True, initially they had to weasel themselves into existence. It was only by copying the first Mac that they could come into relevance with Win3.1
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 Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cydia Creator's Amended Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can read this. Interesting read.
Of course they will try to get free access. You and I wish, but the reality is, that side loaded apps will bypass all requirements on data harvesting. Which again, people will say, "don't side load", but the issue is that now the OS for everyone has that loophole. It's no longer closed off.
When that gate is opened, that's it.
This was only to determine that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The SCOTUS’ later ruling in Ohio v American Express and broad developer resistance to passing on reductions in appstore fees to their customers probably makes the likelihood they will succeed in their original lawsuit doubtful.
If you are using experimental functions, yes.
Vetted and seasoned apps, no.
With Cydia having stable access (not having to rely on jailbreaks) I suspect we will see a number of great apps and functions. Part of this will be how difficult Apple may try to block the use of APIs not listed on its personal "Public" list of allowed.
That's kind of the point. Commanding Apple to intentionally breach its own hull to install a special hatch for third parties to swim through is just not a good idea. And being forced to hand the key to that hatch to third parties with much less to lose than Apple if the ship takes on water, either through either third-party sloppiness or pernicious intent -- that would be very dumb.
If you want the breached hull, go Android.
John Deere Faces Growing List of Right-to-Repair Lawsuits, Wants Consolidation
Six more class-action lawsuits have been filed against John Deere, including two new cases in Illinois and one each in Alabama, Tennessee and Oklahoma.
www.dtnpf.com
Wait wut?! An app can't bypass safe guards built into the OS unless there is an exploit. If there is an exploit, then any app--whether it's from the official store or sideloaded--can exploit the vulnerability. Y'all can stop repeating Apple's FUD/propaganda.
Android requires the user to grant permission to the app at least once if it wants to access. You have to give it access, or Android will block its access. If Android can restrict an app's access, iOS can as well.
The beauty of sideloading is you can install older versions of the app that doesn't demand unnecessary access. A lot of gallery apps on the PlayStore wants access to my contact list, microphone, camera and network. Oh, hail no. I'm using the old version that only want access to my storage. The only thing the gallery app needs to access is my photos, so that's all I'm gonna give it access to. Old versions are often times much, much better than the new versions.
With Apple, if you want to use the old version, y'all SOL.
All the Walmarts I go to don't have tap to pay, at all
It's awful..especially with how disgusting their checkout stations usually are.
Walmart, along with gas stations, are the places I'd most want to use Tap to Pay (of any kind) to simply not have to touch anything.
If going with this example..
It's that of "another door above the water line"
Merely another way to safely/securely board the ship.
Nothing here would be below the waterline, as all the design and security implementations of iOS itself would remain.
There is no "breached hull" -- that's a fundamental misunderstanding
Folks, this is not complicated.
We do this on macOS - daily -- and in other forms/variations on nearly every other computing platform.
It never has been. That's the one thing that I don't get. If people want to side load, then go to Android. Simple, why make the iPhone experience to an Android experience?
Developers will always code to use exploits within the OS to get what they want. Are you so blind that you think companies that are known for data harvesting won't do that?
People sideload on iOS right now -- it's just got silly time/expiration restrictions.
I think folks that argue against installing outside the Apple iOS App Store don't realize that we are nearly already at the situation that folks try to scaremonger as a "disaster".
You are commenting on a story about an app which its entire existence is a result of capitalizing on exploits in iOS.
They will argue that jailbreaking is not illegal and refuse to accept or acknowledge that their argument ignores the fact that jailbreaking requires utilizing security holes and exploits and that jailbreak not being illegal has no bearing on Apple's responsibility to close security holes and exploits in their hardware and software.
... but they are not doing any of that. They are saying, "This is our storefront. If you want to be on our shelves, these are the rules. If not, go elsewhere."
Yes, that ability has been around ever since Apple allowed Enterprise certificates. It was meant as a quick way to setup corporate phones with specialty apps or beta-testing apps. The process is not meant for us.
The funny thing is that there were other competitors (eg, Windows Phone, WebOS, RED, etc) that failed to remain competitive and desirable and therefore failed. There are even other competitors on the horizon (primarily Linux flavors). Those newer competitors are even taking Apple on on their top-listed feature: security and privacy. That sounds like competition to me. Just like consumers, developers could vote with their wallets and not develop for iOS, but they recognized it as a more desirable market in which to operate.
The better analogy would be that Apple is running a sort of "flea market" and anyone that pays the $99/year fee is given a table on which to present their wares. If they offer something against the rules of Apple's "flea market", they have others they can go to, albeit with lower foot traffic and maybe in shadier parts of town.
Lawsuits like this essentially argue that others should be allowed to cut a hole in the fence, sneak in, and setup their own tables without having to follow the rule - then complaining when security kicks them out and fixes the hole in the fence.
Not really silly - in place to allow limited testing but preserve iOS' built in safeguards. IIRC, organizations can develop and deply apps to iPhones they manage without restriction so Apple has ways to allow individual bypassing of teh App Strore.
I think the reality is somewhere in the middle. Not Armageddon but no wonderful land of ponies and rainbows either.
Small developers will likely find Apple's App Store the best deal to reach customers; but have to deal with increased piracy and the resultant revenue loss. I doubt competing app stores will be able to offer the same services as Apple does for a 15% markup. I also suspect Apple will change its pricing models if they start losing too much revenue from the App Store.
Some big developers will try to get as much free riding as possible off of Apple and Apple will find new ways to extract revenue to replace lost revenue. A number probably will stay on the App Store simply because it enables them to reach a large audience; much as a number do on the Mac App Store even if they have their own distribution channels.
Consumers likely will not see price reductions and face a more fragmented marketplace.
People like to compare iOS' to MacOS' market; but they developed at different times and under different technological infrastructures. App Stores were not possible when PCs came to market; the closest things were BBS' that offered shareware or pirated software. Technological changes enabled App Stores to reduce the friction from app sales and create the groundwork for the mobile market model.
Weasel? perhaps. IMO, IBM was stupid and enabled MS to create the clone-market. Once that happened, it was arguably game over; it just took time for things to everything to shake out. Then, by bundling Office with computer sales, Word and Excel became, and remain, the de facto standard (Remembering the olden days of MultiMate, WordPerfect, Lotus123, AsthonTate et al. )
Good analogy. I've typically compared the App Store to a "consignment" store; similar thought process regardless.
Only sideloaded apps have code to exploit vulnerabilities in the OS, right? Apps on the AppStore can't exploit any loopholes, right??
Aye. And it's Apple's responsibility to close those loopholes. Still, the only reason they had to use exploits to get a 3rd party appstore. It's no different than when people use to hack their chromebooks to install Linux. Google could have been YTA and closed off that loophole. Instead they built into ChromeOS the ability to run Linux in a seperate partition. You have to turn it on in developer mode. Most folks don't bother with turning on the Linux partition.
It should be the same with sideloading on iOS. Most people won't sideload, but allow those who want that option the choice to sideload. Security is provided by the OS. Apps should not be able to by-pass those safe guards. Any loopholes should be patched. In that sense, sideloaded apps and AppStore apps are only different their origin, not their content.
On a different note--and sounding like a broken record--build a firewall into iOS/Android. Cor blimey. The most basic of security measures and they won't allow it on their mobile OS.?
IBM allowed DOS into existence, but then Win3.1 came from stealing.
Not by choice. But plenty of apps have been known to do stuff without user consent. Articles have been written on here MR on apps doing stuff under the table. By assuming all developers will follow the rules, you are asking for trouble.