Not entirely pointless. As a professional developer, I appreciate not having to support apps across multiple stores. And Apple’s rules have made it easier to explain to clients “yeah ‘sorry’ we can’t do [evil and/or privacy invading feature]. It’s against the App Store rules.”
I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument. I just have also appreciated the professional fringe benefits of the walled garden.
I do wish there was some way all the cool apps could run free while the ones we put up with are locked down and restricted even harder. Absolutely no one should install a side loadable version of the Facebook app.
> we can’t do [evil and/or privacy invading feature]. It’s against the App Store rules.
The App Store rules from before sideloading exists will still apply after sideloading exists. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that people could choose to bypass the App Store, and in practice every major app still wants to be on the App Store for maximum convenience.
To wit, sideloading has existed on Android for ages, and nearly all apps still want to be on the Play Store.
People should be allowed to do what they want with their own devices. If you own an iPhone, you deserve to be able to install whatever software you want on your iPhone, end of story.
At the time, they really wanted to pivot from a computer company to a device company after the success they found with iPod. Remember at first they didn't even want to allow 3rd-party apps: that's how device-oriented they were thinking.
The computer landscape in 2007 punted the problem of viruses and inability back on the user. I think Apple's goals when they finally did an app store were to (1) ensure iOs-specific native software (vs crappy ports), (2) prevent viruses and malware, and (3) keep the phone as stable as possible.
I think you could argue that there were other ways to approach those goals, but I think it's harder to argue that preventing side-loading was entirely pointless.
As a professional developer you also have to appreciate the possibility that some competition will probably make AppStore a far better experience for developers, instead of a rather broken, restrictive and arbitrary one that we currently enjoy.
The only clients that will want to evade Apples app store in the future will have very specific requirements that Apple doesn't want to promote or be scam apps, so I wouldn't worry about your clients wanting to jump ship. It simply won't be worth it to them to lose the majority of ios users or support multiple deployment avenues.
I would support this if they didn't do the thing like banning original firefox on iOS. This was firefox's greatest moat, a complete browser with extension support
Apple fans are very scared about FB going to leave the Store and forcing them to side load it. But this is FUD, Android has side loading and alternative stores and you can find FB apps on google Play.
The facts are
1 the apps of the big bad tech companies are still on the google Store
2 the stores abused their power and pushed big apps out, not to protect the users, but because they might not be puritan enough, or that some legal but not correct speech was happening on that app.
I wish there was some way to have this benefit without the restrictions. I moved to Android because I wanted to run apps that could do cool things but weren't kosher with Apple's rules. I know pretty well what I'm doing and the implications of my decision, so it's not protecting me from anything, it's just robbing me of freedom of choice. But I would never in 100 years sideload the Facebook app. I won't even install it from the Play store.
I highly applaud the recent Play store change now where it explicitly tells you what data can be accessed, how it will be used, if shared with third party, etc. It's helped me avoid some unknowns.
What about some sort of master switch you could flip that would filter out apps based on behavior? Like the default could be something like "App Store rules" but you could override and allow seeing/installing apps that do other things?
Eh, that wouldn't help with the people who want to use Tik Tok. If Tik Tok can tell them to "enable deep spying" to install the app, they probably will. Although, it would penalize them somewhat and it would make it clear to users what they're doing, so maybe it would help? Hard problem for sure.
I'm hoping the side-loaded apps are sandboxed. The facebooks of the world will cheat a bit harder to keep their apps running in the background, but at least I can control who gets access to files, contacts, and location.
And even for apps that I trust 100%, including stuff I personally write, there is exposure to zero days if you do stuff like display images or web content. I'd like the extra safety net of sandboxing.
Disabling by default but allow sideloading with some disclaimers and warnings seems like a fair compromise, similarly to how Windows will put up barriers and warnings if you try to install software from unknown sources.
The downside is that you don't protect those who enable sideloading and see the warnings when installing Facebook sideload and tap through anyway.
