People will pay for whatever you’re selling if you make it something they want to buy. There are people paying a $99 subscription a year for EMAIL.
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's Arguments Against Sideloading on iOS: All Your Questions Answered
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Honestly I didn't even plan to make an argument, but then couldn't help myself. Just wanted to show some appreciation, but couldn't give a thumbs up since I disagreed. I understand the intended use of enterprise certificates and that there is additional vetting involved, but it's still a pathway that has been opened on the rare occasions where they are not used as intended. In which case the action is the same: Apple revokes the certificate.
Per Apple:
"Despite the program’s tight controls and limited scale, bad actors have found unauthorized ways of accessing it, for instance by purchasing enterprise certificates on the black market. Bad actors have used illegitimately obtained enterprise certificates to distribute apps that violate App Store policies, including apps containing malware such as Goontact (see below) and pirated versions of popular iOS apps."
Now they use that to paint a picture that things are bad, and would be much worse with widespread sideloading, but when they actually make a firm position statement, they add some interesting caveats (emphasis mine):
"If the option to distribute apps via sideloading were available on a massive scale, without any restrictions, and with Apple powerless to revoke certificates from bad actors in cases of abuse, malware and other forms of illegitimate apps would run rampant."
I do think Apple cares about security. I think it's genuinely the second thing they care about after revenue (or third after privacy). I don't think they view side loading with certificates that can be revoked as a major threat vector catastrophic to the iOS security paradigm though. They see it as a bigger risk to their revenue model. Enterprise certificates are a tool that allows them to keep the business of large corporations without formally opening the iPhone to sideloaded apps that could harm services revenue. They are designed with security in mind after they've secured those revenue streams. If sideloading was somehow more profitable to Apple on iOS, we would have it.
Phones are highly sensitive device that contains much more information than any other device you have, especially as you move around.
Look at what has been happening to journalists all over the world such as Jamal Khashoggi. Even Jeff Bezos got hacked and blackmailed by a dictator because he was careless with downloading.
With side loading hacks like Pegasus would be so common and target children especially. There's a scam on YouTube that encourages kids to download 'GTA 5' to their phones. Once installed the app tricks kids to click a few choices but each choice is a scam to get access to all the details on the phone.
For example, a pop up will say 'Click Start' but behind it the action is 'Give permission to access contacts'.
Look at what has been happening to journalists all over the world such as Jamal Khashoggi. Even Jeff Bezos got hacked and blackmailed by a dictator because he was careless with downloading.
With side loading hacks like Pegasus would be so common and target children especially. There's a scam on YouTube that encourages kids to download 'GTA 5' to their phones. Once installed the app tricks kids to click a few choices but each choice is a scam to get access to all the details on the phone.
For example, a pop up will say 'Click Start' but behind it the action is 'Give permission to access contacts'.
Speak for yourself. My friends and family that have iPhones ONLY have iPhones due to the walled garden. Why the heck would I spend over $1,000 for a phone when Android is FAR cheaper and FAR better?! The locked down experience thats why. I will leave iPhone. My family and friends feel the same. And I seriously doubt we are the only 15 people on the entire planet that thinks this way. So it would be forcing Apple do to something that will impact their sales negatively.
60% is most. What if 40% of all iPhone sales are from people that DO think this way? Now you are making Apple intentionally creating a product that a good minority no longer wants, and their numbers will suffer.
Fully agree. Phones have our health data that computers do not. All of our texts and phone calls, location data and more. There is a reason why iOS has more security in mind than a desktop operating system.
Then Apple needs to massively overhaul their Mac security webpage, because it tells me I can install apps from the internet on my Mac "worry-free."
macOS - Security
macOS is designed with powerful, advanced technologies that work together to keep your Mac and built-in apps more private and more secure.
www.apple.com
Notice it came from a sideloading platform.
Notice your admission it could come from other sideloading platforms.
Notice the absence of the no-sideloading platform in both actual and hypothetical categories.
This is why Apple prohibits sideloading on iOS.
Apple sells not just hardware, but complete ongoing ecosystems. They flubbed sideloading on macOS for historical reasons, but learned the lesson and did it right with iOS.
Notice that the App Store is brimming with scam apps and that apparently preventing sideloading doesn't actually keep users safe.
Notice that Apple advertises how safe and secure MacOS is on their site, and will only flip-flop on that to protect their 15% iOS App Store cut.
Notice that cherrypicking things from a single response to another post is a disingenuous way to try argue your point.
