Yeah and there has NEVER been an issue with privacy and malware EVER on Windows right? Even macos. Even 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.
Sideloading Apps Would 'Break' the Security and Privacy of iPhone, Says Tim Cook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not the operating system. And you can’t force a company to do something. I can’t force a video game to include a feature I want. You are not paying around 50,000 or 100,000 per dev salary, so you don’t get to decide what the team works on.
Take a look at Windows 10 S. We got this for my grandma so we would stop dealing with malware every week.
Security = protecting users from themselves and from other users.
Control = imposing their will.
They are completely different.
Does it serve their “will” if our machines are compromised?
Unto what end are they serving their “will” for?
Your much needed explanation reveals more of your ignorance.
Where is this fairy tale API design that only you’re aware of?
You cannot just throw out the phrase “...a secure API”, as if that’s a real answer or magic bullet to this problem.
Big developers that have nothing to hide would have no incentive to move to alternative App stores. If that special App that your concerned about is a problem with an alternative App store, then it is a problem today.
As a developer I know of hundreds of ways to get around the App Store, but my Apps don't need to. Reality is a lot different than people's nanny views from the Coast.
Then I would vote for "Not exist at all!" The safety you seek is pure illusion, cause by fear. These problems are not evident on macOS. There is no reason to think iOS would be any different.
Last edited:
Your right it should be your choice to determine if an alternative App Store App is safe to use considering your own view of security.
The problem is that Apple's view of security is NOT my view of security. Now, Apple may have spent enough money on advertising to get you to believe that your view on security and Apple's view on security are the same, but trust me they are not.
Furthermore, Apple has motives other than security when it decides what to do in the App Store. Competition is the only way to keep Apple's motives in line.
Bottom line, using your example, is that if you don't trust Epic then why are you playing their games anyway? There are so many ways they can spy on you even from an App even in the Apple App Store. Let me give you some examples that Apple cannot solve. Monitoring your word usage. Doing game use do you use politically incorrect terms, do you refer to criminal activities like murder, killing, shooting guns, etc., then Epic is able to monitor and profile you, and nothing Apple does can prevent it. Wake up to reality and quit giving up freedom for no increase in security.
I guess if you believe Apple's marketing then there is no arguing with you, you've been bought and paid for.
To summarize, there are Apps that Apple does not allow in their App Store that would be perfectly safe from a security standpoint, but are prohibited for other reasons. Those reasons are at least nanny content monitoring, competitive retaliation, Apple's arrogance, etc. Apple's security is not where close to reality.
Borderland 3, Satisfactory, Metro Exodus are NOT games made by Epic, yet they were exclusives.
Uhh... may I mention that Zoom used to secretly install a whole hidden web server along with their app in order to bypass Apple's dialog "Open in Zoom" when trying to open a link to a Zoom videocall, and used the web server to inspect the traffic and open it automatically, which ultimately led to an exploit where people could automatically be forced into a call, with their webcams enabled, by just following a malicious link?
Apples' view of security is not my view either. Apples' view of privacy is not my view. Not that I am privy to 100% of their in-depth views of security, privacy and secrecy, but like you, I am sure Apple and I are not aligned in this, however, if I want to do business with Apple, I have to accept there are things I don't know about their policies.
Well sure. They can't throw the baby out with the bath water can they? They have to keep existing systems in place while putting new processes on top of them. Honest competition keeps everybody honest.
Sure you enter into a license with the developer of the app. Don't like the app is counting your words, blame the app developer, not Apple. The reality in this internet age, is if you don't want your privacy and security compromised, don't go online. Apple cannot protect you from you. What Apple can do, is provide a safer environment than the wild west.
The reality is not about believing or not believing...if you don't want the internet to know all about you, don't go online. I am not to worried what Apple knows about me and that it will travel to the dark web. To that extent I believe they are attempting to handle PII with best practices. Some may believe, some may not.
That paragraphs conflates some meme type reasons why Apple may deny an app and end with your opinion of security. What is it? Is Apple being criticized on the grounds of nanny content monitoring, competitive retaliation, arrogance, etc. Or is it your opinion that Apple security and privacy is "not anywhere close reality", whatever that means...as I would certainly enjoy a further discussion on that very topic.
