If you do that, guess what Fortnite would do right now. Guess what Facebook would do to get around Apple’s privacy restrictions right now. Guess what a ex-boyfriend would do right now to install a blocked spying app.
For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal. Otherwise, they just tell the user to make the choice for them.
If you even listen to interviews with Apple engineers, it sounds like they are less afraid of willing and understanding people and locking their phones, as much as they are afraid of third parties essentially forcing their users to unlock their phone to install their products, and thus getting an unfair exemption from Apple’s protections while smaller companies probably wouldn’t have the clout to force users to do this, resulting in an uneven playing field.
I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.
>If you do that, guess what Fortnite would do right now. Guess what Facebook would do to get around Apple’s privacy restrictions right now. Guess what a ex-boyfriend would do right now to install a blocked spying app.
I guess I don't get your point, if a user wants to sideload fortnite or facebook, good for them? If an ex-boyfriend has your phone and your password you've probably got bigger issues than whether or not he can click a button to sideload an app.
>I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.
I still don't follow your point, what on earth does that have to do with someone being allowed to use their phone how they want? You think someone is going to steal your phone, go to an Apple store and pretend to be you to have sideload enabled, then return the phone to you? I'm not saying it would be impossible for that to happen, but I would say: why would ANYONE go to that trouble? If this is another "well ex-boyfriend" issue you're talking about 1/10th of 1% of all users in existence. I don't think that should be the demographic with which we base all of the decisions on what an iphone can and can't do...
I’m saying that if you add that choice, it isn’t that technical users have more freedom and that’s bad. It’s that Apple users become pawns in a chess game against other tech Giants, who don’t want to follow Apple‘s rules whether it be for privacy, IAP, or other reasons.
Like I said with Facebook. If there was a private API that Apple doesn’t allow them to use that would make tracking users easier, they would happily force users to sideload so that they could use it. Smaller companies would not have the power to force users to sideload, so they would have to follow Apple rules while tech giants would not.
At this point, for better or worse, what started as sideloading has destroyed the App Store.
Lastly, as for why anyone would go for the trouble, are you really sure that some government agency wouldn’t force users to sideload an app someday? If it had to go through Apple approval, there would be a much bigger legal fight than if they could just force people to sideload it. There are other reasons than just ex-boyfriends, I’m just trying to come up with some examples.
>I’m saying that if you add that choice, it isn’t that technical users have more freedom and that’s bad. It’s that Apple users become pawns in a chess game against other tech Giants, who don’t want to follow Apple‘s rules whether it be for privacy, IAP, or other reasons.
Become "pawns" how? You're again saying that a user being allowed to load things on to their phone is Apple's responsibility. Literally nobody has said it would be Apple's responsibility and we've got a case in point: google. When you sideload an app, you're on your own.
>Like I said with Facebook. If there was a private API that Apple doesn’t allow them to use that would make tracking users easier, they would happily force users to sideload so that they could use it. Smaller companies would not have the power to force users to sideload, so they would have to follow Apple rules while tech giants would not.
Again, not Apple's problem. If a user is warned that enabling side loading exposes them to tracking, and the user decides to do it anyway, that's their prerogative.
>At this point, for better or worse, what started as sideloading has destroyed the App Store.
Destroyed what app store? Google allows sideloading, I think most people would describe their app store as thriving, not "destroyed"
>Lastly, as for why anyone would go for the trouble, are you really sure that some government agency wouldn’t force users to sideload an app someday? If it had to go through Apple approval, there would be a much bigger legal fight than if they could just force people to sideload it. There are other reasons than just ex-boyfriends, I’m just trying to come up with some examples.
They already force users to load apps directly, sideloading isn't necessary.
Right now, every developer will tell you that Apple is significantly more strict with what is allowed on the App Store than the Google Play store is. Not perfect, but more strict.
This has caused tech giants like Facebook considerable hurt. For example, the fact that they have to have those embarrassing privacy labels on their app in the App Store. Or that they have to present that prompt asking for permission to use the advertising identifier.
Right now, even though this hurts tech Giants, this benefits users. Google draws less than 1/10th of the data from an iPhone user as they do an Android user.
If sideloading was enabled, this check on their privacy rules would no longer exist because they could force users to sideload, which means they would immediately do so, and users would lose the benefits that Apple‘s restrictions give them.
If users want to sideload, They should buy an android where this check does not exist, and they can be on the less restrictive Google play store where it doesn’t matter. If they want Apple to constrain the power of apps to spy on them, they buy an iPhone.
Even though you might vehemently disagree with Apple, I respect the right of users to choose whether they want a restricted but more private experience, or less restricted but less private experience.
> This has caused tech giants like Facebook considerable hurt. For example, the fact that they have to have those embarrassing privacy labels on their app in the App Store.
They have the exact same embarrassing label on the Play store, and guess what, their Android app is also on that store. Even though they don't have to be.
The reason is that they have a lot more reach on a store than as a sideload.
