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

[vipergts2207]

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.

I think your reasoning is way off. You say the devs benefit from a bigger market today because Apple advertises the App Store and handles distribution. In reality there are several obvious differences from then to now that significantly outweigh those factors. First, the market penetration of “smartphones” was somewhere between 3-6% in 2006. Today it’s over 80%. There are simply many times more potential customers to reach and sell to now. Second, there is an ocean of difference in device capabilities from then to now. What kind of apps can you really offer for a device with a slow processor, a 2” screen, a baby OS, and a plastic keyboard? Third, even if you had a viable idea for such limited devices, you’ve got to develop for multiple platforms just to reach a portion of a tiny market. Today a developer can reach billions of smartphone consumers by developing for just two platforms. So I have no doubt devs would see more revenue than they already do without App Store advertising and distribution. And if a dev believes those two things are necessary for their business, they can choose to remain on the App Store.

 

[djphat2000]

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.

Yes, I did and saw. It's not Apple's fault google doesn't do a good job minding their store.
Is there bad stuff on the AppStore? Sure. But not as bad as the competition. And with no 3rd party stores or side loading, the attack surface goes down a good deal.

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.

People need to be responsible for their own security? So purchasing and using an Apple product in this regard does just that. They took responsibility by purchasing a more secure product. If they wanted to manage it, they would have purchased an Android.
I'm not sure you can prove against my statement that another way in, is inherently less safe than only one way in.
Looks like your assuming it can be made safe or that it will not be a big deal. Both of which we see not being the case as is.

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

Planes falling out of the sky.

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

If only you could keep that ability on the Android side. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Unless you don't give folks with Android phones your contact info, this is already an issue.

Yes, we know this. I just don't think i makes much sense to have an even greater level of it by forcing Apple to open up. And I know even if I click on that bad SMS. I'm less likely to be hacked due to not having a side way in the damn device/OS. Or as many bad apps on the AppStore. There will always be vulnerabilities in anything. But, one vulnerability Apple currently doesn't have to worry about at all is from side-loading. I'd like to have the right to choose the device/OS that has the least of them. I could still go and get a basic "non-smart" phone. But, I currently can choose one that is better, not JUST an Android or a reasonably close version of it.

Not to mention all the newsworthy hacks that happen to large companies that result in the stealing of customer information.

yes, again we know this. Vulnerabilities everywhere. Can I have my iPhone as it is without adding more bad ways in?

The genie has long been out of the bottle on this one I'm afraid.

So let's rub more lamps and get more wishes to keep chasing after bad. We have a solution. One that works for everyone. Android for those that want it all. Apple for those that want the garden to be walled.

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.

Yea, and the elderly fall or scams all the time. The uninformed fall for scams all the time. The hackers have more means to get to MORE people these days. It sucks. But, again i go back to what I stated earlier. It's less of a worry for those on iOS. Not impossible, not that it can't happen. Just that it is inherently less of an issue due to how the OS is built. Doorways in to the system that don't exist.

A sophisticated hacker could walk someone through enabling Side-loading on an Android device. Not so with an iOS user. They would have to walk them through jail-braking it. And that would only be possible if that user had an iOS that was vulnerable to being Jail-broken. Most iOS users keep their devices updated and move to the latest OS sooner than Android users. It would be much more difficult to get an iOS user to fall through all those cracks. Could they just download a bad app on the AppStore? Sure, but it's FAR less likely than on Android. We like this, it's clear some folks don't. For those that don't please pick Android. Live in their open world all you wish. Take them to task over the same 30% commission/fee/tax whatever you wish to call it. Let Apple alone. Allow them to die like so many have stated they have been overly due for so another company can pick up the pieces. If you believe that sort of thing.

 

[falkon-engine]

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.

Mac security is good not because of the limited user-base, but instead because of how Apple coded the operating system. They further locked it down Big Sur and Monterey in terms of being able to load custom kexts. iOS is also based on the macOS kernel with some modifications of course for the Secure Enclave, modem, and other phone hardware of course. Also, no operating system is 100 percent secure. There are always bugs in the implementation that an astute attacker can exploit. Just the nature of c/c++ based memory management and so on. Subtle bugs.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that while Apple claims its motives are for security, the fact is Apple stands to lose money if the iPhone ecosystem is opened up to allow for alternative app stores or even alternative payment processing. Apple doesn't comment about the potential for loss of profits, instead it uses reduced security as a shield for a more open system. Reality distortion field. The question is how do governments feel about a private corporation stifling trade and innovation?

As always, given that we are living in a capitalist society, we must follow the money for the real motivations.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

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.
[...]

To me what this proves is how fast things can go downhill if the suface vector of attacks are increased. But yeah, good find on a 7 year old issue. There is no dangerous false sense of security. The app store is generally safe that doesn't mean it's 100% safe. Do people have a dangerous false sense of security in their own homes?

 

[djphat2000]

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.

The system wasn't designed with that in mind. Why should Apple redesign the device/iOS for another businesses benefit? Googles platform was designed with with this in mind. Google and Microsoft want their OS to be on as many devices as possible. Apple wants its OS to be on its devices ONLY. And as far as i know, they all have the right to those decisions.