No sideloading also means you have to give that high percentage of revenue to apple. You can't avoid that. It's the clear monopolistic behavior that should be legally blocked.
> I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument.
More often, that argument seems to be used in bad faith. By that, I mean it comes across as a think of the children fallacy. It's developers wanting their own way ("why should I have to pay..."), and as you highlight, wanting to do things with other peoples devices that they really shouldn't.
This is the same message Apple should deliver to every senator and judge: “developers are more productive on things that matter - this is the consumer surplus”
What puzzles me to no end is how many people were happy not only with having no control over their device (which is fine if they don't want it), but also other people not having control over their devices (which is totally not fine if they do want it).
Answer to your puzzle: because as soon as sideloading is allowed, sideloading will become required by the most popular apps.
And then suddenly I lose all the protections afforded to me by the Apple Store, such as easy cancellations of subscriptions, easy refunds of apps that don't work, a layer of protection against malware, and so forth. It also just makes my phone that much harder to use, as finding and installing apps becomes that much harder.
If everybody gets sideloading, that absolutely will impact me directly, and negatively. Does that make sense?
Paraphrasing: "If you don't want to, don't sideload apps, no one is forcing you to" - do people really not see the problem? It's not that technically unsophisticated users will want to sideload apps. They don't know / don't care / have different things to worry about.
But they want their Facebook. Or SnapChat, or Insta, or TikTok, or whatever.
Once other app stores are allowed, there's nothing stopping Meta (for example) from revoking their existing apps, and requiring the use of the Facebook App Installer for access to Facebook. They've paid people in the past to use their Onavo VPN app to bypass Apple's privacy controls, so this would be unsurprising.
Of course, that's just an example; replace with the next SnapChat, TikTok, whatever. If that's the thing that teens want, and the way to get it is to click a bunch of "Yes I agree" dialogs, they'll happily do it. And now suddenly some developer has access to all your family financials through your teen.
If your solution is "well, people shouldn't do that then", you might not understand teens. (Or grandparents. Or regular people.)
This is what i find most interesting about this whole debate.
Read the comments on the article itself, it is just full of "i dont want to do this".. so great, don't sideload apps (no one is forcing them to), but why are they so keen on preventing others from doing it as well?
I really don't care about having full control over my device as long as my device doesn't stop me from doing any critical function.
Life is too complex and there is too much going on and too much to figure out and too many demands on my time, I just want to pick up a device, use it for what i need and then put it away. I don't want to spend hours tinkering to get every little thing the way i want it, i'm happy to outsource that to someone that knows what they are doing and in return I get a device that just works.
Now we are going to end up with a bunch of app stores, which is horrible and annoying to manage on a phone, side loading apps, apps requiring certain app stores so you have to download that app store just to get it and then apps that don't meet the standards that Apple have set.
If you don't like that, you could have bought an Android, but I was happy with it, I want my devices to get out of my way.
It’s pretty simple. Side-loading can be exploited by social engineering.
Two very bad consequences for me if sideloading were easy:
1. There would be no safe product to recommend to my aging parents who would be vulnerable to social engineering.
2. A company with a popular produce like Facebook could go outside the store, which would normalize side-loading, thus rendering argument like ‘people who want safety can stick to the store’ moot.
The arguments about not wanting to control what other people do are moot. If you want a platform with side-loading, buy android.
I just think back to before the iPhone. If you wanted something on your phone, it was still a walled garden, just one that the carriers put up. A new ringtone would cost you, and you’d be charged monthly for access to using gps through your phone.
By strong arming carriers Apple took this revenue to themselves which had the paradoxical effect of opening things up from where they were before. Without this, there’s no doubt you’d be using a Verizon App Store and I’d have AT&T and governments would see no need to take action because there was carrier competition.
Is being able to install whatever you want on your phone, a good thing? Undoubtedly, but we wouldn’t have tasted this opportunity without Apple’s move to take App Sales in house. We also have to be mindful of the devil we don’t know. if you’re OSS you see sideloading as blissfully unchaining your device, but if you’re an Apple competitor you see it as a chance to do everything you were forbidden to.
