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

[Philip_S]

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.

I am entirely happy with App Store rules that prevent apps spying on users, as a fallback for OS-level security measures, or accessing files that weren’t specifically shared with the app’s user (in iOS, each app runs as a separate Unix user). If the OS is written properly, that wouldn’t be necessary (though for economic reasons no useable OS is) and they could use other methods (IIRC most countries appear to accept the FSF’s assertion that linking to a library is creating a derivative work that needs a copyright licence).

What I object to is apple’s use of content-based restrictions on apps, and their gpl-incompatible App Store rules.

My reason for not switching to android is that android has more spyware baked into it, and has worse hardware support.

 

[Philip_S]

Great, if you’re unhappy with a thing and have options then change. You did and I’m happy for you. There’s no reason to have loyalty to Apple or any other brand. The “Back in my day company ’X’ used to be about the people” is kind of a entitled view. If you have options that you can transition to that meet your wants and needs than why should you force a company to change for your convenience just because you like the brand.

Because all phone OSs suck and all the providers are evil, except the tiny ones who are incapable. IOS is currently the least terrible choice, mostly because they have decent hardware support and less spyware built in than anyone else with remotely good hardware, but that doesn’t mean we should be happy about it’s current state or direction.

 

[Philip_S]

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’d be happy with a requirement to have apps signed with certificate supplied by Apple or some reasonable set of approved issuers (who can prove who to prosecute for fraud etc.) such as national governments (some of whom are starting to issue ID cards with TLS keys), and having the OS display who signed the app and who identified them.

What I don’t support is Apple charging more than a cost-recovery fee for identifying the user to supply the certificate while they’re the monopoly issuer, or preventing the installation of apps (or OSs) with expired but otherwise valid signatures.

 

[Philip_S]

Should I tell communities that only allow senior living that I should get to live there because I like the neighborhood?

Your legislators and judges should, because age discrimination shouldn’t be allowed even when they’re discriminating in favour of old people. If no one but old people want to live in a condo where the association pays for a shuffleboard court and nurse visits, that’s fine, but but banning non-elderly people isn’t

 

[I7guy]

It's cool that you can decide for us what is "false" or "relevant".

It's also "cool" that you can decide for us what is best.

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.

It also prevents outright pirating. As far as I know, it's completely legal for Apple to determine the types of apps they want on the app store.

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.

This is apples' platform. Again, it's one of those things where vote with your dollars is the most effective way to show your feelings toward a product.

 

[I7guy]

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?

It's not "free" money. Apple spent time, materials and effort developing their concept of an app store. Even, if some don't agree with it the way it stands now.

 

[I7guy]

Your legislators and judges should, because age discrimination shouldn’t be allowed even when they’re discriminating in favour of old people. If no one but old people want to live in a condo where the association pays for a shuffleboard court and nurse visits, that’s fine, but but banning non-elderly people isn’t

It's a perfectly legal and enforceable concept here in the US.

 

[TheToolGuide]

Because all phone OSs suck and all the providers are evil, except the tiny ones who are incapable. IOS is currently the least terrible choice, mostly because they have decent hardware support and less spyware built in than anyone else with remotely good hardware, but that doesn’t mean we should be happy about it’s current state or direction.

Then don’t demand that Apple be just like all the other stuff that you may not like. Ask them for a way to get your more options without compromising privacy.

 

[TheToolGuide]

Your legislators and judges should, because age discrimination shouldn’t be allowed even when they’re discriminating in favour of old people. If no one but old people want to live in a condo where the association pays for a shuffleboard court and nurse visits, that’s fine, but but banning non-elderly people isn’t

Where do you draw the line? Can I say I want to stay in an assisted living home for the elderly because I can afford the expense? They need to clean my room, feed me, and wipe my bum?

There are unreasonable boundaries and then there are reasonable ones. It is a debatable topic. Personally I’m not affected by their preferred living situation. They are also surrounded with people of similar lifestyles. I’m sure some wouldn’t mind if their grandkids could live next door but the community says no and they bought into that community. Doesn’t mean the grand kids can’t visit.

Apple’s iOS also provides a privacy life style that also comes with compromises. You can’t visit but they don’t cut you off from everything. Just some things are limited.

