[HN Gopher] On iPhone sideloading: it's ok, I'm changing my mind
___________________________________________________________________
On iPhone sideloading: it's ok, I'm changing my mind
Author : keleftheriou
Score : 96 points
Date : 2022-02-09 18:48 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (numericcitizen.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (numericcitizen.me)
| etchalon wrote:
| "Sideloading is fine. Just look at the Mac!"
|
| "Sideloading is dangerous. Just look at Windows."
| kemayo wrote:
| 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...)
| Melkman wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| And you can always use Apple's favorite excuse of them not
| being a monopoly: Safari browser.
| codetrotter wrote:
| > 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.
|
| For example, here's a blog post from 2016 about how the
| Riot app for iOS is able to get push notifications when you
| self-host a Matrix server.
| https://thomask.sdf.org/blog/2016/12/11/riots-magical-
| push-n...
| smoldesu wrote:
| > 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.
| ccouzens wrote:
| Apps can't redirect Twitter/Facebook links without
| Twitter/Facebook's co-operation.
|
| This is a key feature stopping 3rd party apps being
| competitive.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/allowing-
| app...
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sounds like a pretty easy fix for Apple then.
| yreg wrote:
| The likes of Facebook would certainly like not having to
| submit to Apple's rules.
| mannerheim wrote:
| This doesn't happen on Android, so why would it happen on
| iOS?
| babypuncher wrote:
| 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.
| core-utility wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| cbdumas wrote:
| 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.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| 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.
| rpdillon wrote:
| 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.
| etchalon wrote:
| iOS and Android are fundamentally different markets.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Explain the relevant fundamental difference please.
| macintux wrote:
| 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.
| kelnos wrote:
| 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.
| Jcowell wrote:
| 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.
| ccouzens wrote:
| > seeing when an app is reading from the clipboard
|
| I expect that to be a operating system feature that works
| regardless of how the application was developed or
| installed.
| Jensson wrote:
| > 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.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0]: https://hothardware.com/news/facebook-
| claims-10b-revenue-hit...
| osrec wrote:
| Developer hostile != End user friendly
| Jensson wrote:
| 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.
| athrun wrote:
| 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.
| etchalon wrote:
| OS users are vastly more lucrative, being more likely,
| and willing, to spend money.
|
| iOS has a lower-cost of support, with lower fragmentation
| and higher churn.
|
| With enough profit on the line, more companies would be
| willing to suffer the lower user acquisition rate that
| would come from side-loading.
| tacitusarc wrote:
| This is exactly my feeling.
|
| 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.
| m463 wrote:
| I'd like a firewall, that does not have to ask permission from
| apple.
|
| Apple's weak privacy stance is a farce, especially when ios
| lets any app have unfettered network access.
|
| Additionally its own software does a lot of not-good-for-me
| things I'd like to prevent.
| evanextreme wrote:
| iOS doesn't do that anymore. Local network access has been a
| permission that apps need to be granted for at least a few
| years now
| pyman wrote:
| Very poor analysis and argument for sideloading apps. I'm neither
| in favour nor against. I respect his opinion but the research he
| did was very poor.
| blakesterz wrote:
| I thought this was interesting point, way near the end:
|
| "Even if Apple allowed sideloading, I don't trust Apple to come
| up with an elegant solution, though. They will put every warning
| they can to discourage users from sideloading applications. It
| could make the user experience miserable, worse than it is on
| macOS. Why? Money is at stake here. A lot of money, actually.
| Because Apple seems to be run by lawyers and greedy people, we
| can expect everything."
| NobodyNada wrote:
| This is exactly what I (selfishly) want Apple to do. I don't
| want Facebook, Google, and co. to require sideloading in order
| to get around Apple's privacy rules, but I do want to be able
| to run emulators without paying $99/year.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Yeah, it sounds like the best case scenario to me. It would
| let us hobbyists and tinkerers have our fun while still
| effectively forcing Google and Facebook to obey Apple's
| strict privacy rules.
| buggeryorkshire wrote:
| I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app
| stores but with requirements like the new app store needs
| to provide the push messaging, with the seriously large
| investment that would require?
|
| They could then warn users their battery life would be
| worse, cos 2 persistent connections, and make it scary.
| Meanwhile I, as an Android user would happily take up the
| offer.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| > I don't know why apple don't just allow third-party app
| stores
|
| I'll tell you why: money.
| __d wrote:
| There is no _technical_ reason that Apple cannot maintain the
| exact same review processes that they have today, or even more
| stringent ones (that'd actually be good), BUT instead of then
| putting the app in the AppStore, they simply sign it with with
| the AppleBlessed(TM) key, and give the binary back to the
| developer.