Because software companies have proven they can't be trusted-- as soon as they can Facebook or someone will try to force side loading as the method to get their apps.
My worry here is how the big apps will just publish instructions on how to sideload and then escape the controls and safety that the App Store provides. We know from years of phishing attacks how easy it is to convince people to click links to non-official sites. The App Store already is doing a poor job at trying to prevent copycat apps, this makes it so much worse.
For the majority of my family the App Store provides a huge amount of safety, as no cost. They have no concept of the protections it provides, but equally will just blindly follow instructions online as well.
My mother was convinced for years her iMac and MacBook were from Microsoft because every doc she opened said "Microsoft Windows" and she knows Microsoft.
Weren't Facebook caught teaching people to use TestFlight to install VPNs to circumvent rules before? This feels like it'll play out similarly to Binance teaching users to install VPNs to circumvent trading controls, for the big official apps, and simultaneously open the floodgates to a ton of spam/phishing/fake apps.
Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen.
Then it'll normalize it, which is the worst outcome.
Tech illiterate people are barely installing new apps on their phones, let alone separate app stores. Almost everyone I know runs Android and I've never seen F-Droid or Aurora or any other alternative app store on their phones.
Scammers can already trick your mother into installing their apps. https://altstore.io/ exists and is widely used to install an emulator and some other apps Apple has deemed unworthy of their users' attention. The source is here: https://github.com/altstoreio/AltStore
> The App Store already is doing a poor job at trying to prevent copycat apps, this makes it so much worse.
Perhaps, but if it is like Android, users will get plenty of warning when they try to turn on side loading, and every time they get a chance to sideload.
> Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen.
10+ years of Android sideloading and this has not happened.
> My worry here is how the big apps will just publish instructions on how to sideload and then escape the controls and safety that the App Store provides.
Android has sideloading since forever, and this doesn't happen there. The number of users you get by the convenience of being in the main app store for the system is way bigger then from any feature you can do if you are not.
I worry about this kind of thing even with my family who are filled with tech elites. Being tech savvy does not mean being security savvy. The amount of times I've had to convince my family that yes, you do have to update your OS, your devices, your password manager, etc is maddening. Hardly anyone cares about security over convenience.
I foresee that Meta will make a dedicated landing page with a side-load download + easy steps and it will get adopted by a size-able chunk of people (like you say). Once that side-loaded app is on the device, they will have auto-update features built-in and you'll likely never need to manually install it ever again. They'll essentially have complete rooted control over your device and use it to steal any and all information possible.
This is a very real reality and I don't think folks care enough. I'm not even against opening up the app store(s), I just wish we had regulated social media's permissions to our private life more before we opened the flood gates to the garbage they will now attempt to dump onto our devices.
Just don't do that. Advise your family to not do that. Accept that some of them may choose to anyway, and that's their choice to make.
"Think of my elderly mother!" is the apple fanboy's version of "think of the children!" No. Get over it. Talk with your mother and explain your concerns. Do you have power of attorney over your mother? If you think she's too mentally feeble to be responsible for herself, then maybe you should think about that instead of advocating for the imposition of these rules on everybody else.
Edit for response:
phone8675309: If scammers can talk your mother into sideloading an application, then they can also talk her into emptying her bank account. Get power of attorney over her, if you care.
Apple will do all it can to fight this. With third-party keyboards, your iPhone will warn you that the keyboard can steal everything you type into it. Apple will amp up warnings like that and run ad campaigns about the goodness of the App Store and how straying from it will expose you to untold danger.
And Apple will probably get pretty far with that. People trust Apple a lot more than they trust Facebook.
There are plenty of scams on the App Store itself. And it's not like one needs apps to scam people. The internet is full of scams and iPhones come with Safari. Unless you prevent your family from going on the internet, they'll find a way to get scammed. The solution here is education.
