This already exists, more or less, with enterprise software. People aren't arguing for keeping things the same, they're arguing for side loading unsigned apps.
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
And let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of security problems in apple's own app store with scam and malicious apps routinely being listed highly and passing inspections
This is false. The mere ability to run unsigned code makes users who don't side load apps more vulnerable. zero-day exploits can infiltrate much deeper, whether you have the toggle checked or not.
Rubbish. That's like saying having Apple app store opens one up to unauthorized purchases.
I really don't see how consumers benefit from side loading. Freedom of choice? so what? How is that freedom? Having to choose between a Wild West source to find apps doesn't seem like freedom to me. It seems like a nightmare to have to hunt things down all the time. It seems like a nightmare to worry about dozens of payment methods.
Side loading makes sense on a computer because its what we have always done. A computer may require a unique set of applications that a phone or tablet may not typically require for work. Plus its really too late to go back now. Most are not using their phones for work where they need specific unique apps. Most apps could also likely be a web app that would be required for work purposes.
In my experience the apps that are banned from the App Store tend to be apps pirating other apps like game emulators or apps trying to do something a little shady. Most users have no interest in such apps and I'm willing to bet 99% of actual iOS users prefer the single safe App Store. That 99% of users don't even think about the notion of a different App Store or side loading. These are all geek power user concepts and do not represent the opinions of the vast majority of iOS users.
If there were legitimate apps held back by the App Store that might be one thing but almost every major legit app including Epic, after all their BS, is allowed as long as they play by the rules. Rules that really do not impact consumers. A developer paying Apple 15% or 30% has zero impact on users. 15% for apps under $1,000,000 is also a very modest fee considering the transactions, hosting, distribution and marketing Apple provides. If an app suddenly earns $1,000,000 its using a ton of bandwidth for distribution. Something a shared web host will likely not allow. You really need a CDN to handle the speed and traffic to host and distribute a popular app. Then there is the financial part of all of it. Can every app developer promise the same level of financial security for payments? What if a developers site is hacked and the hacker steals all the banking details of every user? Will they be prepared for lawsuits?
Yes computers do it all the time but this is also one of those things most users actually hate about computers. They don't want to think or put in a ton of effort to find, update and research apps. They don't want to worry about thinking about if an app is safe or not. They just want a safe way to get tools to do stuff.
Side loading makes sense on a computer because its what we have always done. A computer may require a unique set of applications that a phone or tablet may not typically require for work. Plus its really too late to go back now. Most are not using their phones for work where they need specific unique apps. Most apps could also likely be a web app that would be required for work purposes.
In my experience the apps that are banned from the App Store tend to be apps pirating other apps like game emulators or apps trying to do something a little shady. Most users have no interest in such apps and I'm willing to bet 99% of actual iOS users prefer the single safe App Store. That 99% of users don't even think about the notion of a different App Store or side loading. These are all geek power user concepts and do not represent the opinions of the vast majority of iOS users.
If there were legitimate apps held back by the App Store that might be one thing but almost every major legit app including Epic, after all their BS, is allowed as long as they play by the rules. Rules that really do not impact consumers. A developer paying Apple 15% or 30% has zero impact on users. 15% for apps under $1,000,000 is also a very modest fee considering the transactions, hosting, distribution and marketing Apple provides. If an app suddenly earns $1,000,000 its using a ton of bandwidth for distribution. Something a shared web host will likely not allow. You really need a CDN to handle the speed and traffic to host and distribute a popular app. Then there is the financial part of all of it. Can every app developer promise the same level of financial security for payments? What if a developers site is hacked and the hacker steals all the banking details of every user? Will they be prepared for lawsuits?
Yes computers do it all the time but this is also one of those things most users actually hate about computers. They don't want to think or put in a ton of effort to find, update and research apps. They don't want to worry about thinking about if an app is safe or not. They just want a safe way to get tools to do stuff.
Bosh! Spotify pays next to nothing for App Store fees, Netflix pays nothing. Just because you download an app from the App Store, does not mean Apple gets anything. Developers have always been able to sell services outside of the App Store and bypassing it, the rules that preclude advertising on the App Store to circumvent the App Store are just common sense. Take EPIC, they can advertise on their own site, sell bucks on their own site, have games downloaded from the App Store and played using vbucks.
I know, facts are hard
no one is arguing for "unsigned code", people are arguing for alternate distribution. 'unsigned code" is a strawman.
Gatekeeper does it's best to match against its database of known exploits. But it can't do anything if it doesn't know, and it won't do anything if something is running outside of gatekeeper (which is really what people are arguing for: running unsigned apps).
