Sideloading Apps Would 'Break' the Security and Privacy of iPhone, Says Tim Cook

[I7guy]

That thing they created from scratch is Nothing without content creators and innovators. Its a scam.

You left out a very important point. The thing they created from scratch is nothing without the content creators and innmovators that want to sell their wares to the one billion devices that are out there. These content creators and innovators wouldn't be able to sell a peanut to an elephant if it weren't for the captive ios audience that awaits them.

 

[hans1972]

If they truly cared, why would they be collecting data from users? I guess you could say it helps improve their ecosystem, but it’s still collecting data. IMO, the privacy rhetoric is none other than just a marketing strategy for Apple to differentiate themselves from others

Privacy doesn't mean don't collect any personal data. You can collect an enormous amount of personal data and still be privacy friendly.

 

[hans1972]

That's the epitome of hypocrisy. Collecting data whether 1st party or 3rd party is not privacy. This is why the "privacy" rhetoric falls apart and is a spin.

You are completely wrong. Privacy has never ment collecting no personal data.

It is how, how much, the usage and the safekeeping of such data which determines how privacy friendly it is.

 

[milkrocket]

I don't understand the authoritarian stance that Apple has on this.

Allow people to do enable side-loading etc if they want. It should be like an official Jailbreak switc

iOS should warn people and make it a slightly complex process (malware concerns). Also allow people to revert back if they want to.

Maybe even have options like root shell, jailbreak, 3rd party app stores etc.

So it remains streamlined and apple-ish, but also gives people the freedom to do whatever

 

[hans1972]

Sideloading apps from the browser broke the security and privacy of the Mac ... unless you ask Apple in which case they will tell you the Mac is very secure

Cook is talking about the security _model_.

The security of a Mac is much worse than an iOS device. Considering that people install much more software on their iOS devices than on a Mac and that iOS is much more lucrative target, it could become really bad.

It would certainly require Apple to use a lot more resources and for end users to be much more security aware.

 

[hans1972]

As a user, you love it, as long as you're not looking for an app that wouldn't be allowed on the app store…

How would you even know?

If I look for something and I can't find it on the App Store, I move on with my life.

 

[hans1972]

Apple would eventually have to concede on this, and internally I'm sure that internally they know it too.
Apple censors apps not only because of security or privacy, it does also becuase of political and idealogical reasons.

Which is just fine. American business have been doing so for centuries.

The world would become a sad place if business were not allowed to be political and ideological.

 

[ipponrg]

You are completely wrong. Privacy has never ment collecting no personal data.

It is how, how much, the usage and the safekeeping of such data which determines how privacy friendly it is.

So what you're saying is it doesn't really stay on your iPhone since Apple (and others) can still collect personal data. Seems like an oxymoron, don't you think

 

[IG88]

Dude...It's their product they should be able to do what they want with it.

Ok great. Then Ford can now require you to use Motorcraft oils & fluids exclusively, or no warranty. After all, it's their product they should be able to do what they want with it. Buy something else if you don't like it.

 

[hans1972]

Oh come on dude. At this point, sideloading should be part of the experience. You're complaints on sideloading should carry over to PCs, but of course, folks like you are "blind Apple's apparent love and goodness." (rolleyes).

This is called being a hypocrite.

So why do you think almost every enterprise lock down Windows computers they own and disallow installing software and even printers?

Because almost everything improves from an administrative point of view:
* Improved security and control
* Less cost
* Fewer helpdesk calls
* Less problems for users
* Fewer problems with incompatible software, especially with regard to new versions

Almost all commercial OSes are going the route of making it more difficult to install software outside the official channel. And improved security is a huge reason why they do it.

 

[hans1972]

Well, allowing me to side load Apps does not effect you. You can still limit yourself to App Store Apps and Apple's nanny rules without sacrificing any security. There is no need to thrust that loss of freedom on me.

Of course I would be affected. Some apps would be removed from the App Store and only be available in a third party application store or on a web site. If I wanted that app I would have to go outside the App Store.

By making it almost impossible for developers to avoid the App Store, Apple, are most of the time forcing the developers to use the App Store.

I want everything to be on the App Store (one store for everything) or not exist at all.

 

[ctdonath]

As long as Apple isn’t held legally liable why should they care?

