Apple Says iOS is Safer Than Android Because Sideloading Apps Isn't Allowed

[Mousse]

Ignorance is to think that this is all about sideloading of the apps.
There is nothing wrong in not having the technical knowledge about something.

It's not ignorance of the technical aspect of sideloading that's the problem. TBH, I'm not all that knowledgable about the technical side. It's ignorance of what sideloading entails. People think an app can normally sideload without the user's consent. It can't. Sideloading ain't gonna compromise security as long as the user doesn't do anything stupid. The user is the weakest link.
Apple uses that ignorance to scare people into thinking their phone will be compromised if sideloading is enabled. Boulderdash. [Our] Ignorance is [Apple's] Strength.

There are benefits to sideloading for those of us who knows how to take advantage of that feature. I sideload a firewall on my android phone. Yeah, there are firewall apps on the PlayStore, but they're rubbish compared to one Google won't approve. As far as I know, Apple flatout refuses to allow any firewall app on the AppStore. Gawd, the single most useful app for security and you can't install it on the iPhone.

 

[icanhazmac]

Apple should not have a right to a percentage of the income of independent devs just to appease your financial needs.

Why? The dev would certainly be free to charge whatever they want to cover the overhead. I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount more for the convenience the App store provides.

As many here are fond of saying... "more choices are always good".

 

[4743913]

As many here are fond of saying... "more choices are always good".

except to when it comes to where I get my iOS apps... am I right?

 

[Ummduh]

And the iPhone is infinitely less useful than Android because they're so tightly controlled.

I switched to an iPhone just recently (to get away from Google, due to their behavior as of late... And most people I know are now on iPhones, I wanted to get into iMessage) and for the most part it's fine. But there are a lot of things I can no longer do that I could with my Androids, in a large part from lack of sideloading. The rest is from not having root/admin access (which is slowly going away in Android as well).

 

[icanhazmac]

Apple should not have a right to a percentage of the income of independent devs just to appease your financial needs.

Why not? Is it your claim that Apple and the Apple App Store provide no benefits to developers? Especially small independents? All retailers charge markup, why should Apple provide all the benefits of its App Store for nothing?

except to when it comes to where I get my iOS apps... am I right?

Yup, you are correct at this time.

As you seem to be a fan of selective snippets versus complete comprehension you might want to go back and read through my posts. You should find that my position on this revolves around the preservation of the App Store and its benefits for consumers:

1) Convenience

• Reviews for competing apps all in one place
• Descriptions of competing apps all in one place
• Unified customer service experience
• Update notification via a unified experience

2) Privacy

• Devs are required to disclose data collection on Apple App store listings
• Apple pushing the envelope on privacy has outed several questionable practices by devs, ex: excessive clipboard scraping

3) Security

• Payment systems - I trust Apple far more than the random payment systems enlisted by individual indie developers, granted larger devs like an Epic or Microsoft do not pose much on an issue but since you mentioned indie devs.
• App review process catches some questionable behaviors and acts as a vetting process of sorts. The App review process is certainly not foolproof but it is far better than allowing just the honor policy.

4) Customer service

• Have fun getting a refund from some random idie developer for an accidental IAP, etc.

As the consumer I highly value the above benefits and every single benefit listed above is lost with fragmented stores and would be a huge detriment to indie devs. I doubt that most indie devs could promote themselves to anywhere near the level that the Apple App store can for what Apple charges. I also doubt that indie devs can provide anywhere near the same level of service to their customers that Apple does for what Apple charges them.

All that being said, as a consumer I am also willing to pay a reasonable premium for the conveniences listed above so if an app is $10 on the Apple App store and available for $8 off an idie's web site that looks like it was made in 1998 using god knows who as their payment processor I will gladly pay the additional $2. My guess is that the indie will pay far more than 30% to implement their direct options versus just staying with Apple.

 

[hans1972]

because you never had the option. you just accepted it. are 100% of your mac apps from the AppStore?

No, but I wish they were. All of them.

 

[hans1972]

I'm skeptical of Apple's claims.

The Macintosh is wide open: we can side load, we can write our own kexts, we can use alternative boot loaders, and yet the Mac is pretty secure. So I'm not buying it. I am on the side of giving users choice. No one has to use an alternative App Store if they don't want to.

And regarding some apps for school not being available on the main App Store and thus possibly resulting in security risks, why couldn't the school(s) ensure a secure website for users to download the app onto the phone? Just like what happens on the Macintosh? One could argue that with Apple's current policies, certain legitimate apps are unavailable because Apple didn't want to allow them onto the App Store (e.g., Wifi Explorer).

