You make a good point
It's really just installing the same safe software from a different source
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You make a good point
It's really just installing the same safe software from a different source
Nah I want every app to be forced to be available on the Apple app store for my convenience and security, even if it can also be available elsewhere.
Ah yes, 15.9% and 2.4% market share respectively certainly sounds like a duopoly to me. /s
?♂️
Top 100 Retailers 2020
RIS’ annual look at retail’s top power players and the percentage of the massive retail market they control.
Well, it’s my choice as a consumer to use the platform of my liking. iOS is a good platform but it could be so much better and tbh opening up iOS would be the best development for the platform in the past 5 years. Talking about innovation…
you should put your money where your mouth is and uninstall every app on your mac that did not come from the AppStore.
Exactly how? Be secific on how alt-stores and alt-payments will be the "best developement for the platform"
First, I should state that allowing an alternative app store alone opens a new security hole. Apple has to place a “hook” someone else can hang onto with much greater access to the system than apps might have. Certainly, Apple can try to secure this “hook”, but allowing an alternative app store allows malware to try to hang on that very large “hook” even when an individual doesn’t install an alternative app store or side load apps. Again, Apple can try to protect it, but with the number of lines of code these systems now have, it’s really impossible to think that wouldn’t open a new security hole. I’ve wondered for some time if we might be forced to move some of these platforms (or core, risky portions) into a language like ADA with SPARK annotations to provide much greater annotations, but that’s enormously expensive and time-consuming. I’ve developed in this world (as well as for Android, Mac, etc.).
I suspect Apple invests an extraordinary amount in developing the APIs, development tools, documentation, developer support, etc. that developers use. This is generally their intellectual property minus open source and outside libraries they link in, but, presumably, they meet license requirements for use of these and often contribute back significantly to open source projects. Maybe alternative app stores should have to develop their own tool chain (IDE, documentation, compilers, debuggers, …). Further, Apple could require Apple App Store hosting for access to many higher level APIs.
I posted previously that I suspect most apps spend the majority of their processing time in Apple APIs rather than app developer code — probably well over 15% or 30% of their time in most cases. Making a rather elaborate app today can often require very little code. I suspect most of the time is spent in Apple’s UI code, networking frameworks, storage frameworks, etc…….. Apple really provides the vast majority of the intellectual property for most apps in the app store to run. Apple could take the approach that apps on outside app stores don’t have access to most of their GUI frameworks, higher-level networking frameworks, etc…
One big danger, though, of going this direction is that Apps would create their own APIs and libraries — maybe sold to others. This would create apps that might approximate Apple’s UI in iOS but be different in subtle (or large) ways creating a different user experience for Apple App Store apps vs. others.
I’m rather certain the U.S. Congress (and the many other governmental bodies) that are considering these options haven’t thought through the various ways Apple might react. If we want great platforms, we want Apple to get money for their very signicant investment in APIs, tools, support, etc. so that we see further development.
It pains me a bit to think that Apple could have avoided the app store altogether and avoided this mess. They could have chosen corporate partners to develop a limited set of apps for the system. That would have limited choice incredibly. By opening up the system and their intellectual property to anyone who wanted to use them (and willing to pay for their IP as they designate), they’ve ended up with the possibility of being unable to monetize their investment. This discourages choice incredibly. For future projects (e.g. AR/VR goggles, cars, etc.) companies are going to have some more encouragement to make their entire system proprietary and only allow the installation of apps they explicitly develop or apps of corporate partners they choose (e.g. automobiles today, handheld GPS units, …). There may still be enough reason to create app stores for these platforms, but the reasons are dwindling — particularly if the return on investment for everything that goes into allowing outside developers is low. Again, this significantly limits consumer choice.
I suspect Apple invests an extraordinary amount in developing the APIs, development tools, documentation, developer support, etc. that developers use. This is generally their intellectual property minus open source and outside libraries they link in, but, presumably, they meet license requirements for use of these and often contribute back significantly to open source projects. Maybe alternative app stores should have to develop their own tool chain (IDE, documentation, compilers, debuggers, …). Further, Apple could require Apple App Store hosting for access to many higher level APIs.
