And if side-loading was alowed then every big player whose app users "have to have", e.g. Google, Facebook, Abobe, Zoom, Epic, would start their own independent app store (or distribution just for their apps).
Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
Then every scammer and scamster does the same for their apps, and lures enough people to get them, and depending on what's allowed, you also get pirated app "stores". In the end the result is not so great for the devs complaining either...
Now instead of 1 method of payment, 1 way to enforce subscriptions/cancellations and other rules, one checkpoint, you have 2 or 5 or 10.
>Users would have no recourse than to install the app for there (or do without Facebook or Zoom etc).
We are already aware of a platform that allows easy sideloading - Android. And most apps on Android are distribured through the Play Store. All "big" players still go through the Play Store.
When there is no such thing as the examples you described going on in Android, why do you expect iOS to be different?
Several reasons why this hasn't happened on Android. Let's see a few examples:
(1) iOS doesn't let other players have their own broswer engines. Google is one of those other players, and if the iOS App Store wasn't the only game in town, they'd have an alternative pronto. Android is theirs, so they don't need to do that.
(2) iOS has strict privacy/ad rules (getting stricter too). Facebook doesn't like them. Android let's them have it - so no need to make a move there.
(3) iOS also has the share cut that Epic doesn't like regarding the in-store subscriptions thing. In Android, where this is also an issue, Epic already has users sideload Forthnite from their own store.
(4) Serious Adobe apps are not available for Android (just Photoshop Express/Mix and such lite versions for consumers), but are for iOS. So not exactly the same incentive for Above to make a move there. But if it was an option to have their own store on iOS, given their pro app subscription program, I think they'd take it pronto.
2) That would explain greater developer demand for a third party store on iOS, but not why users would seek out these more ad-intensive app stores.
3) Yeah, this would be a pretty major reason to drive third party app stores on iOS, though it's not as if there's a ton of sideloading on Android to get around the Play Store's own 30% cut, besides the high-profile Fortnite example.
4) Yes, and it would be annoying fragmentation if other major developers/publishers did the same on iOS, requiring the installation of a ton of third party app store apps and keeping track of different app store accounts.
But how many would really go through the hassle of building their own app store just to sell their products? (Maybe it'd be easier to find a way to sell and distribute their apps through their mobile browser sites.) One would suspect the number of alternate app stores to stabilize over time.
Worst case scenario, some managers decide to include an app store inside their app, they ignore the reality of the chance of success and put a whole bunch of marketing in it to their higher ups. Then they get promoted or switch jobs then blame whoever gets stuck with it 3-6 months later when it fails.
After that we'll probably end up seeing real use cases side loaded app stores (like hobby game development, or open source tools that don't want to or can't pay the Apple tax).
Epic argued in court that Android side-loading has been designed to make side-loading difficult and annoying.
Background, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple.
There are many big players that don't go through the Play Store, and for a variety of reasons. Fortnite and ISP-promoted apps and device-manucacturer apps (for business and leverage reasons), DMM (because a primary line of their business is in adult content), and basically everything in mainland China (because Google doesn't operate there).
These players all operate their own app stores.
But ISPs still deliver apps through their app stores, and whole segments of big players also successfully distribute outside of it, out of necessity: adult content and the Chinese ecosystem. Note that the DMM example I cited is unheard of outside of Japan, but very well-known in Japan itself.
I’m genuinely curious. I have no clue.
The app store is just called DMM Games store [0], since it distributes both its age-unrestricted games as well as games under its adult imprint (Fanza) via it.
With videos, since stores of videos are allowed on the play store, you instead have the situation that the DMM videos app is available on Android and iPhone, and the Fanza imprint is separately downloadable on Android [1, nsfw, needs vpn]
That didn't happen on Android. But at least on android you can download the apk from github, or use f-droid
Epic did it on Android (they pointed to their own source for Fortnite).
For others, there's no need, like there is on iOS. E.g.:
Google doesn't need to build their own Android app store, they control the main one already!
Facebook doesn't need to do it, as Google is not as strict with app privacy constraints as Apple is.
Together with app owners selling out to malware types, and I see a lack of updates as a blessing.
I want to buy an app version and use that app version until I decide otherwise.
Ideally, when I run an app, inform me there is an update, let me know the benefits, and let me decide if I want to install or not, before or after using the app on this occasion.
On a OnePlus phone I can easily activate root access and install f-droid as root which enables full updates handling.
It's much better than having no alternative store at all, and installing things via adb commands.
1. It is highly dependent on the mechanics of how Apple implements side-loading (again, if it has a scary warning or requires you to turn something on deep in Settings, it's unclear if this would actually be the case). Especially considering that for many apps Apple now has their own versions, so it might not be a great idea for Google to put more hoops to jump through to get to Maps when Apple ships a (now) fairly competent Maps app built in.