This is a pretty shallow assessment. They acknowledge the malware argument, but don't address it at all. Remember that the iPhone was introduced at a time when Windows was absolutely plagued with trojan scams.
> Worse, by fighting the issue so loudly and for so long, Apple has actually given the issue way more publicity than it would ever have received otherwise. It has turned what would otherwise have been a boring technical detail covered only by the Apple press into a mass-media news story. Apple has effectively contributed to its portrayal as a bad guy, with zero benefit to the company.
I can only agree with this conclusion. And I'm still somewhat surprised Apple would so intransigently do something that makes them look so utterly stupid and bad.
I have to concur with the article. That said, this likely won’t get far. Google has allowed multiple app stores for years and, still, the vast majority of purchases come from the Google Play Store—so much so that the vast majority of developers don’t even bother putting their apps on other stores.
I’m happy about this, but I’m going to continue using the App Store unless they censor an app that I like.
It’s a very personal decision, but I like iPhone/iOS because it feels like a device, not like a computer. Android still geeked computer-y the last time I tried it a few years ago. Different strokes.
I like the level of review that apps get and the data shows a much lower prevalence of malware in the iOS ecosystem vs the Android ecosystem. I also like the integration and convenience. I’m mostly happy in my walled garden.
What I don’t like is the political speech suppression. I was appalled when AWS, Google and Apple all canceled Parler. I was not a user of Parler but the arbitrary censorship was shocking.
I am ok with protecting me from malware, but not happy with arbitrary editorial decisions about what speech I can see/participate in.
Apple really set themselves up as a "Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory", spending a lot of time presenting marvels (both helpful and useless) to hide the dirty secrets under the surface. Near slavery conditions in manufacturing, arbitrarily applied clauses and rules, and technically enabled limitations to even repair their "Intellectual Property". For years you had to accept the rules of the factory or get shoved down an egg chute, while fanboys laugh at you all the way down.
Times have changed though, Willy Wonka is gone now, phones are nearly identical in specs across the board, and there aren't that many more marvels to distract with.
It's always surprising how many times Facebook comes up in these conversations, even though Facebook has not said anything about creating its own store and Epic was the one that brought suit originally.
It's almost like a talking point that relates this policy to the bad name of Facebook was seen as being effective
Even if Apple allows third party stores or side loading, its portion is going to be negligible unless regulators force them to change the platform default store (which is not going to happen for a while). The only meaningful competitor in the current era is the Play Store but those duopoly effectively maintain non-aggression pact so they won't likely launch it on iOS. Yeah, finally some hackers may have fun on iOS, but I doubt if this will transform the landscape.
I think allowing third party browser engines actually has much broader, significant implications here; Apple is already making aggressive investments into Safari in order to keep its edge against Chromium based browsers. Hopefully, PWA will finally become a viable development platform, which may weaken this "app store" economy in a long run.
I don't think it was pointless. It's probably made them a good bit of money, and since they got ahead of the narrative anyway (as the article concludes) it really seems like fighting it tooth and nail was a great option for them.
If the sole provider isn't acting responsibly, regulators have to allow alternatives.
HOWEVER. This would have been a lot easier if Apple and Google simply reformed their commission models. A take rate of 10% instead of 30% would have prevented this.
Apple has always had contempt for its customers, their argument is just an escalation of that which elevated the official company comment to "all of our customers are total idiots"
Apple has always been incorrect in their arguments. How do I know? Android allowed sideloading since day one and most people have never even considered sideloading. I've never seen any news articles about Android security incidents related to sideloading an trojaned app as the initial vector. I'm sure it's happened, but it is not widespread.
Those who did sideload were forced to do so by the extraordinarily popular app they wanted to run not being on the Google Play Store at all. Yeah, I'm talking about Fortnite.
Sure there are techies like us who will sideload apps to skip YouTube ads or covertly save Snapchat nudes or sniff wifi packets or whatever, but we're a vanishingly small minority. Most android users didn't even know sideloading was an option and wouldn't care if they did.