I posted previously that I suspect most apps spend the majority of their processing time in Apple APIs rather than app developer code — probably well over 15% or 30% of their time in most cases. Making a rather elaborate app today can often require very little code. I suspect most of the time is spent in Apple’s UI code, networking frameworks, storage frameworks, etc…….. Apple really provides the vast majority of the intellectual property for most apps in the app store to run. Apple could take the approach that apps on outside app stores don’t have access to most of their GUI frameworks, higher-level networking frameworks, etc…
One big danger, though, of going this direction is that Apps would create their own APIs and libraries — maybe sold to others. This would create apps that might approximate Apple’s UI in iOS but be different in subtle (or large) ways creating a different user experience for Apple App Store apps vs. others.
I’m rather certain the U.S. Congress (and the many other governmental bodies) that are considering these options haven’t thought through the various ways Apple might react. If we want great platforms, we want Apple to get money for their very signicant investment in APIs, tools, support, etc. so that we see further development.
It pains me a bit to think that Apple could have avoided the app store altogether and avoided this mess. They could have chosen corporate partners to develop a limited set of apps for the system. That would have limited choice incredibly. By opening up the system and their intellectual property to anyone who wanted to use them (and willing to pay for their IP as they designate), they’ve ended up with the possibility of being unable to monetize their investment. This discourages choice incredibly. For future projects (e.g. AR/VR goggles, cars, etc.) companies are going to have some more encouragement to make their entire system proprietary and only allow the installation of apps they explicitly develop or apps of corporate partners they choose (e.g. automobiles today, handheld GPS units, …). There may still be enough reason to create app stores for these platforms, but the reasons are dwindling — particularly if the return on investment for everything that goes into allowing outside developers is low. Again, this significantly limits consumer choice.
well good for them. this generates hardware sales. they do not need to continue to nickel and dime developers to generate a welfare stream for apples investors.
Such a lame argument. The MacOS store never had the level had the level of single stop convenience that the iOS store offers. I wish it did but I won't ask for it to be legislated into existence.
You are wrong.
I have a logitech keyboard and MacOS asks for nothing and presents no warnings.
You have a really strange definition of "consumer choice" at the end there
You know they already charge developers just to create an App, even if they don't have an App or if the App is free right?
Corporate devices should continue to have the ability to block 3rd party app installation, just like windows will block you from installing foreign apps on a company laptop based on administrative access. You Should never be allowed to use personal phones and computers that have access to sensitive corporate information.
With that said, this is not a compelling reason not too allow for 3rd party apps or app stores on personal devices.
Can't they just put a warning suggesting of any dangers. And if users move forward and they brick the phone even within the warranty they will not be covered? That would stop most people I feel.
Actually, that's exactly what I'm going to do.....on MBP, iMAC, MacMini, Apple Watch, 4 phones, and 2 iPad Pros. If others do the same, I would predict a huge decline in developer's income due to fewer app purchases. We each have our own decisions to make but there are consequences to those decisions.
so you are saying you are a hypocrite. noted.
Again with the insults, is that all you have?
How so? I am forced to look for apps this way on my Mac, no other option, never was. I wish the MacOS store operated like the iOS store but it doesn't.
I hope that the iOS store model remains untouched, if it doesn't I will have choices to make just as I do on my Mac. If there was another ecosystem operating like Apple's I might go there, voting with my dollars, but there is no such alternative.
So just allow alternative app stores, but still let Apple set the minimum bar for privacy and security requirements.
Apple doesn't really have a case for blocking third party payment options (and especially for blocking apps from telling people about them)
Apple doesn't really have a case for blocking third party payment options (and especially for blocking apps from telling people about them)
Looking forward to being able to setup my own store within the local supermarket for free.
Apple tried to sideload my face, and I was like: no way apple, only I can decide what's installed on my face