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 Says Allowing Sideloading on iPhone Would Expose Users to Serious Privacy and Security Risks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The danger is that you will be forced into side loading by developers. Because it’s easier to do some shady stuff when you don’t need to go through review. Everything will have to be side loaded after that. Forget about security and privacy and choice
In order to add some validity to your comment, please complete the following two questions:Apple's reasoning is like communist countries. "Don't be free, you will lose our protection". Pathetic.
1. List the remaining communist states in the world, in order so we know who we are comparing to;
2. Provide a generally accepted definition of communism, and not what you *think* communism is.
Tip: you may be required to undertake some research in order to complete these questions.
What kind of bass ackwards mental gymnastics did you perform to come up with this gem of logic? It's nothing more than a bad Yogiism. With the option of sideloading, users can choose to do it or continue to remain App Store only. Just because the option is there doesn't mean users are forced to use it. It's a -wait for it- choice.
You are no more affected by that hypothetical users sideloading choice than you are affected by jailbreaker's choices or the choices of Mac users who dl from outside of the Mac App Store.
Do you lack so much self control that you couldn’t just decide to only get apps from the App Store, should side loading be allowed like it has been on Macs for many years?
Let me correct this. If people want to sideload PIRATED software, let them use Android. I'm not sure how it is on Android these days, but back in the old days it was very easy to sideload pirated copies of Symbian apps.
That's absolute nonsense. No dev can force an end user to download an app; sideloaded or from the App Store. The realization that most users would likely not dl their app would be enough to dissuade that type of behavior. Sideloading would be an option for a niche group of users. Just like jailbreaking. Just like rooting on Android. The vast majority of people enjoy the convenience and security of the primary app stores.
It’s not about self control. It’s about developer control, so they follow some rules. Otherwise they can do whatever they want.
Please explain how if I screw up my iphone by doing something dumb with getting software from someplace other than the App Store - it affects anyone but me? This is all about Apple maintaining their incredible profit margins.
Did it though? Poverty levels and the mess of healthcare say otherwise. I could analogise health insurance companies to antivirus software and the huge gaps in the play store app collection as a sort of poverty.
Apple’s way of doing things is more along the lines of how we do things in Europe. Taxes may be higher but we get good quality healthcare back and there is government support for people in poverty. I don’t need antivirus software on the iPhone because my higher ‘Apple Tax’ ensures the ‘state’ looks after me instead.
I disagree. Personally, if I had an existing app with large user base, I’d remove it from App Store and have users download it from my website like most of macOS apps because I can publish releases ASAP without having to wait for App Store review. And I can abuse private APIs in any way I want. No one can stop me from doing anything.
Exactly, that's why I think it's time to make our voices heard (with petitions, class actions or things like that) as consumers, consumers who have spent money from their pocket to enter this platform, from which we benefit every day, and surely it is the same for the ones who love Google products and ecosystem.
It is disheartening to see governments take the liberty of deciding what they think is best for users without asking users themselves what they think, and in the meantime they fill their mouths with the word "democracy". Democracy is about letting people do what they feel like. I DO NOT work for Apple, but I work with Apple products every day. If Apple goes out of business, what do I tell my customers? ”Now it's your problem"? In a very short time I would lose all the clients, I would lose my job… and then what do I do, do I get the money from the congress to find a new job and start all over again? I am in favor of all possible and imaginable regulations, if done correctly, not like this clownery…
The congress doesn't give a damn about people, their opinions and - above all - the fact that destroying everything that has been created is not a problem only for Apple, for Google or for anyone, but also for all those like me who work with Apple products (or Google, or others) and earn a living every day.
Sideloading is a bad bad idea. Not only is it extremely unsafe, Apple can later put the blame on users if something goes wrong saying they might have sideloaded something
Simply because motorcycles, parachutes, lawn darts, and sideloading exist doesn’t mean you have to use them, though, does it?
Weird to bring Windows here again. It's not even a mobile operating system anymore.
Also, side loading does exist on iPhone.
There are many projects like Whited00r etc…
Usually it is not "other companies" directly but "state actors". State actors use legal reasons to dictate what Apple does.
For example:
1. Microsoft was made to comply with EU's demands.
2. Apple's iCloud service operations in China has to be co-owned by another Chinese company. Not to mentioned iOS emojis in China cannot show Taiwan flag or what not. App Store in China also has to be audited according to CCP's likings.