Like I commented in my other response to you. Ask that Apple open up more features that allow for not comproming your device. It’s not going to happen overnight and I can certainly say Androids OS is not ideal for everyone so don’t try and force it on them.

 

[makitango]

It also prevents outright pirating.

Yes. Close one door that is arguably right but in the effect close multiple others that aren't - especially considering that elsewhere things are perfectly legal, like VPN or encryption-based apps.

This is apples' platform. Again, it's one of those things where vote with your dollars is the most effective way to show your feelings toward a product.

Yeah, let the money dictate the direction. If you only follow the money based on App Store demographics then, we should focus on emojis and Tiktok. Get rid of all side-loading on macOS in the process and ban the likes of Adobe, dev tools, Little Snitch, gaming and a plethora of other things from the platform.

It's not "free" money. Apple spent time, materials and effort developing their concept of an app store. Even, if some don't agree with it the way it stands now.

That is why people should have the choice of either going with or without the App Store. Don't use it, have to care for your app's visibility on your own.

It's a perfectly legal and enforceable concept here in the US.

How nice to side with locally legal laws. Are you using that rationale in China as well? Must be fun to hunt down people you don't like and put them in concentration camps.

 

[Philip_S]

Then don’t demand that Apple be just like all the other stuff that you may not like. Ask them for a way to get your more options without compromising privacy.

Embedding spyware into your OS (whether for a good pretext or nakedly for profit) or providing hardware support are completely orthogonal to whether you reject apps purely on the grounds of morality, or deciding whether to use administrative or technical means to protect user privacy.

As for “a way to get your more options without compromising privacy”, the jailbreak community has demonstrated how to do that, and Apple has partially imitated them for health and photos. still, as I’ve said before, I don’t object to Apple enforcing security restrictions (even if they should be baked into the OS, not rely on the attentiveness of the reviewer), it’s the non-security restrictions they bundle with that that’s the problem.

I’m even relatively relaxed about Apple etc. charging developers for linking to high level libraries (though IMO it would be better for society as a whole if the EU’s implicit licence doctrine were applied more generally, to any software required to use an advertised feature of a hardware product), provided the various platform owners were competing with each other (something the Europeans, Italians, and Australians are all looking at).

 

[I7guy]

Yes. Close one door that is arguably right but in the effect close multiple others that aren't - especially considering that elsewhere things are perfectly legal, like VPN or encryption-based apps.

Yeah, let the money dictate the direction. If you only follow the money based on App Store demographics then, we should focus on emojis and Tiktok. Get rid of all side-loading on macOS in the process and ban the likes of Adobe, dev tools, Little Snitch, gaming and a plethora of other things from the platform.

That is why people should have the choice of either going with or without the App Store. Don't use it, have to care for your app's visibility on your own.

So it seems you agree with my sentiment that voting with one's dollars is an effective way to show a manufacturer to change their product.

How nice to side with locally legal laws.
Are you using that rationale in China as well? [....]

False equivalence. And are you suggesting Apple shouldn't follow local laws?

 

[makitango]

So it seems you agree with my sentiment that voting with one's dollars is an effective way to show a manufacturer to change their product.

Very funny. If money decides, the Apple ecosystem will purely be for lifestyle as per the influencer's dictate.

False equivalence. And are you suggesting Apple shouldn't follow local laws?

I am saying Apple should stay out of politics and give people the choice and chance to act within or outside of the law. If a company acts on or within laws that are human right-exploiting, then said company is evil or at least hypocritical. With Apple's history for voicing out their support elsewhere, this is a huge rock of duality.
Imagine a state whose fight for fair elections has been slowed down dramatically by Apple. What a testimony to said company and its helping hand in letting people suffer even longer.

 

[I7guy]

Very funny. If money decides, the Apple ecosystem will purely be for lifestyle as per the influencer's dictate.

I am saying Apple should stay out of politics and give people the choice and chance to act within or outside of the law. If a company acts on or within laws that are human right-exploiting, then said company is evil or at least hypocritical. With Apple's history for voicing out their support elsewhere, this is a huge rock of duality.
Imagine a state whose fight for fair elections has been slowed down dramatically by Apple. What a testimony to said company and its helping hand in letting people suffer even longer.

It seems, as I mentioned above, voting with your dollars is the best way to influence a manufacturer.

