Apple Executive Says Users Who Want App Sideloading Already Have That Option With Other Platforms

[spinedoc77]

Apple and Google already do a similar thing, it's called the safe browsing list. You can certainly disable it but what you're describing is already happening.

That's actually a good way to strengthen my argument. Safe browsing is just Apple filtering website traffic to warn you of potentially insecure websites, but it's really just a warning which you can readily bypass. Such a system could also work for apps, others have described how easy it would be to implement.

But in regard to my parallel of the app store and the internet, no it's not the same thing. With my example you would ONLY be able to view websites Apple had specifically vetted, you would not even be able to see a non vetted website at all, much less be able to accept and bypass the warning, similar to how the app store functions today. No warning, no flag, just a complete absence. This is also much different from my "curated" internet, although in all honestly I was just being snarky as I believe everything Apple will eventually be "curated" with a monthly subscription.

It's also fascinating that this feature was sending data to Google and Tencent for years before Apple fixed it to go through their own servers.

 

[Stewie]

In fairness, if you are someone posting on these boards, you know how all of this works.

Thanks for the laugh. I guess you don't spend much time in the beta threads where people have issues after watching some random youtube video about installing a new beta, not backing up, and then crying because they can't go back.

 

[robd003]

I just wish the AppStore didn't have a policy of censorship. I'm fine with them making sure there isn't spyware / malware available, but they shouldn't be censoring apps to be "politically correct".

I still can't believe they'd remove an app (Pax) just because they were worried about the news media reaction. Grow some balls.

 

[LordVic]

I just wish the AppStore didn't have a policy of censorship. I'm fine with them making sure there isn't spyware / malware available, but they shouldn't be censoring apps to be "politically correct".

I still can't believe they'd remove an app (Pax) just because they were worried about the news media reaction. Grow some balls.

wait, they removed the Pax vape app?

 

[DesignTime]

I dislike this mentality. This claim is only meant to discount apples position on privacy.

They made this same arguement during the Epic v Apple hearing.
"Do you think customers buy iPhones because of privacy concerns"
"Yes"
"Ha, then you admit you only do it for profit to sell more phones."

Yes, indeed companies do things to appeal to customers, and in turn make more money.
In other news, Water is wet.

You dislike the mentality that Apple could do a lot more to protect users then they currently are because if they do it will hurt the profits? Or you dislike how they get/got called out for only protecting users enough so they can sell more phones?

 

[Abraxsis]

You might want to look more closely at what you “bought and paid for.”

People use “bought and paid for” as though it’s some sort of all-encompassing argument-ender, but it isn’t.

I’m positive that if you use an Apple phone, you agreed to its terms and conditions. Now, if you want to argue that the notion of a terms and conditions should be done away with, I’d agree with you, but that’s a separate argument.

You might not like—and I don’t either—that what you “bought and paid for” doesn’t grant you what you wish it did, but that doesn’t change the agreement that you entered into.

Also, you are “allowed” to sideload. Pay for the developer program or jailbreak. Done.

Then you are saying Apple should allow me the option to completely remove iOS and replace it PRIOR to agreeing to a EULA. That satisfies everyone's wants and needs. That is me truly owning my hardware and has ZERO threat to Apple's ecosystem. Otherwise, you are arguing that Apple OWNS my hardware just because they have their software on it. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, this is the "compromise" that legislators should be putting forth as it will force Apple to admit that end users don't actually own their hardware.

 

[genovelle]

Such bs macOS has been doing fine for years. This is just fear mongering to protect their billion dollar cash cow.

How many times a week are you presented an add or email promo to get you to download a Mac app? Likely very few. On the other hand, I see them dozens of times a day sometimes for iOS. Every time you go to a website they try to get you to download their App. Sideloading would mean you could end up on a site that looks like the App Store but is actually a fake where you are downloading a security breach.

 

[Silverstring]

Then you are saying Apple should allow me the option to completely remove iOS and replace it PRIOR to agreeing to a EULA. That satisfies everyone's wants and needs. That is me truly owning my hardware and has ZERO threat to Apple's ecosystem.

