> I know we may be heading towards a future where we’re totally locked down, but what alternative do we have?
Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The App Store will still exist for new users and security-paranoid users, but the right to install/manage software needs to be a universal right when you buy hardware from someone. Arguing the opposite is almost insanity.
> I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe.
Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). Then you can tell if the software you're loading has been tampered before it runs, simple as that. This is what the App Store does internally (along with cert-checking) to provide your "premium" security experience. It's largely designed to be distributed.
> Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading.
That's not the point either. The iPhone is fully capable of loading alternative App Stores and even alternate OSes. Apple is the only one stopping the user from doing these things. The fact that Apple explicitly does not allow people to distribute software unless they profit off has drawn incredible antitrust scrutiny. All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. What alternative do we have?
> Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores.
The only way I would be okay with this is if Apple required any app you provide in an alternative store must be available in the official App Store as well.
The last thing I want is for Meta to come along and mandate you install their 3rd party app store in order to use Instagram. I don't even want this app on my phone but I use it to keep in touch with friends that just won't use anything else. It's not _necessary_ but it's nearly necessary.
I would never install an app from a Meta-controlled app store, and the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.
> the first thing they would do if Apple was forced to allow it is launch their own and take Instagram etc. off the official Apple App Store.
How do you know? First off, Google allows this on Android, and Meta hasn't made their own store on there. Second off, their revenue from Instagram is largely supplanted by an advertising business that Apple happily supports. They have no reason to remove it from the App Store. Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices. We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
Again, nobody arguing for sideloading is forcing you to install anything. If Meta leaves the App Store and stops updating the version of Instagram everyone has installed, that's their loss. If Apple feels threatened by other services eating their lunch, they can always take a lesson out of Microsoft's playbook and start adding more first-party ads to iOS.
You're right, I don't know for sure. But I have a feeling they'd be eager to escape the 30% cut of transactions. [0] Not to mention bypassing the rules around user tracking.
> Third off, stopping businesses from making anticonsumer decisions isn't an argument against abolishing anticonsumer practices.
I don't fully follow, what do you mean by this?
> We wouldn't be in this situation in the first place if Apple didn't unfairly use their position of power to impose a tax on all payment processing that happens on their operating system.
That I agree with. 30% is steep and feels excessive. But I'm just arguing as an end user I value the peace of mind that I can install any app from their App Store with a reasonable amount of confidence. It's not perfect and things do slip through the cracks, but it's better than nothing.
If you make less than a million dollars a year through the App Store, you pay 15%. This covers almost everybody.
If you are earning over a million dollars a year, but you are selling subscriptions, then you pay 15% for all the subscriptions that have been in place for longer than a year.
The only people who are paying 30% are the people making a lot of money through the App Store from something other than long-term subscriptions.
Apple’s rules against apps tracking users were a massive blow to Meta’s ads business, so they’d certainly take the opportunity to avoid Apple’s restrictions if they could.
> The changes Apple made in iOS 14.5 — asking people if they wanted to opt-out of apps tracking them across the web — is causing tumult for advertisers who rely on Facebook to sustain their businesses. Performance marketers, i.e., those who want you to buy immediately after clicking, are particularly struggling. The masses, they believe, have opted out of letting Facebook track off of Facebook, so they can’t be sure if people are buying their products after seeing their ads. Facebook expects them to spend less money as a result.
How does any of that rely on the App Store, Apple's 30% cut, or even the state of app distribution on iOS?
Apps have to respect the opt out to be listed on the app store. If they could be sideloaded or installed via a third party app store then they would no longer have to abide by Apple’s policies, such as not tracking users if they have opted out.
I agree with your point about the 30% tax being somewhat unfair... however, I think your average user would honestly just prefer Apple be the gatekeeper to their phone for them, and not have to worry about which App Stores to trust and which not to.
Apple does not have to be in the business of making phones for the (extreme~!) technical + security conscious crowd.
> Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores.
So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that.
> Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github).
But my issue is not that something has been tampered between source and binary, but that I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem.
As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity?
> All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax.
In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
> So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper?
No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done.
> I don’t have the expertise to look through the source and verify that no trojan has been added by one of the contributors. A checksum doesn’t solve this problem.
Good, then don't use any app outside the App Store. Apple will do their job to keep you perfectly safe from all those nasty, moneygrubbing developers who disagree with their rightful tax. You can remain loyal, but their monopoly literally cannot persist in a just world.
> As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now [...] Is such a view considered insanity?