Want sideloading? Android. Multiple app stores? Android. etc. If you think Apple is hypocritical than vote with your dollars as that is the only way to influence Apple to change behaviors that YOU don't like.

There is no other way to get a company to change. Trying to get a negative opinion of a company worth $2T that makes $60B a quarter in an online forum just won't work. Sure, you can have your opinion but Apple won't change unless it's financials change or laws change to regulate company activities.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So it seems you agree with my sentiment that voting with one's dollars is an effective way to show a manufacturer to change their product.

Buycots have been reduced in their effectiveness by a corporation just buying back more stock. It keeps investors happy, and makes any fluctuations, no matter how large, rather meaningless.

Unless someone can get *everyone* that owns a product, or subscribes to a product/service to dump it, and can keep them away long enough, corporations have figured out a way to neuter customer opinions pretty well. All they have to do is buy back stock, wait out the kerfuffle, and then move on as before. I mean, look at all of the crazy climate denial funding that has been exposed, and the guilty parties (Apple being one, apparently) don't look to be quaking in their boots at all... Unless more 'real people' get onto corporate boards, there won't be any meaningful change, and things will only get worse I'm afraid.

 

[TheToolGuide]

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.

If you are Apple and you don’t want porn apps, illegal trafficing apps, apps that allow extreme political views that will harm people, and others in that very bad sector than allowing side-loading ,when its a toggle a customer can turn on, then it will happen and it will end up on their platform.

If everyone was a saint and we all agreed to never do bad things then side-loading wouldn’t be a problem. Apple needs to allow for more things for sure like better software APIs, better filtering of malicious apps, more access to hardware features currently exclusive to Apple, and more beyond what I can think of.

Folks are pushing so hard for side-loading but if you were Apple and keeping these apps off your platform is part of your goals than side-loading will never be an option you can explore. Apple should find more ways for good developers to get their apps on their platform and be profitable. Side-loading in its current iteration on EVERY platform in the world is unable to provide this experience.

 

[makitango]

If you are Apple and you don’t want porn apps, illegal trafficing apps, apps that allow extreme political views that will harm people, and others in that very bad sector than allowing side-loading ,when its a toggle a customer can turn on, then it will happen and it will end up on their platform.

If everyone was a saint and we all agreed to never do bad things then side-loading wouldn’t be a problem. Apple needs to allow for more things for sure like better software APIs, better filtering of malicious apps, more access to hardware features currently exclusive to Apple, and more beyond what I can think of.

Folks are pushing so hard for side-loading but if you were Apple and keeping these apps off your platform is part of your goals than side-loading will never be an option you can explore. Apple should find more ways for good developers to get their apps on their platform and be profitable. Side-loading in its current iteration on EVERY platform in the world is unable to provide this experience.

Expression of free speech is extreme, I get it. Using VPNs and encpryption, too.

 

[TheToolGuide]

Embedding spyware into your OS (whether for a good pretext or nakedly for profit) or providing hardware support are completely orthogonal to whether you reject apps purely on the grounds of morality, or deciding whether to use administrative or technical means to protect user privacy.

As for “a way to get your more options without compromising privacy”, the jailbreak community has demonstrated how to do that, and Apple has partially imitated them for health and photos. still, as I’ve said before, I don’t object to Apple enforcing security restrictions (even if they should be baked into the OS, not rely on the attentiveness of the reviewer), it’s the non-security restrictions they bundle with that that’s the problem.

I’m even relatively relaxed about Apple etc. charging developers for linking to high level libraries (though IMO it would be better for society as a whole if the EU’s implicit licence doctrine were applied more generally, to any software required to use an advertised feature of a hardware product), provided the various platform owners were competing with each other (something the Europeans, Italians, and Australians are all looking at).

Expression of free speech is extreme, I get it. Using VPNs and encpryption, too.

If you’re saying you’re allowed to express your views as free speech okay. However free speech doesn’t not apply to businesses and regulating their App Store and not allowing forms of speech on their platforms.

Free speech protects people against the government and not companies. At least in the US and likely others. Now if your want to argue monopoly, or mobile OSs as a basic utility right allowed to all, or Apple is anticompetitive/copying other intellectual property for themselves you could have some arguments that I’d possibly agree with. Free speech doesn’t apply to businesses controlling their image or platform.

 

[smulji]

It's not for your protection. It's for Apple's protection of the revenue model.

?