Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple

[44267547]

Yes... educate the masses.

How does Google do it? They've allowed sideloading for what... the last 13 years?

I don’t know how long they’ve allowed it. I’ve made my suggestion, so what’s yours?

 

[turbineseaplane]

I completely disagree. The post is spot on. From my 20 years in software development to actual first hand experiences to sandboxes being broken.

Nope. Sorry. The post is mostly just inaccurate paranoia and speculative nonsense.

 

[mi7chy]

Stop bringing up this argument. Let’s drop this bill and lawsuit if side loading already exists.

Of course, lets bury it when someone calls out your scare mongering. Current side loading is time restrictive and controlled by Apple so the latter two need to be removed.

 

[Ethosik]

This is a strawman that **I** did not make, Apple made. They are saying that if you sideload apps, evil will happen.

The point is that Apple is not looking at the bigger picture. On principle, they should've blocked this on MacOS if this were true, and then I'd agree that "this is just what Apple does" and the 30% cut of all apps wouldn't be a factor in my arguments.

Apple, right now, knows that if they enforced this universally across all Apple products, they would lose revenue, because the power users would go away and they'd lose "the coolness".

But I'll do you one better: I don't understand the attitude that "if MacOS allows sideloading that it would allow Malware to proliferate". But wait, MacOS has and does, and there's still this line of "Macs just don't get viruses".

It comes with popularity. And with great popularity comes great revenue. That's the only real reason here.

As a member of the security community I absolutely abhor systems that attempt to obfuscate necessary security operations from users -- it is absolutely imperative to keep good practices top of mind and omnipresent because the moment they think "I don't have to worry about security on IOS" then it'll blow up. It will happen. As someone who owns an Android device and an Apple device and manage them in many MDM environments, I'll tell you that there's no massive proliferation of problems in the Android community -- this is FUD created by Apple, again designed to prevent people from looking over the wall and exiting the garden. I'm not arguing that this malware exists, but it exists about as much on Android as it does on Windows, and you don't see anyone dropping Windows because of "sideloading". You have good, sane, simple malware practices mixed with user education and actual security and there is no issue.

Apple is playing a smoke and mirrors game here and I'd respectfully remind people that iOS products and services (all in) that follow the app store lockdown here represent an easy ~75% of the total profits of Apple. Of course they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it, be completely hypocritical on principles across their own platforms, and make you think that anything not going through their app store is cancer.

You are falling for marketing I’d you actually believe macOS is as secure as it "appears". If macOS had Windows market share, macOS would be a mess, just like Windows. And you don’t really see viruses on windows anymore either. It’s other forms of malware.

 

[turbineseaplane]

You are falling for marketing I’d you actually believe macOS is as secure as it "appears".

And you are falling for marketing if you believe iOS is as secure as it "appears".

You are also falling for nonsense marking PR BS from Apple about actual risks to side loading.

 

[heinzdembowski]

Not that there's a chance of anybody changing their mind on here but you might want to consider that one can sideload apps today. You need to pay Apple money for that privilege, though.
99€ per year.

 

[Ethosik]

Nope. Sorry. The post is mostly just inaccurate paranoia and speculative nonsense.

So just because something is sandboxed, it is 100% without a doubt fully isolated and no holes exist at all? I have had it happen. How about you do research. There’s even the new Windows Sandbox that’s not fully isolated.

 

[nebojsak]

That’d be me. And I suspect you’re accurate in your assessment. But I don’t know if I would classify myself as ‘casual’ [Probably more ‘devoted’], I would also add in the MacBook and iPad as well to the dynamic. But you’re right, it is a totally different demographic of what it once was and what it is now.

Fair enough. I've never had such a relationship with tech. Using Mac for two decades for pretty heavy duty stuff (graphic design, some audio and video work), owned mostly fully loaded customizable Mac desktops from G4 to Mac Pro. iPhone came as convenient choice within ecosystem, nothing more than that. Always hated Mac evangelists bashing Windows back in the day, as well as Win folks treating Macs as fancy expensive hipster stuff. For me it's all tools of choice. Mac is still my personal choice, but I must admit that gap is smaller than it used to be. I'm not happy with closing and dumbing down stuff, and generally with Apple forcing their solutions down my throat.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Not that there's a chance of anybody changing their mind on here but you might want to consider that one can sideload apps today. You need to pay Apple money for that privilege, though.
99€ per year.

The people arguing against it apparently don't realize this.

 

[Ethosik]

And you are falling for marketing if you believe iOS is as secure as it "appears".

You are also falling for nonsense marking PR BS from Apple about actual risks to side loading.

Are you reading this thread? I have said this many times! I honestly believe iOS is far less secure than android. But its limping along with the walled garden safety net. I fully expect the first one or two iOS versions to be a complete nightmare when side loading exists.

iOS AND macOS are not as secure as they appear.

 

[Ethosik]

Of course, lets bury it when someone calls out your scare mongering. Current side loading is time restrictive and controlled by Apple so the latter two need to be removed.

Well does side loading exist or not? Let’s drop the bill "to enable side loading" if its already enabled.

Sideloading Bill Would Allow​

but it already exists. So why the bill and Epic lawsuit? Thats the point I am trying to make. The argument that "wellll technically if you do this, and this, and that, and spend $99 then you can side load!" Is not what we are discussing. It’s not a valid business model for developers and consumers of apps. So that is why it’s not common.

 

[bollman]

Can you imagine the stock market reaction to this if it goes through? This could _really_ hurt their business.

 

[Ethosik]

Not that there's a chance of anybody changing their mind on here but you might want to consider that one can sideload apps today. You need to pay Apple money for that privilege, though.
99€ per year.

