Is Google responsible today if that happens on Android?
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.
Illinois Floats Bill That Would Let Developers Skirt Apple's In-App Purchase Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is Google responsible today if that happens on Android?
That is a good question... I don't know. But given the amount of legislation, and for the most part the lack of knowledge that most legislators have, I wouldn't put it past them to include language that would put them on the hook.
You doubt that malicious actors would target iPhone users if sideloading was available? Well, someone has to be the optimist, I suppose.
Very different question.
There are actors who will try any avenue available.
The question here was if seniors/elderly would actually sideload and if that would lead to a big increase in scamming etc….
Agreed! Which is why Apple requiring downloads from the App Store is preventing scams that are enabled by sideloading. If the avenue (sideloading) isn’t available, the scam can’t happen.
Agree however that would be a very small part at best. That's my point. Bigger reason why I was trying to find some number on the Android side on who (numbers) sideloads. Personally I don't see the elderly doing much of this.
True... I don't think the elderly will purposely go out and sideload something.
But if they are *tricked* into downloading a malicious app... that's the danger.
They could get a scam text message... with a link to a shady but convincing website... with the words "Click here to download XYZ app"
I'm not sure what kind of safeguards Apple would put in if they are forced to allow sideloading... but the possibility for abuse would be much higher than it is now.
Right now you can't download a scammy app from some random website. And I kinda like that.
The number of people scammed would be very small at best? Well, I guess someone has to be the optimist.
Provided this sideloading is offered, I would hope Apple does at a minimum what Android has for sideloading security.True... I don't think the elderly will purposely go out and sideload something.
But if they are *tricked* into downloading a malicious app... that's the danger.
They could get a scam text message... with a link to a shady but convincing website... with the words "Click here to download XYZ app"
I'm not sure what kind of safeguards Apple would put in if they are forced to allow sideloading... but the possibility for abuse would be much higher than it is now.
Right now you can't download a scammy app from some random website. And I kinda like that.
That's why I hoping there was some numbers out there on how many Android users actually side load.
Sadly not finding it.
Apple should just pull out of the US market.
The thing you are forgetting is, "When you ask for rain you have to deal with the mud."
and if you don't you deal with the sand.
Still don't understand the "OMG Doom and Gloom" stance from some folk.
I wish most would understand that. Many believe it's either already written/tested/working in some lab waiting for the day to be approved and "boom!" its in the next iOS update.
Again, never said it was perfect. It isn't. It's better by default due to it not having access by all these other means. You have to go to the store, one doorway in to the system (garden). The walls are high, but again nothing is perfect.
They wouldn't want to for sure. But, there could be laws that "force" them too.
Most cases is not all. If Apple makes a mistake, its one thing. If Apple is found to have done something to break it, there will be lawsuits. This is a flip of a coin type situation. As in the gray space, Apple could be trying to fix a serious problem, and that solution breaks a 3rd party App Store. Or the apps from that store. A problem that didn't exist before is now an issue that regulators can deem on purpose by Apple to break 3rd-Party stuff. While claiming it is a critical update to prevent the next major wave of whateverWARE that comes. Whom do we believe is telling the truth?
While on the surface this is the case. The reality is very different. Example. Say you purchase a firewall from company A. You only allow 443 traffic in and out and that's it. Everything else is blocked/off/disabled. As expected you're only vulnerable to what comes in on that port. And of course the vulnerabilities of the firewall. I.E the port is the AppStore, and firewall being iOS in this example.
Now, you are forced to open up port 80 (3rd party store access). You can wall it off to exactly the location you want, the server or workstation you want etc. You can even turn it off by default, and allow it when you want it with a simple toggle switch. Great, everything is fine. We can all live with our existing secure method of getting apps. And if "we" as an individual decide to go with this 3rd party store. We can toggle a switch and we are granted that access. Wonderful, solves all the issues right? Well, no.
