Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Executive Says Users Who Want App Sideloading Already Have That Option With Other Platforms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously? iOS is not 100% secure, of course not. Significantly more secure than Android - that seems to be proven. Is not being able to beat the hacker crowd 100% of the time a con job? The privacy and security comes from multiple steps. Getting apps into the App Store, digital signatures, locked down code, a review process, the ability to remove apps and lock them down. Pretty impressive.
Imagine a side loaded app that says it does x, then it is downloaded, actually does a-z, instead. Updates are pushed that introduce malware once the app is downloaded and the agreements with customer are made. You know - android
“Most people” know that coffee is hot, but that didn’t stop someone from suing McDonald’s after they burned themselves. Accepting consequences is never something the human race has done gracefully, either, so, no, not really a good idea for Apple to allow sideloading of Apps. People can get their fix with Android, if they so desire.
Apple you created some of this yourself, just restore all the features you nixed like being able to download and install apps in iTunes on the desktop, even apps that I’ve downloaded that are no longer available are in the store that I paid for. I’m forced to buy new apps that do the same thing that you’ve deleted from the App Store, how long will that new app last until I’m forced to buy another app again? And I’m not even talking about all my 32 bit paid apps you killed off as well.
Except that coffee was unacceptably hotter than it should have been, that’s why she won her case.
As someone who has to do tech support for various elderly relatives and clueless family friends who somehow manage to do all sorts of weird things to their devices..
I’m super glad iOS remains a walled garden. It’s all very well us tech literate people moaning that we can’t side-load emulators and stuff (that’s what I’d be using it for anyway, lol) but a huge chunk of the public can not, and will not ever be savvy and secure in a fully open environment.
it frustrates me with people asking “are apple calling their customers stuuuupid?!” News flash: people are stupid, have you seen people? Jeez how is anyone questioning that in the modern era? Even if you don’t accept “stupid” they’re definitely naive as to how things work, and they will never learn. Having a platform that demands a lesser degree of tech literacy to ensure security is not a flaw, or a mistake.
And those people relying on others support? Those other people whether “friends” or vendors, add another layer of trust issues. Give your phone to someone to fix up? How do you know they’ve not sideloaded malware? It’d be very difficult currently.
Somehow one of my relatives ended up installing “remote support software” on her Mac while trying to watch a gardening show, lol.
I’m super glad iOS remains a walled garden. It’s all very well us tech literate people moaning that we can’t side-load emulators and stuff (that’s what I’d be using it for anyway, lol) but a huge chunk of the public can not, and will not ever be savvy and secure in a fully open environment.
it frustrates me with people asking “are apple calling their customers stuuuupid?!” News flash: people are stupid, have you seen people? Jeez how is anyone questioning that in the modern era? Even if you don’t accept “stupid” they’re definitely naive as to how things work, and they will never learn. Having a platform that demands a lesser degree of tech literacy to ensure security is not a flaw, or a mistake.
And those people relying on others support? Those other people whether “friends” or vendors, add another layer of trust issues. Give your phone to someone to fix up? How do you know they’ve not sideloaded malware? It’d be very difficult currently.
Somehow one of my relatives ended up installing “remote support software” on her Mac while trying to watch a gardening show, lol.
IMO what killed the BB was the inlay expensive price to implement in the Enterprise. You had to buy their server, etc.
Plus, it was a boring platform.
I mean, you don't go into a Chinese place and demand the cook make you a Pizza.
If side loading is your thing, Android is a great choice.
People who complain about not able to sideload on iOS devices are like people coming in the country and complain about how it is being governed. It's ridiculous.
Yes I read messages that pop up on my phone asking me to enable / do things. I won't say I read every Term of Service or don't accidentally click away an alert occasionally without acting on it, but that's quite a bit different than moving from an app to my system settings and following directions to enable a hypothetical side-loading with hypothetical warnings. Could be more than warnings. Even make a user enter their passcode or apple-id password. Hell void the warranty even if they want.
I bought an iPhone for a wide range of reasons (and their vetted App Store, even if a lot slides through, is a motivator), but I really don't think apple should or needs to restrict power users who want to knowingly do more with their phone in order to protect other users. Personally I think finance has more to do with than they'll admit.
Either way I think regulation will force their hand.
That is such a huge chunk of marketing bs. Any app you install has to adhere to the host OS‘s platform characteristics. Prompts for location tracking, mic and more happen even if you install apps outside of the App Store, such as through a developer account.
