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

381–390 of 587 posts

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

#381

Post by rickdeckard »

GeekyBear wrote: post #368
rickdeckard wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> at some point i.e. Bentley wants to spend its Marketing money only on people likely to buy a Bentley. So they can run their ads on web pages that are related to luxury goods. It's entirely possible to sell ads without relentlessly spying on everyone. It's just less profitable.

Hence "Yes". Lots of things are "possible", it's just not how things are. We're circling around a straw-man

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

#382

Post by eropple »

yamtaddle wrote: post #353
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I used to be a mobile developer, and I literally got death threats for charging $6 on Android. People just paid it on iOS and got on with using the app.

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

#383

Post by soraminazuki »

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…

We already have an example of what Meta would do with sideloading: trick clueless users into installing highly invasive spyware that inspects every traffic going in and out of your device, even MITM-ing TLS connections.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

They did this by abusing their enterprise certificate.

As much as I'd like the ability to sideload apps, abuse by commercial vendors is a very real concern. With a few exceptions, commercial software has proven itself to be untrustworthy with the growth of surveillance capitalism. I'd rather that sideloading be reserved for free software.

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

#385

Post by kaba0 »

andruby wrote: post #186
jmull wrote: post #93

Having "side loading" -- also known as regular app installation on non-phone platforms -- hasn't caused chaos on desktop platforms or android. No reason to think it will on iOS either.

> hasn't caused chaos on desktop platforms I beg to differ. How many windows machines were infected in the early 2000's? Would bot-nets exist if Windows had a strict app store back then? Now: I will agree that freedom to install any software on desktops has been wonderful, and I hope it remains, but I wouldn't say it hasn't caused chaos.

Sandboxes are a thing, and are quite great on mobile devices, unlike desktops, especially 2000’s.

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

#386

Post by rovr138 »

kevviiinn wrote: post #328
jjeaff wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only by user count. Last I checked, apple's worldwide app store revenue was nearly 10x that of Google's app store revenue.

So are malware vendors looking for who spends the most on software or for biggest impact through sheer number of installations

I'm guessing they're looking for the users they can steal the most from in the least amount of time. Aka, the most lucrative.

Apple's ecosystem means that most of the devices are up to date, or close, and because they control the full pipeline, things behave better.

This means that targeting ios is easier (since they'll be on closer versions and behave uniformly) and that because they spend more money, which they have, means that targeting them is easier and more lucrative.

Most are looking to hack. If they're looking to build a botnet, android might be better.

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

#387

Post by kaba0 »

airstrike wrote: post #348
kaba0 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 is no choice, that’s just ridiculous.

Network effects. Or do we really expect devs to write proper code for 3+ entirely different native mobile platforms?

No, that’s why we need market regulations so that the two lucky platforms that won the game serves the people, and not only their wallets.

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

#390

Post by rootusrootus »

CharlesW wrote: post #204
galleywest200 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perfectly reasonable argument for locking down a device you’re handing to family members who aren’t security conscious Then enable a more limited App Store mode as an opt-in feature.

> Then enable a more limited App Store mode as an opt-in feature. As on macOS (with SIP, etc.) it'll be the opposite: Users will need to opt-in to this new less-secure mode, as they do the ultra-secure Lockdown Mode.

> As on macOS

I'm on the latest version of MacOS and I routinely install software outside of the App Store (in fact, nearly 100% of the software I install is outside the app store).

Post reply on HN