|
| Whatever might happen to that binary between Apple signing it,
| and the iOS installer getting hold of it DOES NOT MATTER -- if
| the signature is still good, then it's no worse off than if it
| was put in the AppStore.
|
| The security argument is total BS.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| That wouldn't really change this for the better. This whole
| thing is about Apple _not having the final say_.
| __d wrote:
| Sure, but it illustrates that Apple's argument that "it would
| weaken security" is rubbish. It is technically possible to
| allow side-loading with exactly the same security as provided
| by the AppStore, if they simply used a signature to indicate
| that an app had passed review.
|
| It would still use the same sandpit, still use the same
| permissions system, still able to be disabled by Apple, etc,
| etc.
|
| Without the argument that "it's less secure", it becomes
| obvious that the only motivation is commercial.
| saurik wrote:
| > Apple isn't perfect. The App Store isn't perfect. Developers
| aren't perfect. The App Store review team isn't perfect.
| Everything isn't perfect.
|
| This is key: because individual centralized actors are imperfect
| and even corruptible--whether due to intrinsic motivations or
| extrinsic application of force--it isn't acceptable to
| concentrate so much power onto them; in a talk I gave at Mozilla
| Privacy Lab a few years back, I covered a lot of these failure
| cases throughout our industry with real-world "this actually
| happened" examples, including (as this would of course be one of
| my focuses) looking at numerous ways in which Apple's App Store
| moderation has been the problem instead of the solution.
|
| https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms
| tshaddox wrote:
| But as long as we have fairly effective enforcement of IP law,
| so that e.g. only the publisher of a popular video game can get
| away with distributing that video game to smartphone users,
| don't you still have largely the same issue with concentration
| of power? You still won't have different parties able to
| compete in how Fortnite is distributed. The publisher of
| Fortnite can choose how to distribute Fortnite, but that power
| is still concentrated with the publisher, and arguably _even
| more concentrated_ since the publisher would not be subject to
| power from any particular app store.
| starkruzr wrote:
| just want to thank you for everything you've done for the iOS
| user community these last 15 years. I left the platform when
| Apple's success in fighting its own users became too much of a
| pain point, but before that your work helped enable developers
| to do some utterly fantastic stuff.
| rektide wrote:
| The Safari team is asking for feedback, after "Safari is the
| new IE"[1] is getting steam again as an idea. This idea that
| they want to do better is good, but your arguments really cut
| into the heart of it.
|
| Even if Safari turns the ship around & decides to support fun &
| interesting new platform capabilities that make the web
| interesting, like WebMIDI, WebUSB, the mere fact that Safari is
| the gauntlet for innovation, that Apple & Apple alone gets to
| say what parts of the web will work, is highly poisonous to the
| web. iOS users having no choice, having a centralized actor now
| & forever gating progress is untennable, is wrong, prevents
| healthy emergence & discovery. However good they are today,
| they may drift tomorrow, and having no fallback, no options is
| a technocratic fascism that society should recognize as
| structurally sick.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30277179
| difosfor wrote:
| These kinds of monopolistic practically unavoidable parts of our
| lives should have been regulated long ago already. I'm afraid
| given the existing political climates and tech lobbies that they
| will still just circle around the problems though.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'm so utterly torn on this. I want sideloading for my own
| purposes, like installing classes of apps Apple would never
| approve (such as a real Unix shell with native code compilers).
| On the other hand, I absolutely _don 't_ want my older relatives
| to be able to install stuff from wherever. I just know I'll have
| a Thanksgiving conversation like "hey, could you look at my
| phone? It's been getting hot after Microsoft called and helped me
| install the new antivirus."
|
| I don't have an answer for this. I'm all for people being able to
| get around the garden walls. I just hope and pray that no one in
| my "you use computers so you're my de facto tech support" circles
| does it.
| jcelerier wrote:
| I'm sorry but who are you to decide what your relatives can or
| cannot install ? I find this way of thinking super fascistic.
| ghayes wrote:
| I tend to think the issue is, in fact, security. If Apple (or
| Google or anyone) had a truly secure phone, then there should
| be no need for curation of apps. But our devices are full of
| zero-day exploits and dangerous "private APIs." I think the
| next generation (as in 20 years from today) of devices will
| embrace a secure-by-default mindset and thus not make users
| choose between the nanny-state and the wild west.
| gleenn wrote:
| Agreed. And I think the article's point about whether or not
| Apple's store is safe or not is moot. The question really is,
| how much worse would it be if they weren't there. I'll take a
| good attempt at safety over the wild west. If you removed the
| protections today, how much faster do you think the average
| user would get pwn'd by a rogue app? Because at some point we
| all will; security isn't black and white. The walled garden has
| big problems, but the other side of the wall is way uglier.
