Honestly, speaking as someone who's pretty heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem, I'd like iOS to (be made to?) allow sideloading in order to keep Apple honest.
Assuming it works out the same as on Android, I very much doubt that sideloading would ever be mainstream or popular, but the existence of the option would serve as a constraint on how user/developer-hostile Apple can be.
(And I entirely agree with the article that Apple eliding over the entire internet-sales era of software is highly disingenuous...)
Being able to sideload is a double edged sword. Yes, it would be a barrier for Apple to go to far overboard on monetizing the ecosystem. It would also give companies like Microsoft a means of ONLY distributing their applications via their own app store forcing you to side load this app store with less oversight. Maybe they add a forced installer to push their apps ? It's not that I trust Apple that much. It's that I trust other companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon less.
As long as the iOS model exists, the sideload store model is only viable on Android, and vendors are forced to support the first-party store model anyway. If both ecosystems allow sideloading, you could easily imagine Microsoft or Epic switching to sideload-only and branding their own stores across Android and iOS. As it is now, if you can get something first-party on iOS but are forced to sideload on Android, it just makes the Android experience for Fortnite (or whatever) seem janky.
This is a good point, though the lack of auto-updates from non-Play stores on non-rooted phones does add enough friction to updating that e.g. Signal won't even distribute via f-droid because of update latency. At least that's my reading of Moxie's reasoning. It seems likely this would dissuade some companies from making their own app stores, though obviously not all.
Google's privacy requirements on the Play Store are a lot less developer-hostile than Apple's. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Android and the Play Store are owned by one of the data-harvesting tech giants that Apple's rules just so happen to impact.
I tend to agree with you. Side loading on iOS would be much more lucrative for, say, Facebook who reportedly just lost $200B due to Apple's privacy restrictions. They're likely more happy with Android's play store than Apple's.
If both iOS and Android allowed sideloading this would be a much more attractive option. As it stands something like that isn't really worth while because most high-value consumers of mobile apps use iOS.
One difference: Apple is far more developer-hostile (or end-user friendly depending on your perspective) than Google, so someone like Facebook would be heavily incentivized to open their own iOS App Store and tell their users they must install that app from their store, in order to bypass constraints Apple enforces via their store.
Why is that a problem, though? If we assume that the Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp apps all have some levels of good behavior and bad behavior, then we can probably assume that the "Meta App Store" would be similar. So what's the big deal if they require you to install it?
They could also just offer direct app downloads from facebook.com, instagram.com, etc.
So what? This feels like a nothingburger to me. Given how sideloading is a much less pleasant experience on even Android (and we can expect Apple to do worse), Facebook wouldn't leave the main App Store without an earth-shattering reason.
Apple’s App Store has very strict privacy rules. Last year Apple implemented the App Tracking Transparency requirements, which Facebook says will cost them $10B in lost revenue this year [0]. If sideloading becomes a thing, I can definitely see Facebook requiring it in order to get around these privacy rules.
That's a dangerous gamble. The data tracking and privacy concerns aside, users are going to be mad at the additional friction that involves. They might get mad at Apple for making the enablement of sideloading an uneasy process (lots of disclaimers about how insecure it is, etc.), but they'll also get mad at Meta for pulling their apps off of the store for no discernible reason. Meta would have to offer more than the existing service they're getting from their current apps, to convince users to do this without losing goodwill.
One would argue that the app stores provides a benefit to the consumer that would not be implemented anywhere else since these benefits are not lucrative. One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source, App Privacy Reports, seeing when an app is reading from the clipboard etc.
And no, entitlements mean nothing without enforcement.
> One example is the ability to cancel subscriptions from one source
You pay 40% extra for that. The creator gets $100, Apple gets 40, you see $140 sticker price. It is a nice feature, but how many would pay 40% extra for that? And if many wanted to pay 40% extra for subscriptions to have them cancellable, I'm sure there would already be companies doing that.