If an adult website wants access to say, Disney+ subscribers. Should they be allowed? Should they get to have a channel on Disney+, or even Netflix, or Hulu? Name anyone of them.

Same in reverse, if Apple wants Fortnite on the Appstore. Should we be able to force EPIC to put it back at the old rules? I mean, I think it's wrong and so does a Judge by the way that EPIC pulled a fast one and broke the rules of the store. But, now that we have moved past that. Why can't we force Fortnite back on and obey the rules as well? It's not fair to those iOS gamers that it was taken away. They didn't do anything wrong, and nor did Apple. The developer pulled a fast one, and they get to walk away with their app never to return. Because they don't have to. But, Apple should be forced to allow any developer a way in? Should this not be a two way street?

 

[vipergts2207]

Yes, I did and saw. It's not Apple's fault google doesn't do a good job minding their store.
Is there bad stuff on the AppStore? Sure. But not as bad as the competition. And with no 3rd party stores or side loading, the attack surface goes down a good deal.

It's notable that you edited out my comment and failed to address the fact that this mentality helps to perpetuate a dangerous false sense of security in the App Store. I have no doubt that countless people erroneously believe that malware doesn't exist on the App Store.

People need to be responsible for their own security? So purchasing and using an Apple product in this regard does just that. They took responsibility by purchasing a more secure product. If they wanted to manage it, they would have purchased an Android.
I'm not sure you can prove against my statement that another way in, is inherently less safe than only one way in.
Looks like your assuming it can be made safe or that it will not be a big deal. Both of which we see not being the case as is.

This is still passing the buck to Apple to keep you safe, rather than taking responsibility for it yourself. And you can still maintain the ability to pass the buck to Apple, even if side-loading were allowed. You don't have to enable it and can continue to maintain one-way entry, but of course you already know that.

Planes falling out of the sky.

Your links did not show Android causing planes to fall out of the sky, so I'm still at a loss here. Of course there's also the fact that it was simply a turn of phrase to express that folks seem to be happily getting along with Android just fine.

If only you could keep that ability on the Android side. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Unfortunately for you, this is a discussion many of us want to have.

Yes, we know this. I just don't think i makes much sense to have an even greater level of it by forcing Apple to open up. And I know even if I click on that bad SMS. I'm less likely to be hacked due to not having a side way in the damn device/OS. Or as many bad apps on the AppStore. There will always be vulnerabilities in anything. But, one vulnerability Apple currently doesn't have to worry about at all is from side-loading. I'd like to have the right to choose the device/OS that has the least of them. I could still go and get a basic "non-smart" phone. But, I currently can choose one that is better, not JUST an Android or a reasonably close version of it.

Considering that 50-75% of people that have your number are on Android, the increased level would be negligible. Especially considering the vast majority of people will continue not side-loading in the first place. And it ignores that malware gets on the App Store anyway.

yes, again we know this. Vulnerabilities everywhere. Can I have my iPhone as it is without adding more bad ways in?

Sure, just leave side-loading turned off. Look at that, you wouldn't even have to do anything to maintain the status quo.

So let's rub more lamps and get more wishes to keep chasing after bad. We have a solution. One that works for everyone. Android for those that want it all. Apple for those that want the garden to be walled.

Your mistake is assuming that Apple is only for folks that want to be walled-in and vice-versa for Android. Most folks would consider ability to side-load (for or against) near the bottom of their priority list. I like Apple because their devices all work together and they make excellent hardware. I don't want Samsung's plastic junk. I don't choose Apple for their walled garden.

Yea, and the elderly fall or scams all the time. The uninformed fall for scams all the time. The hackers have more means to get to MORE people these days. It sucks. But, again i go back to what I stated earlier. It's less of a worry for those on iOS. Not impossible, not that it can't happen. Just that it is inherently less of an issue due to how the OS is built. Doorways in to the system that don't exist.

A sophisticated hacker could walk someone through enabling Side-loading on an Android device. Not so with an iOS user. They would have to walk them through jail-braking it. And that would only be possible if that user had an iOS that was vulnerable to being Jail-broken. Most iOS users keep their devices updated and move to the latest OS sooner than Android users. It would be much more difficult to get an iOS user to fall through all those cracks. Could they just download a bad app on the AppStore? Sure, but it's FAR less likely than on Android. We like this, it's clear some folks don't. For those that don't please pick Android. Live in their open world all you wish. Take them to task over the same 30% commission/fee/tax whatever you wish to call it. Let Apple alone. Allow them to die like so many have stated they have been overly due for so another company can pick up the pieces. If you believe that sort of thing.

More baseless fear-mongering. Nor should everything be based on the lowest common-denominator. Not to mention there are easy ways to address this, such as an elderly person's children turning on parental controls for their parent's device so that they can't turn side-loading on. And nothing is currently stopping a sophisticated hacker from walking someone through the steps to download their malware infested app from Apple's own App Store. In fact, that's probably an even easier route than having someone turn on side-loading and then going through the more complicated steps of that install, versus simply opening the app store, searching the app name, and clicking 'Get'.

 

[vipergts2207]

To me what this proves is how fast things can go downhill if the suface vector of attacks are increased. But yeah, good find on a 7 year old issue. There is no dangerous false sense of security. The app store is generally safe that doesn't mean it's 100% safe.

