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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by brookst »

schwartzworld wrote: post #700
brookst wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your priorities. For people into standards and commoditization, PWAs are awesome because they reduce the ability of HW makers to differentiate. For people who just want the best possible app/phone experiences, PWAs are awful.

For lots of use cases, you'd be unlikely to notice a difference in quality. For example, I tune my guitar using a PWA, and I doubt anybody would notice the difference. The real differentiator with native vs pwa is their ability to track the user.

PWAS are pretty good for high frame rate games, then?

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

#732

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

Kwpolska wrote: post #398
wiseowise wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google pushes its own iOS marketplace: first by making an exclusive Blink-based Chrome to get people to open up their phones if they want to download "the real Chrome". Who even cares about Chrome on iOS? https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/north...

People who want their bookmarks and tabs synced between desktop Chrome and mobile?

You don't need blink for that though. The current WebKit based chrome syncs just fine.

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

#733

Post by tim333 »

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…

>Apple being motivated by improving security are BS

I'm not sure how they are motivated but in a report Apple cited:

>In Nokia’s 2021 threat intelligence report, Android devices made up 50.31% of all infected devices, followed by Windows devices at 23.1%, and macOS devices at 9.2%. iOS devices made up a percentage so small as to not even be singled out, being instead bucketed into “other”.

I personally use iOS and got it for my mum and aunt etc as it seems to suffer much less from malware in normal usage. I'm not sure if there is any evidence to the contrary?

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

#734

Post by herbstein »

dagorenouf wrote: post #728
leoh wrote: post #727

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making simple, non-controversial changes that improve everyone’s quality of life; but which corporations would otherwise refuse to accept. BTW — LAAS (lobbying-as-a-service) should probably exist.

Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?

You mean like when everyone moved from mini-USB to USB-C? It's also good to remember that lightning connectors are USB2 in a different form factor - outdated and slow.

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

#735

Post by tiedieconderoga »

dagorenouf wrote: post #728
leoh wrote: post #727

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making simple, non-controversial changes that improve everyone’s quality of life; but which corporations would otherwise refuse to accept. BTW — LAAS (lobbying-as-a-service) should probably exist.

Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?

They add another common standard, probably allowing manufacturers to choose between "old" and "new" for a little while.

Similar to the switch from microUSB-B to USB-C. Budget phones kept using the cheap option for awhile, but eventually costs came down and people settled into the new standard.

Not sure how it's done in the EU, but their legislature could delegate authority to make such decisions to an executive agency if the process of passing an amendment or new law is too slow.

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

#736

Post by candiodari »

herbstein wrote: post #734
dagorenouf wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usb-c sounds cool for now. But what about when a new port comes out and Apple can’t use it because the EU still mandates to use the old one?

You mean like when everyone moved from mini-USB to USB-C? It's also good to remember that lightning connectors are USB2 in a different form factor - outdated and slow.

Oh you're giving lightning connectors too little credit. They also come with a LOT of logic to prevent people from charging their Apple devices with unapproved chargers. All added on top of USB 2 (and definitely against the standard, one might add)

Like a lot of Apple and huge company stuff in general, it's a flimsy reason to change something and introduce many limitations the huge company thinks will make them more money. It sure as hell is not about reversible connectors.

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

#737

Post by realusername »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #717
realusername wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see nothing in this paper which is proving their claim. The worst part is when they talk about the drop of CD sales pre-streaming where the legal options to consume music online ... just didn't exist at all. If there's no legal option where your customers can pay you, that sure can lead to a revenue drop. The music industries have been very slow to adapt to the internet and it has cost them some revenue, I'll give…

>If there's no legal option where your customers can pay you, that sure can lead to a revenue drop. But you think that all stopped as soon as there was a legal option? Do you really think there are no people out there who can afford it but chose to pirate anyway? I don't know why people find it so hard to believe other than they are trying to justify their own activity. Do you think the media industry spent all this…

> But you think that all stopped as soon as there was a legal option? Do you really think there are no people out there who can afford it but chose to pirate anyway?

Yes it did https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ , that's exactly what happened.

As soon as they added a way to receive money, customers paid, it's visible on the graph.

If customers can't pay you, of course you are going to lose money.

> I don't know why people find it so hard to believe other than they are trying to justify their own activity. Do you think the media industry spent all this money on anti-piracy activities just for the fun of it?

It has more to do about content control than money. Guess who benefits the most of stricter copyright rules? The RIAA, MPAA and similar organisations, it's a conflict of interest. Being harsh on piracy is easier to sell than just "give us more power because we deserve it"

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

#738

Post by DocTomoe »

leoh wrote: post #727

Superior functionality exclusively in the EU — USB-C, side-loading — is a good thing. It will remind US folks that the law is a powerful mechanism for making simple, non-controversial changes that improve everyone’s quality of life; but which corporations would otherwise refuse to accept. BTW — LAAS (lobbying-as-a-service) should probably exist.

I do not see USB-C coming. Apple will rather remove the jack altogether and go full Qi (and make the device 100$ more expensive because wireless loading adapter).

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

#739

Post by voytec »

s3p wrote: post #722
voytec wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this. It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt. Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists (which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permissio…

>Applications still require payments in form of contact lists What? It seems like you were trying to make a coherent argument but a list of contacts is in no way comparable to a paid subscription. Microsoft doesn't allow you to buy O365 with your contacts, do they?

No, but some apps require this to unlock functionality. I consider it a form of payment, just like apps sucking up data from one's phone being a form of non-financial payment for an app disguised as "free".

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

#740

Post by vivegi »

xenonite wrote: post #685
vivegi wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... Apple either increases their fees or decreases prices for an app that is also distributed elsewhere I don't get why anyone should be paying Apple a rent for using a 3rd party app store (lets say exclusively). As a hypothetical, lets say Epic Games or Steam launches an Alt App Store for games that can be installed on ios. Why does any gamedev using those stores have to pay Apple any transaction fee? Just doesn't…

I don’t think developers should be paying a rent for using a third-party App Store. I meant it like that: if a developer wants to sell both in a third-party store and in the Apple apps store then Apple is not sole distributor. Losing exclusive selling rights, Apple has every right to cash in a higher fee.

Apple can charge whatever fee they want, provided they also allow alt app stores to operate and set their own fees and let the market decide whether they will download the widget from their App store or the 3rd party store.

Putting up anticompetitive defenses for the app store in the garb of security, censorship etc., while hamstringing alternatives for app installation -- It is a matter of time before the antitrust (or equivalent) units of different governments come after Apple.

For reference, Competition Commission of India penalized Google INR 1337 crores (INR 13,370,000,000 ~ $161M USD) for abusing its dominant position. [1]

From that link:

> For this purpose, the CCI delineated following five relevant markets in the present matter:

> - Market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India

> - Market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India

> - Market for general web search services in India

> - Market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India

> - Market for online video hosting platform (OVHP) in India.

The second bullet point is pertinent for Apple's current behavior relating to App Stores.

Apple's market share in India is miniscule. But they have just opened up Apple retail in India this week with stores in Mumbai and Delhi. So, with local customers increasing in the next couple of years, this will be something Apple has to contend with.

[1]: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1869748

Post reply on HN