They care because customers are quick to blame the ecosystem for what others sneak in and cause problems with.

 

[IG88]

There are people who own iphones but do not own a Mac. So comparing two systen here does not make sense.

I'll try to explain it so that you understand the hypocrisy.

Apple's security defense is hilarious, given that they also make a thing called a Mac, where sideloading is allowed. Has Apple ever declared Mac OS to be an insecure platform due to the ability to sideload apps?

That a person might own one and not the other is simply irrelevant.

 

[thealkimist]

Then apparently Mac OS is a cess pool of malware and privacy violating spy apps?

Yes, it is much easier to download and install malicious software on a Mac than an iOS device.

 

[hans1972]

Then apparently Mac OS is a cess pool of malware and privacy violating spy apps?

One reason macOS is not is because Windows is a much more profitable target. iOS with 2 billion devices is a prime target for malware and relaxing security would absolutely make it worse.

Just look at the problems Android has, particularly in Asia.

There is reason why Google was forced to develop anti-virus software for Android and make it part of Google Play Store.

Also look at how ransomware has spread in the Windows world and we are starting to see it in the macOS world also.

All the commercial OSes are going in the direction of more restrictions, not less.

 

[LFC2020]

Commercial? I’m over these. I enjoyed watching the live events, but these overproduced commercials don’t have the same appeal to me.

Don’t mind the pre recorded events, find them better than the live events.

 

[I7guy]

View attachment 1754155

So what you're saying is it doesn't really stay on your iPhone since Apple (and others) can still collect personal data. Seems like an oxymoron, don't you think

Not really. You can make it as such, by not activating your iphone with an apple id. However, your experience in the ecosystem might be limited, as is your ability to not recover anything if your iphone is lost or damaged.

It's a good marketing slogan indicative of the direction, albeit not the absolute irrefutable truth down to the bit and byte level, as a minimum your telcom provider knows what you are up to and that has nothing to do with Apple, nor iphone, nor IOS.

 

[thealkimist]

I'll try to explain it so that you understand the hypocrisy.

Apple's security defense is hilarious, given that they also make a thing called a Mac, where sideloading is allowed. Has Apple ever declared Mac OS to be an insecure platform due to the ability to sideload apps?

That a person might own one and not the other is simply irrelevant.

Apple has not declared that explicitly about the Mac because why would they do that? If you can remove yourself from their PR problem, security experts always talked about the vulnerability of Macs, like all other computers, given the possibility of installing malicious software.

 

[thealkimist]

It's both in the sense that it is 99% about control and revenue, and 1% about security, sure.

I’d love to see where you’re getting all of the numbers and stats you’ve quoted.

 

[thealkimist]

I agree that Apple should be able to set the terms for the thing they've created from scratch.

And I think its ridiculous when they claim that security is the reason, and not control and revenue.

How is security a separate category from control? Can you elucidate that for us with actual evidence here?

 

[IG88]

Yes, it is much easier to download and install malicious software on a Mac than an iOS device.

Then why isn't Tim warning us about this dangerous threat?

 

[firewood]

Not sure what Tim is talking about here, since anyone with a Mac and an Apple ID can download and use Xcode to "side-load" any app onto their own iPhone that they can write or find source code for. Github is your open app store.

 

[Ethosik]

Oh come on dude. At this point, sideloading should be part of the experience. You're complaints on sideloading should carry over to PCs, but of course, folks like you are "blind Apple's apparent love and goodness." (rolleyes).

This is called being a hypocrite.

No they don't. A PC is NOT a phone. As I said, I do not need the ability to call 911 on my Mac - but for my phone I do. I do not have all my health and financial data on my PC, my phone has this. So yes, I want my phone to be a bit more secure than my Windows PC.

 

[thealkimist]

Then why isn't Tim warning us about this dangerous threat?

They have, just not in the way that you’d expect. What Tim, and other CEOs, say in a press conference, is very different from what they might endeavor to do in shipping products. There is a lot more complexity involved here than what you’re suggesting with your expectations.

 

[IG88]

Apple has not declared that explicitly about the Mac because why would they do that?

Because they know that the "security" justification to block sideloading is a ******** argument to begin with, and they don't want to acknowledge the paradox?