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

Crow_Servo said:
Give users the option, with the warning that they are possibly taking a risk. Some users won’t take that risk, but some users don’t mind.
Click to expand...
Do you have children? Children may not know the risk they're taking. Worse yet, there are millions of families who use a single Apple ID (yes, I know there's family sharing - but that doesn't share enough and didn't exist when some families went that route) so if one member decides to take the risk, they're taking the risk for everyone on the same Apple ID.
 
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗 said:
Apple can't seems to catch a break from all this. A simple approach would be to give users the option to control their privacy and security.
Click to expand...
The simple approach is also simple minded. Lots of families share Apple IDs - if one family member decided to take the side-loading option, they weaken the security of every one on the same Apple ID.
 
BootsWalking said:
Because the vast majority of mobile app profits are in iOS and developers are looking for levers to force Apple to reduce their app-store and IAP take. Side-loading is one lever to force Apple's hand.
Click to expand...
The other way to force apples' hand is to leave the ios app store. That far and away would have a more immediate impact.
 
This article parrots a lot of theoretical downsides of allowing free installation of applications. Are there any potential upsides or is it all just bad stuff?
 
twolf2919 said:
It's not whining - Apple has built a business on the promise that they provide better security on their platform. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but millions of folks who have bought into the Apple ecosystem obviously do. You say "nobody is being forced to do it [sideload]" but that is an extremely naive point of view. By giving that option, Apple not only would weaken security for those who opt to side load, but also for those who don't! Example scenario: parent and child with same Apple ID. Parent doesn't side load anything because he believes it makes hacking their account easier. Child doesn't know better and accidentally side loads a malicious app that then goes about exploiting both her phone and the family's Apple-ID based data.

As Tim Cook said: if you want side-loading, buy an Android device! Don't retroactively try to tell Apple how it should run its business!
Click to expand...

Apple would also suffer great reputational brand damage resulting from those choosing to sideload apps and then suffering from bricked phones, loss of data, and privacy breaches.

I suspect that greatly concerns Apple.
 
I7guy said:
The other way to force apples' hand is to leave the ios app store. That far and away would have a more immediate impact.
Click to expand...
That would take a coordinated action across many large-scale developers. That is unlikely to happen - bills to pay and mouths to feed.
 
BootsWalking said:
That would take a coordinated action across many large-scale developers. That is unlikely to happen - bills to pay and mouths to feed.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's the real way to do it. Go on strike, instead of hoping the government will regulate Apple to death.
 
twolf2919 said:
Do you have children? Children may not know the risk they're taking. Worse yet, there are millions of families who use a single Apple ID (yes, I know there's family sharing - but that doesn't share enough and didn't exist when some families went that route) so if one member decides to take the risk, they're taking the risk for everyone on the same Apple ID.
Click to expand...
You are also taking the risk for everyone who's emails, contact details, photos or who are connected to you via other apps and social networks you use on that device.
 
jz0309 said:
They are, just go to an Apple store and hang out at the Genius Bar for an hour…
98% of users are simply not aware nor do they care to learn to become “experts”
Click to expand...
Yeah because Apple is parenting them to be one, and that over years, this doesn't mean they are unable to learn.
It's about time to end this and enforce sideloading.
 
Wildkraut said:
Yeah because Apple is parenting them to be one, and that over years, this doesn't mean they are unable to learn.
It's about time to end this and enforce sideloading.
Click to expand...
Like we did for masks and vaccines.

They're not unable to learn. They don't want to learn. And nothing you can do will force them to; you can't end it.
 
twolf2919 said:
Do you have children? Children may not know the risk they're taking. Worse yet, there are millions of families who use a single Apple ID (yes, I know there's family sharing - but that doesn't share enough and didn't exist when some families went that route) so if one member decides to take the risk, they're taking the risk for everyone on the same Apple ID.
Click to expand...
Then you've not done your job as a parent.
 
Smearbrick said:
Complete BS. It would hurt their bottom line. That’s the only thing it would undermine.
Click to expand...

And you are who in the world of tech security?

We have already seen the proof. Computers. Unintentionally-installed malware is the biggest source of compromised systems.