The treat facing a Mac is much less than iOS. Why would any target Macs when Windows, Android and iOS have many more users and offer better chances of success?

Macs security is good because they're not a huge target and people install a limited number of applications for it, usually from Microsoft. Adobe, a browser and similar.

 

[cashboxz02]

I did.

I though the iPhone was fairly useless before Apple offered iOS 2.0 and its developer SDK support, and still useless without paying the $99/annum developer enrollment (which I consider the part of an iPhone's price). So I didn't buy my first iPhone 3G until after I could pay the $99 for my developer program enrollment, download Xcode and the iOS SDK, and learned to code the apps that I wanted to side load on my iPhone. Now it's even easier with all the open source iOS app components and examples on GitHub (including game emulators and etc.)

Not paying the $99/annum developer enrollement is your iPhone price discount for not being able to side load apps (that you can code yourself, or find source code for).

You could still pay a signing service like $20/year to sideload apps. You could upload your own IPA to those services and install with a tap. However, if sideloading was allowed by Apple, this loophole which is used by not a ton of people, wouldn't have a reason to exist, and more devs would bother to just put an IPA of an app on GitHub. I'm simply talking about apps which Apple denies on the App Store because they use low level access (emulators, VM software, etc.). Dolphin is a very stable emulator, which Apple blocked by restricting JITS. I literally played Gamecube and Wii games on my iPhone 12 Pro Max with Dolby sound. The quality of gameplay was beyond anything on the App Store.

 

[djphat2000]

Seeing as how Android has 73 percent of worldwide market share that means a malicious programmer could target 2.7 billions Android users.

Android malware tries to trick you. Here's how to spot it

Malicious apps are common, and they can drive you nuts with ads or steal your personal information.

www.cnet.com

New Android malware steals millions after infecting 10M phones

A large-scale malware campaign has infected more than 10 million Android devices from over 70 countries and likely stole hundreds of millions from its victims by tricking them into subscribing to paid services without their knowledge.

www.bleepingcomputer.com

Yet planes aren't falling out of the sky and life continues to go on.

Delta Next Airline to Roll Out M1 iPad Pro to Pilots

Delta Air Lines will upgrade all of its pilots to the cellular M1 iPad Pro, AT&T has today announced. Following the announcement that all Delta...

www.macrumors.com

JetBlue Brings iPad Pro On Board for Pilots Starting This Summer

The power of Apple’s M1 chip and 5G connectivity brings new capabilities to the cockpitNEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- JetBlue (Nasdaq:JBLU) today announced it has begun introducing the new iPad Pro powered by Apple's M1 chip to the airline’s pilots. JetBlue was one of the first domestic airlines to...

mediaroom.jetblue.com

it's just fear mongering. The reality is that the vast majority of Android users don't bother side-loading anyway and thus are at no more risk than an iPhone user.

The numbers would dictate they are at a greater risk due to there being more of them vs iOS users.
Also the easy of which you can get apps that are not vetted on Android exposes not just that user, but others they know. Thanks for that text linking to some phishing site from my best friends hacked Android device.

 

[djphat2000]

By Apple's logic, Google is defying the laws of economics.

Apple looks to make the better product. They have to make a profit, as all business due. But, they are not as focused on that part of it. They want to build products people want. They know the money will come if they get it right.

 

[vipergts2207]

Android malware tries to trick you. Here's how to spot it

Malicious apps are common, and they can drive you nuts with ads or steal your personal information.

www.cnet.com

New Android malware steals millions after infecting 10M phones

A large-scale malware campaign has infected more than 10 million Android devices from over 70 countries and likely stole hundreds of millions from its victims by tricking them into subscribing to paid services without their knowledge.

www.bleepingcomputer.com

Did you even read the article? The malware included apps on the official Play Store as well, not just through sideloading. And guess what, the same thing can happen with Apple's App Store as well.

Emails reveal 128 million iOS users were affected by 'XcodeGhost' malware - 9to5Mac

You may not remember, but a modified copy of Xcode that surfaced on the web in 2015 was responsible for...

9to5mac.com

128 million iOS users. Ouch! This cavalier "the app store is safe, side-loading is not" mentality simply helps to perpetuate a dangerous false sense of security. People need to be responsible for their own security, rather than relying on some other entity to do it for them.