Sure.

The only thing that I find silly in this debate is people arguing that this should be retroactive as it stands now. I don’t think my PlayStation—essentially a computer—should be forced to play Nintendo games (software), either. I certainly wish it could, but that’s the breaks.

Want to opt-out of a post-purchase relationship with Apple/iOS? Knock yourself out.

 

[Naraxus]

This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control and Apple wanting to maintain its monopoly. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less

 

[AppliedMicro]

Every time you go to a website they try to get you to download their App. Sideloading would mean you could end up on a site that looks like the App Store but is actually a fake where you are downloading a security breach.

No problem: Apple can easily sign App Store app and warn you before installing non-App-Store ones. Just as they do with configuration profiles.

Configuration profiles in fact pose the very same problem: you can download them from everywhere, "sideload" them on your iPhone and they can be or introduct security breaches.

There's just no configuration profile business to protect.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Dude it's not rocket science. Ever been on VirtusTotal which security professionals use? It's the same concept based on hash checksums.

True. Now explain it to your parents, grandparents and other family members who can barely use their devices.

 

[LordVic]

Sure.

The only thing that I find silly in this debate is people arguing that this should be retroactive as it stands now. I don’t think my PlayStation—essentially a computer—should be forced to play Nintendo games (software), either. I certainly wish it could, but that’s the breaks.

Want to opt-out of a post-purchase relationship with Apple/iOS? Knock yourself out.

It's not a silly debate at all.

and it's a bigger one than just apple.

An Example where corporate software greed and oversight has real impacts:

John Deere and it's latest industrial tractors with their software. They've taken a very Apple locked down approach to the software and hardware. Going so far as to telling customers if they don't even service the software from John Deere, their entire tractor would be unusable.


this is a modern day problem that has come to the forefront because of companies like John Deere and Apple abusing such software and hardware vertical integration in order to lock us down and control the physicality of the device outside of their direct rights to do so.


it's an issue that is pervasive now that software is key to operation. And I think ti's an important discussion to have. Where does the rights of the software owners, and the hardware owner start and end. Companies like Apple have in their best vested interest to keep their vertical integration controls for monetary purposes.

you and I should hvae the exact opposite in mind as it's in OUR best interest to fully own our device and have the full autonomy to pick and chose what we do with them.

But right now, since Apple can lock the bootloader and force IOS as the only OS in support, Apple currently controls the power in this dynamic. And this is very muchw here Anti-Trust is supposed to get involved to determine if a corporation is abusing such position for their own greed at the cost of the user.

Heck, this is one place where I would say Android devices used to be much better. you used to be able to unlock bootloaders on so many and literally install any OS that would run (I've tried FireFox OS, Ubuntu and linux before on Samsung phones). But even now, Samsung and Android manufacturers are doing the same software licensing to lock your hardware.

 

[Abraxsis]

Sure.

The only thing that I find silly in this debate is people arguing that this should be retroactive as it stands now. I don’t think my PlayStation—essentially a computer—should be forced to play Nintendo games (software), either. I certainly wish it could, but that’s the breaks.

Want to opt-out of a post-purchase relationship with Apple/iOS? Knock yourself out.

This is easy to say. But the second I figure out how to do it and publish it, Apple sues and changes their hardware to make it even harder to do.

There is no way that you believe Apple will just ALLOW such a thing to happen. No one in this thread is that deluded.

Further, no one is FORCING Sony to make it so Playstations can play Nintendo. But if someone figures out a way to do it, then Sony should not be allowed to sue, nor should they be allowed to alter the hardware in such a way as to make it the method void. If a company's claim is they only own the software on the device then it should be illegal for them to stop someone from removing/replacing it after buying the hardware. Apple, Samsung, OnePlus, whoever. Otherwise, you are just admitting that companies own your hardware outright.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It seems like you are saying that it is important for Apple to protect their customers from themselves. Is that what you are saying?