Or is it just a litany of criticisms against Apple?
Last edited:
I liken this to having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool, or to cite a more real-world scenario, demarcating a smoking section in a cafe or restaurant.
It doesn't work. The only way to have a smoke-free environment is to ensure that nobody can smoke, or is smoking within the premises. Or if they must do so, do it somewhere far far away (ie: Android) where the smoke has no way of reaching me.
The best example, ironically, comes from Fortnite, who initially tried to get Android users to side load their app by withholding it from the google play store. They eventually capitulated, but it also meant that a number of users had already compromised the security of their android devices by doing so, and during this period of time, users were inconvenienced by not being able to access the fortnite app.
Conversely, iOS users had been playing the app since day one. Epic didn't try any of this nonsense on iOS. They couldn't, because iOS doesn't allow side loading, and users were better off for it.
Personally, I feel that if the benefit is so small, while the downside is potentially huge (apps don't have to adhere to App Store regulations / guidelines, higher incidence of piracy), I really see no reason for Apple to compromise the security of the walled garden just to cater to an extremely vocal minority.
Because I can also just as easily flip this argument around. If you want to side load apps, that's what Android is for. You are taking away my choice to not have a choice.
I have ipad mini 2 and iphone 5 which cannot find any new app from AppStore. And I have no way to make use of them anymore. This is also a planned obsolescenc.
The iphone 5 is 8 years old at this time. Apple is under no obligation to actively support an 8 year old mobile device. It works the way it works. 8 years old is truly the definition of planned obsolescence. (Actually how many mobile vendors actively support an eight year old device?)
macOS and Linux are living examples with both security and freedom. Freedom in no way makes security worse, it just gives the user the choice to decide how much of that security they want. All can be solved by making it clear to the user when they want to disable a certain security mechanism, to the point when not even the least tech savvy person would have no excuse.
It's how it works in real life. When you buy a house, you expect it to have a lock, but you're not forced to use it.
The numbers of windows marketshare vs macos marketshare vs linux marketshare and at least in the US ios vs android. If one thinks apple is pretending it will look similar to android, at least what one hears on the surface.
So yeah, I do not think Apple is "pretending" this is about security and believe they believe it is really about security.
It wouldn't solve any actual problem. This is just shifting the blame around. In the end, the end users will just blindly agree to whatever pops up. And finally, when the phone is compromised and a user tried to call for emergency services and failed, lawsuits will follow, regardless of what the user chooses when presented with an option on their devices.
IMHO, iOS has been designed with the years of experience gained from macOS and Windows' issue when connected to the Internet. Whether we agree to it or not, it is Apple's interpretation of what works best for their product. We are free to choose to buy and use an iOS device. If we don't like it, we are free to get another phone make. Nobody is forced to use an iOS device.
if you cannot get the point then just learn keep silence. Exactly this kind of troll talk can only make apple more dirty.
So do you agree or disagree? Posting you are not getting support on an 8 year old device... one that runs a 32 bit processor, whereby 32 bit apps aren't even supported in today's environment on an older operating system... seems like it's a perfect definition of planned obsolescence.
You may not be happy about it, but that is the way it is. Additionally, which other vendor provides 7 years support. The iphone 5s is still getting ios 12 updates.
Maybe can say what your expectations were.
This is one of the reasons that I used to be jailbreak my phones so that if there was a version of an app that was updated and I didn't like it, I could go back to an older version, the same thing I do on my Samsung phone by side loading. These reasons and the silly limitations that still prevent me from doing simple things that I can do in seconds on my Android phone is why my Android is my daily phone.
Move on. You internet keyboard warriors need to stop denigrating people and get a life.
Clicking "Agree" is not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting a solution which already exists, on macOS in fact. That you can do whatever you want but doing so is not accessible by a normal end user. They can kick it up a notch by not just hiding the toggles but also having a clear warning alert on what it does. That way nobody can click it by mistake.
I’m confused here. Are you blaming Apple for not supporting an 8 year old phone? Everything in the history of the world eventually ends support. I can’t get a 1970s car supported by the company directly.