Therefore, if "other companies" were to attempt to influence what Apple does, one of the ways would be to go through legal system and let government tell Apple what to do. But of course Apple can fight back in most cases. Unfortunately not in China if the opponent is the state.
I'm not quite following this logic.
If the problem for app developers is that the App Store fees are too high, but developers will have to publish their app in the App Store anyway because that's where most users will be, what have they exactly achieved by forcing Apple to allow side loading?
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Kind of strange of Apple to come up with hypothetical examples of how a sideloaded app could affect customers, when there is an actual, real-life, huge example:
Apple does allow sideloading right now with enterprise certificates (and developers), and in 2019 Facebook recruited kids to sideload an app to track them using their enterprise certificate, which Apple did not stop until it hit the mainstream press:
techcrunch.com
It seems like people forgot this happened. I read the Fast Company interview with Apple's head of privacy. This is the first thing I would have asked about. But it wasn't mentioned at all.
Apple probably doesn't want to point this out as an example of how sideloaded apps could be bad for privacy because it's embarrassed that it allowed it to happen.
It's not like this is that uncommon. John Gruber just linked to a developer who created an app that mimics running iOS 4 on a modern iPhone. It's not in the app store, but you can offer it to up to 10,000 people per certificate. And all you need to get a certificate is to pay Apple $99.
You could argue that 10,000 people isn't that many, but Apple is saying some really nefarious things could happen. So isn't 10,000 too many to potentially hurt?
These are the types of questions I would ask if I were a journalist.
Apple does allow sideloading right now with enterprise certificates (and developers), and in 2019 Facebook recruited kids to sideload an app to track them using their enterprise certificate, which Apple did not stop until it hit the mainstream press:
Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them | TechCrunch
Desperate for data on its competitors, Facebook has been secretly paying people to install a "Facebook Research" VPN that lets the company suck in all of
techcrunch.com
It seems like people forgot this happened. I read the Fast Company interview with Apple's head of privacy. This is the first thing I would have asked about. But it wasn't mentioned at all.
Apple probably doesn't want to point this out as an example of how sideloaded apps could be bad for privacy because it's embarrassed that it allowed it to happen.
It's not like this is that uncommon. John Gruber just linked to a developer who created an app that mimics running iOS 4 on a modern iPhone. It's not in the app store, but you can offer it to up to 10,000 people per certificate. And all you need to get a certificate is to pay Apple $99.
You could argue that 10,000 people isn't that many, but Apple is saying some really nefarious things could happen. So isn't 10,000 too many to potentially hurt?
These are the types of questions I would ask if I were a journalist.
Enterprise distribution should only be used to distribute app within your company. It’s not meant for app distribution to end users. Those who break the rule can have their certificate revoked by Apple.Kind of strange of Apple to come up with hypothetical examples of how a sideloaded app could affect customers, when there is an actual, real-life, huge example:
Apple does allow sideloading right now with enterprise certificates (and developers), and in 2019 Facebook recruited kids to sideload an app to track them using their enterprise certificate, which Apple did not stop until it hit the mainstream press:
Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them | TechCrunch
Desperate for data on its competitors, Facebook has been secretly paying people to install a "Facebook Research" VPN that lets the company suck in all of
It seems like people forgot this happened. I read the Fast Company interview with Apple's head of privacy. This is the first thing I would have asked about. But it wasn't mentioned at all.
Apple probably doesn't want to point this out as an example of how sideloaded apps could be bad for privacy because it's embarrassed that it allowed it to happen.
It's not like this is that uncommon. John Gruber just linked to a developer who created an app that mimics running iOS 4 on a modern iPhone. It's not in the app store, but you can offer it to up to 10,000 people per certificate. And all you need to get a certificate is to pay Apple $99.
You could argue that 10,000 people isn't that many, but Apple is saying some really nefarious things could happen. So isn't 10,000 too many to potentially hurt?
These are the types of questions I would ask if I were a journalist.
It’s widely used for internal beta testing by developers
This is pathetic on Apples part, MacOS allows side loading of apps, even from unidentified developers.
There is no reason that iOS shouldn't allow side loading, like with Android they should give a warning every time you do about the risks. I do think both iOS and Android should have an option that allows users to remove all side loaded apps at once though.
There is no reason that iOS shouldn't allow side loading, like with Android they should give a warning every time you do about the risks. I do think both iOS and Android should have an option that allows users to remove all side loaded apps at once though.