11 ms·

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a develope

What really galls me, and I know I have ranted about this here before, is that you can't even really load an app ON YOUR OWN PHONE without paying for a developer account, not to mention that I can't side load something someone else made. I get that iPhones are nifty and all, but I don't see how people can spend that money on a device that locks the owner out of basic functionally. Android is not perfect, but at least I am able to, you know, use my phone as I see fit.

ausbah 4y ago
my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit
- j-bos 4y ago
  This applies to android as well
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- salawat 4y ago
  ...The too technical part being self-inflicted by the requirement for yearly hundred bux and a working mastery of cryptography utils.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  It's 30 seconds to sideload an app on Android. Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.
HWR_14 4y ago
Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  When did they change that? When I stopped doing iOS dev on ~2017 it was still true that you had to pay to deploy to your own phone.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    They definitely changed it before 2017. I know it existed in 2016, but I don't know how early they did it. It wasn't (and isn't) well publicized. But "side load to your phone is hard" is a way to lock it away from your grandparents and to power users only.
    - Teknoman117 4y ago
      Okay, I dug around, was actually a bit hard to find. They started allowing "free local provisioning" in 2015. You have to reload your app to the device every week though. So it's not exactly the side loading experience you get with Android.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Do these side loaded installs expire or work indefinitely?
  - ksaj 4y ago
    I have an app that I've now installed on 3 different cell phones as I've upgraded them over the years. It was given to me by the writer for feedback and comments, but then their professional life became such that they never finalized the app. Thing is, I use the app a lot. It's very unique and has no competition because it fills an extremely narrow niche. Side loading it has worked for several years on several increasingly newer phones. I'm not sure if that's exactly what your question is about, but I think it might be. When we reach 128-bit architecture, that app will fail. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
- lstamour 4y ago
  Except with a free account (“ADP” according to Apple) there are limitations: https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6 https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6 On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.
bashy 4y ago
I thought you could add 5 self—signed from Xcode?
cesarvarela 4y ago
I have my entire life in my phone: bank accounts, private keys/passwords/2fa/crypto, pictures/videos of personal life moments, messages between family/friends/business, etc. I want the "thing" that holds all this to be as closed and reliable as possible. I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.
- perfectstorm 4y ago
  help me understand this better. you are afraid that someone may access your private content if Apple allows side loading of apps? How is it any different than what's on macOS today? you can run any apps (after clearing it in System preferences) on your laptop but suddenly it's a security risk on your phone?
  - ace2358 4y ago
    Whether you believe it or not, most people have sensitive information on their phone and not their ‘computer’ (I guess a desktop thing, if they have one!). For most people, they couldn’t care what happens to their computer. Not everyone is the same, but it’s not an uncommon situation. So security for the phone is more important for some people than computer security.
    - thunky 4y ago
      Not buying it. You thing people just use their computer to play solitaire and nothing else?
      - ace2358 4y ago
        People just don’t have desktops or laptops. Their phone is their computer. I know this is true for some of my family members!
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        Were these people who got rid of their PCs once smartphones came out, or did they just never have a computer?
ericmay 4y ago
This is incorrect. You do not need to pay the developer fee to load apps that you create on your own phone.
geraneum 4y ago
That’s not basic functionality for everyone. I’m a developer. I have an iPhone which contains personal photos, bank apps, etc. (basic functionality) I have another device with Android which I can run my custom http server on, or i.e compile some code on the plane for fun. I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad company. I believe I have a good balance. A free for all on one hand and a locked down device on the other. I personally like this balance and don’t see a compelling reason as to why I should change anything. P.S. I know the iPhone and the review process won’t eliminate the risks all together. It just needs to improve my chances which it does for me effectively.
- nullwarp 4y ago
  This comes up every time and I have such a hard time believing it's not some kind of weird bot response. The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down. Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it? It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    So if I have a desktops which is not locked down, does it mean that increasing the chance that I loose my data (on a portable device) doesn’t matter? What if I copy my data to two portable devices? Do you now see the flaw in your reasoning?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ausbah 4y ago

my guess is simple because 99% of people have their needs met by the app store and / or have no interest in side loading because it's too technical for too little benefit

j-bos 4y ago
This applies to android as well
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
salawat 4y ago
...The too technical part being self-inflicted by the requirement for yearly hundred bux and a working mastery of cryptography utils.
vorpalhex 4y ago
It's 30 seconds to sideload an app on Android. Many good apps are available by sideload only. They seem to do well enough.

