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 Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, it's fragile. Terrible that it is, but 1 billion users bought into a fragile system.I fins it comical, pretty much every other OS allows “side loading” and it works successfully. Yet with iOS/iPadOS, this activity suddenly becomes all doom and gloom with all kinds of inevitable disastrous results.
Is iOS/iPadOS really that fragile that allowing sideloading, or even allowing alternative apps stores it will crash burn?
I find it comical that the one OS that doesn't allow it MUST be forced to allow it to be just like all the others.I find it comical, pretty much every other OS allows “side loading” and it works successfully. Yet with iOS/iPadOS, this activity suddenly becomes all doom and gloom with all kinds of inevitable disastrous results.
Is iOS/iPadOS really that fragile that allowing sideloading, or even allowing alternative apps stores it will crash burn?
I think it's funny that there's one side who is shouting "Apple must allow sideloading!"
And then there's Google who has had sideloading for over a decade... yet hardly any users or developers do it.
Did you ever wonder why most Android app developers go through the Google Play Store and thus pay Google's 30% fee... even though Google allows sideloading and all these developers have their own websites and could handle the entire transaction themselves to avoid that fee?
Anyway... I just want some sort of solution where we aren't getting three articles per week on this topic.
Can we go back to the days when we argued about market share? Throwback!
?
And then there's Google who has had sideloading for over a decade... yet hardly any users or developers do it.
Did you ever wonder why most Android app developers go through the Google Play Store and thus pay Google's 30% fee... even though Google allows sideloading and all these developers have their own websites and could handle the entire transaction themselves to avoid that fee?
Anyway... I just want some sort of solution where we aren't getting three articles per week on this topic.
Can we go back to the days when we argued about market share? Throwback!
?
If you require side loaded apps, iOS devices are not for you. There are plenty of alternatives in the marketplace. People just don’t like them so they are trying to use the government for stuff it should not be involved in. Technically once you own the Apple device you purchased, you are free to do whatever you want to it. That has already been established by the courts.
Businesses are allowed to define what they are and are not selling.
Businesses are allowed to define what they are and are not selling.
I don’t think you understand all of the downstream effects from sideloading that could be had. Thats the problem. People can never see the downside or they dismiss it. Then later on it becomes the intractable reality.I find it comical, pretty much every other OS allows “side loading” and it works successfully. Yet with iOS/iPadOS, this activity suddenly becomes all doom and gloom with all kinds of inevitable disastrous results.
Is iOS/iPadOS really that fragile that allowing sideloading, or even allowing alternative apps stores it will crash burn?
Silly comparison why? Do you think our cell networks and smartphones would have developed as quickly as they did if AT&T still had a monopoly on telephone service?
That is what I asked you and you are asking me the same question again. Are you paying to use Facebook? No, right? It is getting its revenue from some other source. Similarly, somebody will figure out how to make money from Appstore through some other means other than swindling the developers without doing any work. How do you know they will not, unless you allow them to function?
Last edited:
Please disabuse yourselves of the notion that nobody uses sideloaded apps.
What we learned about mobile security from real-world mobile threat defense customer data | TechTarget
We’ve been reviewing publicly MTD data from top security vendors to better understand mobile security for enterprise. See what we learned from Wandera, Lookout, Symantec, Check Point, and Zimperium.
The data from the five security vendors painted a similar picture that users definitely sideload apps, but it’s not yet that many.
- Lookout data showed that between 2016-17, about 11% of iOS devices encountered a sideloaded app and in August 2018, 12.36% of Android devices had unknown sources enabled.
- Wandera data showed that 2% of organizations have at least one jailbroken device and 1% have a rooted Android device (from a per-device perspective, it’s about 0.05% Android and 0.04% iOS).
- Symantec data showed that 2.04% of iOS devices had at least one sideloaded app.
- Zimperium data from Q3 2018 showed 10% of 200,000 devices had at least one sideloaded app, with many having more than one downloaded.
Apple is having a tough time with all the legal troubles across the world. Even if side loading is allowed, ultimately the users have the option. App Store will continue to exist and users can continue to use the app store. No one is forced to install an app from anywhere else.
Please disabuse yourselves of the notion that nobody uses sideloaded apps.
What we learned about mobile security from real-world mobile threat defense customer data | TechTarget
We’ve been reviewing publicly MTD data from top security vendors to better understand mobile security for enterprise. See what we learned from Wandera, Lookout, Symantec, Check Point, and Zimperium.www.techtarget.com
The data from the five security vendors painted a similar picture that users definitely sideload apps, but it’s not yet that many.
- Lookout data showed that between 2016-17, about 11% of iOS devices encountered a sideloaded app and in August 2018, 12.36% of Android devices had unknown sources enabled.
- Wandera data showed that 2% of organizations have at least one jailbroken device and 1% have a rooted Android device (from a per-device perspective, it’s about 0.05% Android and 0.04% iOS).
- Symantec data showed that 2.04% of iOS devices had at least one sideloaded app.
- Zimperium data from Q3 2018 showed 10% of 200,000 devices had at least one sideloaded app, with many having more than one downloaded.
Hold on... I said "hardly any"
But you twisted it to say "nobody"
Come on man.
