Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 587 posts

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#351

Post by tshaddox »

jclardy wrote: post #125
TexanFeller wrote: post #10

I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Before there was a bit of a compromise, I could use evil apps with some peace of mind that they wouldn't do something egregious. Now I suspect evil apps just wo…

I'm the opposite, as looking at android, where do we see this? All big players are still in the play store, because the average user of those services doesn't want to be bothered going to a website, clicking scary looking buttons to enable third party installs, then manually update their own installed apps. Basically the risk would be someone like TikTok dropping out of the store, but I find that unlikely. Maybe at t…

It has been several years since I gave Android a try, but my experience was that the Android ecosystem (specifically the Google Play Store in the U.S.) was indeed much worse than iOS with apps distributing malware, destroying battery life and performance with background tasks, sending all your contacts off to their server, using push notifications for spam, etc. (To be clear, these things have also been problems on iOS, and my position continues to be that Apple should be even more restrictive about this stuff).

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#352

Post by WorldMaker »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #320
TexanFeller wrote: post #10

I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Before there was a bit of a compromise, I could use evil apps with some peace of mind that they wouldn't do something egregious. Now I suspect evil apps just wo…

The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps. Honestly, given things like this ... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/montana-lawmakers-vo... I think Apple may not have a choice. This is a move that will leave Apple free (or freer) of liability in various situations. For example, Apple is no longer liable if you si…

> The setting that Facebook hates and evidently bet the whole company on - "Ask App Not To Track" - probably wouldn't go away for sideloaded apps.

Apple phrased that as peculiarly as they did for several reasons. "Ask App Not To Track" is not "Force App Not To Track", it relies a lot on self-disclosure from apps and some discovery from App Store testing cycles and apps already currently lie about it and things are missed in App Store certification.

There's less reason for self-disclosure by sideloaded apps and no certification process to spot-check such self-disclosures even if a sideloaded app provided them.

"Ask App Not To Track" does feel like a vulnerable tool if sideloading is allowed and certain major apps create pressure to encourage average users to sideload some common apps.

Whether or not you are looking forward to capabilities that sideloading would grant, it is fair to lament the possible loss of how good "Ask App Not To Track" has been so far and assume it will get worse in a sideloading world.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#353

Post by yamtaddle »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #213
hoffs wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed

For the money part, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ iOS is 15% of the mobile device market but generates 67% of the app revenue.

Yeah, I suppose this stuff isn't common-knowledge outside the commercial mobile development space.

There are complaints in this very thread about how shit the software selection is on the Play Store compared with iOS. This is why. Companies that have to, for whatever reason, pick only one platform to start on, usually pick iOS. If they add on Android later, they expect it not to make as much money as the iOS app, so may half-ass the port. In some cases, good apps that have enough revenue to keep them alive on iOS, may judge that an Android port won't be worth the added cost (especially smaller apps—think, one or two developer sorts of operations, they may run the numbers and project only a 20% revenue boost from adding an Android port, which may not be enough to cover the dev, testing, administrative, and support time the platform would require). There's a perception that, basically, Android users won't buy apps (which is... kinda true) and that's why the iOS version of an app might be ad-free and paid, while Android only gets an ad-supported variant—the vendor doesn't think creating and supporting a paid option on Android is worth the extra overhead.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#354

Post by tshaddox »

kevviiinn wrote: post #326
yamtaddle wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

User count, yes. Expected value per user, and amount spent per user on software and computer services is far lower for Android, even if we only look at the US. That, combined with the relative ease of supporting a couple iOS versions on a handful of devices versus a whole universe of Android OS-device combos, is why a lot of apps go iOS-first if they're not doing dual-platform from day 1. The benefit for most monetiz…

>amount spent per user on software and computer services is far lower for Android But why does that matter in this context

Pickpocketing is less of a problem in areas where people aren't carrying around cash and credit cards.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#355

Post by judge2020 »

waboremo wrote: post #340
judge2020 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't speak of the security model. But the compliance model, ie. "you can't block the entire app until the user enables precise 'always' location tracking". But in terms of security, every jailbreak since ~iOS 8 besides checkm8 has been via a third-party app breaking out of the sandbox. The ramifications for shipping an exploit chain like this via the built-in app store is going to be extreme (possibly being bla…

This is false and not how it works on macOS, worse I would consider this fearmongering.