Developers creates things users wants, developer hostile is ultimately being user hostile when you are large enough. Being developer hostile can create gains short term, but that is mostly when you are a fringe, when dominant parties starts being developer hostile it starts hurting everyone as the tech sector as a whole becomes less effective.
Developers create things users wants, of course, but they also create things they want. Things like user tracking or data harvesting.
There's an inherent trade off here where adding safeguards to protect users will make the life of developers more difficult. Balancing these two concerns is hard.
I find that Apple mostly strikes the balance right, and so I choose to be their customer. People who disagree have other options available on the market today.
I guess I just like my tech stack to be as open and unrestrictive as possible.
The argument that Apple provides more safeguards is a bit flimsy in my opinion. I honestly don't know what people think Apple is protecting them from, especially when Apple's own features have led to people being stalked (air tags).
Also, most iPhone users that I know tend to have bought their iPhone for cosmetic/style related reasons, or the camera. They don't seem to be all that privacy conscious, especially when their phone is loaded up with every social media app on the planet, including Tiktok!
> I guess I just like my tech stack to be as open and unrestrictive as possible.
Note that this is another area where you have this user vs. developer trade off.
- GPL or other copyleft licenses will put the user's rights above the developer's.
- MIT or BSD-style licenses will favor the developer rights above the end user's.
"open and unrestrictive as possible" is all relative depending on whether you are a user or a developer.
> The argument that Apple provides more safeguards is a bit flimsy in my opinion.
My point is that this is a market where people value different things.
I value the safeguards Apple is putting in. I find they do a better job at it than their competition. But I fully understand that other people do not think so, or that they value other things more.
What I don't particularly like is some of these people turning to the State to force Apple to do things differently.
One could imagine that if the platform was opened to side-loading, the first third party app store to gain popularity would not be one from Meta or Google, but an F-Droid analogue for FOSS hobbyists and purists.
There seems to be a thread of argument where the merits of Apple's App Store model aren't actually discussed or substantiated, but instead what is trotted out is the big scare tactic of "But Facebook!"
Apple is big enough to have network effect to effectively mandate even facebook et alia to play by its rules.
Put it behind 10 hidden menus inside settings and facebook will not be able to explain to your average user that they have to enable this shady looking setting to download facebook. They can of course choose to ignore half of the US market, but that’s hardly a sane decision.
I fail to see how that's an issue when other developers can make third-party clients if there's a significant demand for it. If Twitter/Facebook start forcing people to install their third-party store to access their app, then there's a massive opportunity to make a better app that's distributed through the App Store.
> If Twitter/Facebook start forcing people to install their third-party store to access their app, then there's a massive opportunity to make a better app that's distributed through the App Store.
Wouldn’t Twitter, Facebook etc in turn demand that those third-party apps be taken down from the App Store?
And even if they didn’t, how is any third party going to keep up with Twitter/Facebook/etc API changes.
And what about push notifications? Those would not work with a third-party app installed via the App Store unless Twitter/Facebook/etc explicitly made it so that they supported that on their end.
> Wouldn’t Twitter, Facebook etc in turn demand that those third-party apps be taken down from the App Store?
No? Why would they? Third-party clients are alive and well on the App Store today, and have been for years.
> And even if they didn’t, how is any third party going to keep up with Twitter/Facebook/etc API changes.
They've done a fine job of it so far.
> And what about push notifications? Those would not work with a third-party app installed via the App Store unless Twitter/Facebook/etc explicitly made it so that they supported that on their end.
It does? Check out Tweetbot or Apollo for Reddit. Both have push notifications that work fine.
They are not fully "alive and well". Twitter and Reddit have APIs because they are old enough to have made them back when it wasn't clear it would hurt their business. Can you imagine TikTok or even Instagram to add APIs to support third party clients?
Twitter has been gradually killing their APIs.[0] Reddit doesn't offer APIs for the newer features, like polls.