Now, granted, Apple has designed security around a gated review system. Apps that fail just never get installed. Should side-loading be forced onto them (note, that's the opposite of choice), they would just need to redesign the security checks to ensure that any apps that are installed can't compromise the system. It raises the bar on how secure the operating system and hardware needs to be. And we'd all need to run bloated malware scanning software on our devices... bleh!
 
It's easy.
1. Let users choose one of two options, secured or compromised.
2. Give developers a choice they can allow their code to run on compromised devises or not.
 
thejadedmonkey said:
Why would sideloading reduce security? It just changes where the app comes from, it doesn't negate the platform protections though.
Click to expand...
If your phone can run unsigned code, it is not secure. If your phone can run unsigned code, any and every app you run on that phone is not secure. If a phone is connected to a network and that phone can run unsigned code, that network is not secure.
 
zorinlynx said:
So tired of Apple whining about this. The bill means you have to allow sideloading. Nobody is being forced to do it.

They don't want to lose the tight control they have of the platform.
Click to expand...

But that's not the point. The argument is "choice", and consumers *already* have choice. They can choose Android or another mobile platform. Simple as that. So the bill is doing nothing but taking choice *away* from Apple. They are being forced to offer "features" that don't fit into their business model.

---

Look at it another way... you own a business. You spend countless hours designing products and services according to your best principles to serve your customers to the best of your ability. Through your thoughtful design, you are doing your customers good by providing a safe, secure environment. They can go about their day without any concerns.

Then the government comes along and forces you to remove some of your own protections because they think it's "best" for consumers. It's your company, your blood, sweat and tears, but no longer your choice. You now need to bend over and comply, or shut the doors. How would you feel? That's right... you'd feel that the government is nuts!
 
coolfactor said:
And you are who in the world of tech security?

We have already seen the proof. Computers. Unintentionally-installed malware is the biggest source of compromised systems.

Now, granted, Apple has designed security around a gated review system. Apps that fail just never get installed. Should side-loading be forced onto them (note, that's the opposite of choice), they would just need to redesign the security checks to ensure that any apps that are installed can't compromise the system. It raises the bar on how secure the operating system and hardware needs to be. And we'd all need to run bloated malware scanning software on our devices... bleh!
Click to expand...
If a device can run unsigned code, you can be resistant to malware. You can never lock it out. The only way to build a system that can't run malware is to only allow it to run code that has been checked before it is downloaded. If you even allow emulated code to run, it will find a way out of the sandbox.
 
ipedro said:
Some people are incapable of forward thinking and can't imagine the inevitable path on which side loading goes from a choice to virtually mandatory once apps used by the masses like Instagram, Tik Tok or Google stop making their apps available in the App Store and make their apps only available to install via sideloading.

You can only resist for so long until an app comes around that you need for work or to fit in your social circle. Then the whole privacy and security deck of cards Apple built with the App Store comes crashing down. Why would any major app offer their app in the App Store with privacy and security protections if they have the chance to acquire all of your data?
Click to expand...

This is it. It’s an absolute certainty that the moment it’s possible, Facebook will set up a page with instructions on exactly how to sideload their app. They probably already have templates ready to go. Only question is will they have the guts to immediately pull the App Store version, or will they wait.

My bet is they do it first with Instagram and / or Whatsapp. They’ll tell users of the app that to continue they’ll have to install an update, with instructions on how to sideload.

I sincerely do not understand why anyone likes anything about Instagram, but their user base will almost certainly just do whatever Facebook puts in front of them.

Just look at what is consistently on the top of the app store charts. Just about every single one of them is either a messenger app or a game from a shady company that would pull their app in an instant if they could get around Apple’s rules.

Apple did bring this on themselves, however. If they insist on being the sole arbiter, they can’t also do a crap job like they have been.
 
I7guy said:
For who? Government regulating competition never really works out the way one thinks....usually worse.
Click to expand...

That’s the other part of this. Forget sideloading (which I maintain is a bad idea) but this sets up all kinds of subjective language that they have to try to comply with. Just injects even more politics into their daily operations. Some government regulation is essential (people can and will try to sell you bad meat, drugs, etc) but has to be done with the lightest touch possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top