Delta Next Airline to Roll Out M1 iPad Pro to Pilots

Delta Air Lines will upgrade all of its pilots to the cellular M1 iPad Pro, AT&T has today announced. Following the announcement that all Delta...

www.macrumors.com

JetBlue Brings iPad Pro On Board for Pilots Starting This Summer

The power of Apple’s M1 chip and 5G connectivity brings new capabilities to the cockpitNEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- JetBlue (Nasdaq:JBLU) today announced it has begun introducing the new iPad Pro powered by Apple's M1 chip to the airline’s pilots. JetBlue was one of the first domestic airlines to...

mediaroom.jetblue.com

I have no idea what the point of these irrelevant links are.

The numbers would dictate they are at a greater risk due to there being more of them vs iOS users.

So then you shouldn't be worried. There will still be more Android users, even with side-loading on iOS.

Also the easy of which you can get apps that are not vetted on Android exposes not just that user, but others they know. Thanks for that text linking to some phishing site from my best friends hacked Android device.

Unless you don't give folks with Android phones your contact info, this is already an issue. Not to mention all the newsworthy hacks that happen to large companies that result in the stealing of customer information. The genie has long been out of the bottle on this one I'm afraid. Luckily a hacker having someone's phone number isn't much risk. In fact there used to exist giant books that contained everybody from the local area's phone number.

 

[avz]

It's not ignorance of the technical aspect of sideloading that's the problem. TBH, I'm not all that knowledgable about the technical side. It's ignorance of what sideloading entails. People think an app can normally sideload without the user's consent. It can't. Sideloading ain't gonna compromise security as long as the user doesn't do anything stupid. The user is the weakest link.
Apple uses that ignorance to scare people into thinking their phone will be compromised if sideloading is enabled. Boulderdash. [Our] Ignorance is [Apple's] Strength.

There are benefits to sideloading for those of us who knows how to take advantage of that feature. I sideload a firewall on my android phone. Yeah, there are firewall apps on the PlayStore, but they're rubbish compared to one Google won't approve. As far as I know, Apple flatout refuses to allow any firewall app on the AppStore. Gawd, the single most useful app for security and you can't install it on the iPhone.

I knew exactly what was your point.

My comment went much deeper than this. Ignorance is when you don’t see the bigger picture and therefore you can be easily manipulated by how you personally feel about “sideloading apps(opening of the NFC chip/insert any other divisive topic)” in order to swing the balance of power(that you normally would not approve of when asked about it directly).

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

I doubt that most indie devs could promote themselves to anywhere near the level that the Apple App store can for what Apple charges. I also doubt that indie devs can provide anywhere near the same level of service to their customers that Apple does for what Apple charges them.

You answered it yourself why sideloading would not cause fragmentation, it's not just indie devs though, you take epic as rule but they're exception

 

[I7guy]

I knew exactly what was your point.

My comment went much deeper than this. Ignorance is when you don’t see the bigger picture and therefore you can be easily manipulated by how you personally feel about “sideloading apps(opening of the NFC chip/insert any other divisive topic)” in order to swing the balance of power(that you normally would not approve of when asked about it directly).

Hopefully there will not be a swing of balance of power. The only balance of power that is a fair one is vote with your dollars. Other than that the device is yours to do with as you want, legally of course. Apple is under no obligation to help you outside of its ToS.

 

[icanhazmac]

You answered it yourself why sideloading would not cause fragmentation, it's not just indie devs though, you take epic as rule but they're exception

I beg to differ, allowing sideloading or alternate stores will allow the likes of Epic to start their own mobile store potentially dragging other devs with them resulting in fragmentation as I am fairly sure that there will be incentives to choose an "exclusive" outlet. If Epic was permitted to do this (and if they were smart) they would open at store and offer 25% as the commission IF you list on their store exclusively.

Do you all really want to see mobile app stores hosted by every big name in tech? Epic wouldn't be the only one, Amazon will follow quickly as will many others including the mobile carriers. As a T-mobile customer do you really want to setup an account on the Verizon Wireless mobile app store because Plants Vs Zombies is exclusively available from the Verizon store? Then another account with AT&T because Clash of Clans is there? This is the world you are asking for!

 

[vipergts2207]

I beg to differ, allowing sideloading or alternate stores will allow the likes of Epic to start their own mobile store potentially dragging other devs with them resulting in fragmentation as I am fairly sure that there will be incentives to choose an "exclusive" outlet. If Epic was permitted to do this (and if they were smart) they would open at store and offer 25% as the commission IF you list on their store exclusively.

Good, sounds like the competition we need that is currently so sorely lacking.

Do you all really want to see mobile app stores hosted by every big name in tech? Epic wouldn't be the only one, Amazon will follow quickly as will many others including the mobile carriers. As a T-mobile customer do you really want to setup an account on the Verizon Wireless mobile app store because Plants Vs Zombies is exclusively available from the Verizon store? Then another account with AT&T because Clash of Clans is there? This is the world you are asking for!