Apple has no incentive to let other companies get away with bad behavior. And so far, their own bad behavior has been much better than other companies.
This argument comes up a lot, and while I ultimately don't agree with it, I still am sympathetic to it and I do think it has a grain of truth embedded in it.
Here's a question though: isn't that also a reason for Apple to hobble web browsers? Everything you're saying about app security and developers refusing to follow Apples rules also applies to progressive web apps unless Apple commits to making its browser meaningfully less powerful than native apps, and (importantly) meaningfully less powerful in ways that Microsoft/Amazon/Facebook actually care about.
That means you've kind of got to commit to the idea that web apps on iOS never get notification support, they never get intent support with other apps or the ability to handle opening resources, they never get support for good background audio or timers/alarms, they never get reliable clientside storage for offline usage without accounts. It's not just that you can't do low-level complicated sensor/GPU stuff, Apple has to hobble browser capabilities that make it good for reading news or setting timers.
Is that a world you're comfortable with? I know a reasonable number of people on HN are comfortable with that idea, just because they don't want the web to have application capabilities in the first place. But a lot of other people bring up the web as an alternative to the app store (Apple itself is fond of making that argument), and it makes me think -- if the web ever is a viable alternative for good apps on iOS, then the situation you're worried about already exists, doesn't it? Instead of the NYT distributing a native app that you subscribe to with Apple's system that gives you easy cancellation, instead you would get a PWA reader app that you pin to your homescreen and you subscribe through their web interface. The only way that doesn't work is if the experience of reading the NYT and getting notifications about new articles and saving your account details is a worse experience inside of a browser.
If what you're describing about companies removing user choice or forcing users to accept worse alternatives -- if what you're describing is an inevitable result of any serious, alternative user-facing app platform on iOS, then the only way Apple avoids that situation with the web is if it consciously commits to Safari being perpetually behind on standards and perpetually systemically and deliberately made worse as an app platform. That could either be through making sure the browser always lacks features or it could be achieved through other UX designs like blocking PWAs from showing up in app lists, making them unreliable to install, blocking their installation entirely in some cases, etc...
Is that an outcome that Apple users are comfortable with?
I have push notifications disabled on my phone for (almost) literally every single app except my email client and Element/Signal.
I don't get why the web is special, push notifications in native apps are just as abused as they are on the web. Even built-in apps abuse them. We could just as easily make an argument that native apps should have them disabled as well.
But regardless, this kind of goes back to my point. Okay, let's say that every web app abuses push notifications. What we're saying is that we're not going to have progressive web apps. Any app that needs push notifications is going to be a native app, even if it's something as simple as a messaging client or a reader app.
There was a really strong movement around phone platforms a while back where people were asking, "why is this an app in the first place, why isn't this a website?" Well, you can't have that if you don't trust alternative app stores to some degree, because the answer is that any version of the web that is powerful enough to provide meaningful substitutes for native apps is an alternative app store that's outside of Apple's control/moderation.
,,Assuming it works out the same as on Android, I very much doubt that sideloading would ever be mainstream or popular''
I don't need sideloading often, but in those cases I really need it. As an example I'm in a part of Mexico where a local app is more used than Uber, but it's not in the Swiss app store that I'm registered in. I just sideloaded the app using the Huawei app store. I'm not sure what's the Apple way to solve these kinds of problems, as I don't have an iPhone.
Apple's solution is to suck it up and deal without. Personally I agree with you, escape hatches are essential. See also, emulators and torrent remote apps.
I'm using uTorrnet for that on Google store, don't need side loading for that...but it's missing on my iPad pro. Also I didn't want to mention adult apps that are all sideloaded.
Assuming it works out the same as on Android, I very much doubt that sideloading would ever be mainstream or popular, but the existence of the option would serve as a constraint on how user/developer-hostile Apple can be.
(And I entirely agree with the article that Apple eliding over the entire internet-sales era of software is highly disingenuous...)