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 Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone as You Know It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You’re joking right?!? If Apple opens up the possibility to side load iOS applications (third party app stores / installs would require this) this creates very very strong attack vector. It doesn’t matter if you install or not from third party location. The possibility is still there. You do understand that with jailbroken phones you can violate privacy so hard that it would make even Zuckerberg blush.
Yawn. Let me know when third party app stores are allowed and using IAP is declared illegal and the app store is declared a monopoly. Other than that every corporation cannot be stagnant.
You haven't answered the question you just keep responding with privacy and security FUD.
Why can't a gatekeeper system be implemented similar to the Mac?
I won't need to let you know, if a court declares that Apple has done on any wrong you will be perma logged in on here clutching your pearls and telling everybody how terrible it is.
Well by the same token, when the court finds that what apple is doing is legal and apple doesn’t have to change its’ business practices, there will be teeth gnashing, and lots of posts criticizing the justice system for being corrupt and how terrible it is that apple is allowed to rip people off. Lol. Love to have a ludicrous conversation every now and then.I won't need to let you know, if a court declares that Apple has done on any wrong you will be perma logged in on here clutching your pearls and telling everybody how terrible it is.
I guess the counter-question then is - why should the iPhone get a gatekeeper system? Should it be the Mac which ought to get locked down similar to iOS instead?
For one, a system where users can check / uncheck a box in order to bypass existing safeguards and install an app that would otherwise be blocked is as good is as good as doing away with that safeguard altogether.
Second, that android and iOS are so different in this regard is not a bad thing, because it gives consumers choice (between an open platform and a closed one). If you want to be able to side load apps, then go use an android device. I don't see the logic of trying to make iOS more like android (and not in a good way), and removing yet another key differentiator of the apple ecosystem.
In other words, you are removing my choice to not have a choice.
So far, the key arguments I have seen all boil down to some very airy-fairy notions of freedom and "it's my device, I want to be able to do with it as I deem fit". I suppose an argument can be made for the access of apps that have been blocked or removed by Apple (such as the Parler app I keep hearing about these few weeks), but then that also undermines the whole effectiveness of the App Store model. What's the point of removing an app from the marketplace if people are just going to be able to install it on their devices via alternative means?
The use cases I see would be to pirate apps and install dodgy apps (which is basically what we are already seeing on Android).
In a sense, this is starting to feel like the people clamouring for a smaller iPhone. If this forum were to be believed, there should be pretty high, pent-up demand for a small iPhone, yet actual sales of the iPhone mini are telling us another story.
It seems that again, the ability to side load apps is a desire being put forth by a small, yet vocal group of users who (as always) are not representative of Apple's user base as a whole. As always - the question then is - why do you feel that Apple ought to invest the time and resources into implementing a system that brings very questionable benefits to a very small subset of users, while potentially having huge ramifications for the entire apple ecosystem and all its users?
It wouldn't be giving users more of what they want, but instead saddling Apple with more issues that they need to contend with. For example, app piracy is way less of an issue due to it being extremely hard to side load apps on iOS. Why reintroduce this variable with gatekeeper?
What makes you all so entitled?
Well... Do you see people lining up to Samsung Store or LG Store or whatever, because apparantly you can install apps in alternative way. You don't see people end up suing Android manufactures. If whatever you are describing is true, then how come Android phone makers aren't being sued to bankrupted?
Well, if you don't want managing multiple stores, you don't have too. That is whole point isn't it, who is forcing you to have maintain multiple store? What about if I want install apps that Apple don't want you to install? This could be bad example, but if I want install Parler (which I probably won't install), what should I do? Apparently Apple decided that Parler app is too offensive? Would you just tell Parler users or people who wants use Parler just suck it up?
The very idea of phones are different from Mac or PC is very not true. Are you saying PC suers aren't expect reliability? And how is ability to side-load or install apps from alternative store will make your phone not ALWSYS available?
No. I have Windows defender turned off and I have no anti-virus software installed. I never had problem with it. I get you dislike Windows, but your statement of Windows NEEDs anti-virus software is false.
I would tell them to get an android device.
I am saying that what PC users expect, and what they are getting, are two entirety different things.
For someone who has used PCs for the better part of 15 years before I got my first iPhone in 2011, I will say that dealing with viruses and malware is not an experience I relish or wish to relive again.
I think it’s reasonable to asset that by and large, my iOS devices have given me way fewer problems than windows laptops (and to some extent, even my Macs as well). They don’t get viruses, I have never had to scan or defrag them, and apps just work when I need them to in class.
I am perfectly happy with my iOS devices working more like appliances, and less like full-blown PCs, if it means greater reliability and fewer issues overall.
And it seems that nobody seems to be willing to address the issue of piracy either. It’s easy to suggest changes you want to see when you are not the one who has to be responsible for the fallout. Or burying your head in the sand and going “don’t worry, nothing will happen”.
This is one scenario where I am thankful that the more tech-savvy users are not the ones responsible for coming up with and implementing the changes we see in Apple products.
Not sure what your point is with piracy?
There are a lot of developers who would trade the increased risk of piracy for less restrictive and developer hostile app store policies.
It isn't like piracy doesn't happen on iOS anyway
What developer hostile App Store policies. Being an apple dev is an opt in decision. The t&c is something a potential dev has to consider.
I don’t think they do. It’s really a few vocal users here who want to be able to sideload third party apps. I am not sure if there is any legitimate point for this, or they just want to prove a point.
