Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On

[Karma*Police]

My response was to the suggestion that Governments should let Apple run its business. I said Apple should let governments run its business too, which is making laws. What is sauce for goose must be sauce for the gander too.
I could also say that I commend you for having so much faith in a company whose primary goal is making money and has no concern for the welfare of its consumers. There are various acts by Apple that verify this. They are well documented.
There may be bigger things than sideloading that is on the minds of consumers when purchasing an Apple device. That does not mean sideloading is not an issue. Now the governments have made it an issue big enough for Apple to address it or it will be put out of business quickly. Apple's fault really.

You said it. The governments have made it an issue, not the consumers. I have faith that when a company intentionally harms consumers they will either go out of business or pay a fine big enough to keep them in check.

As I’ve stated several times in these forums, the government’s role should be public safety, not telling companies how to run their business or designing their products.

 

[dk001]

Jeez, I can't believe the mis-information in this thread. It appears a number of Epic, Meta, Google and other Apple competitors have pulled out all the stops. Including the level of lobbying of governments the world over. By lobbying I mean campaign contributions if you do what we want. Apparently Apple is not giving out enough to keep the politicians happy.

Not sure I understand your point. Are you claiming this is Apple specific?
These initaitives are predominately non-Apple specific and targeting a number of big tech corporations.

 

[ksj1]

Not sure I understand your point. Are you claiming this is Apple specific?
These initaitives are predominately non-Apple specific and targeting a number of big tech corporations.

I'm pretty sure this thread is about sideloading, which Android allows and Apple does not. How is this initiative not directed specifically at Apple? How is it directed at "a number of big tech corporations"?

 

[Beautyspin]

You said it. The governments have made it an issue, not the consumers. I have faith that when a company intentionally harms consumers they will either go out of business or pay a fine big enough to keep them in check.

As I’ve stated several times in these forums, the government’s role should be public safety, not telling companies how to run their business or designing their products.

How do you know consumers do not have an issue? How do consumers make it an issue when they do not have enough power to make the companies change their behavior on an individual basis and they do not have the means to take collective action? It is through government regulation. I am not seeing anywhere people revolting against DMA so it can be safely assumed that the majority of the population is behind this regulation.

 

[ksj1]

How do you know consumers do not have an issue? How do consumers make it an issue when they do not have enough power to make the companies change their behavior on an individual basis and they do not have the means to take collective action? It is through government regulation. I am not seeing anywhere people revolting against DMA so it can be safely assumed that the majority of the population is behind this regulation.

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. Consumers simply don't buy the product if they feel it has issues. What world do you live in?

Edit - A couple of examples being Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.

 

[dk001]

I'm pretty sure this thread is about sideloading, which Android allows and Apple does not. How is this initiative not directed specifically at Apple? How is it directed at "a number of big tech corporations"?

It goes back and forth as the “bill” is tech. Yes, MR take was looking more at Apple. Responses though have been around both.
Thx for clarifying your target.

 

[dk001]

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. Consumers simply don't buy the product if they feel it has issues. What world do you live in?

Edit - A couple of examples being Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.

Nonsense.
Smart phones have become a “required” item in this day and age. That leaves basically two OS choices these days.
One of the issues: if you are in iOS, it isn’t cheap to jump to Android. Same goes the other way especially if you have items at home that fit with your smartphone choice.

 

[ksj1]

It goes back and forth as the “bill” is tech. Yes, MR take was looking more at Apple. Responses though have been around both.
Thx for clarifying your target.

To be clear. Elected officials do not propose bills like this because some random consumer has complained. This is only happening because there are lots of large companies that want to bypass the controls Apple has put into their system that makes it something I, and many others, want to use.

There are clearly a bunch of people on this thread that don't understand that allowing side loading of apps means that the services those people are using are also now compromised, which means someone who has sideloaded something could use those services to contaminate my device through that service. You can say, Apple should have already addressed that. They did, they made IOS a closed system.

 

[ksj1]

Nonsense.
Smart phones have become a “required” item in this day and age. That leaves basically two OS choices these days.
One of the issues: if you are in iOS, it isn’t cheap to jump to Android. Same goes the other way especially if you have items at home that fit with your smartphone choice.

Well now we're getting down to brass tacks here. You really just want Apple to open its system because you want to buy an app once and not have to pay again if you move to Android.

That isn't an Apple problem, that is a developer problem.

 

[Beautyspin]

I'm sorry, this is nonsense. Consumers simply don't buy the product if they feel it has issues. What world do you live in?

