Sounds like fear mongering. Android 12 will officially support third party app stores with automatic app updates so even better than sideloading although I doubt that's going away.
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 to Pull 'iDOS 2' DOS Emulator From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like fear mongering. Android 12 will officially support third party app stores with automatic app updates so even better than sideloading although I doubt that's going away.
Android 12: Google blocks sideloading of apps, just like Apple
Android 12 will not allow you to install applications that do not come from the Play Store: the first clues come from Google Camera and Recorder
en.ttoday.it
Doesn’t look like fear mongering after all. Third party store official support is more like bending over China’s floods of third party stores without Google play store.Android 12: Google blocks sideloading of apps, just like Apple
Android 12 will not allow you to install applications that do not come from the Play Store: the first clues come from Google Camera and Recorder
You need to read the article you linked. It doesn't say Android 12 is blocking sideloading. It's saying Google Pixel apps are blocked from installing on non-Pixel devices probably for intellectual property reasons like Night Sight, https://recorder.withgoogle.com/, etc. Google was the pioneer of Night Sight then all of the sudden Apple and Chinese phones copied it.
What I read is Google is actively implementing features that can permanently rule out sideloading on android 12. It is still on beta so they could only do so on their own apps.
See this:
Android 12 will not allow you to install applications that do not come from the Play Store: the first clues come from Google Camera and Google Recorder
We don’t need any other defense, it’s simple logic.
If you want something that Android offers and iOS doesn’t, you should buy Android.
If you want something that iOS offers and Android doesn’t, you should buy iOS.
If you want a mix of things some which only one offers, some which only the other offers, then you decide which are most important to you and buy whichever is the best based on your criteria.
Nowhere should it be “force company A to make their product more like company B’s just because I want it”.
You have the right to choose which device you want. You don’t have the right to demand someone make a device exactly how you want them to.
This is not complicated.
these people hate apple so much but they refuse to use anything but an iphone and pretend android doesnt exist
lol. they aren't as bad as the apple submissives that will just accept anything their master does.
Yeah. It’s dodging problems by using Android despite iOS being a great fit.
Cant wait for Google to pull the plug on side-loading and see how these apple defenders would respond to another similar issue.
They could own both, like I do.
I MUCH prefer the iPhone, but I really want an iPhone Flip. My Motorola Razr is the perfect form factor. I'll probably getting the new Samsung Flip to replace it in a month or so.
I don't expect they ever will, but it's no skin off my back if they did -- I happen to agree it's too much of a security risk.
Now general purpose computers, I'd fight lockdown tooth and nail.
Which part of an approved and sandboxed/isolated iPadOS app that’s running emulated DOS apps is “unchecked native code”?
The problem is that even Google is trying to get rid of side loading on Android.
Except it’s not. The ridiculous claim that someone posted earlier is a random statement from a blog completely in contradiction to Google’s actual work.
I was not referring to iDOS, but to unrestricted side-loading. However, sandboxes are far from perfect. iPadOS 14.7 fixed four vulnerabilities the allowed either escaping the sandbox or using root/kernel privileges.
LOL more garbage business decisions because they want to upsell the hilarious failure that is apple arcade. Government mandated sideloading ability, along with some more antitrust investigations please & thanks
That's not correct.
Access to private APIs are enforced at the store level.
Some apps developers can apply for access to more APIs than a general app will have.
Are you saying that Apple should be allowed, at-will, to control all the access and the security of apps from side loading and third party stores as long as they also restrict the access for apps on the App Store?
Also, a sandbox model, doesn't really stop tricking the user to allow certain steps.
An app can ask for access to photos, the user grants access, and the app sends the photos to a server. If this is discovered Apple can revoke the certificate for the developer.
They can't do this for apps from a third party store or from side loading since it means that Apple control those apps and thus defeats the purpose of being able to install apps with no way at all, ever, for Apple to stop or influence it.
I still like some DOS apps and games. One game was POD racer which is still excellent 👾
BUT please pay attention to the problem of Terminal and command prompt apps on a mobile device like iPhone.
If someone downloads an app into DOS that the App Store couldn’t vet then this app could perform an attack and take advantage of a security bug or leak in System RAM.
It can then use that memory leak to spread a malware into other apps or get your personal data or steal money from your banking apps or send a malicious link to ALL your contacts 🤦
Then your contacts click the link and the malware spreads to all their contacts.