It's not zero risk, no arguing that. It's just pretty small, and (IMO) not worth the loss in user choice.
[+] [-] Pulcinella|2 years ago|reply
I totally understand and empathize with the “it’s the user’s device, they should be able to do what they want with it” argument. I just have also appreciated the professional fringe benefits of the walled garden.
I do wish there was some way all the cool apps could run free while the ones we put up with are locked down and restricted even harder. Absolutely no one should install a side loadable version of the Facebook app.
[+] [-] kibwen|2 years ago|reply
The App Store rules from before sideloading exists will still apply after sideloading exists. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that people could choose to bypass the App Store, and in practice every major app still wants to be on the App Store for maximum convenience.
To wit, sideloading has existed on Android for ages, and nearly all apps still want to be on the Play Store.
People should be allowed to do what they want with their own devices. If you own an iPhone, you deserve to be able to install whatever software you want on your iPhone, end of story.
[+] [-] toddmorey|2 years ago|reply
The computer landscape in 2007 punted the problem of viruses and inability back on the user. I think Apple's goals when they finally did an app store were to (1) ensure iOs-specific native software (vs crappy ports), (2) prevent viruses and malware, and (3) keep the phone as stable as possible.
I think you could argue that there were other ways to approach those goals, but I think it's harder to argue that preventing side-loading was entirely pointless.
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanalltogether|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gloryjulio|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simion314|2 years ago|reply
The facts are
1 the apps of the big bad tech companies are still on the google Store
2 the stores abused their power and pushed big apps out, not to protect the users, but because they might not be puritan enough, or that some legal but not correct speech was happening on that app.
[+] [-] nipponese|2 years ago|reply
And in that case, I can download, sign, package, and load the app on my phone myself.
I cringe every time I check the "allow packages from unknown sources" option on an Android device.
[+] [-] freedomben|2 years ago|reply
I highly applaud the recent Play store change now where it explicitly tells you what data can be accessed, how it will be used, if shared with third party, etc. It's helped me avoid some unknowns.
What about some sort of master switch you could flip that would filter out apps based on behavior? Like the default could be something like "App Store rules" but you could override and allow seeing/installing apps that do other things?
Eh, that wouldn't help with the people who want to use Tik Tok. If Tik Tok can tell them to "enable deep spying" to install the app, they probably will. Although, it would penalize them somewhat and it would make it clear to users what they're doing, so maybe it would help? Hard problem for sure.
[+] [-] dunham|2 years ago|reply
And even for apps that I trust 100%, including stuff I personally write, there is exposure to zero days if you do stuff like display images or web content. I'd like the extra safety net of sandboxing.
[+] [-] kipchak|2 years ago|reply
The downside is that you don't protect those who enable sideloading and see the warnings when installing Facebook sideload and tap through anyway.
[+] [-] rnk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbuk|2 years ago|reply
More often, that argument seems to be used in bad faith. By that, I mean it comes across as a think of the children fallacy. It's developers wanting their own way ("why should I have to pay..."), and as you highlight, wanting to do things with other peoples devices that they really shouldn't.
[+] [-] anonymouse008|2 years ago|reply
This is the same message Apple should deliver to every senator and judge: “developers are more productive on things that matter - this is the consumer surplus”
[+] [-] jerryzh|2 years ago|reply
So the walled garden didn't work that well right?
[+] [-] Fire-Dragon-DoL|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazygringo|2 years ago|reply
And then suddenly I lose all the protections afforded to me by the Apple Store, such as easy cancellations of subscriptions, easy refunds of apps that don't work, a layer of protection against malware, and so forth. It also just makes my phone that much harder to use, as finding and installing apps becomes that much harder.
If everybody gets sideloading, that absolutely will impact me directly, and negatively. Does that make sense?
[+] [-] RedOrGreen|2 years ago|reply
But they want their Facebook. Or SnapChat, or Insta, or TikTok, or whatever.