However, I do think that on iPhones it‘s still the right approach while I don‘t think that‘s adequate for iPads which they market for productivity but they force the developers to stay away from it due to additional limitations (no virtual memory and thus hamstrung/crashy multitasking, no true finder workflows/feature sets, no sophisticated app ecosystems like Adobe CC, and more)
However, I do think that on iPhones it‘s still the right approach while I don‘t think that‘s adequate for iPads which they market for productivity but they force the developers to stay away from it due to additional limitations (no virtual memory and thus hamstrung/crashy multitasking, no true finder workflows/feature sets, no sophisticated app ecosystems like Adobe CC, and more)
This anti-sideloading argument by Apple is total BS. They could easily implement a toggle to allow sideloading in a way that only power-users could enable it. If IOS is as trustworthy as Apple says, if a user doesn't allow sideloading (or the default setting is 'off') then why wouldn't that system/user preference still be trusted as well? Funny how other user/system preferences are respected just fine by the OS and don't seem to be hackable.....
IMO they're using security FUD to justify their App Store revenue model and (to a lesser extent) platform lock-in. End of story.
IMO they're using security FUD to justify their App Store revenue model and (to a lesser extent) platform lock-in. End of story.
It did, as did many of the other earlier devices. Some, such as Palm, basically allowed anyone to develop for their OS and sell direct; even Apple with the Newton did the same. Of course, the internet was in its infancy and not really setup for an app store like we know today.
the PC software market evolved differently. Since an app store was not possible a sPC developed, companies marketed their software independently. It was an expensive proposition and developers only got a small cut of the retail price, and widespread distribution was not easy either. By the time app stores were feasible the existing system was so entrenched that it was not going to go away.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out, and I doubt the end result will be better for users or developers.I suspect Apple will charge much higher fees for developer tools, certification, hosting fees, etc. which will hurt small developers who can't afford large upfront fees. Then there is the cost of creating your own app store or site, advertising it so users find out about it, and running it while developing. Users will now have to find apps and decide if a site is legit, and small developers who make good software may no longer be able to stay in business with rising costs and less awareness of their apps.
I suspect the real push is by big companies who want to keep the current app store just pay nothing to use it. Maybe Apple should just charge a per download fee and get rid of the whole 30% for any app with a payment processing capability outside of the app store.
The key is Apple created the eco system and success does not automatically make a monopoly. There are other choices in the smart phone world; just because people really like iOS/iPadOS doesn't mean Apple should be forced to change.
What you are describing is tying; where you are forced to buy a second product to get the first. Apple does not do that. You do not have to buy anything else to buy an iPhone or use it. You are also free to buy an Android device and use it to message iPhone users.
I think there is some merit to that argument; Apple should make it easy to select other default apps for their built in as well as deleted their builtin as long as that does not destroy core functionality; i.e. if the Contacts app creates the data base that any contact app uses as well as links to mail, etc., then removing it would limit functionality. In that case at least be able to hide the app. Apple, IIRC, is moving in that direction.
I think it's a bit more complicated - cable companies often were awarded exclusive franchise which kept out competition, plus the high cost of build out made moving into a market where there already was an entrenched competitor made it a non-starter. Only as cable companies became nationwide did we start to see competition in many areas; bow with 5G the competition will get even greater.
Users can still side load apps they make or have the source code.
Question: is there a 3rd party store for X-Box or Nintendo or Playstation? Can you side load apps to these devices without having to jailbreak them?
If apple could figure out a way to charge developers for sideloaded apps, I am pretty sure they would allow sideloading.
Even after McD’s had agreed to reduce the temp due to similar issues that had occurred...
BIS was consumer facing and it worked well.
BB become stale, old and yes, boring.
What really killed BB for corporate users was Apple adding Exchange support in 2008.
Nobody in business wanted a BB after that--they wanted iPhones, because they were cool as hell.
I was always partial to BB and had a few in my time.
There was a great community where you could find RIM employees leaking beta's on message boards.
It was a lot of fun, but once I picked up an iPhone and saw the screen?
That was it for me. Left BB and never turned back.
considering both Android and iOS are multi-billion dollar projects with hundreds of devs, that'd be probably a little difficult to pull off, haha!
If the electricity provider does also provide the electricity infrastructure, you're f*cked. That's why there is legislature against such monopolies in nearly all western countries.
For Germany, the situation looks like this: If you provide the infrastructure for electricity, you have to split the infrastructure business from your "selling electricity" business. This is done to enforce free market principles onto infrastructure providers... so that they don't favor their own "selling electricity" business.
For the first part, see above.
I can't even begin how ridiculous the second statement is. Yes, of course, it is easier to buy a new phone than to switch out the electricity infrastructure. But this doesn't mean it is less of a problem. With iPhone, you don't just buy the phone, you buy the "infrastructure" (App Store) as well. There is no other way for a developer to provide apps to their customers other than the App Store. This is why it is a monopoly (which Apple is openly abusing to force out competitors).
There are two solutions to this:
- Tear down the monopoly and provide other ways to distribute apps (side loading)
- Rip the App Store out of Apple's control and provide a neutral field on which all app providers can compete against each other (including Apple).
Congrats to the MacRumors comments section on their new job doing Apple PR.
imagine saying this with a straight face.
I doubt it. Apple likes control as much as money, and the control is probably more important to them than the pittance they'd make over charging for side loading.