2. It also disregards the other benefits the AppStore could provide aside from being the only game in town, as it does now. Again, there are many features that make a lot of sense to be tied to AppStore accounts, the most obvious of which is anything having to do with ease of payments. You might be leaving a lot of money on the table by completely abandoning the "one tap" payments that AppStore payments gets you (especially with in-app purchases, etc.). Separately, users will expect Family Sharing to "just work", etc. Again -- this aligns incentives really well on both sides: a lot of these features are implemented fairly poorly today by Apple because there's no rush, its not like there's another option. With a good incentive to make Family Sharing shine with respect to the competition, it could start being far less confusing and be far more flexible too. It might not take 5 year stretches to get bottom-of-the-barrel basic features like paid app updates or app trials, etc.
3. This actually flips a lot of current economics of the app store on its head: it is an open secret that Apple grants sweetheart deals to big companies on the AppStore who don't pay 30%. This is the worst of both worlds: the big players are given an unfair advantage on the AppStore. However, if they were attracted by their greed to try to "do it on their own" outside the AppStore, then small startups have a real shot at going head to head by being the "AppStore-compliant" version of the app, since 30% is an easier pill to swallow when its not billions of dollars in revenue.
4. The idea that because one or two apps convince users to side-load means that it would open the flood gates to every single scam app doing it is a fairly BIG slippery slope to... slide down? Again, if the process is fairly onerous for each side-load, then you might find that ONLY big names can actually convince people to do it, or important apps like HKMap.live or other apps that nations try to use the bottleneck of the AppStore to prevent. As mentioned elsewhere in these comments -- side-loading wouldn't necessarily mean you don't have to jump through some other Apple hoops.
And most importantly, I would argue that the current situation is worse. Apple tells everyone the AppStore is safe, and thus every app that appears on the AppStore is "Apple approved" (LITERALLY!). This precisely lulls people into installing scammy apps. Apple can't pop up a disclaimer every time you download something from the AppStore saying "HEY NOW CAREFUL, THIS APP MAY BE A SCAM," because it would go against the entire marketing of the AppStore. But they CAN put such a disclaimer in front of every side-load, because they owe those apps nothing and it hurts Apple's reputation none at all in that case.
I honestly believe that some sort of side-loading option would be best for any cynical Apple interests long-term and for developers and for users.
The current course of action just leads to developer frustration (which is fine until a disruptive player enters the market), a super shitty store that leaves customers pissed (with scams, etc.), constant churn in rules to try to appease everyone and kick the can another 2 years (like the 15% reduction), and worst of all, unwanted attention from regulators that could have chaotic effects.
This would also disincentivize jailbreakers, as fewer power users would be interested in pursuing the 100% amount of freedom that jailbreaking allows.
You could even go all of the way and have Apple adopt a "can't beat us? Join us" mentality towards independent app repositories outside of App Store by providing their own APIs and SDKs to run your own third-party app store. Again, architect it to automatically include security checks. Tie in subtle ways for Apple still to get a cut and a measure of their control.
This is far from a concrete description of what "third party stores brought to you by Apple" would look like, but if there's any company that could square the circle and make it a reality, it'd be Apple.
That is what I have been saying for quite some time. If Apple separate their Game Store and held some of those API, they have effectively kept 80% of their App Store revenue intact even if they allowed side loading.
Then at the expense of 20% of their App Store revenue, they can think what is the best possible balance to the problem here.
Whatever its problems are, it isn't the worst possible situation for themselves by a long shot.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
Until you realize they don't actually care about it being "safe and secure" beyond a certain point.
They care they apps wont leech your payment details, they care they apps can't step outside the guidelines, they care that technology and connectivity is locked within the app store and not the browser but as long as an app plays within the rules they don't care if an app tricks your 5 year old into a 400$ a week subscription, as long as your 5 year old is doing it safely.
We can have multiple instances of both. And we probably should.
- Automated scan for malware
- Remote kill switch, just in case
They already do this for macOS [1]:
> “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.”
They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to."
That's… not a very convincing argument.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
Safe and secure maybe, but it’s safe and secure garbage. It’s mind blowing how shitty most apps on the store are.
I want to go back to the iPhone 1 app store, where literally every app was a jewel.
Instead, I’d like to see Apple be forced to provide bootloader unlocks and some basic drivers for alternative operating systems. We own the hardware, after all. Then they could have their walled garden and people who wanted more could run something else.
It’s also a simpler and more generalizable goal, in my opinion. If you own it, you should have low level access. That sounds more reasonable than forcing a corporation to add open App Store access, maintain it, and deal with whatever market effects precipitate.