Might want to redo your math 2021 - 2015 = 6. In any case, here's something from earlier this year.

Apple App Store is apparently still littered with malicious apps

Multi-million dollar scams are operating in plain sight, expert claims

www.techradar.com

It's not about whether the App Store is generally safe. It's whether uninformed people erroneously believe the App Store is a completely safe space.

Do people have a dangerous false sense of security in their own homes?

Well considering that most people are aware that things like burglaries sometimes happen, most people probably do not have a false sense of security.

 

[I7guy]

Might want to redo your math 2021 - 2015 = 6. In any case, here's something from earlier this year.

It's not my match, it's my typing.

Apple App Store is apparently still littered with malicious apps

Multi-million dollar scams are operating in plain sight, expert claims

www.techradar.com

It's not about whether the App Store is generally safe. It's whether uninformed people erroneously believe the App Store is a completely safe space.

I don't know what people erroneously believe or not. I believe the app store is generally safe, just like I believe that people who knock on my front door are generally safe. I believe that people think the app store is generally safe, and not the app store is 100% safe.

Well considering that most people are aware that things like burglaries sometimes happen, most people probably do not have a false sense of security.

And those people who don't have a false sense of security about life, as one could be here today and gone tomorrow, probably have a balanced view about other things as well; e.g. app stores. I personally believe the ios app store is better and safer than google play. Not that the ios app store is the "fortress of solitude".

 

[vipergts2207]

The system wasn't designed with that in mind. Why should Apple redesign the device/iOS for another businesses benefit? Googles platform was designed with with this in mind. Google and Microsoft want their OS to be on as many devices as possible. Apple wants its OS to be on its devices ONLY. And as far as i know, they all have the right to those decisions.

Only within the confines of the law, which is the reason for the excitement around recent court cases and legislation.

If an adult website wants access to say, Disney+ subscribers. Should they be allowed? Should they get to have a channel on Disney+, or even Netflix, or Hulu? Name anyone of them.

This is an unworkable analogy. Adult websites themselves are content providers like Disney and Netflix. Nobody is saying to mandate Disney+ put a ******* channel in their app. We're saying everybody should be allowed to make their content available for a platform used by 50% of U.S. consumers. Apple shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose if a business is allowed to reach their own customers with iOS app. Not when smartphones are so central to everyone's lives.

Same in reverse, if Apple wants Fortnite on the Appstore. Should we be able to force EPIC to put it back at the old rules? I mean, I think it's wrong and so does a Judge by the way that EPIC pulled a fast one and broke the rules of the store. But, now that we have moved past that. Why can't we force Fortnite back on and obey the rules as well? It's not fair to those iOS gamers that it was taken away. They didn't do anything wrong, and nor did Apple. The developer pulled a fast one, and they get to walk away with their app never to return. Because they don't have to. But, Apple should be forced to allow any developer a way in? Should this not be a two way street?

I don't think there is precedent for forcing a developer to develop their app for a specific platform. There are all kinds of games I'd love to see on macOS, unfortunately forcing developers to develop for a specific platform isn't a thing. And if iOS gamers feel they have a case against Epic for damages, they should certainly take that to court. It's not a two way street. Developers don't act as gatekeeper for access to 50% of U.S. consumers. Apple does though. Again, this goes back to market power.

 

[vipergts2207]

It's not my match, it's my typing.

I don't know what people erroneously believe or not. I believe the app store is generally safe, just like I believe that people who knock on my front door are generally safe. I believe that people think the app store is generally safe, and not the app store is 100% safe.

And those people who don't have a false sense of security about life, as one could be here today and gone tomorrow, probably have a balanced view about other things as well; e.g. app stores. I personally believe the ios app store is better and safer than google play. Not that the ios app store is the "fortress of solitude".

"While it is extremely rare, iPhones can get infected with malware and viruses. However, this will only happen if you’ve ever clicked on a suspicious link or downloaded an app you didn’t get from the App Store."

How to Remove a Virus from Your iPhone : HelloTech How

Learn how to remove a virus from your iPhone. Also how to prevent your iPhone from getting infected.

www.hellotech.com

There it is. The belief that malware will only be installed on your iPhone from outside the App Store, which is patently false. Apple's own statements try to convey to users that they have nothing to worry about.

"Because of this, Apple provides layers of protection to help ensure that apps are free of known malware and haven’t been tampered with. Additional protections enforce that access from apps to user data is carefully mediated. These security controls provide a stable, secure platform for apps, enabling thousands of developers to deliver hundreds of thousands of apps for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS—all without impacting system integrity. And users can access these apps on their Apple devices without undue fear of viruses, malware, or unauthorized attacks."

App security overview

Apple provides layers of protection to help ensure that apps are free of known malware and haven’t been tampered with.

support.apple.com

 

[icanhazmac]

I have a problem with what I see as an abuse of that success.

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.

Abuse? I'm struggling with your use of such an overly dramatic term. I'm not sure I can come up with anything Apple does that would be considered abusive. Again, the differences we have been discussing between the platforms are simply business choices made by the two different camps.

