Apple's Craig Federighi Says Sideloading on iPhone Would Open the Floodgates to Malware

[robertosh]

They need at least to make it optional. In my case, I don't even trust 100% on the apps on the appStore, so I would not even consider to install things from 3rd party sites. But if somebody wants to do it at they own risk, I think that is perfectly fine. Apple needs just to properly inform the user of the risks of enabling this option.

Or, maybe the real problem for Apple is not security and simply to avoid people getting the (paid) App Store apps for free from other sources.

 

[mrochester]

They need at least to make it optional. In my case, I don't even trust 100% on the apps on the appStore, so I would not even consider to install things from 3rd party sites. But if somebody wants to do it at they own risk, I think that is perfectly fine. Apple needs just to properly inform the user of the risks of enabling this option.

Or, maybe the real problem for Apple is not security and simply to avoid people getting the (paid) App Store apps for free from other sources.

But the option to install outside of the App Store is a benefit for some people and a liability for others. At the moment the rules protect those for whom this would be a liability. Should we really just switch the rules without careful thought and consideration, especially when most people are already served entirely by the App Store for all their needs?

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

It’s a fair point, but the option should be given to the people who purchase the hardware.

If they want to implement limitations on warranty coverage or support, that’s their prerogative.

But there is a 'common good' of trying to save people from self inflicted injuries to themselves and people they interact with. Some call it the 'nanny state', but the wreckage of not supporting people dealing with technology clogs up so many other public services such as the courts, law enforcement, and can leave people busted and unable to recover.

My mother was preyed upon by evil people on the internet. Keeping her safe was a tough road for quite a bit. Having Apple's focus on saving the user largely from themselves was such a priceless feature. Protecting her phone from the leagues of sketchy people out on the internet to the degree they did was such an amazing valued feature. Apple saved her from total personal destruction, saved her from exposing her life to people that seek to destroy it for any profit they could get from it, or worse, just the glee in it all.

 

[robertosh]

But the option to install outside of the App Store is a benefit for some people and a liability for others. At the moment the rules protect those for whom this would be a liability. Should we really just switch the rules without careful thought and consideration, especially when most people are already served entirely by the App Store for all their needs?

I'm perfectly fine with the Apple decision and totally support them on this. But I can also understand the complains from people that pays +1000$ for a phone and they cannot install what ever they like on it.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

What if, and I am no software engineer, it was an option when setting up a device. Like here is what sideloading is. If you would like to be able to do this, click this box, if not, click not now." I would think a strong majority would pick no initially, but if they found an app they really wanted or needed, they could change it after seeing an explanation of it.

But there are people that just won't understand what they are about to do. A client's employee asked me what cell phone she should get, and I recommended an iPhone. Their wastrel son recommended a 'Droid' phone. This was years ago but they got the Droid phone, and were hacked within days. Their device had malware and spamming apps in days/weeks. They ended up having to take the thing in to be disinfected quite often, and grew to hate their son who taunted her for 'being so stupid' allowing people to 'do that' to her phone. And I couldn't help her. She stopped using it for fear that it would happen again. I had no idea what she was doing to it, but felt her fear and distrust of the thing.

Technology *SHOULD* protect the user. At a minimum. Its so easy to do something stupid to yourself with technology designed with that capability in it.

 

[I7guy]

I'm perfectly fine with the Apple decision and totally support them on this. But I can also understand the complains from people that pays +1000$ for a phone and they cannot install what ever they like on it.

I don’t understand why people pay $1000 for something that doesn’t do what they want.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I don’t understand why people pay $1000 for something that doesn’t do what they want.

Who says it doesn't?

My iPhone does exactly what I want it to do: It WORKS! It protects me from the outside world to a large degree, and my data isn't disappearing, or being shared.

Just because you want to download willy nilly, does not mean everyone wants that. Just because you want to walk the edge, and understand how to keep yourself safe, doesn't mean everyone else is anywhere near as capable of handling that. People should have a choice, and do. Droid: can be dangerous, easy to expose your data. iPhone: Protective, helpful, just works.

