Willing to have my mind changed on this: why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading?
A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Maybe we need less bureaucracy and more building. Send some of that sweet EU funding towards companies building open source tech.
>Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it?
It's your phone that you bought from Apple with full knowledge of the restrictions beforehand. If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't.
>that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
You are allowed to NOT buy that phone? You are allowed to buy a phone that allows the use case you look for. Why should your use case be forced on rest?
We may want to start thinking about smartphones as infrastructure.
It’s not practical to run five sets of power lines to each house so that utility companies can compete in a free market. Thus utility companies are heavily regulated.
But it’s also not practical for each person to carry five smartphones. So, maybe we need to regulate this space as well?..
This makes sense but is twisting the arms of the infrastructure companies the way to go? Can't we just encourage free market dynamics? If open platforms are what the consumer wants, manufacturers will sell phones with open platforms and the consumer will decide what they want to buy. EU funding can help rebalance if needed by helping develop new competitors.
The argument to force side loading is the argument that Apple are using market position in phone hardware sales to control, and profit from, the adjacent market of software that runs on phones.
Yes, you can run software on phones via a web browser. But Apple largely control the features of the web browsers that run on phones, too, and arguably limit those features so that browser apps are never quite as good as native apps.
This is "gatekeeping" and while it isn't illegal in all jurisdictions, it is anti-consumer, hence the consumer backlash.
If you don’t like it buy a “fair phone”. There is some freedom of choice here too. I want the freedom to choose a locked down phone for my family and myself to use without worrying about it being hacked.
I write this as someone who is a major open source contributor and advocate. There are somethings I just want to work, and my primary phone is one of them. I have other play devices.
I haven't checked in some time but why don't you just jailbreak your iphone if you want it to be "yours".
You supposedly "own" the iPhone that you purchased. Why shouldn't you be able to install the software you prefer?
Apple's control of your iPhone hardware is not a natural state. They maintain that control through the power of copyright, granted by the government. Modifying iOS and iPhones to allow running arbitrary software is feasible, but distributing such modified copies is illegal due to Apple's copyright, enforced by the courts. If anyone could copy and modify iOS at will then they would soon lose that control.
Copyright is not an inalienable right like the right of ownership of real property. It is a monopoly granted by the government for a specific purpose. If it is being exploited in ways that are contrary to that purpose, or otherwise undesirable, the government should be looking at whether the copyright that they granted should be limited or rescinded.
> why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform.
Why shouldn't a country's people, through their government, be able to make rules about how Apple's products should work in their country? It's their country.
They think it's good for consumers for Apple's ecosystem to be more open to independent developers. I think it's easy to understand that, fears of Grandma loading a non-Apple approved app notwithstanding.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are.
All iPhones contain developer mode settings that can be activated with a little song and dance and compromise security. There is zero chance any of your relatives will accidentally turn off these settings if they are not actively looking to do so. Sideloading could easily be put under this mantle.
Potential counterargument:
"What if my nephew falls for some sideloading phish scam when trying to download hacks for COD mobile? Then he would be encouraged to follow any list of steps to compromise his security"
Response:
If someone is going that far out of the way to compromise themselves no amount of bubble wrap is going to fix it.
No, the counterargument, and why Apple will never do it, is this:
Take an IPA (iOS Packaged Application). Remove the identifying markers, digital signature, change the bundle ID. Lo and behold, it’s indistinguishable compared to an app you developed yourself. Install and pirate away.
On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. Possibly over 90%.
Apple will almost certainly, if necessary, allow 3rd party App Stores if the law requires - but direct IPA installation is a pirate’s dream, let alone the actual malware bundled with. Unless the law deliberately and specifically requires it, it’s not happening; and with the strong piracy connections, it’s very unlikely the law will ever specifically require that feature.
Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective. Also there were many malicious apps approved by apple - this days they do a lot of checks automatically so nothing prevents to do it (kind of like virus or malware scanner that would check something before installation).
If you worry about your family why apple cannot provide some similar but simpler tooling like parental control where (non-tech savvy) family will have to ask you for confirmation? In his situation you would be some administrator or guardian but will much less permissions.
