this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
36 points (90.9% liked)

Apple

17499 readers
52 users here now

Welcome

to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple

Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode

Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DavidGA@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I’m not looking forward to popular apps forcing you to sideload them so that they can bypass Apple’s privacy and security requirements.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Android has allowed sideloading forever and those apps are a very strong minority. As for sidestepping privacy or security requirements, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Isn’t permission handling happening at the OS level?

[–] DavidGA@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The App Store requires developers to indicate what personal data is tracked, even before you download the app. Similarly, they prevent the listing of scam apps at all.

Sideloading apps will have no such protection.

[–] smitty825@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

There are so many scam apps in the AppStore today. So many apps have slot machine style mechanics that get people addicted and convince them to pay for more turns. In addition, a bunch of kid-friendly apps have really short subscription periods (a day?) At a high price (say $3.99).

It’s not to say that App Review has no value, but when it comes to scams that separate people from their money, Apple has 30% of a reason to look the other way

load more comments (3 replies)