This doesn’t exist on Android and wouldn’t on iOS either.

 

[Mousse]

I beg to differ, allowing sideloading or alternate stores will allow the likes of Epic to start their own mobile store potentially dragging other devs with them resulting in fragmentation as I am fairly sure that there will be incentives to choose an "exclusive" outlet. If Epic was permitted to do this (and if they were smart) they would open at store and offer 25% as the commission IF you list on their store exclusively.

Why would an indie developer want to join a smaller market? A smart developer would have the app on the AppStore and offer it as a sideload package from there own website. No need to pay Epic a smaller commission to reach a smaller audience. Have it listed on the AppStore to reach a larger audience and those who don't want to sideload. Have it available to purchase from their own website for zero commission to the big boys.

 

[I7guy]

Good, sounds like the competition we need that is currently so sorely lacking.

Resulting imo, in a worse user experience. Competition is never great when regulated, imo.

This doesn’t exist on Android and wouldn’t on iOS either.

 

[avz]

Hopefully there will not be a swing of balance of power. The only balance of power that is a fair one is vote with your dollars. Other than that the device is yours to do with as you want, legally of course. Apple is under no obligation to help you outside of its ToS.

“If this was that simple, they would not have called him a troublemaker.”

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

I beg to differ, allowing sideloading or alternate stores will allow the likes of Epic to start their own mobile store potentially dragging other devs with them resulting in fragmentation as I am fairly sure that there will be incentives to choose an "exclusive" outlet. If Epic was permitted to do this (and if they were smart) they would open at store and offer 25% as the commission IF you list on their store exclusively.

Do you all really want to see mobile app stores hosted by every big name in tech? Epic wouldn't be the only one, Amazon will follow quickly as will many others including the mobile carriers. As a T-mobile customer do you really want to setup an account on the Verizon Wireless mobile app store because Plants Vs Zombies is exclusively available from the Verizon store? Then another account with AT&T because Clash of Clans is there? This is the world you are asking for!

Have you ever needed to install another store or sideload to get app you need on Android? Frankly you probably have never even used Android and parroting whatever is useful to Apple, they could silently add sideloading option and you wouldn't know better.

 

[icanhazmac]

Good, sounds like the competition we need that is currently so sorely lacking.

Perhaps competition for the devs and commission percentages but if you really think that it will result in lower prices for the consumer I think you are being naive.

This doesn’t exist on Android and wouldn’t on iOS either.

It is my contention that the only reason it doesn't exist at this time is that no one wants to make that investment for only 50% of the market. They are waiting for if/when Apple is forced to allow sideloading/alternate stores. It only makes sense for anyone interested in opening a mobile app store to wait until the "entire" market is open to them.

Have you ever needed to install another store or sideload to get app you need on Android? Frankly you probably have never even used Android and parroting whatever is useful to Apple, they could silently add sideloading option and you wouldn't know better.

I have used an Android tablet device in very a limited capacity for work but that is not relevant to my argument, so attempting to minimize my preferences and opinions by calling me a "parrot" has failed you, be better. I have never argued anything regarding Android except in offering it as an option for those that want a mobile marketplace with more freedom. If the freedom to install whatever app from whatever store paid via whatever random payment service is important to you as a consumer then you have many choices of hardware from folks that make Android devices. If you value a 1 stop shop ecosystem with a focus on consumer experience and protections then one should be shopping Apple. Why some are so insistent that Apple be regulated into offering the same open marketplace is beyond me. Apple offers a different experience and marketplace, this should be celebrated not regulated into non-existence. If Apple and iOS devices were 90%+ of the active market this might be a different conversation but they are no where near that in the US and certainly no where near that globally.

VOTE with your dollars, if you don't like Apple's restrictions, buy Android where you have all the freedoms you seem to want. If Apple's market share dwindles they will respond with change, if it doesn't then their closed ecosystem is valued by their customer base.

 

[vipergts2207]

Perhaps competition for the devs and commission percentages but if you really think that it will result in lower prices for the consumer I think you are being naive.

We'll see, I guess. Nothing wrong with devs keeping more of their money either, rather than going to a $2+ trillion dollar corporation.

It is my contention that the only reason it doesn't exist at this time is that no one wants to make that investment for only 50% of the market. They are waiting for if/when Apple is forced to allow sideloading/alternate stores. It only makes sense for anyone interested in opening a mobile app store to wait until the "entire" market is open to them.