Why bother? It's win win for user and developer because they can offer you something cheaper. They can advertise you that if you buy subscription from 1st hand it will be cheaper.
It would also allow different business model - instead of monthly / yearly subscription you can charge for app one time and then maybe for big upgrade every few years.
But it's not only that about the cost. You would be allowed to have apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have. It would allow to have browser that support fullscreen mode, push notifications like android, better PWA support, WebGPU support. Faster cross platform apps (react-native) that allow access to JIT. 3rd party keyboard that allow much better voice transcription even locally (all 3rd part keyboard have it kind of broken right now because of API limitation) and the list goes on.
> Does nobody in you family own MacOS or Windows? Because there you can install malicious apps so your point is selective.
macOS doesn't allow that by default, though unlike iOS it is possible to social engineer users to launch shady apps
> apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have
The range of spyware that will become possible is much bigger than potential new apps that somehow can do a good thing with a private API. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091
2. If Apple ever allows sideloading, it will inevitably involve installing Xcode, connecting your phone to your laptop with a USB cable, running obscure shell commands and clicking through scary warnings. Do you really think your grandparents are capable of doing this, let alone being tricked into it?
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
The malware my family is most exposed to nowadays have names: Onedrive, iCloud, Google Drive. They are all designed to collect all the user's data, are all opt-out, opting out is filled with dark patterns. And regarding dark patterns, having recently gone through the motions of downloading all my data and then deleting my X, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, Google and Apple accounts, I can confidently say that Apple is by far the _worst_.
Yes, when it comes to exercising one's rights, Apple is worst than even _Facebook_.
Users are much less exposed to non-branded malware nowadays, as the incentives to torrent random crap have mostly disappeared, and protection against spam/fishing has improved.
What's so bad about giving people the choice to do something to a device they bought? If they want to have the option to circumvent the walled garden that does not have any effect on you who resides inside those walls. Mandating a hardware vendor to make its products useable outside of the hardware vendor's control is just common sense and it is the way things tend to work after the resistance of colluding vendors has been broken down. Car vendors are not allowed to block car owners from using third-party parts but do not have the obligation to service those parts. White goods vendors similarly are not allowed to lock in white goods owners into using only 'certified' consumables and spare parts. Why do you feel compelled to try to justify these attempts by this vendor to be treated differently? If you feel happy inside the walls they built you why do you insist others remain inside as well?
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls.
Modern phones are more like general purpose computers than game consoles. The console argument from Apple is disingenuous and gets far too little pushback from courts. Same goes for their argument that developers who don't like the App Store rules should make web apps — but limits Safari support for PWAs and limits third-party browsers to an older, slower JavaScript engine.
From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations.
Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes.
Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.
For those complaining about not allowing 3rd Party JIT engines for 3rd Party Browsers. Please consider the vulnerability track records for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Safari:
I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked.
Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0]
Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1]
Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2]
I like the fact I can more or less assume security. I really like the fact that my mum can. Any way of unlocking your phone for sideloading seems almost bound to be an avenue for scammers to talk people into installing malware.
But when a platform is so widespread, I don't think "they can charge whatever they like" is necessarily great.
It's difficult because you want the market dynamic (if they charge too much, we'll just take our app elsewhere and people will move to that platform) to be present in at least some way, but at the same time the real world isn't that simple.
> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading?
Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are.
You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.
Car manufacturers have total control over how users use their devices. If you want to change any of that, you have to start making hardware changes. You can do that with an Apple device also, if you have the skills. But why?
I've never wanted to sideload an app until recently. I discovered that the recent generations of iPhones and iPads can achieve native performance with the Dolphinios GC/Wii emulator, but the app can only be sideloaded. Apple doesn't have a problem with emulation in general (there are NES/SNES/etc emulators available for download in the App Store), but they do not allow JIT compilation for security reasons which these newer generation emulators require.
Currently sideloading is a pain so I still haven't done it. If it becomes as easy as Android I personally would be pretty happy just for this use case.