I actually think Apple could find a way to navigate it. They already allow one prominent alternative choice on iOS: non-iMessage SMS. If Apple allowed third-party stores, I could see them using their product, UX, and branding mastery to create the equivalent of the blue-bubble and green-bubble dichotomy for App Store vs. 3rd party downloaded apps. Creating a social stigma without technical restrictions, so to speak. So allowing an alternative while at the same time encouraging users not to partake in it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ugh-green-bubbles-apples-imessa...
Apple is good at social psychology through product design, and it's not hard to imagine them employing similar methods to single out non-App Store apps on the phone to make them seem suspect for being less official. Less technically-savvy users will shy away from third party apps and sideloading if Apple's UI makes those apps seem scary. Thus, this can be a means for Apple to allow additional freedom while deterring most users from pursuing it, minimizing their potential exposure to third party insecurity.
The costs of someone not participating in the “blue bubble ecosystem” are borne by all of the people trying to participate in the conversation. Unless the cost of my friend side loading an app is felt by me, the same stigma approach is unlikely to occur.
Ironically, Game Center could have been that exact thing for gaming on iOS, if only they hadn’t mostly killed it off already.
To some extent you can already see this on desktop, when MacOS warns you about programs from unidentified developers and so forth.
I don’t care for iMessage particularly but I do know when it’s blue bubbles I have a lot more capabilities.
With an open app ecosystem all guarantees of standardization or not using private APIs or (ideally) the app has been somewhat vetted are out the window.
There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
Through the same system APIs that exist right now. Why would that change?
> Who would verify them against malware
The distributor of the app, most likely. If you downloaded a game though Steam for iOS or whatever, and it had malware, that's Valve's fault.
If you went to virus.com and downloaded a virus, that's your problem.
> or ensure they didn’t violate security constraints?
You mean ensure they don't violate one of the operating system's security protections? That's called finding an exploit, and it's the developer of the operating system's responsibility. Exploits for iOS exist today, and they'll continue to exist in the future.
> It’s not like Apple could disavow all responsibility for any data leaked from the system, a lot of users simply wouldn’t see it that way
Of course not. A "leak" due to an exploit/vulnerability in iOS that Apple failed to patch would be their fault.
A third party app leaking personal info online would be the third party developer's fault. People didn't get pissed at Apple when Facebook leaked all that data a ~week ago.
> There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
It's their job to get it fixed. It's been their job for over 13 years, and they've failed at it again and again. It's about time they're fired.
But instead of gaslighting us, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means:
- Automated scan for malware
- Remote kill switch, just in case
They already do this for macOS [1]:
> “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.”
They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to."
That's… not a very convincing argument.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
It’s never been a serious target.
I think you know this.
https://www.howtogeek.com/281849/dont-be-fooled-the-mac-app-...
Fortunately iOS users don’t have those problems because of the security model that you are so quick to dismiss.
Hard to see how you think such links support your argument for dismissing the security model.
Also of note - the central App Store was used to fix these problems.
I do not view opening up the platform to third party stores or sideloading to be an excessive security risk, because having studied iOS's security model, it seems to be reasonably hardened (at least compared to Android) and I believe that Apple can manage the existence of other app sources well enough to prevent them from becoming significant malware vectors. The fact that those malware links are neither ransomware nor botnets proves how inherently secure iOS is, and thus protections are built into the operating system level, thus making the existence of third party stores irrelevant to its security.
This, I agree with.
> and/or open up the platform to third party stores, and thus competition
This I disagree with. As stated elsewhere, I simply don’t think security will be the basis for such competition because it relies on end users to be able to make that a priority over just running the apps they want.
I think if Apple is unable to maintain the security of the platform, competition is the answer, but in the form of other platforms, not Apple being forced to allow alternative stores.
One Tenth. Or 100M+ User with lots of room to grow.
I wouldn't use tiny to describe it, even in comparative sense.
Because that user base are worth more than per user than the others?
If side-loading or alternative ways of getting apps onto the iPhone existed, then they could implement far stricter controls knowing that, worst case scenario, you can still get an app onto the iPhone. This is how it works on the Mac. Tor isn't on the Mac App Store, but that of course doesn't mean Tor can't be used on the Mac.
This is one of the tricky parts about AppStore discussions, it's not about being for or against the AppStore. In fact, I wish the AppStore was MUCH pickier about the apps it let in, and I also wish there was an alternative to the AppStore to catch cases that didn't meet that strict bar. Then the AppStore could actually be about curation as opposed to fear-induced isolationism. Then Apple wouldn't have to inadvertently have political side-effects when it disallowed apps like HKMap.live.
Being on the AppStore could still be advantageous beyond just "either that or you don't get to be on the iPhone at all.” Apple payment processing, iCloud integrations, Family-sharing, etc. could all be tied to being ON the AppStore, so there'd still be a huge incentive to try to ship that way. And side-loading doesn't have to be easy or even on by default.