| lapetitejort wrote:
| The vast majoring of apps I use on Android come from the Play
| Store. I've sideloaded maybe five or six apps on Android since
| the T-Mobile G1. It's not something I keep in the back of my
| mind. But when I find an app I can only sideload, I really want
| to do it, and I would be really annoyed if I couldn't use my
| hardware the way I wanted.
| syshum wrote:
| F Droid is my first stop for anything I need, if I can not find
| it there then I go to Play Store
|
| F Droid is only possible because of side loading
| iqanq wrote:
| If you want to sideload then buy an Android... they are even
| cheaper. It's not like they pulled the rug out from under you:
| you already knew you couldn't sideload when you bought the phone.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| >It's not like they pulled the rug out from under you
|
| Situations and therefore opinions are allowed to change over
| time. I could argue they pulled the rug out from under me when
| they removed Fortnite from the store, or started blocking apps
| I want such as Stadia. It's not like it's advertised on the
| phone "Hey we'll remove any app from the store that we don't
| like".
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| And if you don't like railway cartel you're free to ride a
| horse?
| tehwebguy wrote:
| I definitely prefer iPhone but I don't think it's quite fair
| to say _train : horse :: iphone : android_
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Its actually not that bad. A train is stuck on the tracks,
| only stops at stations. Owned by somebody else. A horse you
| can own yourself and go anywhere.
| ericmay wrote:
| This is how the world works. I don't like the suburbs, yet
| people keep building them and I don't really have a choice to
| not live in them. If I go to the BMW dealership they won't
| sell my an off-road version of a BMW equivalent to a Jeep. If
| I go to Wal-Mart and I don't like their prices I can't make
| them go down, but I can take my business elsewhere.
|
| I see this highlighted all the time. When people agree with
| how something works then there's no comment. When it doesn't
| work how they want they believe they're being forced into a
| novel love-it-or-leave-it scenario, when the reality is they
| are in those scenarios all the time (daily/hourly even) and
| support them as well. Don't believe me? Ok I want less
| battery life on the iPhone and for it to be cheaper. Now
| what? You'll say "cost is important to you there are cheaper
| alternatives like X, Y, and Z". Same song.
|
| tl;dr yea just buy an Android phone if sideloading apps is
| the killer feature for you. If I want the best battery life
| or the best camera I can base my purchase decision off of
| those product features. Sideloading apps is no different.
| That's a fact. Jack.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| That assumes that side-loading is the only feature you care
| about. I care about a lot of other things besides that, and
| I decided I will be switching platforms because of that.
| ericmay wrote:
| Ok great! I think this is exactly how things should work.
| Apple doesn't provide this "feature" in place of other
| features that it does provide (Apple Pay, sign-in with
| Apple, etc.). Similarly I could buy a phone that is
| GoogleFi enabled if that was important to me. I could buy
| a phone with the most megapixels, or that folds. Each of
| these devices makes trade-offs that I don't like, so I
| buy the product with the feature mix that I want the
| most.
|
| If side-loading is the only feature you care about,
| Android is for you. If it's one of many, you may have to
| make a trade off or pick between different mixes of
| features. This is just how the world works and always
| will work.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Is this really a suitable analogy? Horses seem pretty vastly
| inferior to trains in many objective metrics, at least as far
| as long-range transport for average people goes. I've always
| used iOS, and while I like it, I can't imagine that Android
| is so mind-blowingly behind, right? Maybe horses to bicycles
| would be a better comparison? Which seems like less of a
| problem.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Okay, then it's like arguing that a rail cartel is okay
| because people have cars, which are better in some ways,
| except for the ways they aren't - that _is_ a mitigating
| factor, but doesn 't make it okay.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I've had an android. My social interactions went way down
| because iPhone users refuse to download messaging apps and
| SMS is slow as molasses. Apple has locked me into iOS with
| a fucking messaging app.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| This is the only honest argument for this.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| My next phone will be an iPhone. I say this as a long-term
| Android user of over a decade. The Android platform has finally
| become too toxic and too user-hostile even for the likes of me.
| And that's quite a challenge.
|
| If I'm gonna be ruled by an authoritarian mobile OS that
| constantly tries to "engage" me, I might as well go for a nicer
| one that still cares about UX and being less buggy.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > I might as well go for a nicer one that still cares about
| UX and being less buggy.
|
| iOS is straying further and further from that path with every
| release, though. It's not Android-level, but it's far from
| what it used to be.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| This is less about consumers and more about developers. Many
| would want to reach iOS users with apps that are outright
| disallowed on the App Store, such as emulators, VM hypervisors
| or cloud gaming plattforms.
| wudangmonk wrote:
| There is a bigger issue at play here that ties in these
| platform exclusive software stores with the right to repair
| movement. These companies have convinced the general public
| that buying their products only entitles you to have the
| priviledge of using their products.