I will again say, vote with your dollars, yes you might be stuck with "samsung's plastic garbage" for a phone cycle or two but if your missing dollars (and presumably others) add up to enough Apple will enact change, if not then perhaps you (and a small number of others) are the outliers.

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.

I have to agree with you in regards to Apple's authoritarian choices on types of apps. I was floored to discover that Apple blocked PAX from having an app for their cannabis vaporizers because they were loosely caught up in the controversy surrounding the safely of "liquid" vaping (gas station flavored crap). I have continued to purchase Apple products because I value the rest of what they do far more than I would value adult or cannabis related apps. Of all the differences we have touched on in this thread the topic of "app types" seems the easiest and least intrusive change the ecosystem could enact, simply create an 18+ or adult section to the app store, controlled by your ID or family settings. Look at that, something to agree on!

 

[vipergts2207]

Abuse? I'm struggling with your use of such an overly dramatic term. I'm not sure I can come up with anything Apple does that would be considered abusive. Again, the differences we have been discussing between the platforms are simply business choices made by the two different camps.

I will again say, vote with your dollars, yes you might be stuck with "samsung's plastic garbage" for a phone cycle or two but if your missing dollars (and presumably others) add up to enough Apple will enact change, if not then perhaps you (and a small number of others) are the outliers.

It is not possible to vote with my dollars on one tiny facet of iOS. Let’s imagine that tomorrow Apple announces support for side-loading and Google rescinds their support for it. Are you jumping camps to Android over that? Or are there simply more important factors keeping you in Apple’s ecosystem?

I have to agree with you in regards to Apple's authoritarian choices on types of apps. I was floored to discover that Apple blocked PAX from having an app for their cannabis vaporizers because they were loosely caught up in the controversy surrounding the safely of "liquid" vaping (gas station flavored crap). I have continued to purchase Apple products because I value the rest of what they do far more than I would value adult or cannabis related apps. Of all the differences we have touched on in this thread the topic of "app types" seems the easiest and least intrusive change the ecosystem could enact, simply create an 18+ or adult section to the app store, controlled by your ID or family settings. Look at that, something to agree on!

Nice!

 

[I7guy]

"While it is extremely rare, iPhones can get infected with malware and viruses. However, this will only happen if you’ve ever clicked on a suspicious link or downloaded an app you didn’t get from the App Store."

How to Remove a Virus from Your iPhone : HelloTech How

Learn how to remove a virus from your iPhone. Also how to prevent your iPhone from getting infected.

www.hellotech.com

There it is. The belief that malware will only be installed on your iPhone from outside the App Store, which is patently false. Apple's own statements try to convey to users that they have nothing to worry about.

There is a difference between claiming a platform is 100% secure and safe and generally safe. The former is false, while the latter is true. Apple's statement is objectively true in the sense most users have nothing to worry about. All I'm saying is the perception that the iphone and app store are generally safe is a true. I can't speak for those who may not understand the lingo of zero-click-vulnerability, malware, phishing attacks, etc.

"Because of this, Apple provides layers of protection to help ensure that apps are free of known malware and haven’t been tampered with. Additional protections enforce that access from apps to user data is carefully mediated. These security controls provide a stable, secure platform for apps, enabling thousands of developers to deliver hundreds of thousands of apps for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS—all without impacting system integrity. And users can access these apps on their Apple devices without undue fear of viruses, malware, or unauthorized attacks."

App security overview

Apple provides layers of protection to help ensure that apps are free of known malware and haven’t been tampered with.

support.apple.com

I think Apple is careful on a lot of wording. And those in the conversation know that security is a cat-and-mouse game.

 

[I7guy]

It is not possible to vote with my dollars on one tiny facet of iOS. Let’s imagine that tomorrow Apple announces support for side-loading and Google rescinds their support for it. Are you jumping camps to Android over that? Or are there simply more important factors keeping you in Apple’s ecosystem?


Nice!

I'm not leaving the ecosystem unless Apple implements some functionality that interferes with my use of the iphone as I like it. If tomorrow Apple voluntarily allows side-loading, I'll be scratching my head and asking why.

If the government forces apple to allow side-loading, I won't change my view about governmental over-reach and unintended consequences about forcing competition through legislation, but still won't leave the ecosystem.

 

[djphat2000]

It's notable that you edited out my comment and failed to address the fact that this mentality helps to perpetuate a dangerous false sense of security in the App Store. I have no doubt that countless people erroneously believe that malware doesn't exist on the App Store.

I'm not perpetuating anything other that fact on this. There is less malware on the Apple AppStore than Google Play store. Am I wrong? I can't side load on my iOS devices and therefore am NOT as susceptible to malware from 3rd party stores or apps from the internet/SMS/MMS? While I am MORE susceptible on Android. This isn't a hard one to prove here. It's not an error, I didn't miss anything. It's fact, not a false sense of security. It's MORE secure than the other.

This is still passing the buck to Apple to keep you safe, rather than taking responsibility for it yourself. And you can still maintain the ability to pass the buck to Apple, even if side-loading were allowed. You don't have to enable it and can continue to maintain one-way entry, but of course you already know that.