Within 24 hours thousands or millions of phones can become infected 🦠🦠🦠
Those infected phones can be held to ransom or turned into a bot net 🤖
Have some people on this forum not heard of bot nets? Pegasus? Ransomware? 🤷
Think carefully please. These issues are not David vs Goliath.
We have the same potential problem on the desktop. So many people foolishly install some pirate software or download some app and then their whole computer is screwed and their money is gone forever.
Be careful whose opinion you trust online. Some people are the scammers who want these things to happen and some people just want to watch the world burn 🌎🔥
BUT please pay attention to the problem of Terminal and command prompt apps on a mobile device like iPhone.
If someone downloads an app into DOS that the App Store couldn’t vet then this app could perform an attack and take advantage of a security bug or leak in System RAM.
It can then use that memory leak to spread a malware into other apps or get your personal data or steal money from your banking apps or send a malicious link to ALL your contacts 🤦
Then your contacts click the link and the malware spreads to all their contacts.
Within 24 hours thousands or millions of phones can become infected 🦠🦠🦠
Those infected phones can be held to ransom or turned into a bot net 🤖
Have some people on this forum not heard of bot nets? Pegasus? Ransomware? 🤷
Think carefully please. These issues are not David vs Goliath.
We have the same potential problem on the desktop. So many people foolishly install some pirate software or download some app and then their whole computer is screwed and their money is gone forever.
Be careful whose opinion you trust online. Some people are the scammers who want these things to happen and some people just want to watch the world burn 🌎🔥
Is that a legal argument?
All software are copyrighted unless the owner has given it to public domain or it's more than 70 years since the owner died. The owner of the software controls the right to make copies, thus the name copy right.
Unless you have permission from the owner, usually through a license, you have no right to make a copy of a computer program (except for backup and a few other exceptions).
Basically, almost everyone who plays these games from old platforms on newer platforms are breaking the law if they do so in the US.
Are they creators if the use works other people have created?
Avoiding copyright violations are very easy: Only use your own work or pay for the privilege to use other's work.
Yeah, of course, dodging the problem is very easy.
The reality is, individual creativity is only so much, and even if you come up with something you thought was new, chances are, somebody else comes up that idea first and implemented it. What next? New idea? But there is always a limit. You say paying for the privilege? Just look at how hard those companies fight over patent infringement. The privilege cost is sometimes so ridiculously high, paying for the use is almost the last resort. Wait, you want to say “then create your own stuff”. How about every stuff you come up with got similarities of something else and you end up infringing someone else’s copyright, unwillingly or not, despite hours of work and careful lookup?
In the meantime, copyright holder can renew their copyright forever and milk customers forever. Literally sitting at the top of a gold mountain.
But I get it. All you are going to say is “create your own work or pay up”. I just hope someone else can see how terrible copyright might be.
How does any of this apply differently to an app executing a vm vs not executing a vm?
Let users decide if they are power users or not. There's a huge disclaimer if you try to side load apps on Android. You have to enable the option and after that point it's caveat emptor, just like it's been on computers (including macs) for decades. If you do a bonehead move and download from some untrusted site then it's on you, it comes down to the responsibility of the user. For those that aren't tech savvy or just want to stay within the walled garden, they have that choice, that option. To you it might be a walled garden, for others it's a prison.
This is a common misconception, one that large software (and media) companies have leveraged for decades now, as well as the misnomer that an EULA is some how a real contract at the same level as a formal agreement that businesses enter into with other businesses.
We, private users, do not own the IP that the software represents, but we do own copies of that IP that lives within that which we own (whether a mobile device, a USB stick, an optical disc, a desktop/laptop hard drive, etc), just as how we do not own the master for an album or negatives for a film, but the copy we purchased belongs to us, which exists within the private domain of the user.
People have always had the right to tinker and modify that which they own. This is why jail-breaking and rooting has ultimately been deemed perfectly legal (even though some companies have tried their damnedest to misrepresent and spin false narratives previously in court to judges they knew did not have a firm understanding of technology.) This right has long been protected at the Constitutional level in the United States (e.g., First Sale Doctrine, among other provisions), and similarly in many other developed countries.
Apple either wouldn't have existed or have been able to get far with the attitude that they've displayed in the past few years. We certainly wouldn't have had the Apple II as we knew it. Companies can frankly say whatever they want and write whatever they wish in EULAs, but they cannot change what is granted as higher levels, nor can they enforce anything beyond what is already deemed illegal by law, no matter how much they sometimes pretend otherwise.