That’s not a legitimate reason. The correct response is to make a standalone application, not a web app, and distribute it elsewhere than the main store. It’s one more reason sideloading needs to be allowed. If it isn’t we end up with vulnerabilities because of workarounds.
Good luck distributing it “elsewhere” when it comes to iPhones.
Yes, even with the DMA forcing Apple to open up to alternative app stores in Europe, Apple still has a definitive say as to what apps can be published, and what those apps have access to.
Also, a lot of the time, a full blown app is unnecessary, or not practical.
The solution isn’t to prevent functionality from existing - this includes browsers and web apps having access to certain aspects to the hardware - but giving the user absolute control over what they allow an app to do.
Good luck distributing it “elsewhere” when it comes to iPhones.
Without creating the stupid browser based loopholes, it wouldn’t be a choice. Developers would be pushing Apple and Google to allow “sideloading” (as if alternative sources are any less legitimate than from their stores).
Also, a lot of the time, a full blown app is unnecessary, or not practical.
It’s just as practical. It’s unnecessary for a browser to be built to function as a replacement to an application for literally any purpose. If you’re making a website, then fine, you don’t need an app. If you’re making something that interfaces with the functionality of the device, that isn’t the job of a browser.
The solution isn’t to prevent functionality from existing - this includes browsers and web apps having access to certain aspects to the hardware - but giving the user absolute control over what they allow an app to do.
How do you do this? If the browser has permission it has permission. Each application should be separate so the permissions are separate.
Even without the “browser loophole”, developers are pushing Google and Apple about further permissions being granted and sideloading and whatnot. Apple and Google careth not… Your argument is pretty moot at this point.
And no, you can already do per website permissions. Or what the fuck do you think the notification settings are for, or the PER INSTANCE BASED REQUESTS for e.g. Bluetooth or USB device access? Or when a website asks you to access your camera or microphone? These are all instances of the browser having access and the website having to request permission separately from it…
Each application should be separate so permissions are separate
Ever heard of this nifty thing called “sandboxing” that browsers have been doing for, oh, about a decade now?
Even without the “browser loophole”, developers are pushing Google and Apple about further permissions being granted and sideloading and whatnot. Apple and Google careth not… Your argument is pretty moot at this point.
No, not even without it. Without it there would be a significantly larger push. It wouldn’t just be a small movement. It’d be necessary. It’s like being on a computer and getting everything from the Microsoft store (if you’re on Windows). Sometimes they don’t have what you need, so basically every moderate user has had to download something elsewhere. It’d be the same on phones. Apple and Google would not be able to get away with preventing sideloading because every user and developer would care, not just the few of us there are now.
That’s not a legitimate reason. The correct response is to make a standalone application, not a web app, and distribute it elsewhere than the main store. It’s one more reason sideloading needs to be allowed. If it isn’t we end up with vulnerabilities because of workarounds.
Good luck distributing it “elsewhere” when it comes to iPhones.
Yes, even with the DMA forcing Apple to open up to alternative app stores in Europe, Apple still has a definitive say as to what apps can be published, and what those apps have access to.
Also, a lot of the time, a full blown app is unnecessary, or not practical.
The solution isn’t to prevent functionality from existing - this includes browsers and web apps having access to certain aspects to the hardware - but giving the user absolute control over what they allow an app to do.
Without creating the stupid browser based loopholes, it wouldn’t be a choice. Developers would be pushing Apple and Google to allow “sideloading” (as if alternative sources are any less legitimate than from their stores).
It’s just as practical. It’s unnecessary for a browser to be built to function as a replacement to an application for literally any purpose. If you’re making a website, then fine, you don’t need an app. If you’re making something that interfaces with the functionality of the device, that isn’t the job of a browser.
How do you do this? If the browser has permission it has permission. Each application should be separate so the permissions are separate.
Even without the “browser loophole”, developers are pushing Google and Apple about further permissions being granted and sideloading and whatnot. Apple and Google careth not… Your argument is pretty moot at this point.
And no, you can already do per website permissions. Or what the fuck do you think the notification settings are for, or the PER INSTANCE BASED REQUESTS for e.g. Bluetooth or USB device access? Or when a website asks you to access your camera or microphone? These are all instances of the browser having access and the website having to request permission separately from it…
Ever heard of this nifty thing called “sandboxing” that browsers have been doing for, oh, about a decade now?
No, not even without it. Without it there would be a significantly larger push. It wouldn’t just be a small movement. It’d be necessary. It’s like being on a computer and getting everything from the Microsoft store (if you’re on Windows). Sometimes they don’t have what you need, so basically every moderate user has had to download something elsewhere. It’d be the same on phones. Apple and Google would not be able to get away with preventing sideloading because every user and developer would care, not just the few of us there are now.