It's inherently more safe by DEFAULT. Since there is no other way than the Apple AppStore to get into the device/OS. With the trade off you don't get 3rd party stores and side-loading. Which its LESS safe. Having the choice to enable or not isn't remotely close to the point. I can have a front door with bars and locks and chains all over. But, it's STILL A WAY IN. Which means it needs to be watched MORE than if it did not exist to begin with. And since you said it yourself. Most users don't do it even on Android anyway. SO WHY WOULD APPLE WANT IT AT ALL? Most people don't use it, why make another thing to have to endless protect against for 1 or 2% of the population that will even know about it or care? Let me see, I want to protect an entry way forever, just in case. OR, not have an entry way to even worry about protecting?

Your links did not show Android causing planes to fall out of the sky, so I'm still at a loss here. Of course there's also the fact that it was simply a turn of phrase to express that folks seem to be happily getting along with Android just fine.

Just to point out that plots use iPads when they fly to save on paper weight and that they are great tools for them. No mention of Android. Cause, Android tablets would cause the planes to fall out of the sky (aka joke).

Unfortunately for you, this is a discussion many of us want to have.

Nice to live in a free society where you're forced to accept things against ones will.

Considering that 50-75% of people that have your number are on Android, the increased level would be negligible.

This increased level would be 100% How is this negligible? I have friends and family on both platforms. More on iOS. So my personal blast radius would be bad ass.

Especially considering the vast majority of people will continue not side-loading in the first place. And it ignores that malware gets on the App Store anyway.

So again, I have a choice between living on Android with MORE malware. Or Apple with LESS. And you want Apple to enable MORE so that it's just like Android. Which then takes my choice to pick Apple AWAY, since now both platforms are basically the same. They both have apps from anywhere, and access to those apps from anywhere. They both have to secure the device/OS and their app stores WHILE also doing something I suppose to secure 3rd party stores, and side-loading vulnerabilities. Thanks. Thanks for my new ability to choose.

Sure, just leave side-loading turned off. Look at that, you wouldn't even have to do anything to maintain the status quo.

I'll give it less then 5 minutes before side-loading on Apple iOS devices is hacked wither it's On or Off. However, I believe you would give it a bit longer than that. Do you keep your computer connected to the internet directly to the modem too?

Your mistake is assuming that Apple is only for folks that want to be walled-in and vice-versa for Android.

Yes. Reason being, if you don't want to be walled in. You can pick Android. And if you want 95% of the things that a smart phone can do with as good a set of protections by default. You pick Apple (super generalizing here). With Apple you get what, 3 or so devices to pick from a year. With Android you get what 100+ from all the various manufactures out there. From flagship to plastic trash. You can even get different versions of Android. You can pick devices that may never see the next version of Android. Or barely run the one it came with.

If you don't want to be walled in you can walk right out the same door you walk in.

Most folks would consider ability to side-load (for or against) near the bottom of their priority list.

Again, so WHY are we bothering in the first place?

I like Apple because their devices all work together and they make excellent hardware. I don't want Samsung's plastic junk. I don't choose Apple for their walled garden.

Life sometimes has lots of trade offs. You can't always get what you want. But, if you want it badly enough. Nothing stopping you from building it yourself.

More baseless fear-mongering.

Here we go again. Since showing you examples of proof isn't enough. I digress. Consider yourself fear-less and we can move on.

Nor should everything be based on the lowest common-denominator.

That depends of course. And if Apple chooses to do that, why is that wrong?

Not to mention there are easy ways to address this, such as an elderly person's children turning on parental controls for their parent's device so that they can't turn side-loading on.

More chains and locks on the door. A door that doesn't exist in my Apple Walled Garden and now has to be protected with chains and locks. Thanks. I'm not worried about the children or elderly turning it on by accident. I'm worried that new way in will have many folks outside that new door looking for ways in. When the other way in required them to go into the AppStore, which is at least monitored better than Android.

And nothing is currently stopping a sophisticated hacker from walking someone through the steps to download their malware infested app from Apple's own App Store. In fact, that's probably an even easier route than having someone turn on side-loading and then going through the more complicated steps of that install, versus simply opening the app store, searching the app name, and clicking 'Get'.

Again, now I have 2 ways in instead of 1. One that was at least less likely on Apple than on Android.
I don't get how you see more in this instance as being better. Just turn off side-loading and be better at your own security as a better answer than just not having the new door put into the wall. Lowest common denominator.

 

[vipergts2207]

There is a difference between claiming a platform is 100% secure and safe and generally safe. The former is false, while the latter is true. Apple's statement is objectively true in the sense most users have nothing to worry about. All I'm saying is the perception that the iphone and app store are generally safe is a true. I can't speak for those who may not understand the lingo of zero-click-vulnerability, malware, phishing attacks, etc.

And it’s those very people I’m referring to when I say that perpetuating this mentality that a lack of side-loading means the App Store has god-tier security is dangerous. It lulls people into the perception that someone else will take care of their security for them so that they don’t have to. It also inhibits people from learning how to take care of their digital security in the first place. It’s a muscle that’s atrophying or was never developed in the first place from lack of use because of the false belief that they don’t need it, because hey, they’ve got the App Store.

I think Apple is careful on a lot of wording. And those in the conversation know that security is a cat-and-mouse game.