I don’t think any developer is clamouring for greater piracy. Rather, what they want is to be able to use their own payment system (basically to avoid paying Apple their 30% cut), and for there to be greater oversight of the App Store.
In short, they want to have their cake and eat it too. But by and large, I believe most people would want the App Store to stay intact as is.
Dream on!! You went from security for multiple app stores to side loading to malware for Android to malware for all to malware exists.
Let’s go back to your original item: allowing other app stores will result in losing security and privacy for iOS.
How? Keep in mind that if we had mutliple apps stores for iOS/iPadOS we don’t know the solution Apple would come up with to allow it.
So kindly explain your privacy/security loss stance.
How did we get from alternate app store to side loading? They are not the same by far.
Ok so first of all you are conflating users wanting to sideload apps (who cares this is a minor point) with the more important issue of developers being unhappy with the App Store and the business practices Apple employ in the running of it.
Secondly you have completely misrepresented my point. I said a lot of devs would be willing to trade the increased risk of piracy for what they consider to be a fairer deal from Apple. Obviously that doesn't mean that 'clamouring' for it, that's ridiculous, but I speaks volumes of how restrictive they feel Apples policies are that they are willing to accept it as trade off.
A case in point:
Spotify and Epic games, whatever your opinion of them, their businesses are are more risk from piracy than most. Both are advocating for a more open way of doing things.
Unfortunately you see everything from a consumer perspective and not from that of the creator, without open systems (Mac/windows/linux) none of the mobile platforms or apps you run on them would exist.
How are these companies subject to piracy risks?
Spotify, like Hey, require users to pay a subscription to use their services. There’s nothing to pirate or crack.
Epic just wants their own App Store where they can keep 100% of the proceeds of their IAPs, as well as host other developers’ apps and charge them a commission from their app sales.
These companies are clamouring for a more open way of doing things because they have everything to gain, and absolutely nothing to lose from doing so.
I see it that what may be good for the developer may not necessarily be good for us consumers. Epic and Spotify are not our friends. DHH is not unlike Louis Rossmann. He wants to push for legislation that is beneficial to his own business, and is savvy enough to use social media to spark outrage in his favour.
As it stands, users of Hey email app are able to subscribe from the website, but DHH wants to go one step further. He wants to be able to get users to sign up for his email service directly through the app, using a payment service of his own choice (which I presume would incur the lowest credit card fees for him), and not pay Apple a single cent more than he has to (which is to say, not at all).
He wants to leverage the Apple ecosystem and its user base in its entirety without paying anything in return, and he is thick-skinned enough to make it sound like his god-given right to do so.
I understand his desire as a developer to feel entitled to keep every last cent of his profits to himself, the same way that I would rather pay less tax than more given the opportunity. But as a consumer, I also understand that the App Store exists the way it does today because everyone pays their share (the proceeds of which go towards covering the costs).
Of course, I imagine the critics would claim that Apple, being as rich as they are, can and should simply subsidise the costs of running the App Store from iPhone profits and see it as a cost of doing business.
I think it also says a lot that so far, only developers like Epic and DHH have been pushing for this new ruling, yet no consumers have been called to testify. Nor have we been surveyed on what we think or prefer. I am not a US citizen, but I think I would be able to make a rather impassioned argument in defence of Apple’s practices.
Do we users not deserve to have a say in how we wish for the App Store model to be run? The App Store doesn’t just exist for developers, it exists for us consumers as well.
Sorry but you seem very misinformed, if you want to read up about piracy on iOS you can start here and here.
You spend all day long talking about these platforms but seem to have little to no understanding of how they are built or the economics of bulding the software that runs on them.
You say..
I'm not sure how many developers you speak to, and I can't speak for all of them, but I work in the development of a digital product with apps on iOS and Android and I speak to engineers everyday and most have sympathy with Epic/Spotify.
The app store may exist for consumers but it also exists because of the developers that helped put Apple in the position they are. They deserve much better terms.
I wonder if you read the articles you quoted. You seem to be making the argument that because a hacked enterprise certificate, two years ago, was used to install illegal software the entire infrastructure should be done away with. It's not a binary thing.
As an ex-dev I don't have an issue with what Apple does. They provide an entire platform for $99. If devs don't like the terms there are alternatives. If you don't like the price of a car a dealer is offering you, you go to another dealer.
You seem to be assuming that any app store that wants to be on iPhone will be on iPhone. I highly doubt that. I picture Apple being a gatekeeper to allow stores and that those stores would enforce standards. I do not believe that this would be like what is possible on Android with side-loading. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think you are jumping straight to the worst case scenario.
Last edited:
You seem to habitually overreact. Alternate app stores and jailbroken phones are two very different things.
Good, this is good step in the right direction. Imagine if the only apps you could install on Mac was from the Apple Store, that would be horrible right? While, that is iOS basically.
The apps in the App Store (on Mac) are just pure garbage. The best software is on outside the App Store on Mac. So we can see better quality apps on iOS if the App Store is opened up.
The apps in the App Store (on Mac) are just pure garbage. The best software is on outside the App Store on Mac. So we can see better quality apps on iOS if the App Store is opened up.
But, how would Apple be able to ban all those dangerous apps that allow non PC posts. Who would protect us from all that dangerous speech.
Thank goodness for Tim Cook and his safe haven of thought aka as the App Store.....I feel safe
Thank goodness for Tim Cook and his safe haven of thought aka as the App Store.....I feel safe