Do you work at apple because your take is ridiculous. Developers are angry because apple is doing its best to prevent the EU to shut their monopoly for good by introducing stupid stuff that have no place being there.

> (guarding them from software piracy and creating a trustworthy app market that generates real value, unlike Android/Google Play)

you never heard of cydia or what ?

No, I don't work for apple.

> you never heard of cydia or what ?

I'm sure Cydia makes Billions a year like the Apple App Store. lol

Of course he can? "Trusted" doesn't have to mean "trusted by Apple", I want it to mean "trusted by me".

The thing that can't be had here is both Apple being the sole keymaster of the device and the user being the sole keymaster of the device.

Can someone more familiar with iOS app development explain why people can’t just use developer mode on their iOS devices to run untrusted code? Can’t you bypass the App Store entirely with this method?

You can only install 3 apps at once, they are somewhat limited in the APIs they can use, and they expire every 7 days (you need to reinstall them using a computer)

Thanks for the response; those restrictions do make running homebrew code rather inconvenient. I read that buying a dev account increases the limit to 10 apps and they expire every year. That’s probably sufficient for my use cases, but it’s still not ideal.

Costs $100 a year unfortunately.

The argument about the App Store protecting users and being very helpful to developers would sound a lot better if not for the LassPass incident from last week and all the constant horror stories of app rejections.

Great to see that someone is being sane.

The "monopoly" arguments never made sense to me. I think, for the people who purchase phones, it's not like Apple put a gun to their head and forced them buy iDevice(s). They had complete freedom to choose between investing into alternative platforms.

There are companies besides Apple that developers trust, so your argument is invalid. Apple equals Apple, not trust.

This isn't about developers, it's about Apple customers. to them iPhone = Apple, not developers

This is definitely about developers.

> "these warnings would dissuade 50 percent of users from proceeding with their purchase."

How is user activity/behavior about developers?

The headline is literally "developers revolt", and the fact that half of users would be scared of a warning would absolutely matter to developers who don't want to scare away half of their users.

The app store is not secure or trusted. They've shipped malware. App store reviewers have not launched one of my apps in the last... _34 releases_. Their last open was >6 mo ago. They review my releases, some with 100k LoC diffs, in <30m.

Their reviewer account was actually broken once for 4 months, and we always passed review anyways. Yes, I can tell if they used another account because once shipped Apple review is the _only_ group on the planet with that build # prior to release. They could launch the app without network but it wouldn't do anything since the the very first thing is to either refresh auth or login.

The App Store is a scam that I pay > $3M/year to Apple in fees for.

Of course, this should surprise no one. It is harder to read code than to write it, and Apple doesn't spend 12 trillion dollars per year on code review.

To clarify, Apple can't see our source code but I imagine they can easily diff things like binary size and have basic decompiler tools to analyze things like what system APIs are called (how they bust you for private API use etc).

When we ship an update that adds a whole new branch of functionality that adds camera/mic interactions where there were none before (with all the new entitlements that requires) and the reviewer approves it without ever launching the app I laugh at comments like the GP

The store is trusted though. Do you not understand what "trusted" means in a sales context? It means I'll get the binary I'm supposed to get, everytime, and my CC info will be secure. If something goes wrong, they'll refund me.

This isn't about developers it's about consumers.

The word trusted doesn't change meanings when you move to a sales context unless you're a salesman.

Trusted simply means that the arrangement benefits $bigcorp's bottom line.

It only has a very specific meaning in software. To consumers Apple's App store is trusted.

I wonder what you would happen if you really probed a "consumer" about what they mean by trusted.

I can guarantee you they aren't going to mention code audits.

Please do guarantee this, and then actually go perform this experiment.

I think it's partly because Apple has made a lot of the more onerous parts of distribution hidden from developers. They don't have to deal with it, so they think it has no value, so they don't want to pay for it.

Nobody's complaining about not having the apple distribution. They're complaining about the scareware popups, designed to hurt businesses that don't pay Apple protection money.

The allure of the Apple ecosystem is the whole "it just works". I would absolutely want to be warned (and have less technically minded family members warned) when they are being sent to some third-party payment system when they're used to the guaranteed safe environment that Apple provides.

> the guaranteed safe environment that Apple provides.

Guaranteed by whom? Not Apple, for sure.

Absolutely by Apple. Any subscription or charge against the users account all collects to the same place where it's always the User that has absolute control over their subscriptions. Want to cancel it? Easy, one place, one tap, done.

Yoy did say ecosytem/environment and there's a lot more to that than just subscriptions.

E.g. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-10781343/M...

Doesn't Apple have a really simple Apple run payment portal where you can easily stop monthly charges? I don't even use Apple products myself but I'd want to be warned if I was about to lose that advantage, your average company are absolutely scum about monthly charges and cancellations.

Tbat's like wanting one high street shop to warn you upon a visit to another.

But not paying with Apple is a risk. Handing out your payment info to any random website isn't the same risk profile as paying with my Apple account. The popups are fair given that this is a new interaction for users. As someone who has for over a decade given/recommended Mac/iPhones to tech illiterate people, I would be appalled if they didn't do this.

