Android is used by far more people than iOS and has had such a switch from its inception. The world hasn't ended.
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 Craig Federighi Says Sideloading on iPhone Would Open the Floodgates to Malware
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s not a very high bar for supporting why this should be allowed on iOS.
It's not about why this should or shouldn't be on iOS, it's about how it's implemented.
I agree though that if every imaginable outcome leads to a world of destruction, then it shouldn't be. However, that would only mean that Apple can't imagine anymore - or simply won't even try to - which feels very wrong to me.
Also, I think that most people here disregard the fact that we've had some verification implementations on macOS for quite a while now. The scenario is this:
- there is a toggle to allow side-loading in general (requies indentified developer accounts)
- you can circumvent the identified developers requirement
While I would agree that side-loading should be enabled, installing software from unidentified developers should not be allowed by default. If it does, this needs to be made hard and clear to the end user.
I agree though that if every imaginable outcome leads to a world of destruction, then it shouldn't be. However, that would only mean that Apple can't imagine anymore - or simply won't even try to - which feels very wrong to me.
Also, I think that most people here disregard the fact that we've had some verification implementations on macOS for quite a while now. The scenario is this:
- there is a toggle to allow side-loading in general (requies indentified developer accounts)
- you can circumvent the identified developers requirement
While I would agree that side-loading should be enabled, installing software from unidentified developers should not be allowed by default. If it does, this needs to be made hard and clear to the end user.
Last edited:
What should the bar be according to you? There are not many bars to choose from in this case.
The bar should be - apple has control of its ecosystem as they see fit. If people don’t like the direction of iOS, they should vote with their dollars.
So basically you are saying:
- If you are not with us, you are against us.
- If you don't like it go away.
This thread is about Federighi saying that side loading will open the floodgates.
One of the very valid arguments in this thread is:
Android allows side loading since its beginning and the floodgates never opened.
It seems you are moving goal posts. Please stick to the subject. Your 'Take it or leave it' mantra does not apply here.
Last edited:
You are blind to the choice that they all have which is to go to other platforms.
Should I tell communities that only allow senior living that I should get to live there because I like the neighborhood?
Your problem is entitlement. You feel entitled to those features on iOS even though there is a large community of people who have asked for side loading to stay off. Not all of that community fully understands side-loading which means they are making an uneducated choice but the same goes for those who are asking for side-loading on iOS.
However the folks who are asking for side-loading do have a choice. The always have since the Android phones were around.
Apple even changed side loading apps through business accounts (MDM Profiles) because developers were abusing the system. Some of those folks weren’t bad developers and genuinely were trying to offer a good experience just like many developers in the App Store now. When Apple changed the program it affected them negatively and that sucked even though they were all using the feature against Apples guidelines which was why Apple was in the right to shut it down. Also there were many who were selling services that did not work/do what they advertised and others mislead people to gather data. This is still an issue in the App Store that Apple has to already combat. Adding side loading will only make this issue more common.
What Apple needs is to open even more APIs and have even better systems in place to catch these abusers. That is difficult for any company that wants to maintain privacy and a quality experience. That means that Apple has to say NO to a lot of developers who want to do good with the platform because they haven’t been able to find a way to implement it yet. So even though you want side loading to become a thing it is much more wise to do it the way Apple has done it. Open up APIs slowly over time so you can monitor the behavior it has and make sure it doesn’t take down the system you have in place. Adjust for those new behaviors and work to open even more APIs.
One thing is for sure. I do not want to monitor my iPhone like I would a Windows or Mac that doesn’t have these features. I like the fact that my phone isn’t harvesting data about me in ways I can‘t comprehend easily.
If you are deep in to Apple’s ecosystem I don’t have an issue with you wanting to have them open up more features and APIs but opening the gates wide is not a good solution for people who want to do whatever on the platform. Since Apple seems slow you can fight your fight but I would recommend slowly transitioning away from Apple if you really need those features.
Bolded: @TheToolGuide would consider you pretty selfish.
But seriously - thanks but no thanks for friendly patronizing reccomendations. I have one for you too - consider avoiding user discussion forums, because they're places full of dissonant tones and plenty of various opinions.
I have a little more trust in those 2 companies mentioned than granting a developer access to my phone
they being apple?
im not against side loading. Early on I was jail breaking. But once I started using the device to do banking, jailbreaking became a thing of the past.
If apple offered the user the option to side load, just curious why apple should use their resources to protect users operating outside the “wall garden”.
