You allow sideloading, you give attackers ability to compromise other apps. This will not end well.
Get outta here. It sure ended literally every other smartphone device that isn’t IOS didn’t if? Android seems to be doing fine.
You allow sideloading, you give attackers ability to compromise other apps. This will not end well.
lol https://habr.com/en/post/580272/You allow sideloading, you give attackers ability to compromise other apps. This will not end well.
Consider the cost of 3rd party apps is support for and certifcation compared to in-house dev. Hazard a guess on number of 3rd party apps in “official store” Android Vs iPhone? I would guess about 10X. And until you are on both Android & iOS you have no visibility to the lower price and much more feature rich Android apps.They have arguments that support their decision, but make no mistake - the only reason they care is because of Revenue.
If apps can be side-loaded, then they can circumvent AppStore fees, including In-App Purchase fees, which account for roughly 20% of their revenue. However, that 20% of revenue has a high profit margin since its digital goods and not physical hardware. I would wager that it's the biggest cash cow Apple has today. They will do anything to keep that system closed. It has 0% to do with security. The only way this will happen is court order, but that would be an overstep for the courts.
If this wasn't about money, they would easily allow side-loading how its done on Mac OS today, and how Android does it - by default on the approved store, with the option to allow side-loading in security settings.
Nope. Lots o' problems among the sideloaders.Android seems to be doing fine.
As I say: "vote with your wallet." Courts shouldn't be involved because a manufacturer doesn't make the exact product you want. Courts (and the DOJ) should be involved if and when a company is doing something illegal.It can be helpful to review history without limiting the discussion to Apple products. When we buy computers we expect to be able to load any software we wish, including different OS, or to buy without an OS. If Apple intends to lease phones and iPads, then restrict the software loaded they could, but given no problems a user could delete that software before returning the device. Now, who signs up for that at what price? The handwaving and false equivalents need to be removed as valid data: Asserting statistics suggesting ”other methods” are bad is evasion dressed up as reason: if you attack other platforms, even your own as “bad by comparison” that data on iPhone and iPad must be released for comparison. Apple isn’t stupid, they likely wouldn’t make a claim without counting their own numbers to compare, disclose that and cut the malarkey. What Apple keeps saying is “trust us” and allow Appple to determine what we do on our expensive devices, reducing their value and our own creativity. I get why Apple wants to restrict apps from grabbing private data, yet how is Apple using our data, and what data is protected from them? A 30% markup is a very hign price when Appke can arbitrarily say “no access” which must be a lot cheaper than vetting and authorizing lots of developers. But claiming that’s in our best interest is false: as buyers, only we get to decide that. I would attempt anologies but that involves shifting relative importance, utility, and emotions that distract. Of course we love iPhones but having bought them, Apple‘s restrictions are condescending and profit protecting. Finally, back up that Android statement with a reverse trade-in: I want freedom to install, the vast catalog of Android apps, and apps that don’t crash that accomplish many tasks and restore our creaivity. I’m convinced, can I go to an Apple store and pick up my replacement Android device? This isn’t about making other choicest, but about restrictive policies driving significant Apple revenue while limiting disclosures of bad apps that were delivered by the Appke store. As in this example, companies that know how to develop, market, and support software have no choice but to pay 30% of their iPhone revenue to Apple, and in this case get a Court to allow them to punish the developer by banning them indefinitely without recourse. That’s restraining trade by using the Courts to punish litigants who dared to spend millions to ask a Court to review an unfair policy. Apple hates competition and rather than play nice or support customers to make their own choices they sell an aura of self-confident, happy ease and success for only $1000 or so every couple of years, including product protection, and complete subscriptions to premium content always pushing and positioning always with “trust us to take care and give you the best” when objectively the only excellence is predictive profit for Apple.
Nope. Lots o' problems among the sideloaders.
Nope. Lots o' problems among the sideloaders.