Ironically I'm a bit disappointed by how powerful the hardware is getting these days because of the software limitations. Don't get me wrong, I fully admit my days of running custom OSes is over, I only use my iPad as an entertainment device and am happy to keep it very simple. I just feel power users should be able to sideload an app or two without needing to use an Xcode debugger or whatever.
Imagine you bought a house from HomeCorp but if you want to buy furniture or anything else that goes in your house, food, toilet paper, etc, it has to be from HomeCorp, and they take a huge cut.
Furniture prices will be higher. You can expect everything that goes in your house to cost more.
If you find a cool couch from IKEA, you can't put it in your house. You're not allowed because HomeCorp says so.
There's no reason why IKEA can't just ship you a couch but HomeCorp says they haven't tested it so they don't know if it meets their standards. But they don't even LET YOU make your own decision about what goes in your house.
IKEA could technically build their own house selling operation but that's a massive undertaking and is incredibly expensive.
Not only that but homes built by HomeCorp have all these features that suck unless you use HomeCorp for other things like your car, or your job. Your car just works a little less well if it's not a HomeCorp car - but only if you have a HomeCorp house, otherwise it's totally fine.
If your friends don't have a HomeCorp house it's clunkier to have them over, they have to jump through hoops or get a worse experience. They can't send you videos in high definition. Because HomeCorp wants them to have a house from them.
... Honestly I just convinced myself. They make it so inconvenient to use any other option that you're strongly pressured to use them. Then because you are, they force decisions on you that you might not want, and take a massive cut of money. It's all shady business practices that are incredibly unfair and result in less economic freedom.
> why should Apple be forced to allow sideloading?
Because it is too large in terms of market share. In an ideal world, there would be so many alternatives, that I could just choose whatever ecosystem I want. However, we can't really reach that state of affairs easily. Without interference, the gap between the phones that support software freedom and those which do not will increase.
The "Apple should be allowed to set whatever terms" argument sounds like this: "We shouldn't impose any food safety or agricultural standards. If you care, you can just grow your own crops and cook your own food"
>A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing.
>Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules.
Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.
> You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities.
The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend.
I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
Which is fine, you're not required to install sideloaded apps. You could even, for example, configure your phone to disable them in a way that can't be modified again without a factory reset.
But why shouldn't someone else who wants something else be able to do something else?
Notice that their ability to do it benefits you. Someone writes a crappy little open source app, without sideloading they don't even bother because the approval process is too much of a barrier. With it, they throw it up on github and then a dozen other nerds use it for a while and make contributions, until it starts getting popular and good. Then they have enough donations to pay somebody to push it through the approval process and you get to install it from the app store. But without that, it doesn't exist.
> Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform.
Corporations don't own you just because they sold you something.
> And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Phone platforms have a strong network effect. Microsoft is a trillion dollar corporation that made a serious attempt to do this and failed, what hope does anyone smaller have? Two platforms that already existed when app stores became a thing (iOS an Android) still have a combined ~100% market share almost two decades later. "Just make your own phone" is like "just start your own phone network" in terms of viability for ordinary people.
> Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
Okay, let's say you want to do that. The typical way to start a new platform is to create an abstraction over it that allows people to create apps that run on both your new platform and any incumbent platforms. Developers like this because they can use the new framework instead of having to create separate apps for each of the incumbent platforms, so they do, and then those apps also support your new platform and allow you to start building a network effect. Think Java, Qt, Gtk, HTML/JavaScript, etc.
Then all you need is the ability for users to side load the new apps independent of the platform corporation who is going to discourage that sort of thing (as, for example, Apple does by making features available to native apps that aren't available to web apps). Which is the thing being requested.
I've built some of my home automation from scratch and I'm using a web app to control most of it from my phone. I'd love to be able to build a native app to see what I can do with Bluetooth etc. But it will never be more than a hobby so I am not going to pay a recurring fee for the privilege.
> But it will never be more than a hobby so I am not going to pay a recurring fee for the privilege
This is what has really stopped me from learning iOS development.
> I've built some of my home automation from scratch and I'm using a web app to control most of it from my phone.
Do you have anything available/written up about this?