Very much they’re careful in their wording. They get as close as possible to the line of saying their security is infallible, without leaving them open to the risk of losing a lawsuit when something happens from an app on the App Store.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm not leaving the ecosystem unless Apple implements some functionality that interferes with my use of the iphone as I like it. If tomorrow Apple voluntarily allows side-loading, I'll be scratching my head and asking why.

If the government forces apple to allow side-loading, I won't change my view about governmental over-reach and unintended consequences about forcing competition through legislation, but still won't leave the ecosystem.

If you yourself wouldn’t leave the Apple ecosystem over side-loading, then it’s quite hypocritical to expect others to do that very thing. You’re free to those governmental views, but they’re not ones we share.

 

[icanhazmac]

If you yourself wouldn’t leave the Apple ecosystem over side-loading, then it’s quite hypocritical to expect others to do that very thing. You’re free to those governmental views, but they’re not ones we share.

I understand your point here but I will say that I would definately leave the Apple ecosystem if they implemented (or are forced to implement) things that minimize the experience I bought into and enjoy IF I HAD SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GO, at this time I don't. This is what I keep saying to the crowd that wants complete app/store/payment freedom, it doesn't exist (currently) in the Apple ecosystem but it does exist, go play in that sandbox and stop leaving tootsie rolls in mine!

 

[2crazy]

I don't think the average consumer cares about side loading one bit.

 

[djphat2000]

Only within the confines of the law, which is the reason for the excitement around recent court cases and legislation.

Again, no laws broken.

This is an unworkable analogy. Adult websites themselves are content providers like Disney and Netflix.

Apple has TV+ now so, yeah. They are content providers too. Still, this choice to NOT have Adult (aka Porn) on the store was since inception. Literally one of the first things Steve Jobs said when introducing the App Store.
It's Apple's business to allow or not anything on their platform. Just like it's any stores business to display or sell anything they are legally allowed to within their store. If Target wants to start selling adult toys right next to a baby stroller, that's on them. If they don't, that's on them too. Just because an Adult toy manufacture wants access to Targets customers doesn't exactly make it so now does it.

Nobody is saying to mandate Disney+ put a ******* channel in their app.

I'm saying it. I can get it via my cable subscription if I choose to pay for it. Well, I choose to pay for it via Netflix and Hulu and Disney+. I want it right in there next to Beauty and the Beast.

We're saying everybody should be allowed to make their content available for a platform used by 50% of U.S. consumers.

They can. It's called a web app. It's free, and you don't owe Apple anything.
Apple doesn't have to allow this if they don't want it on the AppStore. It's their store. While simultaneously giving the adult site a way around that for those that want it. Hummmmm.

Apple shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose if a business is allowed to reach their own customers with iOS app.

Oh 100% disagree. If I can't get boobs on Disney+, Apple doesn't have to allow any business on their appstore if they don't want it. They can surely suffer the consequences of lost revenue and everyone going to Android for that app.

My business doesn't exist for your business to exist.

Not when smartphones are so central to everyone's lives.

Would hold up if you had no choices in this area.

I don't think there is precedent for forcing a developer to develop their app for a specific platform.

Clearly not. But, again why not? We want business A to allow business B access by whatever business B wants. Why can't it work the other way around? Why does one side have a choice and the other doesn't? If I'm Apple and I want access to EPIC's customers. Why can't I say to EPIC, hey build this for me under these rules. Since clearly EPIC thinks they can tell Apple the same.

There are all kinds of games I'd love to see on macOS, unfortunately forcing developers to develop for a specific platform isn't a thing.

Again, I know. Years and years of not many great games. Thankfully I got the games I really did want during my gaming days on my Mac (sometimes late). Then Microsoft came along and bought Bungie, and now Bethesda. So now I'm stuck on my Xbox with no way out. No way to make it stop.

And if iOS gamers feel they have a case against Epic for damages, they should certainly take that to court.

Yes, we should sue for the full price of our iDevices.

It's not a two way street. Developers don't act as gatekeeper for access to 50% of U.S. consumers. Apple does though. Again, this goes back to market power.

yes they do. If they don't provide to all platforms they are the gatekeepers here.
EPIC has market power, they control access to Fortnite same as Apple controls access to the AppStore. They each have control over their products. They each can see to whom they want. When EPIC decided they didn't want to play by Apple's rules. They also choose to NOT sell to me and others on iOS. Which I didn't agree to. But, yet here we are.

 

[vipergts2207]

I'm not perpetuating anything other that fact on this. There is less malware on the Apple AppStore than Google Play store. Am I wrong? I can't side load on my iOS devices and therefore am NOT as susceptible to malware from 3rd party stores or apps from the internet/SMS/MMS? While I am MORE susceptible on Android. This isn't a hard one to prove here. It's not an error, I didn't miss anything. It's fact, not a false sense of security. It's MORE secure than the other.

You can’t side-load on a device where that functionality isn’t turned in either, so I guess you’re still good

It's inherently more safe by DEFAULT. Since there is no other way than the Apple AppStore to get into the device/OS. With the trade off you don't get 3rd party stores and side-loading. Which its LESS safe. Having the choice to enable or not isn't remotely close to the point. I can have a front door with bars and locks and chains all over. But, it's STILL A WAY IN. Which means it needs to be watched MORE than if it did not exist to begin with. And since you said it yourself. Most users don't do it even on Android anyway. SO WHY WOULD APPLE WANT IT AT ALL? Most people don't use it, why make another thing to have to endless protect against for 1 or 2% of the population that will even know about it or care? Let me see, I want to protect an entry way forever, just in case. OR, not have an entry way to even worry about protecting?