Edit - A couple of examples being Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.

Consumers will buy whatever is available for them. They bought 4-inch iPhones when phablets were not available. Did they stop buying the 4-inch ones because phablets were not available? Apple kept arguing that Phablets have no market and now they are finding that there is actually no market for the 4-inch phones. Do you seriously think that once these regulations pass nobody will buy iPhones? According to you, they should not be able to sell iPhones once these rules pass. If they are able to sell iPhones after the regulations come to pass, it means the buyers are supporting the regulations. So, let us see. As far as I think, iPhone sales will skyrocket once these regulations are in place as it will take over the majority of the high-end Android phones. People who are currently buying high end Android phones because iPhones are crippled due to its walled garden approach, will start buying iPhones. Win-Win.

 

[ksj1]

Consumers will buy whatever is available for them. They bought 4-inch iPhones when phablets were not available. Did they stop buying the 4-inch ones because phablets were not available? Apple kept arguing that Phablets have no market and now they are finding that there is actually no market for the 4-inch phones. Do you seriously think that once these regulations pass nobody will buy iPhones? According to you, they should not be able to sell iPhones once these rules pass. If they are able to sell iPhones after the regulations come to pass, it means the buyers are supporting the regulations. So, let us see. As far as I think, iPhone sales will skyrocket once these regulations are in place as it will take over the majority of the high-end Android phones. People who are currently buying high end Android phones because iPhones are crippled due to its walled garden approach, will start buying iPhones. Win-Win.

WTF are you talking about? Have you been drinking or something? Please tell me where I implied any of what you say is "according to you".

Jeez, you people are unreal (pun intended).

 

[Beautyspin]

To be clear. Elected officials do not propose bills like this because some random consumer has complained. This is only happening because there are lots of large companies that want to bypass the controls Apple has put into their system that makes it something I, and many others, want to use.

There are clearly a bunch of people on this thread that don't understand that allowing side loading of apps means that the services those people are using are also now compromised, which means someone who has sideloaded something could use those services to contaminate my device through that service. You can say, Apple should have already addressed that. They did, they made IOS a closed system.

I can say the same. There are clearly a bunch of people that don't understand that sideloading is beneficial and that is the reason every other OS in the world allows sideloading (Windows, MacOS, Android, you name it) except iOS. The world has not crashed.
This regulation is not Apple specific, but the GAFAM (Google (Alphabet), Apple, Facebook (Meta), Amazon, and Microsoft) will be definitely affected.
This law has come into being because they have had many ex-post anti-trust interventions that have not been effective and they found that the Big Tech has taken advantage of procedural delays and their monetary power to delay the process to the point of making it ineffective. So, they have now designed a system of ex-ante regulations that would enshrine within EU law a set of ex-ante rules that would radically change how large digital platforms are allowed to operate in the EU. No more shenanigans by entities like Apple who would rather pay 5-million-euro fines weekly than comply with simple court orders. GAFAM companies have pushed the EU to take this route. Karma.

 

[ksj1]

I can say the same. There are clearly a bunch of people that don't understand that sideloading is beneficial and that is the reason every other OS in the world allows sideloading (Windows, MacOS, Android, you name it) except iOS. The world has not crashed.
This regulation is not Apple specific, but the GAFAM (Google (Alphabet), Apple, Facebook (Meta), Amazon, and Microsoft) will be definitely affected.
This law has come into being because they have had many ex-post anti-trust interventions that have not been effective and they found that the Big Tech has taken advantage of procedural delays and their monetary power to delay the process to the point of making it ineffective. So, they have now designed a system of ex-ante regulations that would enshrine within EU law a set of ex-ante rules that would radically change how large digital platforms are allowed to operate in the EU. No more shenanigans by entities like Apple who would rather pay 5-million-euro fines weekly than comply with simple court orders. GAFAM companies have pushed the EU to take this route. Karma.

Well thanks for showing us you're one of those officials who think they should be able to tell companies to screw their customers because you want it. Rants like yours do not come from rational people. They come from zealots.

 

[Beautyspin]

WTF are you talking about? Have you been drinking or something? Please tell me where I implied any of what you say is "according to you".

Jeez, you people are unreal (pun intended).

I have no idea what you are talking about. What is with the attitude? Where did I say you said "according to you."? Be careful about what you smoke, it could get you into trouble.
You said consumers will not buy a product if it is not good.
I just said consumers will buy anything that is available. I also said just because consumers are buying, it does not mean that everything that the company does is condoned by the consumers.