I have long since stopped being mad about this. I was mad about this in 2007 when iPhone was announced and I heard apps would be web only. I never owned an iPhone despite being one of Apple's biggest fanboys at the time. This policy is why I stopped using Apple products altogether. By 2011 I purchased my last apple product (a used Magic Mouse, I didn't even want to give them the satisfaction of a new purchase). By 2013 I was running Linux on my laptop and I never looked back.
Apple went from "We <3 open source!" and "Number one place to run Java!" to "30% of your revenue or else" and "Java is like a heavyweight ball and chain." That really hurt. It felt like a major betrayal.
But like every other major change in my life, it turned out for the best. I have a much better understanding of what's going on in my computer since leaving Apple. I have more freedom. I'm not mad anymore. I'm glad they pushed me away.
This is true. I have dozens of side loaded apps on my iPhone.
Another misconception is that the App Store fee is 30%. It’s actually 15% for all but the top 1% revenue generating apps, at which point the fee becomes negotiable in reality.
I have a developper account and I can't load a Kindle app that lets me buy the books.
I'd draw the parallel to root access on android: it gives a lot of freedom but is not a replacement for a blessed way for normal users to loads apps from third party stores and no business will bet on users rooting their phones to use their apps.
Suppose you want to make an app for you and your friends to use. You have 200 friends. Is $20,000 too much? What if you have 1000 friends?
What if you just want to post some code on github and let anyone use it who wants to with or without their own modifications, but you don't want them to each have to pay $100?
One developer account can distribute to 100 iPhones without the App Store. You can distribute to an unlimited number of devices if you leave the app in a permanent beta test without full App Store approval. You simply distribute via Test Flight.
That's the issue, really. If you're paying for the developer program but you aren't uploading apps to the App Store, then you aren't using the program for its intended purpose.
I honestly don't think Apple even wants to collect your $100/yr, which is a pretty insignificant sum from their perspective. It's probably just used as a basic anti-spam measure allowing their reviewers to keep up with the pace of App Store submissions and to do their job properly.
They certainly would be entirely unaffected if they stopped collecting developer fees from the people who only use their membership for sideloading, since that number is most likely low enough to be completely insignificant.
Anyway, I specify this under the "What would it mean for iOS to have sideloading?" section:
> For the purposes of this website, an operating system supports sideloading if it provides some means for technically-inclined end users to permanently install native apps without prior approval from any company or organization, either free of charge, or for a reasonable one-time fee. [...]
> Apple would not have to make sweeping changes to iOS in order to qualify; in fact, a minor policy change would be more than sufficient. For example, all it would take to qualify is for Apple to remove the unnecessary expiry dates from development certificates (which can only be used on the creator's own devices, and cannot be used for distribution). They currently expire after 7 days for free accounts, or 1 year for paid accounts.
---
> but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years...
I think this is unfair. iOS devices receive updates for at least 5 years, and they don't suddenly become useless after that point either. I for one don't upgrade my mobile devices until they stop getting updates, and I don't find myself yearning for the minor yearly upgrades we've been seeing lately (across the industry, not just Apple).
I personally wouldn't go anywhere near sideloading applications that haven't been through Apple's verification processes, or advise anyone in my family to do so.
I also think that it is very hard to argue _against_ allowing sideloading.
These two opinions can co-exist.
Make it optional, make sure the user knows what they are doing, and has acknowledged multiple times that they understand the risks, and that they acknowledge support for any problems at all with the phone will be compromised as a result.
Realistically, 99% of iPhone users don't need to sideload, nor understand what it means, and would be worse off doing it on their phones.
Yeah yeah Apple the big corp walled garden big evil boo. Yes they make mistakes, yes they make a ton of money. But, their stuff works better than anything else on the market for the vast majority of people, and their decisions are almost always thoroughly thought through in favor of the customer experience, accessibility, security and safety.
This is exactly what Android is doing. You get enough warnings before loading an APK file, maybe Apple could make it look even scarier to ensure people don't accidentally do it but ultimately it should be up to the iPhone owner's decision.
I'm not quite buying the 'security' argument, all recent iPhones and iPads have hardware virtualisation capabilities. Apple can simply run the 'unsafe' applications in a virtual machine, and combine that with the existing protections built into the operating system (sandboxing, sptm) and it would be fine.