Since the original firewall has vulnerabilities, as all computer things do in this world. You have to protect, and patch that firewall at all times (iOS). It's what's keeping out all the mess in the world from affecting your systems behind it. It's a task in and of itself to do well. However, you at least had a very limited way in when just 443 was open. You maybe vulnerable to exploits over port 80 as the device is vulnerable to it. BUT, you never had that port on to begin with. Basically, the feature of having port 80 "their" wasn't enabled. It did not exist in the code of iOS. To the firewall, the option isn't even there. Its like it doesn't even understand what port 80 is. It only knows what port 443 is. Nothing else existed. Now, you have something there, the firewall knows about port 80, and its vulnerable to an attack on port 80. Your iOS device maybe toggled off on 3rd party appstore/sideloading. But, the OS is accepting traffic on that port and is vulnerable to the right exploit. Maybe it takes one text message or email, or link to enable that toggle on your device. And until Apple is aware and fixes the vulnerability. You're exposed. Doesn't mean you will get hacked, it means you're more likely to. Even if you didn't want to turn that switch on in the first place. The OS you use now has another way in. Even off. Since no software is perfect either. And you can bet that the hackers of the world will want to be first to crack in. It's too big a target to not try.
I'm ok with that.
I didn't realize I had. I didn't believe I stated that Superframentation is a result of side loading or payment systems. I believe I stated it as a reason for choice. You can choose from say a Pixel phone or a Samsung phone and get all the updates as they are released. Or you can pick some cheap-Bepo android OS phone and maybe not get those updates or patches in a timely manner. You have a choice. You can pay less and get less, you can pay more and get more. Or you can go closed off (by choice) to Apple. And I for one don't feel as those Apple should be forced to play in someone else's playground if they don't want to. They are free to try and survive in a walled garden so long as they are not breaking any rules to do so.
Thanks for the replies
For privacy, I am not seeing anything that makes iOS 15 better from a security/privacy perspective than Android 12. I am not looking at OEM mods to Android.
If Apple is forced/required/volunteers to allow 3rd party (sideload), I would expect their solution to be at least on par with Android 12.
Interestingly .....
www.macrumors.com
Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
Apple is stifling competition with its monopoly on app distribution through the App Store, attorneys general for 35 states told a California appeals...
www.macrumors.com
It is interesting, but at the core it was a contract dispute. We'll see where this heads.Interestingly .....
Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
Apple is stifling competition with its monopoly on app distribution through the App Store, attorneys general for 35 states told a California appeals...
Exactly. Knowing that I have a wall around me to prevent this makes me more comfortable using iOS devices in general if I’m online.True... I don't think the elderly will purposely go out and sideload something.
But if they are *tricked* into downloading a malicious app... that's the danger.
They could get a scam text message... with a link to a shady but convincing website... with the words "Click here to download XYZ app"
I'm not sure what kind of safeguards Apple would put in if they are forced to allow sideloading... but the possibility for abuse would be much higher than it is now.
Right now you can't download a scammy app from some random website. And I kinda like that.
If a hole is created in the wall to allow side loading, you essentially have no more wall.
Since security was one of the main focuses when the iPhone was created, how can a state demand that they remove this point of differentiation?
Leave the App Stores out of things and you will find that when it comes to privacy and security iOS and Android are neck and neck (OEM fiddling can mod that). Sideloading on Android is locked UNLESS the user deliberately opens it.
Still have your walled garden as long as you leave the door locked.
Then again you could just jailbreak …
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the android platform which is so prevalent with that very issue that most new android phones ship with preinstalled antivirus software, so no it would not be a minor blip and we have years of historical data from the android side to know that.
Might want trot this out filtering for Android 11 and 12 excluding OEM installed non-default-Android apps.
I am very familiar with Android. Thx.
btw - what does that have to do with sideloading?
No problem. I enjoy the discussions.Thanks for the replies
Again, Apple isn't Google, and on par will not be there stated goal. They expect and can provide "better" than that. Which is what we currently have. Moving to a more open standard (Best way I can state that). Is not the most secure option.
They are in foreign countries and claim to be Microsoft most of the time, or they are x law enforcement agency and their computer is being used to scam other people, so if they can just go to X site and give them control they can clean them up. Other scams say they are due rebates but by mistake they sent too much.....
You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. The problem is that I have the basic literacy to know that none of that ********* they ask people to do makes any sense and therefore to hang up immediately, if I answer in the first place given that I ignore unrecognized/unknown numbers.
All this mostly about a generation that loves to whine about younger ones not having enough personal responsibility when they can’t even do their due diligence to make sure that they’re not getting scammed before running to CVS to try to buy $4,000 in Amazon gift cards.
They put up an unstoppable pop up with a scary warning, and old people in there 70’s don’t know better. So good for you but you are the minority