 

[Beautyspin]

Well thanks for showing us you're one of those officials who think they should be able to tell companies to screw their customers because you want it. Rants like yours do not come from rational people. They come from zealots.

Apple needs no help from anybody telling them to screw their customers. They are very good at screwing their customers all on their own.

 

[ksj1]

According to you, they should not be able to sell iPhones once these rules pass. If they are able to sell iPhones after the regulations come to pass, it means the buyers are supporting the regulations. So, let us see. As far as I think, iPhone sales will skyrocket once these regulations are in place as it will take over the majority of the high-end Android phones. People who are currently buying high end Android phones because iPhones are crippled due to its walled garden approach, will start buying iPhones. Win-Win.

 

[Beautyspin]

Well now we're getting down to brass tacks here. You really just want Apple to open its system because you want to buy an app once and not have to pay again if you move to Android.

That isn't an Apple problem, that is a developer problem.

Allowing sideloading does not mean buy once and use anywhere. It is true that some apps are available on multiple platforms, not all are. This argument is specious and shows that you are clutching at straws.

 

[ksj1]

Apple needs no help from anybody telling them to screw their customers. They are very good at screwing their customers all on their own.

Get some help man. Apple isn't screwing their customers except in your mind.

 

[Beautyspin]

That is what you were implying.
According to you "people will not buy phones if they do not like it."
According to you "People do not like these new changes"
is that not what you were implying? If not, then I apologize.
However, if you were implying this, then it means that people will not buy these phones (iPhones) once the new regulations are in place. But please remember, these regulations will be in place for all the phones, both Android and iOS. So, users will not have any phone to buy as according to you "they will not these changes" (again, apologies if you had not meant this).

 

[ksj1]

Allowing sideloading does not mean buy once and use anywhere. It is true that some apps are available on multiple platforms, not all are. This argument is specious and shows that you are clutching at straws.

Then explain why it you said it is so expensive to switch between IOS and Android.

 

[ksj1]

That is what you were implying.
According to you "people will not buy phones if they do not like it."
According to you "People do not like these new changes"
is that not what you were implying? If not, then I apologize.
However, if you were implying this, then it means that people will not buy these phones (iPhones) once the new regulations are in place. But please remember, these regulations will be in place for all the phones, both Android and iOS. So, users will not have any phone to buy as according to you "they will not these changes" (again, apologies if you had not meant this).

What part of "I purchased this phone knowing I was in a walled garden that would be safer than Android" do you not understand?

You can want whatever you want. Apple doesn't have to screw its other customers to give it to you.

Edit - You and others keep saying the App Store and Play Store are the same. They are not. Google will let you collect whatever you want, which is why apps stay there even if they could be sideloaded.

They have no reason to do it on Android. The point you and your friends keeps ignoring. I wonder why that is?

 

[dk001]

To be clear. Elected officials do not propose bills like this because some random consumer has complained. This is only happening because there are lots of large companies that want to bypass the controls Apple has put into their system that makes it something I, and many others, want to use.

There are clearly a bunch of people on this thread that don't understand that allowing side loading of apps means that the services those people are using are also now compromised, which means someone who has sideloaded something could use those services to contaminate my device through that service. You can say, Apple should have already addressed that. They did, they made IOS a closed system.

Then there are those of us, well qualified, who may agree in part with your premise but thoroughly disagree with your stated outcome.

Opinions differ.

 

[Beautyspin]

Get some help man. Apple isn't screwing their customers except in your mind.

Really -

Apple held secret meeting with developers in 2017 to push app subscriptions | AppleInsider

In a meeting in a New York loft last year, Apple told around 30 developers that they ought to embrace subscription models.

appleinsider.com

https://psychocod3r.wordpress.com/2021/03/30/7-ways-apple-screws-over-their-customers/ - this is subjective so you may not agree with some of them. Let us agree to disagree.

Screwed over: how Apple and others are making it impossible to get a cheap and easy phone repair

By adding excessive hurdles to the repair process and restricting access to parts, big device manufacturers leave both the customer and small repair businesses disadvantaged.

theconversation.com

I could go on.

 

[dk001]

Well now we're getting down to brass tacks here. You really just want Apple to open its system because you want to buy an app once and not have to pay again if you move to Android.

That isn't an Apple problem, that is a developer problem.

Not what I said at all.
That would be cool but I don’t expect that.
Nice deflection though.

 

[ksj1]

Not what I said at all.
That would be cool but I don’t expect that.
Nice deflection though.

Explain the large expense then if its not the apps.