The word for this is "normal installation". It is not "sideloading". That's newspeak. "paid-only corporate-approved only" walled gardens as the only means to install software are the weird new thing. Installation is normal and status quo.
Readit News
A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are. I know that the apps my phone runs have been given the green light by Apple.
Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one." Maybe we need less bureaucracy and more building. Send some of that sweet EU funding towards companies building open source tech.
Wrong. I argue it's my phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install what I want on it?
Why stop at app for 30% fees? It puts a lot of work into Safari too, why not 30% of every purchase made through safari?
> Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying ...
that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
It's your phone that you bought from Apple with full knowledge of the restrictions beforehand. If you wanted a phone with more freedom you could have bought another device and voted with your wallet, but you didn't.
>that it should allow users do on their iOS devices what they can do on their macOS devices.
Software limitations are not exclusive to Apple. They're everywhere. For instance, manufacturers intentionally kneecap CPUs/GPUs so they can sell the same chips from the same wafer at different price points. Why aren't they targeted too? You bought the whole chip but you don't get to use it.
It’s not practical to run five sets of power lines to each house so that utility companies can compete in a free market. Thus utility companies are heavily regulated.
But it’s also not practical for each person to carry five smartphones. So, maybe we need to regulate this space as well?..
Yes, you can run software on phones via a web browser. But Apple largely control the features of the web browsers that run on phones, too, and arguably limit those features so that browser apps are never quite as good as native apps.
This is "gatekeeping" and while it isn't illegal in all jurisdictions, it is anti-consumer, hence the consumer backlash.
I write this as someone who is a major open source contributor and advocate. There are somethings I just want to work, and my primary phone is one of them. I have other play devices.
I haven't checked in some time but why don't you just jailbreak your iphone if you want it to be "yours".
You don't like the phone system? Maybe you can go and make your own phone network. You don't like this forum? Go start your own forum.
Do you see the problem here?
Network monopolies are pretty much impossible for a newcomer to compete with, even for a rather resourceful entity, like Microsoft and their phones.
Apple's control of your iPhone hardware is not a natural state. They maintain that control through the power of copyright, granted by the government. Modifying iOS and iPhones to allow running arbitrary software is feasible, but distributing such modified copies is illegal due to Apple's copyright, enforced by the courts. If anyone could copy and modify iOS at will then they would soon lose that control.
Copyright is not an inalienable right like the right of ownership of real property. It is a monopoly granted by the government for a specific purpose. If it is being exploited in ways that are contrary to that purpose, or otherwise undesirable, the government should be looking at whether the copyright that they granted should be limited or rescinded.
Why shouldn't a country's people, through their government, be able to make rules about how Apple's products should work in their country? It's their country.
They think it's good for consumers for Apple's ecosystem to be more open to independent developers. I think it's easy to understand that, fears of Grandma loading a non-Apple approved app notwithstanding.
All iPhones contain developer mode settings that can be activated with a little song and dance and compromise security. There is zero chance any of your relatives will accidentally turn off these settings if they are not actively looking to do so. Sideloading could easily be put under this mantle.
Potential counterargument:
"What if my nephew falls for some sideloading phish scam when trying to download hacks for COD mobile? Then he would be encouraged to follow any list of steps to compromise his security"
Response:
If someone is going that far out of the way to compromise themselves no amount of bubble wrap is going to fix it.
Take an IPA (iOS Packaged Application). Remove the identifying markers, digital signature, change the bundle ID. Lo and behold, it’s indistinguishable compared to an app you developed yourself. Install and pirate away.
On Android, it’s pretty well documented the majority of APK installs are piracy. Possibly over 90%.
Apple will almost certainly, if necessary, allow 3rd party App Stores if the law requires - but direct IPA installation is a pirate’s dream, let alone the actual malware bundled with. Unless the law deliberately and specifically requires it, it’s not happening; and with the strong piracy connections, it’s very unlikely the law will ever specifically require that feature.
If you worry about your family why apple cannot provide some similar but simpler tooling like parental control where (non-tech savvy) family will have to ask you for confirmation? In his situation you would be some administrator or guardian but will much less permissions.