Sorry I don't follow the logic. They'll still need to setup two different app stores for each half of the market. Plus starting your app store now gives you first mover advantage, for when an iOS version would launch. Presumably much of the required infrastructure and services (servers, payment processors, etc.) would already be in-place, you just simply need to implement the iOS-specific side of things.

I have used an Android tablet device in very a limited capacity for work but that is not relevant to my argument, so attempting to minimize my preferences and opinions by calling me a "parrot" has failed you, be better. I have never argued anything regarding Android except in offering it as an option for those that want a mobile marketplace with more freedom. If the freedom to install whatever app from whatever store paid via whatever random payment service is important to you as a consumer then you have many choices of hardware from folks that make Android devices. If you value a 1 stop shop ecosystem with a focus on consumer experience and protections then one should be shopping Apple. Why some are so insistent that Apple be regulated into offering the same open marketplace is beyond me. Apple offers a different experience and marketplace, this should be celebrated not regulated into non-existence. If Apple and iOS devices were 90%+ of the active market this might be a different conversation but they are no where near that in the US and certainly no where near that globally.

VOTE with your dollars, if you don't like Apple's restrictions, buy Android where you have all the freedoms you seem to want. If Apple's market share dwindles they will respond with change, if it doesn't then their closed ecosystem is valued by their customer base.

Some of us like the iPhone and iOS platform, but want the option to leave Apple's walled garden every once in awhile. We also don't like Apple having so much market power, even though we like their products. We don't want Samsung's plastic garbage and we like that our iPhones work with our Macs and Apple TVs and Apple Watches. We're not going to give that up just for the relatively minor ability to side-load apps. So we're going to advocate for changes to the device and platform we already like.

 

[icanhazmac]

We'll see, I guess. Nothing wrong with devs keeping more of their money either, rather than going to a $2+ trillion dollar corporation.

Seems you have more of a problem with Apple's success than with the App store 30%.

Sorry I don't follow the logic. They'll still need to setup two different app stores for each half of the market. Plus starting your app store now gives you first mover advantage, for when an iOS version would launch. Presumably much of the required infrastructure and services (servers, payment processors, etc.) would already be in-place, you just simply need to implement the iOS-specific side of things.

You are correct, that is one way to do it, get an Android store up and running and hope that Apple is forced to accept alternate stores in the future allowing you to "add" and iOS store along side your Android store. My thought was that an Android store, on its own, might not be financial incentive enough for anyone to start a competing store but rather wait until you can service both camps.

Some of us like the iPhone and iOS platform, but want the option to leave Apple's walled garden every once in awhile. We also don't like Apple having so much market power, even though we like their products.

While I understand the first part, we are just on different sides of the debate, again it seems that you have more of a problem with Apple's success than the issue of sideloading and alternate stores. At only 53% of the US market and about 20-25% of the global market I would argue that they don't have that much power. It wouldn't take much of a misstep to slip under 50% of the US market.

 

[vipergts2207]

Seems you have more of a problem with Apple's success than with the App store 30%.

I don't have a problem with their success. I have a problem with what I see as an abuse of that success.

While I understand the first part, we are just on different sides of the debate, again it seems that you have more of a problem with Apple's success than the issue of sideloading and alternate stores. At only 53% of the US market and about 20-25% of the global market I would argue that they don't have that much power. It wouldn't take much of a misstep to slip under 50% of the US market.

As a U.S. citizen, the U.S. market is the one I'm most concerned with. And even if Apple slipped to 40% market share in the U.S., that's still a tremendous platform for abuse when there's only one other competitor. Other countries appear to believe as much as well. I don't have a problem with Apple's success and in fact have contributed to it (in a nearly infinitesimally small way of course). It's their use of that success to say who is and who isn't allowed to access 50% of U.S smartphone consumers. If an adult website for instance, wants to access those consumers through an app, Apple shouldn't be allowed stand in the way and tell them no. I think that's wrong. It's perfectly fine and understandable if Apple doesn't want that kind of content in their own store, but they should be required to allow some other method for that company to offer their consumers an app, whether that's side-loading or third-party app stores.

 

[firewood]

Nothing wrong with devs keeping more of their money either, rather than going to a $2+ trillion dollar corporation.

You assume that devs would have more money to keep, without the trillion dollar corp advertising an App store and doing the distribution. Developing mobile apps before Apple's App store (for Palm Treo's, PocketPCs, Blackberries, Brew, Symbian, etc.) was nowhere near as big a business for small mobile app developers. Far less money. Total revenue was millions instead of Billions.