Once other app stores are allowed, there's nothing stopping Meta (for example) from revoking their existing apps, and requiring the use of the Facebook App Installer for access to Facebook. They've paid people in the past to use their Onavo VPN app to bypass Apple's privacy controls, so this would be unsurprising.
Of course, that's just an example; replace with the next SnapChat, TikTok, whatever. If that's the thing that teens want, and the way to get it is to click a bunch of "Yes I agree" dialogs, they'll happily do it. And now suddenly some developer has access to all your family financials through your teen.
If your solution is "well, people shouldn't do that then", you might not understand teens. (Or grandparents. Or regular people.)
[+] [-] kennend3|2 years ago|reply
Read the comments on the article itself, it is just full of "i dont want to do this".. so great, don't sideload apps (no one is forcing them to), but why are they so keen on preventing others from doing it as well?
[+] [-] ChildOfChaos|2 years ago|reply
Life is too complex and there is too much going on and too much to figure out and too many demands on my time, I just want to pick up a device, use it for what i need and then put it away. I don't want to spend hours tinkering to get every little thing the way i want it, i'm happy to outsource that to someone that knows what they are doing and in return I get a device that just works.
Now we are going to end up with a bunch of app stores, which is horrible and annoying to manage on a phone, side loading apps, apps requiring certain app stores so you have to download that app store just to get it and then apps that don't meet the standards that Apple have set.
If you don't like that, you could have bought an Android, but I was happy with it, I want my devices to get out of my way.
[+] [-] augment002|2 years ago|reply
Two very bad consequences for me if sideloading were easy:
1. There would be no safe product to recommend to my aging parents who would be vulnerable to social engineering.
2. A company with a popular produce like Facebook could go outside the store, which would normalize side-loading, thus rendering argument like ‘people who want safety can stick to the store’ moot.
The arguments about not wanting to control what other people do are moot. If you want a platform with side-loading, buy android.
[+] [-] twobitshifter|2 years ago|reply
By strong arming carriers Apple took this revenue to themselves which had the paradoxical effect of opening things up from where they were before. Without this, there’s no doubt you’d be using a Verizon App Store and I’d have AT&T and governments would see no need to take action because there was carrier competition.
Is being able to install whatever you want on your phone, a good thing? Undoubtedly, but we wouldn’t have tasted this opportunity without Apple’s move to take App Sales in house. We also have to be mindful of the devil we don’t know. if you’re OSS you see sideloading as blissfully unchaining your device, but if you’re an Apple competitor you see it as a chance to do everything you were forbidden to.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] icehawk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnbear|2 years ago|reply
For the majority of my family the App Store provides a huge amount of safety, as no cost. They have no concept of the protections it provides, but equally will just blindly follow instructions online as well.
My mother was convinced for years her iMac and MacBook were from Microsoft because every doc she opened said "Microsoft Windows" and she knows Microsoft.
Weren't Facebook caught teaching people to use TestFlight to install VPNs to circumvent rules before? This feels like it'll play out similarly to Binance teaching users to install VPNs to circumvent trading controls, for the big official apps, and simultaneously open the floodgates to a ton of spam/phishing/fake apps.
Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen.
Then it'll normalize it, which is the worst outcome.
[+] [-] jeroenhd|2 years ago|reply
Scammers can already trick your mother into installing their apps. https://altstore.io/ exists and is widely used to install an emulator and some other apps Apple has deemed unworthy of their users' attention. The source is here: https://github.com/altstoreio/AltStore
[+] [-] indymike|2 years ago|reply
Perhaps, but if it is like Android, users will get plenty of warning when they try to turn on side loading, and every time they get a chance to sideload.
> Facebook/TikTok/etc just have to say something like "Here's our fancy new version and feature X is only available when you follow these new install instructions" and it'll happen.
10+ years of Android sideloading and this has not happened.
[+] [-] greiskul|2 years ago|reply
Android has sideloading since forever, and this doesn't happen there. The number of users you get by the convenience of being in the main app store for the system is way bigger then from any feature you can do if you are not.
