Sideloading is like [controversial medical procedure that shouldn't be controversial], if you don't want to do it then don't but keep your restrictions to yourself
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says iOS is Safer Than Android Because Sideloading Apps Isn't Allowed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple believes that it has the right to dictate/curate the product it sells by virtue of each consumer‘s decision to freely choose to buy into their closed platform. In other words, if you want a more open platform there are plenty of other fish in the sea. The argument that “you have the right to do what you want with your own device” ends when you choose an iPhone.
It’s like paying to become a citizen of an authoritarian city-state — or a private club. Yeah, they have some onerous laws and rules, but people freely choose to opt-in because the quality of life makes it a very popular destination.
Having said all that, from a technical perspective Apple could approach this by virtualizing/containerizing iOS for untrusted 3rd party App Store environments. So if you install ABC App Store and install untrusted apps/services, those untrusted apps/services would not have direct access to trusted app/service data without independent direct permission from trusted app/service. In other words, trusted third-party app developers would not need to harden their own apps‘ security unless they opt-in by deliberately and directly implementing access for untrusted apps/services. This would protect developers apps as well. It probably sounds simpler than it probably is for Apple to implement, but it would answer their security/privacy argument.
It’s like paying to become a citizen of an authoritarian city-state — or a private club. Yeah, they have some onerous laws and rules, but people freely choose to opt-in because the quality of life makes it a very popular destination.
Having said all that, from a technical perspective Apple could approach this by virtualizing/containerizing iOS for untrusted 3rd party App Store environments. So if you install ABC App Store and install untrusted apps/services, those untrusted apps/services would not have direct access to trusted app/service data without independent direct permission from trusted app/service. In other words, trusted third-party app developers would not need to harden their own apps‘ security unless they opt-in by deliberately and directly implementing access for untrusted apps/services. This would protect developers apps as well. It probably sounds simpler than it probably is for Apple to implement, but it would answer their security/privacy argument.
I don't feel I am dodging anything by suggesting that those who want more freedom with their hardware should go with Android as that is one of the big differences between the platforms. Again, IMHO a far larger subset of Apple users appreciate the Apple ecosystem and the caveats that come with it. The folks who want to jailbreak and sideload can easily move on to other platforms that allow (and embrace) it, why do you need to try and force Apple into allowing it?
Last edited:
Or we can sue the toaster manufacturer because we can't properly cook steak in our toasters.Or we can support laws that change the platform
What is good enough for your crowd? So Apple is forced to open the platform. What's next? Can I go and buy a Pear phone on a closed platform if I sign a form saying I'm totally willing to accept that the platform is closed because that's exactly what I want?
Many of us who are defending this platform and the way it works have invested in it because of what it is and what it isn't. You're basically coming along and saying that our choice is not valid.
Again, what if every Apple device had a simple EULA acknowledgement taped to the front of the device or at startup that acknowledged it's use limitations, would that be enough or are you dead set on turning Apple into Android?
lmao you're so dramatic get a grip
Also, for those who keep bringing up cults and Kool-Aid... I don't think many of us are in the cult. I have other areas of my life where I purchase similar tools for similar reasons. A good example is my Nintendo Switch. Yes, it's limited. Yes, I can't do everything I want with it. But it works and it plays every time I turn it on.
If there was another company in this space that provide comparable services, I would absolutely consider using them.
If there was another company in this space that provide comparable services, I would absolutely consider using them.
Did you ever consider that there are many factors that go into the decision of which platform or phone to use that may greatly outweigh whether sideloading is allowed? That perhaps there are a great many things you like about iOS and iPhone, but that there are a few areas you'd like to see changed?
You are one of the ones bringing up cults so let me flip that back on you.
and the cults are the ones thinking voluntary sideloading will literally spell the doom of the entire platform
Can't wait for Apple to be forced by governments to allow sideloading a.k.a. installing the software I want on my device that I purchased.
I don't understand where the jump goes from "a few areas" to a fully open device you can do anything you want with.
A few areas I want to be changed get met to send in a message to the developer/manufacturer, not go sue them.
Possibility of sideloading would change nothing for you, 1. you dont have to enable it 2. you dont have to sideload 3. no, your favorite apps wont switch to alternative stores (see android) 4. no, your favorite apps wont start using self baked payment systems (see android) 5. it's already possible to sideload with 7day limitation (read the thread)
So I specifically want the choice to purchase and use a platform that does not allow side-loading. Am I allowed to advocate or sue for that position?
you literally do not have to side load if you don't want to mate
Oh yeah perspective difference so one can feel differently. However, you are giving way too much credit to many apple users who know to “appreciate apple ecosystem and the caveats that come with it”. Many pick apple because other people uses it, because work phone is iPhone, because iOS looks nice, because having an iPhone is cool. Educated and well informed user like many in this forum is a minority, not the norm. When those less informed users encounter issues using their iPhone and couldn’t get it resolved in a timely manner, they will switch to android, without even knowing what sideloading is and how it would transform user experience. Heck, iPhone users getting bored of 15 years of staled Home Screen May just switch to android because their launchers look cooler.
People here want apple to allow proper sideloading mostly know what they are doing or having ample interest to do so. Apple instead put zero trust on end user (CSAM is just another of such example) from iPhone debut till today, insisting “we know the best and every single user is an idiot who knows absolutely nothing. We are their salvation and saviour”. So here we are. No wonder I still can see dumb iPhone users near me, online and such.
It absolutely would change things for me because my responsibilities in the real world go beyond my own devices.
That's a weird way to phrase, "being able to treat my iPhone like my Mac and install software outside of Apple's own store."
Fortunately one of those areas many would like to see changed is also ripe for anti-trust and anti-competitiveness regulation. Bit of a coincidence really.
Yes, I have considered that but not every platform needs to mirror others.
Ex: I might like Chevrolet trucks but as a core part of their brand they don't provide "X" which I value very highly so I buy Ford which embraces "X" technology. I can certainly suggest to Chevrolet that they embrace "X" but I would never want them legislated into providing it just because someone else does.
The whole sideload/jailbreak/alt stores crowd fails to acknowledge those of us that don't want the walled garden broken down, that is why we bought into the ecosystem. Let the market decide, forced legislation is not the answer.
Because the ability is there whether I want it or NOT. That is a security risk. It's great that Android lets you close the door. But, I currently operate on a platform that doesn't have a door. And I choose that platform for many reasons one of which is this. No one is hacking my phone to put an app on there or mess with my filesystem and or data that I didn't explicitly allow.
If you want this choice, you can choose Android. Why can't people get this? Do you really go buy things that doesn't do what you want it to do, and claim foul? I bought this device and it doesn't do everything I want, no fair! While there is a device and OS that lets you play freely to your own detriment. Clearly Apple's way isn't for you. Which is cool. I have plenty of Android user friends. And they use Android for many of the same reasons people such as yourself state. While other friends of mine that use Apple could care less about this side loading thing, or 3rd party app stores and just want their device to work as advertised. They don't care about about a 70-30 split, or what server provides the apps or services. They know it works, and very much like that fact. Those on the Android side may purchase it due to the lower cost of entry, and it works well enough for them. They too could care less about side loading. Some of them just like being able to tweak the interface, and back in the day it was trying to squeeze out as much battery life on the phone as possible. Apple's way was to just make the damn thing work well. I don't need a government or fellow consumer to force something upon me that I specifically went out of my way to avoid. Especially when it's not warranted, needed, or required, and you have choice to pick something else.
So turn off internet on your device because AppStore exists