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

iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#471

Post by LadyCailin »

jakub_jo wrote: post #454
mnd999 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.

If users don't want crappy PWAs than they wont use them. It's common sense to let "the market decide" -- why not in this case?

Market decisions don’t do anything to prevent the tragedy of the commons - is the general answer. I have mixed opinions on this specific case, but I absolutely see how this could make things worse. If everyone starts releasing their own versions, and not offering the apps in the App Store anymore, than the people who prefer the walled garden (for which there are good reasons to want) then they lose that choice. It’s possible that doesn’t happen - and allowing people that don’t want the walled garden should also have that choice, but you can’t simply boil this complex question down to “free market”. It’s intellectually dishonest, at best.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#472

Post by alluro2 »

mnd999 wrote: post #442
hurtuvac78 wrote: post #250

Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this. There is a great tool to increase security: the browser and its sandbox. You don't need to install anything fishy on your phone, and the sandbox rights coukd be sufficient for many apps. But as an example, Apple denies the full screen feature for websites and even PWA... only installed on…

Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.

I see this argument often, but I'm genuinely curious if it's actually the case - at least in my experience, a huge amount of apps nowadays have custom-designed UIs and very little conformance to "platform UI conventions". And that's even an expectation - if you see an app that uses standard UI controls, navigation etc - it comes off as basic and probably not really polished. I might be completely wrong.

On the other side, if users want standard UI and that's a factor in adoption, wouldn't people making PWAs then just make the apps in such a way - there's nothing stopping them, and there's no lack of UI libraries enabling that.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#473

Post by Cthulhu_ »

matsemann wrote: post #444
mnd999 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.

If they want it, download the app then. Allow others to not download it and use a PWA if they'd like. Actually I believe you're wrong: if people actually preferred Apple's way of doing it, Apple would have no reason to restrict other ways. They restrict it because people prefer the other way, and that would harm Apple's profits.

They continue to restrict it because look at how much trash was (is?) on the Android store; they restricted it even more in the early days because of the torrent of low effort fart / gag apps.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#474

Post by webmobdev »

YeBanKo wrote: post #329
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The prime example is that apple gives apps unfettered access to network connections. (…) You cannot even find out what apps are doing. Settings -> Privacy & Security -> App Privacy Report It shows you per application what data they are accessing, which sensors they are accessing and which domains the app is contacting. It also reports when they were doing this and how often. You can even export this data as a JSON…

App Privacy Report lets you know if an app might have leaked your data, firewall can help you make sure it does not happen. Two different purposes.

And enabling this also allows Apple to collect the data from you to "improve the service". So Apple will now have more data on you.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#475

Post by criddell »

baby wrote: post #236
hooby wrote: post #143

I think the central question here is: .) whether you buy a phone as a piece of hardware and then own that hardware - which gives you certain rights regarding the usage of that owned hardware or .) whether you are just paying some sort of admission fee to a tightly controlled service, and are basically "lent" a piece of hardware that you have no ownership rights over. All the other stuff about walled gardens, monopoli…

Related question: what does the user want? I doubt a majority of users are against side loading.

I doubt a majority of users want side loading. It’s available on Android and very few (relatively speaking) take advantage of that feature.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#476

Post by rimliu »

Joeri wrote: post #251
Derbasti wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at Android, where sideloading has been available forever, there doesn't seem any evidence of your worry.

Apple will make it annoying enough to sideload that no meaningful amount of users will do it, causing it to be largely irrelevant. It’s only worth it to app makers to have side loading if they can do it for large numbers of users, bypass the app store’s rules, and bypass apple’s take. I’m expecting apple to set it up in a way they can do none of those things, by making it cumbersome to sideload, not giving entitlemen…

It is already annoying enough without Apple needing to do anything.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#477

Post by Closi »

stavros wrote: post #374
mrighele wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you didn't buy something, but rented it - for example a game on Steam or Epic Games store" I don't know about the other one, but in the Steam store I see "Buy" buttons, not "Rent". "Buy " in the store page, then when you go a "Shopping Cart", where you can "Purchase" the game. To me (and to the average people, I guess) it doesn't sound as a rental service at all. I'm sure that their ToS says otherwise, but I wond…

That's the GP's point, they rent you games but the language they use is "buy", and they shouldn't. They should say "rent" instead.

You are (usually) buying a perpetual licence which is revocable, not renting a licence, so the language is correct.

Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#479

Post by nicce »

matsemann wrote: post #444
mnd999 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users don’t want crappy PWAs, they want something that follows the platform UI conventions. It’s good that Apple care enough about about UX to actually enforce this.

If they want it, download the app then. Allow others to not download it and use a PWA if they'd like. Actually I believe you're wrong: if people actually preferred Apple's way of doing it, Apple would have no reason to restrict other ways. They restrict it because people prefer the other way, and that would harm Apple's profits.

Average person does not know what they want. They don’t know how technology works.

They don’t even see difference between PWA and apps.

If everything becomes PWA, there is no transparency for the apps. No indication what data they collect. No control for the quality of the apps. No moderation over malicious apps.

PWAs need more permissions to provide the functionality people need, it is not just website.

Re: iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe

#480

Post by stavros »

Closi wrote: post #477
stavros wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the GP's point, they rent you games but the language they use is "buy", and they shouldn't. They should say "rent" instead.

You are (usually) buying a perpetual licence which is revocable, not renting a licence, so the language is correct. Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).

Yeah, if I'm buying a revocable license, the language should be "renting". It's not the same as having ownership over the thing I'm licensing.
Post reply on HN