Apple Says Allowing Sideloading on iPhone Would Expose Users to Serious Privacy and Security Risks

[MacBH928]

As will the creators of the apps? I hope you’re not insinuating that the only reason this is bad is because …apple?

a nice middle ground would be if Apple would relieve their rules like take %20 or 15% then allow different web rendering engines , emulations, and other stuff. Win-Win ... no need to side load apps. Also do not enforce your social/religious/political agenda with cancel culture , for example they took off Gab.com and Parler which I believe are not illegal they just banned them because they dont like them

 

[cupcakes2000]

a nice middle ground would be if Apple would relieve their rules like take %20 or 15% then allow different web rendering engines , emulations, and other stuff. Win-Win ... no need to side load apps. Also do not enforce your social/religious/political agenda with cancel culture , for example they took off Gab.com and Parler which I believe are not illegal they just banned them because they dont like them

So you want Apple to reduce their commission? I’m sure that’s the case with most things. But a loaf of bread costs what it costs because that’s what it costs. Plus profits. That’s the world we live in, and not many people would accept their own businesses being dictated to. You charge the price that the market supports. If your product is bad, you go out of business. So build a better product. Anyone with any sense builds operating Costs into their prices. If Apple demanded you charge 2euros for an app and then ‘took’ 30%, I would agree. But they don’t. They say, it costs this, plus your other costs. Then you make your price point. What’s the problem here?

 

[Xak444]

Maybe they want one of the many apps Apple rejects (like xcloud). Maybe they are a developer of one of those said apps. Or maybe a 30% cut makes their app non-viable, or non-competitive against Apple's own services. One can love iOS and not like one part of it. It's not complicated.

Xcloud will be fine with a web app. Then maybe you’re a small business or maybe you should pull your app from the App Store if it’s not making you money

 

[One2Grift]

So you want Apple to reduce their commission? I’m sure that’s the case with most things. But a loaf of bread costs what it costs because that’s what it costs. Plus profits. That’s the world we live in, and not many people would accept their own businesses being dictated to. You charge the price that the market supports. If your product is bad, you go out of business. So build a better product. Anyone with any sense builds operating Costs into their prices. If Apple demanded you charge 2euros for an app and then ‘took’ 30%, I would agree. But they don’t. They say, it costs this, plus your other costs. Then you make your price point. What’s the problem here?

Well said.
It only doesn't work that way when someone hates a business (for example Apple) so badly they don't really apply logic or the same "thinking" to businesses they frequent. Certainly when they try to sell something second hand they won't expect to get what the market will pay for it. That's only what that bad! bad! company does.

 

[subjonas]

People should be allowed to make their own informed decision whether to side load or not.

People should have a legal right to do whatever they want with their device. And indeed, they do. They are free to try to hack their iPhones and load whatever software they want on it, and many do it successfully. What people here are basically demanding is for Apple to provide official support for this or at least make it easier. But Apple is under no obligation to do so, nor does it make any legal sense in a free market to force them.

 

[MacBH928]

So you want Apple to reduce their commission? I’m sure that’s the case with most things. But a loaf of bread costs what it costs because that’s what it costs. Plus profits. That’s the world we live in, and not many people would accept their own businesses being dictated to. You charge the price that the market supports. If your product is bad, you go out of business. So build a better product. Anyone with any sense builds operating Costs into their prices. If Apple demanded you charge 2euros for an app and then ‘took’ 30%, I would agree. But they don’t. They say, it costs this, plus your other costs. Then you make your price point. What’s the problem here?

Apple can charge anything they want, I am just saying it builds better relationship and healthier ecosystem to charge less. Apple will make money from all the apps meanwhile 1 developer will make money just from that 1 app.

Lets say 1 app makes $10K a month. Deverloper makes $7K Apple $3K.

but Apple makes money from all the apps, lets say that is 1 million apps.

1 million apps x $30K = $3Billion Apple makes.

If apple charged less , say 15% the developer will make $8.5K an extra $1.5K which will mean a lot to him and Apple will still make a heft $1.5B per month.

Again, businesses can charge whatever they want and we have seen capitalist abuse this and using your argument:
" You charge the price that the market supports"

USA medical corporations are charging $300 per insulin vile meanwhile in Canada its $35

 

[cupcakes2000]

I think you should spend less time worrying what a multi trillion pound super corporation makes, and more on what you can make. It’s not fixed pricing, it’s a percentage cut for use of a service. Build this cost into your app. It’s how every other business works.

US medical care and the cost of it is a whole other separate and completely unrelated conversation.

 

[subjonas]

Apple can charge anything they want, I am just saying it builds better relationship and healthier ecosystem to charge less. Apple will make money from all the apps meanwhile 1 developer will make money just from that 1 app.

Lets say 1 app makes $10K a month. Deverloper makes $7K Apple $3K.

but Apple makes money from all the apps, lets say that is 1 million apps.

1 million apps x $30K = $3Billion Apple makes.

If apple charged less , say 15% the developer will make $8.5K an extra $1.5K which will mean a lot to him and Apple will still make a heft $1.5B per month.