Not until you start telling me that I don't have a right to eat food that the FDA hasn't approved for me. If you only eat FDA-certified food, good for you. It's a service the government provides free-of-charge, and some people like it. If you try shutting down your next-door neighbor's kid for selling non-certified lemonade, their dad is going to give you a black eye. The problem is, we quite literally lack an institution large enough to give Apple a black eye. There are governments fining them millions of dollars and they shake it off like Godzilla worrying about some pests. Their attitude towards democratic leadership is appalling, and deserves to be brought to heel.
> In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
It's absolutely mind-blowing that you will say that in defense of a company that consists of "some devs [that] just want to make more money". Yeah, maybe they do want a chance at competing against the largest software company in the world. Is that a big ask? Maybe I want to install FOSS apps that Apple won't let people publish to the app store. You don't have to, but you can't argue that I shouldn't be able to. Apple doesn't have the right to decide which browser I use when I pay for their hardware. They shouldn't make you pay $99/year to temporarily install a nerfed app to your iPhone. It's one of the most oppressive rackets in modern internet history, and I'll gladly refute any arguments against that claim.
> Not until you start telling me that I don't have a right to eat food that the FDA hasn't approved for me. If you only eat FDA-certified food, good for you. It's a service the government provides free-of-charge, and some people like it.
It is illegal to import unapproved drugs, so yes FDA can stop you. And no the FDA is not really “free-of-charge” since you pay them through your tax dollars. But I concede that, like most analogies, this one is flawed because we don’t get to vote for the governing body that controls Apple’s decision-making.
> No, the solution is explicitly stopping big tech from being a gatekeeper. Apple can continue to sell their "premium" App Store with amazing security benefits and brilliant moderation, while advanced users can toggle the "freedom mode" setting or whatever and go get IPA files off Github. It's not some pie-in-the-sky concept, it's how software distribution was meant to be done.
To me it sounds like you would prefer not to be an Apple customer. Apple is selling their walled-garden approach, if this is not what you want there’s always Android which allows your preferred software distribution approach. Why the necessity to force Apple to do the same?
In my case, I don’t want iOS to allow third party app stores because I don’t want another attack vector to be introduced into the system. It would be like Adobe Flash all over again. At the moment if there’s a major security issue that arises in iOS I can squarely blame Apple because they’ve taken on that responsibility. That is what I’m paying for. If the day comes when I think Apple is no longer keeping me secure or is unfairly restricting software that I want to use on their platform then I can switch over to Android.
> Why the necessity to force Apple to do the same?
Because both of us can coexist without forcing the other out of the room. John Deere didn't have a right to fleece farmers just because some people would pay for their premium services and others would not. They were sued for antitrust violation because of this[0], which isn't a far cry from the way Apple treats their repair partners or developers. The precedent of the law doesn't appear to align with Apple's business values, and I'm frustrated with the way they disregard the freedom of their users. They should put their money where their mouth is and empower users instead of trying to squeeze a few more dimes out of them. They are the largest company in the world, I should not be hearing "technical excuses" vis-a-vis distributing software like we have since the stone age of computing. It's not healthy, and it shouldn't take a village to argue that.
> I don’t want iOS to allow third party app stores because I don’t want another attack vector to be introduced into the system.
You don't need to use third-party software, or ideally even enable package installation by default (a-la Android). As-is though, Apple still has generic files for installing packages internally (IPA), and that "attack vector" is still there, just behind a small gate. Meanwhile, people are installing iPhone rootkits through invisible iMessage exploits... it's not a great look.
> John Deere didn't have a right to fleece farmers just because some people would pay for their premium services and others would not.
I don’t believe that the John Deere case is an apples to apples comparison (pun intended, sorry). From my understanding the case mainly revolved around third party mechanics who previously were able to repair their tractors, but were later locked out by John Deere’s software updates thus eliminating a whole third party repair industry.
In Apple’s case I see Google apps, Microsoft apps, Facebook apps all available on the App Store. I see independent apps written by small developers. I see a multitude of competitors on the App Store.
> Meanwhile, people are installing iPhone rootkits through invisible iMessage exploits... it's not a great look.
Similarly, Android was affected by the Stagefright bug which used MMS, so I’m not sure what your example is trying to prove. Every vendor has vulnerabilities, it’s an unending arms race. If anything the fact that Android is so fragmented makes it more difficult to protect against vulnerabilities. IMO adding more app stores is just creating this same fragmentation.
Going back to side-loading for iOS, can’t you compile and deploy your own code via XCode onto your own iPhone? There’s definitely hoops you need to jump, but it is possible. You don’t even need to use XCode, you can do so in VS. Doesn’t this process provide the freedom that you asked for without the need of a third party app store?