What is false?

Facebook could pull Instagram and tell users to visit Instagram.com.

They can now block some/all of the app based on whether or not you've enabled location tracking.

And malware on macOS works different because macOS doesn't have the same security model as iOS. macOS apps can access large parts of the system after one or two security prompts, and Apple has gone on record that this is not the security level they want for iOS[0].

I guess you could mean that Apple would do notarization, but I can assure you that enough third parties would still fight Apple in court/via lobbying to remove all of Apple's oversight over app approval.

0: https://www.cultofmac.com/742918/craig-federighi-apple-softw...

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#356

Post by ben_w »

andrekandre wrote: post #253
FredPret wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a locked down phone. So does every old person in my life. I'll literally pay extra for a locked-down phone. If you want to side load, buy a phone that allows it, don't force Apple to make one.

> I'll literally pay extra for a locked-down phone. would you prefer a mac or pc to be so as well? if not, why just lockdown phones and not pcs?

These days? Sadly, yes. With good reason, I cannot by default trust any software from the web.

Depending on how exactly this is done, it might yet be safe: we can have multiple roots of trust, multi multiple app stores, etc.

I'm nostalgic for the bygone days when I didn't feel even slightly concerned about spyware because no bank cards were stored on my device and tech companies didn't phone home so routinely that the EU nations unified their existing legislation into GDPR in a vain attempt to try to get them to stop.

But I don't see those days returning short of a Butlerian Jihad against anything post-2002.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#357

Post by tshaddox »

kaba0 wrote: post #305
GeekyBear wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, but what I was emphasizing was that on iPhone such apps will likely not come pre-installed; neither by Apple (vs e.g. Samsung) nor by a carrier because I seriously doubt Apple would allow that. If Facebook is willing to pay to have their app preinstalled, unremovable, and granted root permissions on Android, why in the world wouldn't they be willing to force users to sideload their app on iOS?

They would sideload to do what exactly?

Any of a large number of things that Apple currently doesn't allow on the App Store.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#358

Post by DevKoala »

tempodox wrote: post #347
DevKoala wrote: post #268

I hope there is an option to disable this by default. My parents already manage to install tons of awful apps somehow.

The AppStore is not there to protect your parents from awful software, it's there to protect Apple's interests. And they sure as hell won't force side-loading on you.

The Apple Store makes it incredibly easy to cancel subscriptions and getting charge refunds. Try getting a refund out of a side loaded app charge.

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#359

Post by hparadiz »

TexanFeller wrote: post #10

I'm dreading this. I want privacy hostile companies like Facebook to have to comply with the app store rules and respect system settings relating to privacy. As a user, I'm thrilled when Apple wields its big stick to stop big tech companies from overreaching. Before there was a bit of a compromise, I could use evil apps with some peace of mind that they wouldn't do something egregious. Now I suspect evil apps just wo…

Why do you hate freedom?

Re: iOS 17 will reportedly set the stage for sideloading apps on iPhone

#360

Post by rickdeckard »

GeekyBear wrote: post #312
rickdeckard wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. The Magazine-content defines its target-group. This doesn't work for platform-based advertising, the platform needs to offer ways to select the target-group to address. Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile. Apple doesn't need to do this, because they already collect data…

> Glossy Magazines sell Ads to people interested in those glossy magazines. It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page, just like it's possible to sell ads based on the content of a magazine. It's just not as profitable as relentlessly spying on everyone. > Google purchased transaction data to connect online behavior to the real world and refine their Persona profile Google already has more…

> It's entirely possible to sell ads based on the content of a web page.

Yes. But at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. If Bentley shops for ads tomorrow, they can select Personas like "Age 40-60", "owns a car" and many others from Meta as well as Google as well as Apple. Those are the "ads relevant to you" Apple talks about in their T&C. Again, I don't like it either, but let's not buy into the illusion that Apple is not entering this exact same industry to sell their customers' attention to the highest bidder.

> Google already has more than enough data on it's customers

And so does Apple. Time to start a lucrative ads business.

Post reply on HN