From the numbers that someone posted, the percentage of folks on Android, a system that allows sideloading, that ACTUALLY sideload is very tiny. So the “more iPhones” they would sell would be infinitesimally small, if any.
All these conditions have existed since even before day 1 of the App Store. What changed?
The Apple Silicon transition, in my thinking, is primarily to allow them to remove the Intel tax (and AMD tax, and Nvidia tax) as the sales begin to shrink in the future. As sales fall, they’ll be able to continue making a few million Macs a year (for developers and some folks that just like Macs) at a profit. If they were still on Intel, they’d reach the break-even point sooner and have to stop producing Macs earlier.
If Mac sales, beyond this COVID bump, continue to rise, they may consider making macOS a platform like iOS, but the real likelihood of that is pretty low.
And those that try developing for Android? They know this all too well. There’s more profit to be made on iOS because of the protections that are in place. That’s also why you don’t hear the majority of developers complaining, they’re making good money for a reasonable amount of work.
Yes, they do. macOS today, while more secure than macOS of even 2 years ago (due to the removal of features like kext’s), is still less secure than iOS.
Thankfully MacBook Air is good enough for most people wanting to hop into the mac ecosystem, otherwise given the high price of those MacBook Pro and iMac, Apple would have some pretty difficult time pushing their silicon even though they can kill both Intel and AMD in terms of synthetic benchmarks.
I don't see why Apple just wants to stop building Mac. But getting rid of Intel is a wise move from all perspectives, especially after previous Intel management showed their true color. Removing Intel/AMD/Nvidia "tax" looks more like a side benefit than anything else if I am perfectly honest.
Unless Apple management changes their mind, macOS might still maintain its semi-open status for a little while longer, though I still believe Apple is seriously looking into locking down macOS sooner or later.
I'll counter your anecdote with mine. All my friends and families have it because it's trendy and user friendly. IMO, the "walled garden" product is an implicit thought, not an active one.
I don't think they'll ever fully do this -- or at least I really hope not.
I'll be gone for good if they do.
I don't need or want that level of gatekeeping on my desktop computer
Well written. I disagree with the last sentence though but don’t really have any proof other than their position on CSAM which really doesn’t have anything to do with this topic other than their mentality. Basically I think Apple is willing to forego profits to maintain a platform of stability and security (my opinion though). They’re willing to do something that they know will hurt them publicly to do what they think is morally right (also my opinion).
To add to this, I don't even expect the liberty I take for granted using a computer when using 5 inch device. iOS is limited by design, and with a phone I'm fine with that.
My iPad is collecting dust for precisely that reason.
It is actually separate issues.
Companies like Epic looking for a way to garner more cash.
Developers looking for less restrictive / alternative venues for their apps.
They may sound like it, but it’s not. Right now ALL of the application level malware on iOS has to go through the App Store. There’s a lot of stupid things that iOS users can’t do because the malicious app developers have a hard time getting apps onto people’s devices. They break through every now and again, but every now and again is still far better than the ever hour of every day that regular users would be conned into installing an app posing as a bitcoin wallet that’s actually harvesting all their personal data, including their contact lists when then provides the malicious app developer with new targets, the same way it’s now being done on other less secure platforms.
Folks can actually have ALL the toppings they want, it’s just every pizza comes with a crust. If they want pizza without crust, they’ll have to find a place that makes crustless pizza. It would be silly to buy a pizza with crust and get upset that it actually comes with crust.
The point in the article that resonates most with me is about the non-tech savvy users who can easily be tricked into side loading malicious apps. In my experience, working with hundreds of creative people in their 20's and 30's, not to mention family, kids, and grandparents, a lot of people fall for this crap and end up getting screwed financially, or compromising their privacy or devices. It's a really crappy reality to tell your kids and parents (or your coworkers) that they can't trust stuff that comes to them in email, or on the web and that they have to sharpen their critical paranoid thinking skills to filter out the bad actors. I can see why Apple wants to protect iOS, because mobile devices are a bigger ecosystem, and the OS for everyone, regardless of their personal computer (or lack of).
I’m sure they would! Just like if Airbus discovered that making planes from paper would make them money, they’d make every plane from now on out of paper. Both things are just as likely to occur.
Primarily because, looking at the Android numbers of people that have the capacity to sideload but instead stick with the Google Play store, sideloading as a feature just isn’t important to an overwhelming majority of folks. If having sideloading as a feature itself is not a driving factor in purchases, there’s not really an avenue where sideloading could make Apple more money.