[+] [-] softfalcon|2 years ago|reply
I foresee that Meta will make a dedicated landing page with a side-load download + easy steps and it will get adopted by a size-able chunk of people (like you say). Once that side-loaded app is on the device, they will have auto-update features built-in and you'll likely never need to manually install it ever again. They'll essentially have complete rooted control over your device and use it to steal any and all information possible.
This is a very real reality and I don't think folks care enough. I'm not even against opening up the app store(s), I just wish we had regulated social media's permissions to our private life more before we opened the flood gates to the garbage they will now attempt to dump onto our devices.
[+] [-] stametseater|2 years ago|reply
"Think of my elderly mother!" is the apple fanboy's version of "think of the children!" No. Get over it. Talk with your mother and explain your concerns. Do you have power of attorney over your mother? If you think she's too mentally feeble to be responsible for herself, then maybe you should think about that instead of advocating for the imposition of these rules on everybody else.
Edit for response:
phone8675309: If scammers can talk your mother into sideloading an application, then they can also talk her into emptying her bank account. Get power of attorney over her, if you care.
[+] [-] massysett|2 years ago|reply
And Apple will probably get pretty far with that. People trust Apple a lot more than they trust Facebook.
[+] [-] Gareth321|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlunkr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FloatArtifact|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|2 years ago|reply
I can only agree with this conclusion. And I'm still somewhat surprised Apple would so intransigently do something that makes them look so utterly stupid and bad.
[+] [-] binkHN|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wfh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] efitz|2 years ago|reply
It’s a very personal decision, but I like iPhone/iOS because it feels like a device, not like a computer. Android still geeked computer-y the last time I tried it a few years ago. Different strokes.
I like the level of review that apps get and the data shows a much lower prevalence of malware in the iOS ecosystem vs the Android ecosystem. I also like the integration and convenience. I’m mostly happy in my walled garden.
What I don’t like is the political speech suppression. I was appalled when AWS, Google and Apple all canceled Parler. I was not a user of Parler but the arbitrary censorship was shocking.
I am ok with protecting me from malware, but not happy with arbitrary editorial decisions about what speech I can see/participate in.
[+] [-] spaceribs|2 years ago|reply
Times have changed though, Willy Wonka is gone now, phones are nearly identical in specs across the board, and there aren't that many more marvels to distract with.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bryan_w|2 years ago|reply
It's almost like a talking point that relates this policy to the bad name of Facebook was seen as being effective
[+] [-] summerlight|2 years ago|reply
I think allowing third party browser engines actually has much broader, significant implications here; Apple is already making aggressive investments into Safari in order to keep its edge against Chromium based browsers. Hopefully, PWA will finally become a viable development platform, which may weaken this "app store" economy in a long run.
[+] [-] DangitBobby|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|2 years ago|reply
HOWEVER. This would have been a lot easier if Apple and Google simply reformed their commission models. A take rate of 10% instead of 30% would have prevented this.
[+] [-] throwaway67743|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarkSideMoon|2 years ago|reply
Why I can't install Steam on my Xbox or PS5? Since we are here talking about open market, we should not target one company but make it all open.
[+] [-] hendersoon|2 years ago|reply
Those who did sideload were forced to do so by the extraordinarily popular app they wanted to run not being on the Google Play Store at all. Yeah, I'm talking about Fortnite.
Sure there are techies like us who will sideload apps to skip YouTube ads or covertly save Snapchat nudes or sniff wifi packets or whatever, but we're a vanishingly small minority. Most android users didn't even know sideloading was an option and wouldn't care if they did.
It's not zero risk, no arguing that. It's just pretty small, and (IMO) not worth the loss in user choice.
[+] [-] ChicagoDave|2 years ago|reply
Will 3rd party stores prevent crappy apps from being published?
One reason I never bought an Android is because the Play store is rife with junk, spyware, and malware.
[+] [-] fmajid|2 years ago|reply