It’s just as safe by default anyway if side-loading is off. If you’ve got bars and locks and chains all over the door, it might actually be easier to gain entry through a window or even coming directly through the wall, rather than through the barricaded door.

Just to point out that plots use iPads when they fly to save on paper weight and that they are great tools for them. No mention of Android. Cause, Android tablets would cause the planes to fall out of the sky (aka joke).

In the U.S. Apple has over half the market and more than 3x the market share of the next highest tablet maker. It’s hardly surprising to anyone I would think that they would choose iPads

Nice to live in a free society where you're forced to accept things against ones will.

Happens all the time in a society. For example, I’m forced to accept no side-loading if I’m on iOS.

This increased level would be 100% How is this negligible? I have friends and family on both platforms. More on iOS. So my personal blast radius would be bad ass. This increased level would be 100% How is this negligible? I have friends and family on both platforms. More on iOS. So my personal blast radius would be bad ass.

Because you’re already so exposed from Android users that adding iOS users has negligible impact. Think of it along the lines of herd immunity, but in reverse. With herd immunity, at a certain point disease ceases to spread, or at least transmission drops dramatically. In this situation, the fact that there are so many Android users with everyone’s contact info means you’re nearly maximally exposed anyway.

So again, I have a choice between living on Android with MORE malware. Or Apple with LESS. And you want Apple to enable MORE so that it's just like Android. Which then takes my choice to pick Apple AWAY, since now both platforms are basically the same. They both have apps from anywhere, and access to those apps from anywhere. They both have to secure the device/OS and their app stores WHILE also doing something I suppose to secure 3rd party stores, and side-loading vulnerabilities. Thanks. Thanks for my new ability to choose.

You’re very welcome.

I'll give it less then 5 minutes before side-loading on Apple iOS devices is hacked wither it's On or Off. However, I believe you would give it a bit longer than that. Do you keep your computer connected to the internet directly to the modem too?

Has side-loading on Android been hacked, whether on or off? And no, I use my computer wirelessly like everyone else. This isn’t 1998.

Yes. Reason being, if you don't want to be walled in. You can pick Android. And if you want 95% of the things that a smart phone can do with as good a set of protections by default. You pick Apple (super generalizing here). With Apple you get what, 3 or so devices to pick from a year. With Android you get what 100+ from all the various manufactures out there. From flagship to plastic trash. You can even get different versions of Android. You can pick devices that may never see the next version of Android. Or barely run the one it came with.

If you don't want to be walled in you can walk right out the same door you walk in.

Again, so WHY are we bothering in the first place?

Life sometimes has lots of trade offs. You can't always get what you want. But, if you want it badly enough. Nothing stopping you from building it yourself.

Or I can keep advocating for the changes I want to see. Why does this seem so hard to grasp? It’s like you can’t handle that people may have a different view than you and will seek the changes they want to see. I can’t help you get over that, I’m sorry. I’ll make sure to bring up the fact that life has trade-offs and that you can’t always get what you want if and when side-loading comes to iOS.

That depends of course. And if Apple chooses to do that, why is that wrong?

It’s not wrong, it’s compromised. I’d also rather not use safety scissors, even though some people may need them for their own well-being.

More chains and locks on the door. A door that doesn't exist in my Apple Walled Garden and now has to be protected with chains and locks. Thanks. I'm not worried about the children or elderly turning it on by accident. I'm worried that new way in will have many folks outside that new door looking for ways in. When the other way in required them to go into the AppStore, which is at least monitored better than Android.


Again, now I have 2 ways in instead of 1. One that was at least less likely on Apple than on Android.
I don't get how you see more in this instance as being better. Just turn off side-loading and be better at your own security as a better answer than just not having the new door put into the wall. Lowest common denominator.

See earlier comments on bars, locks, and chains.

 

[vipergts2207]

I understand your point here but I will say that I would definately leave the Apple ecosystem if they implemented (or are forced to implement) things that minimize the experience I bought into and enjoy IF I HAD SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GO, at this time I don't. This is what I keep saying to the crowd that wants complete app/store/payment freedom, it doesn't exist (currently) in the Apple ecosystem but it does exist, go play in that sandbox and stop leaving tootsie rolls in mine!

Nah, going to Android over this is like going to Subway because they have cookies instead of a nice steakhouse because they don’t. Cookies are nice and all, but I’m more concerned about the main course.

 

[vipergts2207]

Again, no laws broken.

That's very much not true, if you've been paying attention. Not to mention the work of legislatures filling in gaps in existing laws.

Apple has TV+ now so, yeah. They are content providers too. Still, this choice to NOT have Adult (aka Porn) on the store was since inception. Literally one of the first things Steve Jobs said when introducing the App Store.
It's Apple's business to allow or not anything on their platform. Just like it's any stores business to display or sell anything they are legally allowed to within their store. If Target wants to start selling adult toys right next to a baby stroller, that's on them. If they don't, that's on them too. Just because an Adult toy manufacture wants access to Targets customers doesn't exactly make it so now does it.