The difference is that Google gives a lot more freedom to developers and businesses than Apple does.
> Even though you might vehemently disagree with Apple, I respect the right of users to choose whether they want a restricted but more private experience, or less restricted but less private experience.
That's a straw man. Nobody argued this.
We're just calling Apple's monopolistic, hegemonic behavior for what it is. As is Epic as we speak.
>I guess I don't get your point, if a user wants to sideload fortnite or facebook, good for them?
This will result in a few "must have" apps being side-loaded to start, and finish with people having to reinstall their phone operating systems every 6 months; to the detriment of the vast majority of users.
Do you not remember what the computers of regular people were like in the late 90's and early 2000's? I remember pretty much everyone non-technical having at least a mild malware infestation and at least one extra toolbar in their browser.
I'm quite happy that the free market created a solution that is more secure.
I think their point is the users would not get the choice to "want" to sideload. Fornite, Facebook, etc would pull themselves from the App Store and be sideload-only. Forcing users to choose between the security of their device, or their favorite games and social media apps.
Some privacy features are in the OS, but others aren’t. For example, Facebook probably doesn’t like having users see the privacy label in the App Store. It’s kind of embarrassing. Also, if Facebook could sideload, they could use restricted APIs and entitlements that the App Store would not permit.
Also, not being permitted to fingerprint users for tracking. The OS prevents certain methods of doing that, but can't prevent all the methods that Apple's banned. The review process and threat of the banhammer are necessary to prevent those.
> Facebook probably doesn’t like having users see the privacy label in the App Store. It’s kind of embarrassing.
What’s more embarrassing, that label in the App Store, or a big scary warning that says something to the effect of “This software has not been confirmed safe by Apple. It is not guaranteed to work properly, and may be a SCAM, VIRUS, or other MALWARE. By installing this application YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR DEVICE AND PRIVACY AT RISK.
Are you sure you want to proceed y/N?” when trying to install Facebook’s app via sideloading?
If your cousin or your friend or your techie son tell you that that app is just fine and then it tells you that warning for everything, it becomes the boy who cried Wolf.
Plus, even that is less embarrassing than Facebook listing every single thing they track about you.
By that same reasoning, should we be concerned about iOS-exclusive apps (ie, Apple Arcade)? Should we be concerned that you need an iPhone to sign up for an Apple credit card? Or that iMessage isn't available on other platforms?
The situation between iOS and Android is very similar to the situation you're scared of with a theoretical 3rd-party app store. Consumers don't have a clean choice between device ownership and a managed device. They also have to consider hardware concerns, network effects, exclusive apps/games and services.
It probably sounds dismissive to you if someone says that you can just choose not to use Facebook or Fortnite if they're not on the official Apple store. In the same way, it's a bit dismissive to say that I can just choose to ignore arguably the only privacy-respecting credit card on the entire market just because I want to use NewPipe on my phone. People often don't get to choose their phone based on one specific design aspect of that phone.
> For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal.
I do agree with this, and I think this is the heart of the conflict. A lot of people are arguing about whether iOS is a monopoly. That's not really the most important part of this conversation, the important question we should be asking is: "do we want iOS to be a monopoly?"
Being a (semi) monopoly and gatekeeping access to a substantial portion of the mobile market allows Apple to force companies to do certain things. Some people want Apple to have that power, because they think Apple will force companies to be more private and to adapt more consumer-friendly policies. Some people don't want Apple to have that power because they don't trust them with it, they don't trust them not to shut down technologies like game streaming or adblocking.
Apple has used its monopoly power to do some great things with privacy, their stranglehold over browsers on iOS is one of the biggest reasons Chrome hasn't taken over already. But Apple has also hampered the open web and is stalling on PWA features, largely because those features compete with the App Store. They also (imo) almost single-handedly created a low-quality mobile games market by maintaining a strict position for years that games were not artistic statements and by locking serious games out of their platform entirely. Apple's privacy-preserving disposable email system is great, their severe neglect for adblocking is bad. Their requirements around accessibility are extremely helpful, their war against adult content is extremely harmful. It's a situation with both pros and cons.
This debate is not really about whether or not Apple has power over the market, obviously they do. Facebook isn't just dropping iOS after its recent privacy changes. If Apple didn't have any kind of outsized control over the market, then companies wouldn't go along with their changes, they would just support Android instead. If the market allowed it, they would do exactly what you're afraid of with a 3rd-party app store -- they would abandon iOS and only support Android. But they don't, because they can't.
So the debate isn't about what power Apple has, it's really about whether or not Apple should have the power over the market that they obviously do have.
For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal. Otherwise, they just tell the user to make the choice for them.
If you even listen to interviews with Apple engineers, it sounds like they are less afraid of willing and understanding people and locking their phones, as much as they are afraid of third parties essentially forcing their users to unlock their phone to install their products, and thus getting an unfair exemption from Apple’s protections while smaller companies probably wouldn’t have the clout to force users to do this, resulting in an uneven playing field.
I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.