Alternate distribution already exists. People should really stop arguing, if that's all they want.
oh yawn cut the doomsaying
Yeah, I hope Apple will find more win-win with app developers in near future. I like Apple and want them to be profitable, but also want to be able to install great apps on an iPhone from their app store in the future.
meanwhile less than 1% of android users side load in the first place so continually shouting how the sky will fall if apple does this is just fear mongering bs
Ahh, the moment you're presented with why there's an actual reduction of security here, you wave it off as something that's not of concern. OK -- you don't care, that doesn't mean there not an actual reduction of security.
Interesting. So, less than 1% of android uses side load in the first place, yet Android is significantly more malware-ridden than iOS? Go figure --- having even the option of side loading makes the OS less secure.
The weakest part of the chain is usually the user. The forum users on this site are probably more clued up than most, but if Facebook has taught us anything with "Pass this picture of a kitten to 7 of your friends within 24 hours or bad luck will befall you", "Comment Amen to cure this child", "You'll scream when you see what Pamela Anderson from Baywatch looks like now, click here!", and "Your porn name is your first pet's name and your mother's maiden name" has taught me is that technology is also used by a large number of utter morons who should be kept as far away from things like sideloading as possible.
just like apple most of the malware and scams comes straight from the official app store
The big tech companies should get together and form a commission that reviews and certifies app stores, then allow only those app stores to be used for their platforms. I’d rather it not be a government agency honestly because the government is worse than google when it comes to privacy haha.
How about you want something better for a lot of users on iOS?
By having different requirements and rules for two systems, you have the best of both worlds: A locked down, very secure environment for non-technical users and a somewhat open, pretty secure environment for more knowledgable users or users who accepts the trade-offs.
This is probably the biggest issue, but the other issue is that those who aren't total morons can't see past their own egos of how great they are with tech.
Maybe I'm just being anal then, but that really isn't ensuring anything. It's trying to do it, but that by no means guarantees it will be successful at it.
I think all this argues in favor of increasing the reviews that app stores can perform. like making sure a company is a valid company, bonding developers, etc. Many things haters complain about, Apple can't legitimately perform, like that guy that put his bitcoin into the wrong account and lost it, if rules app stores could check credentials like similar names to valid concerns, then customers could be warned, or there could be enforceable against that.
This whole issue is nonsense. Security is important, especially on phones where people's life information is stored. Now on the issue of fees for services, maybe some rework could be done. Maybe developers could be a fixed fee for software licensing, security reviews, and advertising actually done on the App Store. But what is wrong with third party app stores that advertise and market products, accept payments, etc. but link to the app store where developers still submit their apps. Everyone wins
This whole issue is nonsense. Security is important, especially on phones where people's life information is stored. Now on the issue of fees for services, maybe some rework could be done. Maybe developers could be a fixed fee for software licensing, security reviews, and advertising actually done on the App Store. But what is wrong with third party app stores that advertise and market products, accept payments, etc. but link to the app store where developers still submit their apps. Everyone wins
They should listen and read comments from their faithful user on MacRumors.
It is Apple's App Store. Apple can do whatever they want with it.
Apple should have the courage to stand its ground. Even under the rule of law, if they were forced to have side loading, they should pull out of those market. That is EU, UK, Australia, South Korea, Japan and Russia. ( But not US, no Macrumors user has ever suggested to leave US for some reason ) There is also an Anti-Trust Case in India as well, but I guess the market is too small no MR comments have ever suggested to leave the market. May be they dont care.
I really want Apple to have the courage to follow MR comments. Pull out of those market.
It is Apple's App Store. Apple can do whatever they want with it.
Apple should have the courage to stand its ground. Even under the rule of law, if they were forced to have side loading, they should pull out of those market. That is EU, UK, Australia, South Korea, Japan and Russia. ( But not US, no Macrumors user has ever suggested to leave US for some reason ) There is also an Anti-Trust Case in India as well, but I guess the market is too small no MR comments have ever suggested to leave the market. May be they dont care.
I really want Apple to have the courage to follow MR comments. Pull out of those market.
Fun thing: with every start of Safari they could pop up the alert:
Visiting of untrusted websites could harm you. Already check the address bar that you know the address already and you sure you can trust them
or just
You're browsing at your own risk! No safety guaranteed!
Visiting of untrusted websites could harm you. Already check the address bar that you know the address already and you sure you can trust them
or just
You're browsing at your own risk! No safety guaranteed!