- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Cmon Apple, people just want to do with their devices as they want. I just can’t believe I’m defending Epic.
Epic is on the side that will result in a feature I actually want, so they have more support for once.
Yeah, if epic wins I’ll be, can’t believe I’m saying this, getting an iPhone.
If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue. Apple’s main objective is to maintain the security of its devices and the App Store. However, the company’s strict policies can be a hindrance to some users who want more control over their devices. Allowing sideloading would permit advanced users to install any applications they want, but it would also increase the risk of security breaches.
If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue
It wouldn’t solve anything. It would allow for one thing while simultaneously introducing a host of entirely different problems.
AltStore - 3 app limit (AltStore counts as an app), every app needs to be resigned once every week Requirement to bypass: $100/year (dev account)
The majority of users do not and would not use sideloading so, although cumbersome, the limit is perfectly acceptable in 99.9% of cases.
deleted by creator
I don’t think that’s what they’re worried about. Apple has more money than any other company on the planet. They care about their brand perception and it’s obvious that this would hurt it in the same way that crappy, cheap parts would. Opening the iPhone up to other App Stores and payment systems would be a huge negative for that. In fact, one of the main reasons I like the iPhone and Apple’s ecosystem is that I don’t have to worry about vetting whether a purchase I’m making is secure or whether an app I’m downloading is potentially nefarious. I don’t want that. I just want it to work when I need it and to be able to find and pay for apps quickly and silently. Epic might be more trustworthy than some (I, personally, don’t trust them after their past behavior) but this isn’t just limited to Epic. It would mean that every app I download, potentially, would have their own launcher like on Steam and that situation fucking sucks despite how awesome Steam is.
Nothing about allowing third party app stores would require you to change your usage patterns. Apple could keep all their current rules for the App Store exactly the same, and then also allow sideloading. If you want the pure apple experience as you described, all you have to do is only use their App Store. Then those who want to sideload (and companies looking to avoid paying apple fees) can do so through their own channels. Opt-in makes it a win-win for everyone, well except Apple who is currently enjoying a monopoly and charging the fees to match.
They already allow side-loading (albeit, admittedly, via a cumbersome mechanism). That is not what Epic is asking for. You’re either ignorant of what changes Epic is demanding here or you’re being disingenuous in your argument.
Apple allows sideloading with a 7 day, 3 app limit via a cumbersome process. It’s intentionally limited to make it non-viable for most people. Epic wants to be able to publish their games without using Apple’s infrastructure or paying them huge fees. I have no love for Epic but what they want is entirely reasonable.
The vast majority would almost certainly remain on the app store, and practically nothing would change for those apps in terms of security or convenience. Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue. Epic isn’t trying to force apps off the app store. They are only trying to open up options for other developers to distribute and make money without having to give it all to the monopoly that is Apple. This would give users the option to also move outside of the walled garden, but at no point would anyone be forced to do anything.
You seemed to have left out when Fortnite was removed from the play Store and lots of fake scam apps popped up in their place. So yes things would most likely change.
Plus there are a handful of app developers would would love to leave the App Store. Basecamp and proton come to mind. So now you have at least 3 app stores to add.
Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue
Lol. That’s not true. It constantly poses an issue and is one of the major sources for fraud on the platform.
Epic isn’t trying to force apps off the app store
I never said they were and it seems like you don’t get what they are trying to do. Currently, getting an app on the App Store entails clicking a “Get” button and responding to a prompt for confirmation/payment. It’s one prompt, every user can be 100% certain it’s secure, and it takes 2 seconds to confirm and validate your identity.
If Epic gets what it wants, every app could potentially have its own payment/confirmation prompt and every developer could have their own launcher and interface for even finding and downloading the apps. They have no way of verifying if the site they’re being forwarded to is secure, where their payment information is going, or whether the developer and payment site are even the same party which means their purchase data and other information is a vector to be compromised. On top of that, you have to enter separate payment and billing information for each launcher and every one has a separate email, data, and privacy policy which could allow them to do whatever they want with your data.
It is an objectively worse experience for 99% of people in every way.
I’m curious if you can point me to any specific instances of third party app stores being problematic for Android, perhaps I missed something.
In my experience, most users either don’t know about the third party app stores or don’t use them. Android has a setting to completely disable downloads from outside sources. If a user chooses to download from a third party app store, they are doing it of their own free will and they alone assume the same risks as browsing the internet normally. At that point it’s really just internet 101 that any competent person should understand. Anyone else can simply choose to stay in their walled garden of safety.
Also, for the most part, developers won’t develop for a third party store or make their own launcher unless there is a significant advantage to do so, like being forced to pay exorbitant prices to a monopolizing company in exchange for a false sense of “privacy and security”. Apps aren’t going to suddenly jump ship and make their own launchers. That costs a lot of money and Apple has curated a nice ecosystem. But, both developers and users should be allowed to choose what and how they install software on their personal devices. Android has proven that the wider user base will see virtually no impact and device security wont suddenly be compromised unless a specific user chooses to compromise their own device.
This is a very naive and, frankly, sheltered view. The majority of mobile malware and spyware is exclusive to Android. Also, it doesn’t matter if indie devs don’t jump ship. It’s enough to have major companies develop their own launchers. It’s objectively worse.
My views come directly from having owned both ios and android devices with their respective app stores. The majority of malware is on Android, but it’s hardly exclusive. Android devices also hold the majority of the market, by a very wide margin. The idea that ios is some kind of paragon of perfect security and privacy is incredibly naive and misguided.
It is exclusive, though. What malware exists for iOS? Nearly every issue is only on jailbroken phones. If it’s not in the App Store, it’s not something you can install. That’s the whole point. And, on top of that, this is about more than just malware and sideloading. This is about opening up a trusted process to several untrusted actors. These responses are ridiculous.
Apple on Thursday argued the lower court orders violate the U.S. Constitution because they overstep the powers of a federal judge. Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer - rather than a broader class of developers - to justify a nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was needed to remedy the harm caused to Epic.
That’s a pretty flimsy ground to resist the ruling. But that’s expected when you are the Disney of the tech world.
This should not be a government decision. If you don’t like the closed ecosystem, get a different brand of phone. Government should not force design decisions onto companies
So our options should be to accept a company that prevents us from using 100% of OUR phones, or choosing the crappy competitor?
That’s a lose-lose scenario. Why would anyone defend it?
I’m all for it when there’s a monopoly. Microsoft has so much market share that them restricting access to the PCs would be anticompetitive.
Apple is closer to half. And they built the market share they do have with the closed ecosystem because that’s what people want. I don’t want apps to be able to require me to give them my credit card. Subscriptions through Apple are extremely user friendly (even if subscriptions inherently are shit). Cancelling is easy and not buried in dark patterns like every single company that handles their own subscriptions does. “You have to follow our interface guidelines to sell your product on our phone” has massively increased the quality of the apps on my phone. Android is an incoherent mess of bad design because you can do whatever you want, and the experience is worse for it. Whether they recognize it or not, most people are buying Apple because of the pattern of decisions they’ve made as the sole standard setter for products on their platforms.
It’s like a whiny child running to mommy because their sibling is being a meanie.