EDIT: I had a Windows Phone, and it was a total POS! I grew so tired of it deleting my data, and that so many of the parts of the OS never worked. It was a major disappointment, and waste of money. I loved that feeling of 'is my data going to be there this time' every time I synced the damn thing. Can't tell you how much I valued that pit in my stomach feeling...

 

[Ethosik]

That would have possibly been a good argument 20 years ago, but windows is pretty secure these days too, the average windows user is not getting infected left and right either

Targets are bigger. Have you seen the news recently? Big hacks like Solarwinds and Microsoft Exchange flaws were exploited. Also CDPR had ransomware and not too long ago a few hospitals had ransomware too. Getting the average user is small potatoes now compared to bringing down an entire organization from a simple malicious email.

 

[Ethosik]

I'm perfectly fine with the Apple decision and totally support them on this. But I can also understand the complains from people that pays +1000$ for a phone and they cannot install what ever they like on it.

If that’s what they need, BUY something else! It’s that simple. This is like buying an AMD GPU when you NEED those CUDA cores and try to make laws that force NVIDIA to open source CUDA. You buy what you need.

 

[mrochester]

I'm perfectly fine with the Apple decision and totally support them on this. But I can also understand the complains from people that pays +1000$ for a phone and they cannot install what ever they like on it.

But shouldn't those people have understood what they were buying before they bought it?

 

[zoomp]

If Apple is forced to allow side-loading, they should make sure anyone option for that: a) void warranty b) not be allowed to use iCloud, iMessage or any apple cloud service, for the sake of all other users c) loose the right to download and install updates from Apple. No contact with apple services anymore. Even this, would probably render security backdoors and all sort of weird things.

There's choice, people, just buy an android.

I pay a lot of money to feel safe on a walled garden. I trust Apple's business model a lot more than google's Facebook that rely on user's engagement and have been destroying the world.

 

[Khalmoon]

I just don't agree with trying to legally enforce a company to release its "walls". The public does not care about side loading apps, and I only cared about side loading apps for piracy when I was in high school.

If they did care about sideloading this much they wouldn't have purchased an iPhone.

 

[IG88]

But the option to install outside of the App Store is a benefit for some people and a liability for others. At the moment the rules protect those for whom this would be a liability. Should we really just switch the rules without careful thought and consideration, especially when most people are already served entirely by the App Store for all their needs?

Relax. Grandma isn't gonna be sideloading apps. She wouldn't even know where in the settings to enable it.

 

[mrochester]

Relax. Grandma isn't gonna be sideloading apps. She wouldn't even know where in the settings to enable it.

What if she's socially engineered to do so?

 

[rellimie]

In other words, they want to control how you use your device that you own so basically treating it as a fully-paid lease.

You are free not to purchase the iPhone. You know the limitations going in.

 

[MacAddict1978]

I mean he's not wrong. Apple just needs to stick to their core privacy values to not look like hypocrites.

People choose iOS BECAUSE it's a better working closed ecosystem. You want a free-for-all OS where submitted App Store apps aren't reviewed then go get yourself an Android phone.

I really don't think this is really part of most people's purchasing decisions as the average joe doesn't even know what this stuff is.

It's also a poor argument to say, "people would be coerced or tricked into to sideloading." Do you know how may freaking steps there is to do this on an Android phone? Even when you find and toggle the option on to allow it, you still get nagged when you do it to be really sure you want to. 99.999999999% of people will never sideload anything.

The apps most commonly sideloaded? The ones not allowed in the App stores... ******* for example.... used to be gambling and casino apps but now those are freely available in app stores.

If someone is willing to sideload, they're willing to risk malware. Let that be THEIR problem. It's not Apple's or anyone NOT sideloading. Just more BS to lock down revenue they didn't earn. Most of Apple's fortunes are from the work of others.

 

[mrochester]

I really don't think this is really part of most people's purchasing decisions as the average joe doesn't even know what this stuff is.

It's also a poor argument to say, "people would be coerced or tricked into to sideloading." Do you know how may freaking steps there is to do this on an Android phone? Even when you find and toggle the option on to allow it, you still get nagged when you do it to be really sure you want to. 99.999999999% of people will never sideload anything.

The apps most commonly sideloaded? The ones not allowed in the App stores... ******* for example.... used to be gambling and casino apps but now those are freely available in app stores.

