

Ask HN: If Apple didn't approve apps, would you install them on your only phone? - jasongullickson

With the recent surge in criticism of Apple's App Store approval process the idea of eliminating the process completely has been tossed around.  However would you be willing to install an application on your phone that has not been "blessed" by Apple, bearing in mind that such applications would be able to do things system-wide that the apps currently available are unable to do only because Apple does not allow them into the App Store.
======
martythemaniak
In addition to my iPhone, I have an Android device. None of the applications
on the market are approved. Before this, I had a blackberry(pre app world),
and none of the applications on that were approved either, and prior to that
the Palm Treo apps didn't have any special permissions either.

I'm sorry, but for a supposedly smart group, most of HN seems to forget about
critical thinking when it comes to anything Apple or Jobs says.
Programmatically, the iPhone is the most restrictive SMARTPHONE out there and
it was the one that introduced the sad "innovation" of restricting a
smartphone.

~~~
m0th87
I have almost no mobile app development experience, so take this with a grain
of salt, but it seems to me like the reason you wouldn't have to worry about
an Android app wrecking havoc on your smartphone is because it runs in a JVM-
ish sandbox, whereas iPhone apps have unfettered access with Obj-C. The
Android technical environment is self-regulatory, whereas Apple has to bolt-on
a bureaucratic process to ensure quality.

~~~
thwarted
I don't know if that's how I'd describe it but, but one thing Android has is
that each app needs to assert the capabilities it needs to run (can make phone
calls, can keep the phone from sleeping, can access GPS info, can read
anything on the sd card, will store data on the sd card, etc), and will not be
able to do things it doesn't assert it needs in the manifest (this was
actually a minor problem early on because the string for GPS access was
unknown/documented wrong). And at least at install time, users can see these
permissions so they can be aware of what they are getting into.

------
eb
People have been installing their own software for decades. I don't see why it
should be any different on a smartphone.

------
cjg
How about if Apple could certify the apps instead. Developers can pay to have
confirmation from Apple that the apps is safe, but they don't have to.

That way users have the choice.

~~~
eli
Kinda like what Java Verified and Symbian Signed have been doing for years?

A cryptographic signature (with an Apple-run signing authority) also ensures
that your apps haven't been tampered with by a third party and (in theory)
should let you track down the owner of an app if it turns out to be malware.

------
jherdman
It seems to me that the goal of the App Store is to not only provide a
convenient location for consumers to purchase apps (and therefore to act as a
source of revenue for both Apple and their clients), but to also help ensure a
quality experience for their customers. This process has some major benefits;
the process, however, is poorly implemented. I think most people would be just
fine with the App Store if the approval process had quicker turn-around time,
or at least predictable turn-around time.

~~~
jimbobimbo
I'd say: let market decide. If your app is not good, you won't make any
significant amount of money on it, no matter if it is pre-approved or not.

~~~
tvon
So you think it doesn't matter if there is an app store or an approval
process...?

------
moss
I'd treat them the same way I do apps on other systems: I'd avoid ones that I
was unfamiliar with or that came from an untrusted source, but if a general
consensus developed that something was good, I'd go ahead and download it.
Quality applications seldom turn out to ALSO be malware without people knowing
about it, so this strategy works pretty well for me.

------
colinplamondon
The thing everyone misses is that, commercially, the ONLY thing that matters
is being on the App Store. It doesn't matter how draconian the rules are, it
doesn't matter how long the wait is- these price points ONLY work if Apple is
footing the marketing bill.

If you are in the Top 5 of any category then you have guaranteed impressions
at a very high volume. That allows one to sell an app for 99 cents or $1.99.
If you are promoting outside the App Store, your user acquisition cost will be
too high to make that price point work, so you'll have to raise your prices.
In raising your prices, you'll price yourself out of the Category Top 5's and
the Overall Top 100- thus killing the upside.

If you're doing medical apps, no worries. If you're doing a book or a game
app, however, publishing outside the App Store is suicide, 'free my device!'
geekery aside.

~~~
jhancock
Without the App Store, there would be dozens of download portals and review
sites and countless blogs for iPhone apps doing marketing for you, just as
they work for every other product or service in the internet. I don't think
anyone is missing this, geekery aside. A free market approach rewards
competition. Anything else, diminishes it.

~~~
colinplamondon
There still are- 148apps, appcraver, appvee, etc. Cumulatively they just don't
push the kind of volume that the App Store itself does. A more distributed
system is only better for folks whose apps can't hack it in the Top 5 of their
given category.

~~~
jhancock
All I'm arguing in favor of is multiple markets, which requires an unlocked
device. If a software developer or consumer wants to use Apple's store, they
can. If they want to use another, including Apple's they also have that
choice. At the moment, you must use Apple's store. Currently, secondary
markets, like appvee, have to first go through Apple's store for their
secondary market to work with a locked iPhone.

Some believe that free markets produce better results and others don't believe
this. Further, some that believe free markets are the best approach also
believe that precluding competition should be unlawful. This is an ideological
argument, so I'll get off my soapbox now.