It can be said that 100% of the people that have been scammed out of millions of dollars annually need to be protected from themselves. Ask all those people would you rather have “side loading” for your computer OR their money, folks would rather have their money.

 

[Abraxsis]

It can be said that 100% of the people that have been scammed out of millions of dollars annually need to be protected from themselves. Ask all those people would you rather have “side loading” for your computer OR their money, folks would rather have their money.

That is a dishonest response. Everyone knows that more people are scammed via phone calls and websites than malware apps. Is Apple going to lock those things down too? Will there eventually be a "whitelist" of phone numbers and websites that Apple allows you to visit? Anything else is prohibited?

 

[dba415]

Apple is just doing damage control and trying to influence the narrative. All apple cares about is money

 

[cocoua]

“

Click to expand...

Currently, apps must go through Apple's rigorous App Store review process”
Even this process isnt pefect and allows some scams, and customers trust blind in apple

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That is a dishonest response. Everyone knows that more people are scammed via phone calls and websites than malware apps. Is Apple going to lock those things down too? Will there eventually be a "whitelist" of phone numbers and websites that Apple allows you to visit? Anything else is prohibited?

Phone calls… that tell them to load malware apps. Websites… that load malware apps. If they had been UNABLE to load malware apps, if their Windows PC OR their Mac was unable to install malware apps, then they’d still have their money.

You THINK you’re joking, but you probably know someone who’s grandparents have had their telephone locked down in order to prevent their grandparents from giving away their inheritance (they just haven’t told you). If Apple offered a solution that locked down telephone numbers I GUARANTEE that there would be folks signing up day one

Additionally, you don’t need a whitelist for websites if malware cannot be downloaded and run!

 

[citysnaps]

I think you misuderstood what I was trying to allude to. MR seems to be using the word "rigorous" just so they can have an adjective in the statement. Where essentially ANY reviewing Apple does is deemed rigorous whether it is or not. The very articles on MR that we read every day point out that rigorous is something where Apple reviewers are falling down on the job time and again. If you're going to set up a walled garden for the product you are selling then you are also obligated to tend it and remove the weeds before they crowd out the stuff worth keeping.

Apple reviews around 13.2K apps every day of the year, on the average (numbers were from 2019, I expect it's greater now). Of those around 30-40% are rejected, of which less than 1% are appealed. As an aside... and speaking of everyday, where are those articles on MR that we read everyday? I certainly don't read that many on MR.

I gather you're expecting 100.0% perfection regarding app approval with absolutely zero viruses/malware/security issues that manage to slip through, right? If not, what is an acceptable percentage? 99.9%, 99.999%, 99.99999%?

If, for example, 1% of the apps Apple didn't reject slip through with a security/malware issue that would result in 16,380 bad apps per year, or 45 apps per day Apple didn't catch. As that would certainly keep MR busy everyday, I suspect the "bad app slip through rate" is much less than 1%.

Would you be ok paying extra, and taking a lot more time in the review process, to achieve the level close to 100% perfection you'd find acceptable?

Considering the number of apps Apple reviews every day of the year, along with the number they reject, I think Apple is doing a fine job in the review process, not having infinite time to find all issues. If that's not good enough for you, simply pick a different manufacture for your phone and app needs.

 

[spinedoc77]

That is a dishonest response. Everyone knows that more people are scammed via phone calls and websites than malware apps. Is Apple going to lock those things down too? Will there eventually be a "whitelist" of phone numbers and websites that Apple allows you to visit? Anything else is prohibited?

Yes! Let me add this to my list of issues that Apple can take up. So far Apple will have to change Safari so you don't have any access to non vetted websites, there will be a curated version for 9.99/month. Now we can add phone calls also, only phone numbers that Apple has vetted will be allowed through, also a curated version for 4.99/month. I would think text messages should be next as I have received phishing text messages on an Apple device, hopefully they add the curated version for this as well. Email anyone? Facetime?

 

[Silverstring]

It's not a silly debate at all.

and it's a bigger one than just apple.