> Because both of us can coexist without forcing the other out of the room.
So can't you just, like, not be an Apple customer?
Your own solution to another commenter not wanting alternative apps stores is to "just not use it". So why don't you "just not use" iOS?
People who like the Apple Way can continue to buy Apple products. People who don't can continue enjoying products from Apple's competitors. No need to force anyone out of the room.
What do you think should be the parameters / conditions / requirements Apple should establish for such 3rd party app stores? For instance, any requirements on them for a baseline of security checks?
Or would you want Apple out of that loop too?
As a side question, are there stats on which are the most popular Android app stores (e.g. top 10 ranked by usage or something like that). I ask because I wonder, in practice, how many app stores are really used at any scale on Android.
> What do you think should be the parameters / conditions / requirements Apple should establish for such 3rd party app stores?
None. Apple doesn't deserve authority over what other people publish on their platform, just as they don't deserve to be liable for the ways people abuse iDevices. In my opinion, they should use this as an opportunity to strengthen app sandboxing and the overall iOS security model. If their current sandboxing system is as good as they say, it should do a great job at isolating third-party apps.
> As a side question, are there stats on which are the most popular Android app stores
Not really, there's no centralized way to collect those stats. Individual projects will give download stats sometimes though.
> I ask because I wonder, in practice, how many app stores are really used at any scale on Android.
Honestly? Not that much. I use both the Play Store and F-Droid alongside one another, and they do a good job complimenting each other. F-Droid fills in the gap of Open Source apps that don't make sense to distribute on a traditional app store, while Google Play offers a nice place to get my other apps.
The goal is for the App Store to live in harmony with developers. Right now though, iOS developers have literally zero bartering power with Apple besides leaving their ecosystem or screaming at some poor call-center worker. Offering sideloading gives them (rightful) leverage against Apple, while also letting me install my cool nerd porn like QEMU and emulators.
> Why do iOS developers as a group need the government to grant them bartering power?
Because Apple won't give it to them in good-faith.
> If so why can't every other sizeable group, such as commenters on HN, demand government granted bartering power?
They can, they just won't necessarily get it. I think there is ample evidence to support the claim that Apple is holding back software distribution and service innovation with their actions. If found guilty of anticompetitive practice (eg. in the case of Spotify), the most fitting consequence would be breaking Apple's monopoly on app distribution. The only law we'd need is one mandating the installation of third-party software packages (APKs on Android and IPAs on iOS).
Is forcing the App Store to compete with the free market a bad thing? It shouldn't be, if the value proposition is there.
Thought experiment: if Apple didn't provide an App Store on iOS, would you argue that they must provide the capabilities for others to build and deploy App Stores? What would be the argument to force them to do that?
> So the solution is to let another big tech be the gatekeeper? If a customer thinks Google is a better gatekeeper then they should stick with Android. Nothing wrong with that.
> As for the right to install/manage software, I view it similarly to what the FDA is doing now to protect me from products that are dangerous. I don’t have the knowledge to be able to vet all chemicals that are dangerous to me so I’m happy to let them handle it. Is such a view considered insanity?
You're fine to think so, but why can't I opt out?
> In the end is all this talk about rights and freedoms really just a veil for the fact that some devs just want to make more money?
There are whole classes of applications where the margins don't really make sense because of apple's cut. I don't know why they need to extract so much rent?
Well, Apple could just... let people install other stores. The App Store will still exist for new users and security-paranoid users, but the right to install/manage software needs to be a universal right when you buy hardware from someone. Arguing the opposite is almost insanity.
> I’m a relatively technical user, but I have no idea how I would determine if the software was safe.
Do what F-Droid does, compare the downloaded binary against a first-party checksum for the release (usually provided by Github). Then you can tell if the software you're loading has been tampered before it runs, simple as that. This is what the App Store does internally (along with cert-checking) to provide your "premium" security experience. It's largely designed to be distributed.
> Conversely, it would be interesting if an independent pro-privacy company (such as DuckDuckGo?) were to make a configurable smartphone for the more technical crowd that was both secure and allowed side-loading.
That's not the point either. The iPhone is fully capable of loading alternative App Stores and even alternate OSes. Apple is the only one stopping the user from doing these things. The fact that Apple explicitly does not allow people to distribute software unless they profit off has drawn incredible antitrust scrutiny. All of this can and will be alleviated with Apple giving up their iron grip on the 30% tax. What alternative do we have?