Why bother? It's win win for user and developer because they can offer you something cheaper. They can advertise you that if you buy subscription from 1st hand it will be cheaper.
It would also allow different business model - instead of monthly / yearly subscription you can charge for app one time and then maybe for big upgrade every few years.
But it's not only that about the cost. You would be allowed to have apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have. It would allow to have browser that support fullscreen mode, push notifications like android, better PWA support, WebGPU support. Faster cross platform apps (react-native) that allow access to JIT. 3rd party keyboard that allow much better voice transcription even locally (all 3rd part keyboard have it kind of broken right now because of API limitation) and the list goes on.
macOS doesn't allow that by default, though unlike iOS it is possible to social engineer users to launch shady apps
> apps that are not possible because would be rejected or cannot use private API that apple apps have
The range of spyware that will become possible is much bigger than potential new apps that somehow can do a good thing with a private API. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43197091
1. The app review process is largely ineffective. The idea that it protects anyone is a myth encouraged by Apple to feed their profit margins. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-a...
2. If Apple ever allows sideloading, it will inevitably involve installing Xcode, connecting your phone to your laptop with a USB cable, running obscure shell commands and clicking through scary warnings. Do you really think your grandparents are capable of doing this, let alone being tricked into it?
The malware my family is most exposed to nowadays have names: Onedrive, iCloud, Google Drive. They are all designed to collect all the user's data, are all opt-out, opting out is filled with dark patterns. And regarding dark patterns, having recently gone through the motions of downloading all my data and then deleting my X, Facebook, Instagram, Microsoft, Google and Apple accounts, I can confidently say that Apple is by far the _worst_. Yes, when it comes to exercising one's rights, Apple is worst than even _Facebook_.
Users are much less exposed to non-branded malware nowadays, as the incentives to torrent random crap have mostly disappeared, and protection against spam/fishing has improved.
Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is not at all like saying there is no hope of developing an open platform - a silly statement given the dominance of such a platform on the world market. It is like telling Ford they can not force car owners they're only allowed to use Ford fuel, use a Ford navigation system, use Ford tyres, Ford oil, Ford customisation parts, Ford anything. It is like telling Chevrolet they do not get to syphon off 30% of the revenue a cab driver earns when he uses his vehicle to transport customers. It is like telling GM they're to refrain from mandating drivers only to shop at GM-approved stores, taking 30% of the revenue generated. That they only can have their vehicles serviced by GM dealers. Many of these things have been tried on the market, tried in court to be forbidden by law. Owners of these products still can choose to use only 'genuine' parts and consumables, only buy service from vendor-approved providers just like you would still be able to remain inside the walled garden even if others prefer the freedom outside of those walls.
Why defend the indefensible?
From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations.
Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes.
Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.
I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked.
Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0]
Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1]
Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2]
Sources:
[0] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?...>
[1] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html...>
[2] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?ve...>
I like the fact I can more or less assume security. I really like the fact that my mum can. Any way of unlocking your phone for sideloading seems almost bound to be an avenue for scammers to talk people into installing malware.
But when a platform is so widespread, I don't think "they can charge whatever they like" is necessarily great.
It's difficult because you want the market dynamic (if they charge too much, we'll just take our app elsewhere and people will move to that platform) to be present in at least some way, but at the same time the real world isn't that simple.
Because it's unreasonable for any manufacturer to have that much control over how end users use their devices.
> A big part of the reason I use Apple products is that they protect not only me, but my family who don't know what the implications of sideloading are.
You can still use devices in nanny mode if needed. If your relatives can be talked into sideloading an app and bypassing the inevitable big scary warnings, they can be talked into other stuff equally as dangerous.
Currently sideloading is a pain so I still haven't done it. If it becomes as easy as Android I personally would be pretty happy just for this use case.
Ironically I'm a bit disappointed by how powerful the hardware is getting these days because of the software limitations. Don't get me wrong, I fully admit my days of running custom OSes is over, I only use my iPad as an entertainment device and am happy to keep it very simple. I just feel power users should be able to sideload an app or two without needing to use an Xcode debugger or whatever.