|
| This is all done using the excuse that they are curators that
| want to give you the best possible experience. It has worked
| wonders too because now we debate not with these companies and
| their hired help but with others who have been screwed over
| just like us but are thankful for the experience.
| xoa wrote:
| I've said this repeatedly, but what I'd like would be a _buy-
| time_ option to "enable sideloading" (specifically, to enable
| the hardware owner to add their own signing certificate to the
| root keystore, iOS would still enforce full normal trust chaining
| and such except that Apple wouldn't be the only valid root).
| Because I think _not_ have sideloading is actively valuable in
| many cases too and thus should itself remain an option (and
| probably the default) for purchaser. Leaving the power with Apple
| has obvious downsides, but it also has upsides in terms of
| pooling negotiating power of users vs powerful developers and
| entirely eliminating a large class of possible social engineering
| attacks. The reason Apple has been able to enforce privacy
| protections vs Facebook for a current example is that there is no
| sideloading. Period. Facebook is a powerful enough entity vs its
| users[products] that if they _could_ demand that users sideload
| the "Facebook store" and then run root from there they could get
| a sufficient mass to do so that they could then afford to ignore
| Apple and do an end run. Can see the same thing play out with
| stuff like Zoom, Dropbox etc: on iOS all these are applications
| in the App Store and must abide by all the privacy, disclosure,
| and so on rules. On the Mac, they demand their own clients which
| get a lot more powers.
|
| Of course, the MAS is a pile of shit, Apple has utterly fucked up
| on basic great software business things like "upgrade pricing",
| and there are lots of examples of fantastic decent small/med size
| software devs doing their own Mac software same as always. Apple
| certainly has perverse incentives they have abused, primarily
| around service integration (can't aim backups at any storage
| provider for example). Also, it all breaks down when there is an
| entity MORE powerful than Apple like a major government. Then
| Apple becomes a single point of failure for censorship and
| control, and indeed that ties right back into the former. We
| don't have E2EE encrypted wireless backups for iDevices because
| of Apple caving to "security" agencies.
|
| But still, it cuts both ways and I really appreciate that less
| technical (but still very smart!) users, including vulnerable
| members of my own family and friends, can have a platform in iOS
| which has much stronger guardrails that they cannot physically be
| talked into bypassing. I think giving those who ask for hardware,
| software, or both root cert access that access is enough of a
| release valve (these are probably all the same people who would
| jailbreak which is much worse) to help check Apple and bypass the
| big failing points while still accommodating the hundreds of
| millions of users whose threat models involve worse from other
| corporations. And it'd help nudge Apple's incentives in a good
| direction even for those staying fully within the walled garden
| by making them balance a bit on keeping them there.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| Mostly agree. Rather than a buy-time setting though, I think it
| should work like Chromebook dev mode. Put the option in the
| settings, but require a device reset/wipe to activate it. Then
| while the dev is in this mode show a message on every boot.
| xoa wrote:
| > _Put the option in the settings, but require a device reset
| /wipe to activate it._
|
| Hrm. I don't think that actually would be as effective on
| iOS, reset/wipe is essentially setting up a new phone or a
| recovery procedure that is meant to be quite easy and near
| fully automated if time consuming. Which means the bar to
| social engineering is either very low because it follows the
| existing workflow and restores from backup ("click this
| before going to bed that's it"), or if it wouldn't allow
| restoring a non-root backup to a root device then it really
| screws the utility for all of us who want root ownership over
| our normal hardware (me included). This would not at all be a
| "dev mode" after all, it'd be a more normal
| Windows/Mac/Linux/BSD use mode including for people who never
| intend to ever write a single piece of software but do want
| stuff that Apple doesn't allow/enable.
|
| Still an interesting different potential path.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The odd thing about this article is that it seems like the author
| is conceding to removing all restrictions on third-party software
| being installed on the iPhone _because Apple is not currently
| restrictive enough on what third-party software makes it into
| their App Store_.
|
| I suppose I can understand the appeal of that argument, since it
| does resolve apparent hypocrisy and lying in Apple's statements
| about its policies, but crucially this argument doesn't actually
| address whether allowing sideloading will be good for users,
| despite the author indicating that they think it will be ("Until
| today, I thought forbidding applications sideloading on the
| iPhone was good for users. But...").
|
| All the arguments that preventing sideloading protects users
| still apply, and haven't actually been addressed in this article.
| Crontab wrote:
| I am pro-sideloading but I think it has to be done in a way that
| people cam't be tricked into doing it.
|
| Speaking personally, the only thing I want to sideload is Mame
| (assuming an iOS version exists).
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| If sideloading means code signing becomes as difficult as it is
| on the Mac, then there's nothing to fear...
| pyman wrote:
| Very poor analysis and not at all compelling argument for
| sideloading apps.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-09 23:00 UTC)