Nobody is asking for porn to be forced into Apple's TV+ content. Nobody is asking for Apple to display adult sites' products in their store either. Be better and stop setting up strawmen. The entire purpose of side-loading is that it doesn't require Apple's store front. I feel like you've lost the plot a bit here.

I'm saying it. I can get it via my cable subscription if I choose to pay for it. Well, I choose to pay for it via Netflix and Hulu and Disney+. I want it right in there next to Beauty and the Beast.

Ok you can say that if you'd like. Though if you think that's the same position I and others are taking, then I'm afraid you've either setup another strawman or don't actually understand what we're asking for.

They can. It's called a web app. It's free, and you don't owe Apple anything.
Apple doesn't have to allow this if they don't want it on the AppStore. It's their store. While simultaneously giving the adult site a way around that for those that want it. Hummmmm.

See above about not asking for adult content on Apple's store if they don't want it. Do web apps offer all of the same functionality as a native app?

Oh 100% disagree. If I can't get boobs on Disney+, Apple doesn't have to allow any business on their appstore if they don't want it. They can surely suffer the consequences of lost revenue and everyone going to Android for that app.

My business doesn't exist for your business to exist.

Same strawman again.

Would hold up if you had no choices in this area.

Yup, there are two. Not much competition.

Clearly not. But, again why not? We want business A to allow business B access by whatever business B wants. Why can't it work the other way around? Why does one side have a choice and the other doesn't? If I'm Apple and I want access to EPIC's customers. Why can't I say to EPIC, hey build this for me under these rules. Since clearly EPIC thinks they can tell Apple the same.

Epic has little market power. Take it one step further, what if I was an indie developer coding by myself for Android and Apple was allowed to come in and say, "hey you have to develop for iOS too." That could cause significant resource issues for me as a one-man dev team. Again it's about market power. Apple >>> Epic. Just for reference, each one of those > is about an order of magnitude of difference, based on company valuation.

Yes, we should sue for the full price of our iDevices.

You could certainly ask for that.

yes they do. If they don't provide to all platforms they are the gatekeepers here.
EPIC has market power, they control access to Fortnite same as Apple controls access to the AppStore. They each have control over their products. They each can see to whom they want. When EPIC decided they didn't want to play by Apple's rules. They also choose to NOT sell to me and others on iOS. Which I didn't agree to. But, yet here we are.

How much of the mobile app market does the App Store control? ~50% in the U.S. How much of the gaming market does Epic control? I don't have the actual answer, but it's far less than 50%.

 

[I7guy]

And it’s those very people I’m referring to when I say that perpetuating this mentality that a lack of side-loading means the App Store has god-tier security is dangerous. It lulls people into the perception that someone else will take care of their security for them so that they don’t have to. It also inhibits people from learning how to take care of their digital security in the first place. It’s a muscle that’s atrophying or was never developed in the first place from lack of use because of the false belief that they don’t need it, because hey, they’ve got the App Store.

Some undefined general universe of people who you can't quantity, may be one or two or three, who don't understand security and believe the iphone is some impenetrable device? That's your argument? Which people are lulled? Can you quantify these statements with numbers? What this sounds like is there is a universe of people who believe Apple has it all covered and everything with ios is impenetrable. I'm sure there are, but then there are people who leave their cars unlocked with keys in the car.

Very much they’re careful in their wording. They get as close as possible to the line of saying their security is infallible, without leaving them open to the risk of losing a lawsuit when something happens from an app on the App Store.

They have never used the word infallible. And yes iphones are generally safe, imo.

If you yourself wouldn’t leave the Apple ecosystem over side-loading, then it’s quite hypocritical to expect others to do that very thing. You’re free to those governmental views, but they’re not ones we share.

The above is disingenuous unless you can show where I suggested to someone to leave the apple ecosystem if they were against apple sideloading and Apple decided to allow sideloading.

 

[vipergts2207]

Some undefined general universe of people who you can't quantity, may be one or two or three, who don't understand security and believe the iphone is some impenetrable device? That's your argument? Which people are lulled? Can you quantify these statements with numbers? What this sounds like is there is a universe of people who believe Apple has it all covered and everything with ios is impenetrable. I'm sure there are, but then there are people who leave their cars unlocked with keys in the car.

Hang on, since when do numbers matter? They don't seem to matter when talking about nebulous numbers of elderly people falling victim to side-loading app scams. To paraphrase, what this sounds like is there is a universe of elderly people being scammed. I'm sure there are, but then there are people who leave their cars unlocked with keys in the car.

They have never used the word infallible.

I know, hence why I said as close to the line as possible, not over it.

The above is disingenuous unless you can show where I suggested to someone to leave the apple ecosystem if they were against apple sideloading and Apple decided to allow sideloading.

Maybe I need to make this more clear and I'll do so by asking you what I asked someone else. Let’s imagine that tomorrow Apple announces support for side-loading and Google rescinds their support for it. Are you jumping camps to Android over that? Or are there simply more important factors keeping you in Apple’s ecosystem?