Depending on whose point of view, android is a dumpster fire, so it’s not really a valid argument that sideloading hasn’t “sunk” android.
And it’s a valid discussion point, that if the iOS ecosystem doesn’t provide the functionality one needs effects sideloading , there are alternatives.
Nothing hyperbolic to see here. However if sideloading is a must have feature for one, iOS is not your choice of platform.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean other people can't see it either. You and everyone else here want to forbid wine bars in each city even for adults just because alcohol can cause harm.
Things on platforms change. You would have told the same "go somewhere else" line if they wanted third-party apps to be allowed to link to their website, or devs who wanted 15 % fee instead of 30? Look around you.
Oh, sure, some people might not know what they are doing, but overall, most people in that boat (which Apple seems to have more of than Google/Android), won't sideload at all, maintaining the integrity and security of the phone.
Yes, there is "technically" more risk, but overall this claim by Apple is just absolute FUD.
Yes, there is "technically" more risk, but overall this claim by Apple is just absolute FUD.
Bad analogy. The App Store was built with a specific model. Those who want the App Store change and vote with their dollars bravo. Those who want the App Store to be regulated, I don’t support and hope SCOTUS provides necessary guidance.
Things change, and should change through market forces not micro-regulations.
This is a completely false equivalency. Absolutely NOBODY is suggesting applications in the App Store shouldn't go through review. Sideloading has nothing to do with submissions to the App Store. It has to do with loading the software that YOU, the owner of the phone, want/need to use on YOUR phone.
For comparison's sake, you would be livid if Apple or Microsoft wouldn't let you install applications on your laptop that weren't included in their App Store at a potential 30% markup on the prices so the developer can still afford to continue development (because Apple requires you pay them to be on the store, and that's fine as they built it, but requiring everyone to go through the app store at a higher price or not be available to the consumer at all is both damaging to the consumer's rights and legalized extortion by Apple to developers).
But when it comes to your phone, which is basically a pocket computer with telephony abilities, you have no issues? Not a very consistent stance, and supports Apple's willingness to harm their customers solely for profit.
False equivalency. I would be livid if Microsoft stopped me from downloading where I could prior. But there was no expectation of sideloading from iOS.
The 30% fee is not relevant to this conversation. Basically sideloading allows the use of intellectual property while not paying for it. Those who don’t like this setup should be happy there are alternatives.
However it should be noted that the recent court case requires apple to allow posting like to outside payment systems, but does not eliminate the fee associated with IAP.
It's cool that you can decide for us what is "false" or "relevant".
Forbidding sideloading doesn't allow the use of intellectual property to be stolen, that would be the sole scenario where they allow sideloading from unapproved devs. And that would actually not even be about allowing, but disabling. Apple never allowed infinging on copyright.
Forbidding sideloading prevents the use of software that Apple doesn't want. Which is encryption-based, independent news and VPN apps in countries with human rights abuse, a lot of Bitcoin-centric apps, P2P software, porn, and so much more. Great sorcery in the name of evil, I guess. And it prevents devs to provide apps for which they opt not to choose the App Store for distribution.
Of course it is, because it's the actual reason Apple starts hyperventilating any time someone mentions sideloading on iOS.
If what they say about sideloading is true, if it's really such a bonanza for scammers and malware vendors, then Apple, by its own reasoning, has a moral and ethical obligation to end the horrific practice of sideloading on all its platforms, including the Mac.
To do anything less would be -- according to Apple! -- literally criminal.
What Apple really means when they say sideloading is evil and wrong is that it would force them to face actual competition in the iOS app marketplace for the first time if they hoped to keep everyone in their walled garden and take their cut off the top of everything.
They wouldn't just get to take their 15-30%, they'd have to earn it.
I mean, heck, I totally get where they're coming from. If I was making billions of dollars in basically free money I wouldn't want someone forcing me to actually work for it, either. Would you?
If it feels patronizing it may require some reflection. Doesn’t mean you agree or disagree or will change your view. That’s not my goal. But when topics are as polarizing as this it would seem that a way though is wiser than just telling the other side of the discussion they’re wrong and nothing bad will happen when other avenues can be explored.
So far almost everyone has framed the issue as on or off. I have proposed another less combative and possibly a better way forward to meet numerous folks wants and needs.
Indeed, the jailbreak community (and apple’s own handling of health data and photos) shows a way to both ensure privacy and allow users to use the apps they want.