They don't, no need, Android works for them. They don't on iOS too, iOS alt app stores did not hit US yet. They will, if iOS alt stores will become global thing, or the hypothetical "lockdown opt-out", that started the whole thread.
Fair enough, and then your iOS should just report the list of permissions the app demanded, maybe even compare to the AppStore version, and then let people make their choice. It doesn't have to be a "one click" easy way to make mistakes. Most users won't bother to go through 3 extra steps to install the "alternative" app if they aren't missing anything in the regular one.
The OS should anyway sandbox everything, and be as isolated as possible from any app running on top of it. That's the real security, everything else is mostly privacy - as in it's not really a security issue that the FB app siphons all the data I allowed it to access.
I think the real issue is that without enforcement measures, apps by bad actors like Facebook have free rein to find holes in the sandbox and similar. Even in the event that iOS allows choice of App Store globally, it might not be the worst thing to let them keep a kill switch on automatic distribution of individual apps (which once flipped off, users would need to sideload the app in question) so when some third party dev tries to pull that kind of stunt there will be consequences.
Then Apple can just work harder on securing the OS. When desktop OS security is discussed does anyone ever seriously float the idea that maybe we should only allow MS, Apple, or Linus approved apps to run on the OS to avoid hackers having free rein to find holes?
The market for sideloading apps is anyway much smaller than the whole mobile market because most people can’t be bothered to do it. The ones determined to install that shady flashlight app they downloaded from the internet will just as well give their banking credentials to any app that asks for them.
No matter how much Apple invests into security, parties like Meta will find holes to exploit because it’s profitable to do so. It’s a cat and mouse game, and so even though Apple should be investing in security they also need to be able to put an end to the game when there’s obvious abuse afoot.
I’m not as supportive of this ability for computers, but the market is so broad and large for mobile devices that I feel it’s a bit of a different creature.
And yes, I agree that for sideloaded apps all bets are off. That’s why I mentioned Apple having a kill switch only on automated distribution, e.g. through app stores (first party or otherwise). So for example if it turns out that Facebook has been making constant use of exploits for a while, jumping from one to the next as they’re fixed — in this situation Apple can stop it from being installed or updated from any app store (even one run by Meta), meaning the only way to install or update it is through fully manual side loading until they clean their act up.
Meta doesn’t need to hack your OS. It’s not only cheaper to just ask you to give them all the access that matters to your data, it also poses less legal risk. You accept to install their alternative app and give them all the data they ask for.
Whatever technical tricks Meta is using today pass Apple’s review and implicit endorsement. Whatever tricks they use in the future to escape the sandbox and access (hack) the OS with the sideloaded app are unilateral. Could open up a legal can of worms.
I’d be more concerned about the shady flashlight app downloaded from some corner of the internet. Or the Fakebook app, the all-in-one social media aggregator, the fake banking apps.
Twitter is incredibly avoidable. Everything about it is likely faked and exaggerated. Revenue/profit for sure. Number of users for sure. Number of users that aren’t bots for sure too.
I use Twitter everyday because of my politics interest but it isn’t that popular any more (I know the supposed numbers say otherwise)
Whatsapp is probably the hardest to avoid for most people in parts of the world where it's dominant. The number of people who need to use Facebook or Twitter is likely much smaller, and very few of those need to install a native app instead of using the website.
They absolutely are not. No more than alcohol or tobacco addiction are de-facto unavoidable. And the people who are absolutely addicted to those platforms will always have the option of the web page no matter what you do to the app.
How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device?
> How is it that the answer to an American megacorp trying to hoover all of your personal data is to try to get another American megacorp to add universal barricades to your device?
Because only Apple has the power to stop Chrome from being the only browser (like IE) or to stop Meta from insisting you give up all privacy. A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time, but Meta, Google and Apple are all larger and more powerful than the majority of countries out there.
> A government may be able to do it within their own borders for a period of time
Part of the problem is the governments are proving they aren’t interested in doing it. Aside from the fact that law enforcement agencies are happy to have easily legally compelled data like this, the governments are actively fighting e2e encryption and strong on device encryption. And then on top of that, if they really were interested in solving that problem, you’d think they’d be spending legislative power on solving that before solving forcing the 2nd place market competitor to open their OS up.
In regards to browser lock down Apple wants to be the only game in town. Safari allows plug-in's but Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to provide plugins themselves. They do this to create an unequal advantage.