I read all your posts because I'm genuinely interested in the entire conversation. We have fun here.
But I didn't say "nobody uses sideloaded apps"
?
Ok. Sorry. My apologies for misquoting you. Even I was surprised to see that the percentage is high - 12.6% is a very high percentage.
No problem. ?
Is it surprising?
There are plenty of instructions on how to enable "unknown sources" on Android.
ð Android unknown sources - Google Search
www.google.com
My question is... why are the other 87% not doing it?
The figure being bandied about in this forum is < than 5%, so it is a surprise.No problem. ?
Is it surprising?
There are plenty of instructions on how to enable "unknown sources" on Android.
My question is... why are the other 87% not doing it?
11% of iOS devices have sideloaded apps.
2% of iOS devices are jail broken.
That is the surprise.
Wow. Ok. So allow me explain how Facebook makes money and it’s not “other” sources. Clearly you are very misinformed.
Facebook monetizes the user (you) through user data and information harvesting. You are the product!!!
Facebook profiles the user by following you everywhere (likes, swipes, web activity, app usage, information you provide, pictures you post (location, time, tags, etc), knows your bank balance, credit card balance, square footage of the apartment/house you live in, private conversations you have, and 98 other major points or sensitive user information that it leverages to generate money through targeted advertising. Their revenue is dependent on your online engagement. It’s not “other” sources. They provide the service to you as “free” because that’s the tool they use to monetize you.
FYI, WhatsApp and Insta are owned by Facebook (now called Meta). Your messages are being scanned and added to your profile as a user. Insta is the same.
Also, you think it doesn’t cost money to run App Store??? Wow, man. You can’t be serious. Apple spends billions of dollars on the App Store alone. API developers use, it’s provided by Apple. Developers have access to millions of paying customers through App Store. Otherwise, developers would have to spend considerable resources to advertise, promote their apps and marketing spending would be a major sticking point for small developers since they can’t afford any of that. Apple covers that for them! Apple takes care of payments, customer service (both developers and customers), security measures, ecosystem (who makes iPhones, iPads, etc???)
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that pretty much all these apps exist due to App Store. Prior to App Store, there were only brick and mortar stores that software developers had to pay 70% of their revenue to the stores. Yes, that is how it used to work. Do some research what developer life was like prior to App Store. All the packaging cost is something developers had to take on themselves. Stores like Circuit City (doesn’t exist anymore) user to take 70% of the sales for just putting the CDs and boxes on their shelves.
Apple can scale the cost by hosting millions of apps and can sustain the business by minimal cut. 30%, 15% for only in app transactions. Otherwise it’s free to host the app if developer chooses to have ad-supported structure.
So are you clear how each business model works now???
Yeah I didn't like Apple's solution but I hate the government solution more. Just see what the EU has proposed recently. They seem intent on destroying encryption and privacy in order to "save the children." This proposal that would essentially require algorithms to scan ALL emails, messages, or other communications in order to detect "grooming" not just CSAM. If this proposal passes it would essentially create China level internet surveillance in the EU.
Fighting child sexual abuse: Commission proposes new rules to protect children
Today, the Commission is proposing new EU legislation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse online.ec.europa.eu
More info in this thread:
Wow. I know it's well overused at this point - but this is literally 1984 level stuff right there. It's not a question of when it's a question of how soon will the government pivot to using this to detect "sedition," "insurrectionist," or "misinformation" language and start arresting people for wrongthink.
Wait... what?!?!?
Mission accomplished! iOS already has sideloading.
EU... stand down!
?
I wouldn't be so sure... ;-) As a web developer, I'm amazed to see the WordPress plugins clients dig out from any dark corner of the web and install if I give them admin access.
Yet, I still agree that it should be the user's decision. Apple should give the user a warning about the risks of installing an app outside the app store (as it does on macOS) but allow the user to proceed.
It's about image. Apple doesn't want it's image to be associated with porn, vape and possibly other apps that purvey illegal content. It's not about forcing anyone to install/sideload anything. Apple doesn't want a headline on the 6 pm news that says: "Sideloaded iphone app used in distributing CSAM".
Sadly... CSAM imagery can be distributed over any file or messaging app... including Apple's own Messages/iMessage.
?
I don’t think you even know what the world prior to App Store looked like.
Are you old enough to remember Circuit City? They used to keep 70% of the software sales simply by putting developer’s CDs on their shelves. All the packaging cost (CDs, labels, boxes, etc.) and logistics were a cost to the developer. There was no digital distribution nor a digital platform with wide reach to millions of paying customers that allowed you to host your app for free (ad supported model) or option to only give 15%-30% of in-app purchases (depending on annual revenue) on to a platform that provided API, market reach, support for you and the customer, security measures that you are not held liable for and much more.
So please look into what life used to be prior to App Store before you say anything further.
Last edited:
I agree with the overall intent of your comment.
But wasn't the internet the solution to all the problems with boxed software on retail store shelves?
No more cardboard boxes, CDs, printing paper booklets, shipping, warehousing, etc.
Now it's just a website with a "Purchase" button. And you get an email with a download link.
I honestly can't remember the last time I purchased software from a store shelf...