------
zaidf
Not only would I install them, I would install _more_ of them.

Don't forget there is a whole security industry that would not mind testing
the Apps. And nobody is saying that Apple should not have a virus scanner
built in. Simply put, using security as a reason for this App approval process
is BS.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
Is there any evidence that Apple's approval process is actually thorough
enough to detect if an app is a virus or trojan? That's a pretty non-trivial
thing to detect isn't it?

------
yumraj
You're making an assumption that Apple's app reviewers do a full fledged deep
analysis of an app to come to the flawed conclusion that a "blessed" App is
same as a "Safe" App.

For example, how difficult is it for me to create a perfectly nice app/trojan
and then embed a time bomb in it, which activates 3-4 months later, after the
app is already on the store. At that time the trojan sends me all your
personal information. There is no way Apple's drones will be able to find
this.

And yes, before you say that maybe the App reviewers change systems clock
etc., I'm can be more creative to fool that too. Above is just an example.

So, in other words, "blessed" is NOT equal to "safe" and hence "blessed" has
nothing to do with what an app can and cannot do from a security standpoint.

~~~
jasongullickson
When your timebomb goes off, Apple will certainly hear about it and will be
paying you a visit in short order.

You could try to circumvent this by using bogus information when you sign up
for the developer program, but it's not as easy as setting up a false eBay
account or something along those lines

If your a master criminal and can social engineer around all this, then you
probably have better things to do with your time and skill.

------
wastedbrains
Yes, I do it on my computer all the time... I did it on my older smart phones
as well. If an app was buggy or crashed a lot, I uninstalled it.

------
jimbobimbo
Newsflash for iPhone users: Windows Mobile users were able to install whatever
they want for years. And yet, no malware, no viruses, no nothing that would
require any sort of pre-approval process.

~~~
viraptor
Windows Mobile (CE exactly) had viruses as early as 2004
(<http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=170773606>), with many others
available later on (for example:
[http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2008/02/26/...](http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2008/02/26/windows-
mobile-trojan-sends-unauthorized-information-and-leaves-device-vulnerable/))

Why didn't you think that would happen?

~~~
eli
To be fair these are mostly proof-of-concept viruses. The typical WinMo user
is not at risk.

------
iamelgringo
I install "non-approved" apps all the time on my G1. One of my favorite apps
pdanet isn't even on the app store.

------
pierrefar
Yes. I do that all the time on Windows and Linux.

Frankly, _I am_ the one that should be doing the blessing as a consumer who is
free to choose in a free market of apps. I will reward developers of good apps
and bring bankruptcy to developers of bad apps.

------
patio11
_such applications would be able to do things system-wide_

You should see how many ways I could make someone miserable with shareware
running on Windows, and that didn't stop 100,000 people...

------
jonknee
Of course. Similarly, I would very much dislike if Apple required Mac apps to
be distributed through iTunes. It just doesn't seem quite as absurd on your
iPhone because you never had it another way.

------
mechanical_fish
You are asking this question on HN. You will learn very little from that. We
are _not_ a representative slice of the iPhone or Android markets.

~~~
jasongullickson
Perhaps not the _largest_ slice, but to me the more interesting one to market
to. I see HN readers as consumers of "App Store B":
<http://www.marco.org/208454730>

------
seanx
I had to jailbreak my iphone to get basic functionality, and I have installed
a number of unapproved apps on it. All of my previous phones and pdas have had
unapproved apps as well.

I'm dumping my iphone as soon as the Milestone becomes available because I am
sick of the way apple does things.

The approval process has little to do with security and a lot to do with
money.

------
deltaqueue
Aren't viruses typically a factor of OS market share? E.g., viruses are
prevalent on Windows because the market share is around 85-90%. Symbian and
RIM still hold a sizable lead on the mobile front, so unless Apple plans on
obliterating the mobile OS market, viruses will continue to be a non-issue.

------
thorax
I install all sorts of random jailbroken apps. I also install Android apps.

So far so good, but buyer beware.

------
thafman
currently you have with the iPhone: a phone that handles calls and small
tablet computer that runs app and can view the web, it is also a pretty good
music/video device.

I want apps that can add functionality to the phone, contacts music and video
sides my iPhone So my answer would be; hell yes.

------
ErrantX
Yes and No.

I wouldn't be totally happy about it; it would require making individual
decisions of trust for each program.

I think the app store is broken for independent developers but _not
completely_ for users and larger companies.

------
dannyr
I'm still disappointed at developers who are advocates ofopen-source
developing for the IPhone.

A little hypocritical in my opinion.

------
simanyay
It depends on the application. I would install Google Voice no matter whether
it has been approved or rejected by Apple.

------
JoelMcCracken
I think reputation is a much more valuable way to evaluate software than
approval by Apple. Just like now.

------
rufo
I already jailbreak and install software on my iPhone, so the answer is yes,
absolutely.

------
dunham
If Apple didn't approve apps, would you install them on your only laptop?

------
warrenmiller
seems to work for Android.