HWR_14 4y ago

Except what you just said isn't true. Yes, Apple charges for developer accounts that lets you publish to the AppStore or even privately. But you can get a free version that lets you push to devices locally. So if you want to distribute your app not in the store you can do so as long as you release the source so other people can build it on their free account.

Teknoman117 4y ago
When did they change that? When I stopped doing iOS dev on ~2017 it was still true that you had to pay to deploy to your own phone.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  They definitely changed it before 2017. I know it existed in 2016, but I don't know how early they did it. It wasn't (and isn't) well publicized. But "side load to your phone is hard" is a way to lock it away from your grandparents and to power users only.
  - Teknoman117 4y ago
    Okay, I dug around, was actually a bit hard to find. They started allowing "free local provisioning" in 2015. You have to reload your app to the device every week though. So it's not exactly the side loading experience you get with Android.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Do these side loaded installs expire or work indefinitely?
- ksaj 4y ago
  I have an app that I've now installed on 3 different cell phones as I've upgraded them over the years. It was given to me by the writer for feedback and comments, but then their professional life became such that they never finalized the app. Thing is, I use the app a lot. It's very unique and has no competition because it fills an extremely narrow niche. Side loading it has worked for several years on several increasingly newer phones. I'm not sure if that's exactly what your question is about, but I think it might be. When we reach 128-bit architecture, that app will fail. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
lstamour 4y ago
Except with a free account (“ADP” according to Apple) there are limitations: https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6 https://help.apple.com/developer-account/#/dev21218dfd6 On top of that, apps installed this way expire after a number of days, possibly as few as 7 days? And there’s a limit to how many can be installed this way, might be as few as 5 apps.

bashy 4y ago

I thought you could add 5 self—signed from Xcode?

cesarvarela 4y ago

I have my entire life in my phone: bank accounts, private keys/passwords/2fa/crypto, pictures/videos of personal life moments, messages between family/friends/business, etc. I want the "thing" that holds all this to be as closed and reliable as possible. I know that I can just simply not side load, but the smallest attack surface the better.

perfectstorm 4y ago
help me understand this better. you are afraid that someone may access your private content if Apple allows side loading of apps? How is it any different than what's on macOS today? you can run any apps (after clearing it in System preferences) on your laptop but suddenly it's a security risk on your phone?
- ace2358 4y ago
  Whether you believe it or not, most people have sensitive information on their phone and not their ‘computer’ (I guess a desktop thing, if they have one!). For most people, they couldn’t care what happens to their computer. Not everyone is the same, but it’s not an uncommon situation. So security for the phone is more important for some people than computer security.
  - thunky 4y ago
    Not buying it. You thing people just use their computer to play solitaire and nothing else?
    - ace2358 4y ago
      People just don’t have desktops or laptops. Their phone is their computer. I know this is true for some of my family members!
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Were these people who got rid of their PCs once smartphones came out, or did they just never have a computer?

ericmay 4y ago

This is incorrect. You do not need to pay the developer fee to load apps that you create on your own phone.

geraneum 4y ago

That’s not basic functionality for everyone. I’m a developer. I have an iPhone which contains personal photos, bank apps, etc. (basic functionality) I have another device with Android which I can run my custom http server on, or i.e compile some code on the plane for fun. I don’t want to worry about what the app that I side loaded last month is now doing with my photos or or if the phone is spying on me for an ad company. I believe I have a good balance. A free for all on one hand and a locked down device on the other. I personally like this balance and don’t see a compelling reason as to why I should change anything. P.S. I know the iPhone and the review process won’t eliminate the risks all together. It just needs to improve my chances which it does for me effectively.

nullwarp 4y ago
This comes up every time and I have such a hard time believing it's not some kind of weird bot response. The entire line of reasoning makes no sense to me. You login to bank websites, store photos on computers, and those are not locked down. Yes somehow, for some reason, your mobile devices needs it? It makes no sense to me, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. It just doesn't line up.
- geraneum 4y ago
  So if I have a desktops which is not locked down, does it mean that increasing the chance that I loose my data (on a portable device) doesn’t matter? What if I copy my data to two portable devices? Do you now see the flaw in your reasoning?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]