Again, businesses can charge whatever they want and we have seen capitalist abuse this and using your argument:
" You charge the price that the market supports"

USA medical corporations are charging $300 per insulin vile meanwhile in Canada its $35

People are free to not use iPhones, therefore the market can dictate prices. People are not free to not use insulin, therefore the market cannot dictate prices. That is a wholly different animal.

 

[MacBH928]

People are free to not use iPhones, therefore the market can dictate prices. People are not free to not use insulin, therefore the market cannot dictate prices. That is a wholly different animal.

There are 3 insulin manufacturers in the U.S, only 2 real alternatives to a modern smartphone OS.

Can you live without a smartphone? yes, but you can also live without electricity and indoor plumbing. In fact many do world wide.

 

[Tech198]

At this point of time, I support Apple for not allowing sideloading. Security and privacy are my upmost important thing for me. please don’t make Apple become Android 2.

so do I...

however, i think side-loading would be less of an issue if iphones were not used for ALL of you sensitive info... We just can't give up convince can we?

Example... i wouldn't mind it personally for me, because no info can be got at anyway..

But when you have everyone storing valuable info on their phones, no wonder why we're a nervous nelly.

 

[Jemani]

People should have a legal right to do whatever they want with their device. And indeed, they do. They are free to try to hack their iPhones and load whatever software they want on it, and many do it successfully. What people here are basically demanding is for Apple to provide official support for this or at least make it easier. But Apple is under no obligation to do so, nor does it make any legal sense in a free market to force them.

You can already. There is nothing stoping you from doing what you want now. Apple, like any other smartphone maker doesn’t have to make it easy. Just because another company lets you do what you happen to want at this time, doesn’t mean you can do this thing over here, which is the entire point. All systems are walled in gardens. It really shouldn’t matter if one is perceived to be less walled in. “There is no such thing as partial freedom” - Nelson Mandela

 

[I7guy]

You can already. There is nothing stoping you from doing what you want now. Apple, like any other smartphone maker doesn’t have to make it easy. Just because another company lets you do what you happen to want at this time, doesn’t mean you can do this thing over here, which is the entire point. All systems are walled in gardens. It really shouldn’t matter if one is perceived to be less walled in. “There is no such thing as partial freedom” - Nelson Mandela

Ah, but there is the rub. People want to have the government force Apple to make it easy.

 

[I7guy]

a nice middle ground would be if Apple would relieve their rules like take %20 or 15% then allow different web rendering engines , emulations, and other stuff. Win-Win ... no need to side load apps. Also do not enforce your social/religious/political agenda with cancel culture , for example they took off Gab.com and Parler which I believe are not illegal they just banned them because they dont like them

Why should Apple reduce their commission? Why should they allow emulators? Why shouldn't Apple in charge of it's ecosystem in the same way MacRumors decides what is acceptable and what is not?

Basically you want Apple to leave money on the table. Introduce a potential attack vector for vulnerabilities via emulators and remove control of the app store from Apple. I can only guess, Apple will say no to these.

 

[Jemani]

Ah, but there is the rub. People want to have the government force Apple to make it easy.

I am sure there are plenty of government organizations that would like to force Apple to make it easy too, for their own interests.

 

[subjonas]

You can already. There is nothing stoping you from doing what you want now. Apple, like any other smartphone maker doesn’t have to make it easy. Just because another company lets you do what you happen to want at this time, doesn’t mean you can do this thing over here, which is the entire point. All systems are walled in gardens. It really shouldn’t matter if one is perceived to be less walled in. “There is no such thing as partial freedom” - Nelson Mandela

Isn’t that essentially what I said?

 

[subjonas]

There are 3 insulin manufacturers in the U.S, only 2 real alternatives to a modern smartphone OS.

Can you live without a smartphone? yes, but you can also live without electricity and indoor plumbing. In fact many do world wide.

It doesn’t matter if there are a thousand insulin manufacturers. It’s critical medicine therefore the government has to take steps to make sure it is widely accessible.

 

[MacBH928]

It doesn’t matter if there are a thousand insulin manufacturers. It’s critical medicine therefore the government has to take steps to make sure it is widely accessible.

I was trying to say the monopoly on phone OS's is even more tighter than insulin. As for the gov. , they do not seem to have taken any measure to fix the price. Just like in Apple's case, I guess they are arguing let the market fix itself. Capitalism!

 

[MacBH928]

Why should Apple reduce their commission? Why should they allow emulators? Why shouldn't Apple in charge of it's ecosystem in the same way MacRumors decides what is acceptable and what is not?

Basically you want Apple to leave money on the table. Introduce a potential attack vector for vulnerabilities via emulators and remove control of the app store from Apple. I can only guess, Apple will say no to these.

Just like why corporations donate and help the community. They do not like them, its just PR to polish the corporate's look. Apple can do whatever they like but making the "business field" more aggressive will just add fuel to fire in which case Apple might create their own worst monster- a new competitive company that will eat away their money stream. If they loosen things, maybe loosen the backlash.

I think 30% is a bit high but a deal is a deal, you do not like it do not take it. What bothers me more is limiting apps capabilities, I personally think an iPad will be much more useful if it had extensions for browser for example. I do not see how emulators can be a threat, people run emulators on all devices, no one was attacked because he ran an emulator.

 

[Jemani]

Isn’t that essentially what I said?

I am essentially agreeing with you.