An Example where corporate software greed and oversight has real impacts:

John Deere and it's latest industrial tractors with their software. They've taken a very Apple locked down approach to the software and hardware. Going so far as to telling customers if they don't even service the software from John Deere, their entire tractor would be unusable.


this is a modern day problem that has come to the forefront because of companies like John Deere and Apple abusing such software and hardware vertical integration in order to lock us down and control the physicality of the device outside of their direct rights to do so.


it's an issue that is pervasive now that software is key to operation. And I think ti's an important discussion to have. Where does the rights of the software owners, and the hardware owner start and end. Companies like Apple have in their best vested interest to keep their vertical integration controls for monetary purposes.

you and I should hvae the exact opposite in mind as it's in OUR best interest to fully own our device and have the full autonomy to pick and chose what we do with them.

But right now, since Apple can lock the bootloader and force IOS as the only OS in support, Apple currently controls the power in this dynamic. And this is very muchw here Anti-Trust is supposed to get involved to determine if a corporation is abusing such position for their own greed at the cost of the user.

Heck, this is one place where I would say Android devices used to be much better. you used to be able to unlock bootloaders on so many and literally install any OS that would run (I've tried FireFox OS, Ubuntu and linux before on Samsung phones). But even now, Samsung and Android manufacturers are doing the same software licensing to lock your hardware.

I think you might be attributing a position to me that I don’t hold.

If people want to opt out of the vertically integrated stack, they should be able to. I’m not saying that it’s cool or good that the Deeres of the world do this.

What I am saying is “silly” is that, if you bought something that doesn’t allow that flexibility/user control, you shouldn’t have the expectation that it will/would come later.

It’s the expectation—or feeling aggrieved—that’s “silly”, not the larger debate/discussion about what’s “right”.

I’m all in favor of changing the rules—through legislation or otherwise—so people, including myself, can exercise the option to “go their own way” if they choose.

 

[Silverstring]

This is easy to say. But the second I figure out how to do it and publish it, Apple sues and changes their hardware to make it even harder to do.

There is no way that you believe Apple will just ALLOW such a thing to happen. No one in this thread is that deluded.

Further, no one is FORCING Sony to make it so Playstations can play Nintendo. But if someone figures out a way to do it, then Sony should not be allowed to sue, nor should they be allowed to alter the hardware in such a way as to make it the method void. If a company's claim is they only own the software on the device then it should be illegal for them to stop someone from removing/replacing it after buying the hardware. Apple, Samsung, OnePlus, whoever. Otherwise, you are just admitting that companies own your hardware outright.

Sure.

…but I answered the question you asked originally. The one that did not contain all these speculative conditionals.

 

[DummyFool]

I honestly don’t understand the problem. Why not simply allow sideloading apps if enabled in System settings buried under several popups and warnings about possible consequences when enabling that option? Most people would probably leave the sideloading option disabled and the other ones probably know what they are doing and accept possible consequences or privacy violations.

Apple wants you to spend money in their store. The problem is they don't want to miss on their cut.

 

[rpmurray]

I gather you're expecting 100.0% perfection regarding app approval with absolutely zero viruses/malware/security issues that manage to slip through, right?

I know that fanboyism is a thing but don't you think you're taking this a bit too far? My original post was just to point out that the term rigorous does not come close to what Apple is actually doing and shouldn't be used in every article when talking about the review process. If that hurts your feelings then I'm not sorry, but that's my opinion and I'm happy you're offended. And when a company speaks of privacy and security I expect them to aspire to reach 100%, not do the half-assed bare minimum.

 

[deevey]

I think he is speaking to wrong crowd. The users do not care about side-loading as much as developers. He can talk about privacy and security all day, but that is not going to change the majority of developer opinions to side load their apps like on a Mac or pc or Android or other browser equipped devices.

It benefits many developers to not allow side loading as well. You can torrent just about any Android app you like and dump it on your phone, not so for iOS (without going through the jailbreak process).