Deleted Comment
It's not about forcing Apple to do anything, it's about not preventing consumers from doing what they want with a device they bought.
Should ISP decide what websites are you allowed to visit? It's their platform. And for those who don't agree with it can use another ISP.
Imagine you bought a house from HomeCorp but if you want to buy furniture or anything else that goes in your house, food, toilet paper, etc, it has to be from HomeCorp, and they take a huge cut.
Furniture prices will be higher. You can expect everything that goes in your house to cost more.
If you find a cool couch from IKEA, you can't put it in your house. You're not allowed because HomeCorp says so.
There's no reason why IKEA can't just ship you a couch but HomeCorp says they haven't tested it so they don't know if it meets their standards. But they don't even LET YOU make your own decision about what goes in your house.
IKEA could technically build their own house selling operation but that's a massive undertaking and is incredibly expensive.
Not only that but homes built by HomeCorp have all these features that suck unless you use HomeCorp for other things like your car, or your job. Your car just works a little less well if it's not a HomeCorp car - but only if you have a HomeCorp house, otherwise it's totally fine.
If your friends don't have a HomeCorp house it's clunkier to have them over, they have to jump through hoops or get a worse experience. They can't send you videos in high definition. Because HomeCorp wants them to have a house from them.
... Honestly I just convinced myself. They make it so inconvenient to use any other option that you're strongly pressured to use them. Then because you are, they force decisions on you that you might not want, and take a massive cut of money. It's all shady business practices that are incredibly unfair and result in less economic freedom.
From the perspective of software makers, to fight oligopsony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony
Because it is too large in terms of market share. In an ideal world, there would be so many alternatives, that I could just choose whatever ecosystem I want. However, we can't really reach that state of affairs easily. Without interference, the gap between the phones that support software freedom and those which do not will increase.
The "Apple should be allowed to set whatever terms" argument sounds like this: "We shouldn't impose any food safety or agricultural standards. If you care, you can just grow your own crops and cook your own food"
This argument always reads like satire, but comes up a lot. You're essentially arguing freedom is dangerous because some people aren't smart enough to handle it.
Apple could always do what Android does and gate it behind a hidden setting. No one is arguing your web browser should be allowed to auto install apps at will, or whatever it is you may be picturing.
>Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
I'm confused on this argument, do you not know Android exists? The issue is that if you want to reach the majority of the public, you have to also support Apple devices, and you have to bend over backwards to their 30% cut and arbitrary rules.
Thank god this attitude wasn't around when Windows was taking off. I think we'd seriously have set back society if every Windows application had to pay Microsoft a 30% fee, and had to pass Microsoft approval.
When it comes to mobile phone apps, 100%. My mum (77) can just about operate a phone, someone who gained her trust (and scammers are very good at that these days) could likely talk her into installing pretty much whatever, and she'd have no idea what was going on. Her only defence in such a situation would likely be giving up because she didn't understand how to follow the instructions. I also have family with learning disabilities.
The idea that we are all fully able, autonomous, powerful and informed at all times is a fantasy. For some people a locked device is pretty much a godsend.
I'm not saying the fees are reasonable, mind. And maybe there is an argument that apple should sell locked and unlocked versions of the phone or something.
Which is fine, you're not required to install sideloaded apps. You could even, for example, configure your phone to disable them in a way that can't be modified again without a factory reset.
But why shouldn't someone else who wants something else be able to do something else?
Notice that their ability to do it benefits you. Someone writes a crappy little open source app, without sideloading they don't even bother because the approval process is too much of a barrier. With it, they throw it up on github and then a dozen other nerds use it for a while and make contributions, until it starts getting popular and good. Then they have enough donations to pay somebody to push it through the approval process and you get to install it from the app store. But without that, it doesn't exist.
> Is the 30% fee egregious? Maybe, but why shouldn't they be able to charge the fees they want? It's their platform.
Corporations don't own you just because they sold you something.
> And for those who don't agree with it, like Epic Games, maybe they can go and develop their own phone?
