m pretty happy, most of my foss/self-hosted needs are taken care of (Home Assistant, Nextcloud, WireGuard)
If you don’t like Apple’s approach or products, then don’t buy them and let the market decide. No company is under obligation to do business according to what you or I think is correct.
If you think the market for a good phone with open hardware is there, then by all means go ahead and build such a product. There is plenty of VC money these days.
on the other point you make as someone who uses their ipad for actual professional work (3d artist, film industry) there is absolutely no reason to update from my 2018 ipad pro that I bought second hand, because there's nothing the M1 does that adds anything significant to my life. worse than that, the ipad is really only useful because of its apps and power, while the OS itself feels like it actively hinders anything I really want to do with the device and in many ways feels mildly broken!
It's weird for sure. The underlying problem is the latency of the pen, which is very hard to manage in 3d sculpting software.
I'm hoping that there's enough pressure from Microsoft for that to happen since their surface line-up is not where it needs to be for them to take walled-garden approach like Apple 'yet'. Although, I personally want better performing laptop CPUs to run only Linux.
Isn’t a much better analogy a car that doesn’t (easily) let you install arbitrary software on it?
I agree to you and would love to use Linux on the iPad similar to how it works on chrome OS where you can use LXD containers in a highly secured KVM VM.
I would totally buy one if I could actually run Mac OS X on it. But I'd also have a wireless mouse and a keyboard of some sort so... at that point, is it really a tablet anymore? lol
Deleted Comment
That's not even the same thing. That's like saying imagine Apple won't let you peel fruit with an iPad.
It would be much closer to imagine Tesla not letting you install whatever custom OS onto the computer so that you can enable all features, bypass any safety features builtin to the stock system.
It's the same for consoles - PS5 and Xbox Series consoles are quite literally sold at a lost or at-cost, and that miniscule amount they make off the consoles doesn't pay for the servers, software, or the margin they actually would want for engineering the hardware if they didn't lock purchases to their own stores and take 30% of those sales.
The only difference between iOS devices and these is that you can see an upfront profit on the purchase for iOS devices, even if that doesn't include the margin Apple actually expects over the lifetime of the device.
https://www.gamesradar.com/ps5-is-being-sold-at-a-loss-but-h...
Besides, the hardware itself is already very profitable. The argument that the phone is subsidized by the additional revenue Apple gets is not very good. Apple aren’t entitled to make a certain level of profit. They should have to earn it. Every step of the way.
> AltStore is an iOS application that allows you to sideload other apps (.ipa files) onto your iOS device with just your Apple ID. AltStore re-signs apps with your personal development certificate and sends them to a desktop app, AltServer, which installs the re-signed apps back to your device using iTunes WiFi sync. To prevent apps from expiring, AltStore will also periodically refresh your apps in the background when on the same WiFi as AltServer.
It's a hack with a nice UI, really - which doesn't mean that it doesn't work quite well, just that it's unsustainable and annoying, especially with non-developer ID limitations.
http://www.cydiaimpactor.com/
It's also not practical as you need a desktop to install and also every now and then to keep the apps running...
If you have an always-on Mac to handle updates and refreshes, it’s been a near-seamless experience for me for over a year.
I love the simple 3 images "explaining" the process but after that I'm still left with a lot of questions, which are not immediately addressed by the FAQs which seem to be worded with an assumption that you've already decided to install it.
That said, it's open source, it looks cool, and it may be useful to me in the future!
I feel like with official side loading, Apple would be inclined to lock down what apps can do without explicit permission, or better yet, require more explicit permissions when an app is side loaded. Like make every API call require permission the first time it's called.
I'm fine with it being difficult to side load, but I really want it to be official so that Apple at least considers those attack vectors (like they've been doing on MacOS).