Developers forget that users also have a relationship with Apple.

Come on! It's not scareware! You have to admit these alternative app stores are going to be massively adopted by scammers and grifters (not saying all of the companies that will use these app stores are scammers, but all the scammers and grifters will use them).

Actual real human beings are having their lives turned upside down by things like this every fucking day. Can you try to have a little bit of compassion for people totally ignorant about computers and how much we ask them to do now? The world (and apple) doesn't revolve around developers!

What actual problem for _customers_ is being solved by alternative app stores? I don't know a single non-techie apple person who even knows what this means or has a single desire to sideload an app

This is not a real issue on Android, where this has been the status quo forever. Are there any reasons it would be different here or is it just FUD after all?

> This is not a real issue on Android

What!? Yes it is. I've seen it first hand on numerous kids phones, that "have a bad battery" or "stopped working".

Turns out downloading unlimited arbitrary binaries from in-app/in-youtube advertisements leads to a functionally bricked phone. I assume adults are too embarrassed, don't want to hand their phone over to someone and just buy a new one.

Wow, scary ... then why is it not the case for MacOS?

There's plenty of crap within the store. No need to blame out of store stuff.

f-droid works fine.

You really think people won't blame Apple when Little Timmy spends $10k on diamonds on a mobile game they got from an alternate store and Apple won't refund it because, you know, not their store?

But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store.

If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.

Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse.

When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs - to make the importance of the decision harder to miss.

Today, Timmy's parents learn what a "chargeback" is, and how stable financial institutions help circumvent fraud better than App Store curation does.

Just wait until you try to cancel a subscription and learn why that one feature is so popular with Apple users.

Just wait until subscriptions can be bought for ~<30% cheaper elsewhere and see how much it matters to people. Apple will certainly get their chance to make a case for the feature.

Yes, nobody is arguing that some people will follow the cheapest option but this thread is about the guy claiming that it’s anticompetitive for users choosing his payment system to receive a confirmation that it’s not the Apple system they’re used to and has different policies.

It could very well be anticompetitive. Microsoft was was almost broken up over similar scareware tactics, you'd have to be blind to see Apple in a different position today.

The "Alternate store" might just be Epic's own store, the one with Fortnite. A big trustworthy name in the parents' eyes.

Then the parents insert their CC info so Timmy can get the latest Disney skin for his game.

And of course the store doesn't have any safeguards or parental controls, they're on the iOS side. In the official store.

Can you seriously, hand on heart, tell me that people will in this case blame Epic for their crappy store and not Apple?

Apple should be to blame. Even registered and paying iOS developers aren't allowed basic sideloading privileges you'd get for free on Android. This isn't about stopping Little Timmy, this is about annihilating all avenues of app distribution that doesn't come from Apple. If Apple took a softer stance on this earlier, then developers wouldn't be up-in-arms right now.

And mind you - nothing actually stops Apple from designing a safe and respectful sideloading system like MacOS. They actively choose to make iOS a diminished and neutered platform for profitability purposes. People will blame Apple, and they will be right - Apple brought this upon themselves. There is no one else to blame.

How is it Apple’s problem when someone designs an alternate App Store with no safeguards or parental controls?

Because it's Apple's problem regardless. The iPhone is at-odds with it's identity of security and privacy even without the threat of sideloading. The App Store, a supposedly curated and well-reviewed platform, is dominated by pay-to-play games and ad-supported datamining apps. First-party Apple software like iMessage is perpetually vulnerable to escalation attacks due to the way it's designed. iCloud is basically a fancy sticker on state-owned and surveilled datacenters that Apple markets for an easy buck.

Now, they want to argue that sideloading is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Not Safari, which has enabled lord knows how many scams and privilege escalation attacks. Not the App Store, which disseminates exploitative and fraudulent content under the guise of simplicity and security. Not iMessage, the perennial attack-vector for escalated malware. Somehow it's the sideloaders who are the problem, for daring to suggest that the iPhone should rely on OS-level security rather than arbitrary (and often wrong) first-party curation.

Who do you suggest we blame?

“Scareware” is your editorial take, not an objective assessment, and using that kind of inflammatory language distracts from the fact that there is a real risk to users with online financial fraud as growth industry grossing billions of dollars a year.

https://developer.apple.com/support/apps-using-alternative-p... has a screenshot of the warning in question:

> This app doesn't support the App Store's private and secure payment system.

> All purchases in this app will be managed by the developer "Example." You will no longer be transacting with Apple. Your App Store account, stored payment method, and related features, such as subscription management and refund requests, will not be available. Apple is not responsible for the privacy or security of transactions made with this developer and can't verify any pricing or promotions that are offered.

That really doesn’t seem unfair or scary. Part of the problem here is that we’re seeing the frame picked by someone vocal enough to come to a reporter’s attention and who stands to see considerable financial upside to cutting Apple out of his payment processing stack. That’s a legitimate goal, of course, but I think also clouds his ability to remember that while his motives may be pure, this is a system dialog which has to work for EVERYONE and there will definitely be sleazy companies trying to use the exact same feature, and to a first approximation the scammers will look just like his business from the perspective of a normal user.