Phone platforms have a strong network effect. Microsoft is a trillion dollar corporation that made a serious attempt to do this and failed, what hope does anyone smaller have? Two platforms that already existed when app stores became a thing (iOS an Android) still have a combined ~100% market share almost two decades later. "Just make your own phone" is like "just start your own phone network" in terms of viability for ordinary people.
> Mandating Apple to allow sideloading is essentially saying "we have no hope of ever developing a competing open platform so we have to use law to force this American company to make us one."
Okay, let's say you want to do that. The typical way to start a new platform is to create an abstraction over it that allows people to create apps that run on both your new platform and any incumbent platforms. Developers like this because they can use the new framework instead of having to create separate apps for each of the incumbent platforms, so they do, and then those apps also support your new platform and allow you to start building a network effect. Think Java, Qt, Gtk, HTML/JavaScript, etc.
Then all you need is the ability for users to side load the new apps independent of the platform corporation who is going to discourage that sort of thing (as, for example, Apple does by making features available to native apps that aren't available to web apps). Which is the thing being requested.
This is what has really stopped me from learning iOS development.
> I've built some of my home automation from scratch and I'm using a web app to control most of it from my phone. Do you have anything available/written up about this?
Deleted Comment
Apple went from "We <3 open source!" and "Number one place to run Java!" to "30% of your revenue or else" and "Java is like a heavyweight ball and chain." That really hurt. It felt like a major betrayal.
But like every other major change in my life, it turned out for the best. I have a much better understanding of what's going on in my computer since leaving Apple. I have more freedom. I'm not mad anymore. I'm glad they pushed me away.
Yes $100/year is too much, but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years…
Another misconception is that the App Store fee is 30%. It’s actually 15% for all but the top 1% revenue generating apps, at which point the fee becomes negotiable in reality.
I'd draw the parallel to root access on android: it gives a lot of freedom but is not a replacement for a blessed way for normal users to loads apps from third party stores and no business will bet on users rooting their phones to use their apps.
What if you just want to post some code on github and let anyone use it who wants to with or without their own modifications, but you don't want them to each have to pay $100?
> $100/year is too much
That's the issue, really. If you're paying for the developer program but you aren't uploading apps to the App Store, then you aren't using the program for its intended purpose.
I honestly don't think Apple even wants to collect your $100/yr, which is a pretty insignificant sum from their perspective. It's probably just used as a basic anti-spam measure allowing their reviewers to keep up with the pace of App Store submissions and to do their job properly.
They certainly would be entirely unaffected if they stopped collecting developer fees from the people who only use their membership for sideloading, since that number is most likely low enough to be completely insignificant.
Anyway, I specify this under the "What would it mean for iOS to have sideloading?" section:
> For the purposes of this website, an operating system supports sideloading if it provides some means for technically-inclined end users to permanently install native apps without prior approval from any company or organization, either free of charge, or for a reasonable one-time fee. [...]
> Apple would not have to make sweeping changes to iOS in order to qualify; in fact, a minor policy change would be more than sufficient. For example, all it would take to qualify is for Apple to remove the unnecessary expiry dates from development certificates (which can only be used on the creator's own devices, and cannot be used for distribution). They currently expire after 7 days for free accounts, or 1 year for paid accounts.
---
> but if you’re paying $1000+ every 2-3 years...
I think this is unfair. iOS devices receive updates for at least 5 years, and they don't suddenly become useless after that point either. I for one don't upgrade my mobile devices until they stop getting updates, and I don't find myself yearning for the minor yearly upgrades we've been seeing lately (across the industry, not just Apple).
I also think that it is very hard to argue _against_ allowing sideloading.
These two opinions can co-exist.
Make it optional, make sure the user knows what they are doing, and has acknowledged multiple times that they understand the risks, and that they acknowledge support for any problems at all with the phone will be compromised as a result.
Realistically, 99% of iPhone users don't need to sideload, nor understand what it means, and would be worse off doing it on their phones.
Yeah yeah Apple the big corp walled garden big evil boo. Yes they make mistakes, yes they make a ton of money. But, their stuff works better than anything else on the market for the vast majority of people, and their decisions are almost always thoroughly thought through in favor of the customer experience, accessibility, security and safety.
Deleted Comment