If someone is willing to sideload, they're willing to risk malware. Let that be THEIR problem. It's not Apple's or anyone NOT sideloading. Just more BS to lock down revenue they didn't earn. Most of Apple's fortunes are from the work of others.

But it is Apple's problem because they'll be allowing it to happen and failing to protect the consumer. I can imagine the headlines now. Idealistically you might not think it's Apple's problem but in the eyes of the public and media the buck will stop squarely at Apple.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Why do you think macOS has a higher virus/malware threat than iOS despite there being more than 10x the users on iOS?

But Apple swears macOS is so secure you probably don't need antivirus software!

Android has the mega share of the market, and how often do you hear of widespread issues? Like never. The ones you do hear about are Google's fault because they let those apps in the PlayStore....

IOS is so locked down with API restrictions (that make things from keyboards to other basic apps suck on IOS) it's less worrisome.

Besides, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ELECT TO DO THIS. ELECT. Apps don't sideload themselves.

 

[I7guy]

But Apple swears macOS is so secure you probably don't need antivirus software!

Can you point to where apple was swearing?

Android has the mega share of the market, and how often do you hear of widespread issues? Like never. The ones you do hear about are Google's fault because they let those apps in the PlayStore....

I do not believe that the above is accurate.

IOS is so locked down with API restrictions (that make things from keyboards to other basic apps suck on IOS) it's less worrisome.

Besides, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ELECT TO DO THIS. ELECT. Apps don't sideload themselves.

 

[Starscape]

If Apple could lock the Mac down the way they lock down iOS without inviting a PR conflagration they'd do it in a second.

As a bonus, you'd finally see Apple take gaming on the Mac seriously if that were to happen, because they'd be able to take their cut off the top of everything the way they do on iOS.

Edit: typo

I disagree. If Apple locks down MacOS like it does with iOS, then they will lose legions of dedicated Mac users. And what’s to stop Apple from taking gaming seriously now? It is the software developers that really direct much of the course of the computer hardware and OS development, from trends to needs. If Apple decides to pull a large cut from game developers, then they’ll just drop the platform entirely and stick with the PC. Choice is a good thing.

 

[loopy123]

If you want to side-load, just buy an Android phone and go away.

 

[Eorlas]

Weird because Android has this and is riddled with malware but keep believing whatever nonsense you are told.

weird because not only did i not ask a question, but i didnt have to be told anything as i jailbroke my devices for a solid decade and didnt have the problems of the big bad wolf that craig's making you clutch your pearls over.

end of discussion.

 

[I7guy]

weird because not only did i not ask a question, but i didnt have to be told anything as i jailbroke my devices for a solid decade and didnt have the problems of the big bad wolf that craig's making you clutch your pearls over.

end of discussion.

In this vein, people had the first pinto and their gas tanks didn’t explode either.

 

[Mockletoy]

I disagree. If Apple locks down MacOS like it does with iOS, then they will lose legions of dedicated Mac users. And what’s to stop Apple from taking gaming seriously now? It is the software developers that really direct much of the course of the computer hardware and OS development, from trends to needs. If Apple decides to pull a large cut from game developers, then they’ll just drop the platform entirely and stick with the PC. Choice is a good thing.

And yet Apple makes most of its App Store money on games.

 

[TheToolGuide]

We don’t need to vote, worldwide competition rules and laws with take care of this soon.

I think world wide competition rules will rule in Apple’s favor to prevent side loading Apps. I also think they will make Apple change their external payment options. These are two things and so far thats just how the litigation has gone. They can say Apple has a monopoly on the payment/pricing side (which I kind of agree with), but how they want to regulate their Apps and how they get onto their devices I just don’t think anyone will win against them in court. They might be able to ask Apple to make sure they aren’t favoring their own Apps or stealing ideas from others, but I don’t think the governments will be able to win and force Apple to change how they approve Apps or make them allow for different App stores. My opinion but having just one App Store with one approval process is not a monopoly, especially when there are options to go to like Android. Forcing people into once payment system is a monopoly. Regulation to make sure Apple isn’t giving preferential treatment to themselves or others on their App Store can be litigated but would not mean they have to allow another App store which wouldn’t solve for those really.