iOS 17 app sideloading might only be available in Europe • Hacker News Board

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

#741

Post by ohgodplsno » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

peyton wrote: post #676

ohgodplsno wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don't have the right to insist the manufacturer make it easy for you I do, and it's easy, look: I believe Apple should let me install DOOM on the bootloader and make it easy for me to do so. If I had time to waste, I'd send emails every day, go protest in front of their HQ until I get what I want. Apple's allowed to not do anything about it, and I'm allowed to lobby my legislators to force Apple to do so. Becaus…

Don’t think legislators can force Apple to write software for your phone in the US at least. Maybe in places with fewer free speech protections.

No, but they can force Apple to reveal how to write that software, as well as provide the existing and necessary tools to do so.

In the same way, they cannot force Apple to write me a new, alternative app store, but they can force Apple to open the existing APIs to others. Also, making you write software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

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

#742

Post by pxoe » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

charcircuit wrote: post #500

jakub_jo wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something which would also work using an app store app -- where's the app store benefit in your point?

Distribution is centralized and Apple can end distribution if the app gets reported and add the malware to their malware scanning. While possible, it should be more rare. When working on massive platforms it is typically the goal to minimize metrics like malware installs as opposed to trying to make them 0. The relative probabilities are important.

Scanning apps for malware, preventing them from being installed or run, and warning about malicious apps, doesn't actually require centralized distribution or limiting sideloading. This malware problem with sideloading has already been solved, by Google with Play Protect on mobile, by every other system that allows 'sideloading' and has some kind of antivirus, and by Apple themselves in macOS.

Compared to an antivirus (macos, windows, android, all have protection built-in), that could detect a malicious app, or receive a report about a malicious app and then block it from being run, having an app store in the chain might not even be that much help or be at all different in that process.

If anything, giving potential malware apps a chance to be published on an app store, get that scale, visibility and access to an audience outright, and hang there even if for a little bit before getting taken down, could be kinda worse than if malware apps were distributed across smaller venues. Where, through what channel could a malware app get access to biggest amount of people? Through a centralized app store. (especially if it's the only one on the platform, and the only way to install apps*, forcing all users of the platform to be there.) An app store gives potential malware makers access to an existing audience, ready to be exploited, and a centralized app store ensures that it's the biggest audience possible.

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

#743

Post by chalst » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

locustous wrote: post #711

threeseed wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> turned out to be the main barrier preventing progressive web apps from being viable Until the issue is fixed and the goal posts are moved once again. Because PWAs have been available in one form or another for 14 years. And it's always because that the UX is terrible that makes them not viable not anything Apple has done.

> And it's always because that the UX is terrible that makes them not viable not anything Apple has done. Obvious counter points. Lots of people use websites. Which have an identical UX experience to PWAs. A significant percentage of the app store is web view based apps that are near equivalents to PWAs. Been that way for years. If people love native so much, why do sites like Reddit and LinkedIn heavily push mobile…

> If people love native so much, why do sites like Reddit and LinkedIn heavily push mobile web users to the app?

Because that's how sites can avoid the privacy features that are inherent to browsers.

What proportion of visitors to the LinkedIn site use the app? I'm guessing it's pretty small.

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

#744

Post by dahfizz » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

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.

There wasn't a law mandating the use of the old micro-B port. The EU issued a memorandum asking companies nicely to use micro-B, but obviously it wasn't enforced (Apple never complied).

This situation is different. Apple and others are completely unable to upgrade to USB-D when it comes around.

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

#745

Post by xenadu02 » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

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?

There will never be another one. Who would put R&D into something the EU might not approve?

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

#746

Post by achenet » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

rektide wrote: post #674

SXX wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years Google been stamping "standards" one after another even though other browser vendors were against many of them and they end up being Chrome-only. No matter what Apple itself does Safari being major non-Chromium browser helps Firefox a lot just by existing and having huge marketshare.

It's a three player world now, and Google wants a better web, Apple doesn't want a better web, and Mozilla is somewhere in-between, but increasingly playing the "privacy above all else" card too. In June 2020, Apple declared a bunch of APIs they will not implement ( https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-declined-to-implement-16... ), in a big press blitz trying to make it look like they were some noble hero. Web MIDI (…

Do you work for Google?

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

#747

Post by DannyBee » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

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?

Ah yes, that magic new port that dose something we can't do, but nobody can pinpoint what it is or why we need it.

It's been a decade since a new port (lightning was 2012, usb-c is 2014). So apparently, they are doing pretty well!

I think my answer here would "enjoy the next decade of benefits and worry about it then?"

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

#748

Post by wiseowise » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

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?

The issue with lightning is not that it is old, but because it is available only on Apple devices.

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

#749

Post by johndisko » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

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?

Here's a crazy idea. USB-C can coexist with the new port until the new port proves its worth standardizing to the same degree (as USB-C).

But somehow we have decided that small computers (aka phones) must only have 1 port.

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

#750

Post by evilduck » Sun, Apr 23, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #736

herbstein wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What? I've plugged lightning cables into pretty much any imaginable sort of USB-A socket over than last decade and have never encountered one that wouldn't supply a charge specifically to a lightning cable. Please, be specific with what limitations you're referring to because this is counter to all evidence I've ever been witness to.