That’s not really what’s being discussed here. Otherwise why have a bill and lawsuit to begin with. And having to make people pay $99 on top of the app price and reinstall every week or so. You want to know why it’s not common? I wonder!

 

[canadianreader]

This is a strawman that **I** did not make, Apple made. They are saying that if you sideload apps, evil will happen.

The point is that Apple is not looking at the bigger picture. On principle, they should've blocked this on MacOS if this were true, and then I'd agree that "this is just what Apple does" and the 30% cut of all apps wouldn't be a factor in my arguments.

Apple, right now, knows that if they enforced this universally across all Apple products, they would lose revenue, because the power users would go away and they'd lose "the coolness".

But I'll do you one better: I don't understand the attitude that "if MacOS allows sideloading that it would allow Malware to proliferate". But wait, MacOS has and does, and there's still this line of "Macs just don't get viruses".

It comes with popularity. And with great popularity comes great revenue. That's the only real reason here.

As a member of the security community I absolutely abhor systems that attempt to obfuscate necessary security operations from users -- it is absolutely imperative to keep good practices top of mind and omnipresent because the moment they think "I don't have to worry about security on IOS" then it'll blow up. It will happen. As someone who owns an Android device and an Apple device and manage them in many MDM environments, I'll tell you that there's no massive proliferation of problems in the Android community -- this is FUD created by Apple, again designed to prevent people from looking over the wall and exiting the garden. I'm not arguing that this malware exists, but it exists about as much on Android as it does on Windows, and you don't see anyone dropping Windows because of "sideloading". You have good, sane, simple malware practices mixed with user education and actual security and there is no issue.

Apple is playing a smoke and mirrors game here and I'd respectfully remind people that iOS products and services (all in) that follow the app store lockdown here represent an easy ~75% of the total profits of Apple. Of course they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it, be completely hypocritical on principles across their own platforms, and make you think that anything not going through their app store is cancer.

Out of 2.5 billion android users 50,000 of them downloaded a scam app that's roughly that's 0.002% risk . Apple is closing their system for 0.002% risk. What's an acceptable risk threshold 1%? it's still low.

I agree with you Apple is playing the fear card because they'd lose a lot of money mainly on subscriptions that infested the AppStore. Meanwhile great devs that want to make great FOSS apps for iOS have to pay for an Apple dev account + and a mac computer + time to code.

 

[mi7chy]

Can you imagine the stock market reaction to this if it goes through? This could _really_ hurt their business.

Sideloading on MacOS hasn't hurt their business. People that are selectively anti-sideloading on only iOS need to accept all or nothing otherwise half yay half nay is hypocritical.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I don’t know how long they’ve allowed it. I’ve made my suggestion, so what’s yours?

If Apple is forced to allow sideloading... my suggestion is for Apple to put up enough roadblocks to make the sideloading experience not worth it.

Just like Google.

Sideloading has been available on Android for years... but even a giant corporation like Epic, with the most popular game in the world, Fortnite, couldn't get people to sideload it.

Google made sideloading seem scary. And thus... hardly anyone sideloads on Android.

I predict Apple will do the same if they are forced to allow sideloading.

Or... and this is my biggest hope... Apple will succumb to the pressure and finally drop ALL commissions to 12% or something.

Make the App Store terms friendly enough that developers will want to stay in the App Store. They won't have to setup their own websites, servers, and payment gateways to avoid Apple's fees.

That's what started all this, right? Apple's fees?

There are millions of developers who LOVE that they can reach a billion users in the App Store. And how easy it is for people to buy apps since their credit card is already saved in the App Store. It's just so easy to click "Buy Now"

But developers hate the fees.

Fix the fees... and that mostly fixes the major problems developers have with the App Store.

Mostly. I'm sure there will still be other problems to fix. But fees are a big one.

 

[vipergts2207]

So just because something is sandboxed, it is 100% without a doubt fully isolated and no holes exist at all? I have had it happen. How about you do research. There’s even the new Windows Sandbox that’s not fully isolated.

Isn’t that like the entire argument you’re making with the App Store’s security. When it’s pointed out that the App Store isn’t 100% secure; you say that it’s unavoidable that some holes will exist in Apple’s ability to secure it. So it’s somehow fine that the App Store has holes, but god forbid there’s a hole in sandboxing.

 

[mrochester]

If Apple is forced to allow sideloading... my suggestion is for Apple to put up enough roadblocks to make the sideloading experience not worth it.

Just like Google.

Sideloading has been available on Android for years... but even a giant corporation like Epic, with the most popular game in the world, Fortnite, couldn't get people to sideload it.

Google made sideloading seem scary. And thus... hardly anyone sideloads on Android.

I predict Apple will do the same if they are forced to allow sideloading.

Or... and this is my biggest hope... Apple will succumb to the pressure and finally drop ALL commissions to 12% or something.

Make the App Store terms friendly enough that developers will want to stay in the App Store. They won't have to setup their own websites, servers, and payment gateways to avoid Apple's fees.

That's what started all this, right? Apple's fees?

There are millions of developers who LOVE that they can reach a billion users in the App Store. And how easy it is for people to buy apps since their credit card is already saved in the App Store. It's just so easy to click "Buy Now"

But developers hate the fees.

Fix the fees... and that mostly fixes the major problems developers have with the App Store.

Mostly. I'm sure there will still be other problems to fix. But fees are a big one.

But 12% is as arbitrary a figure as 15% and 30% are. What makes you think developers will suddenly be happy with 12%? What figure is suddenly going to make many more businesses profitable that aren’t already profitable at the 15% and 30% commission?

The App Store is already a massively competitive place with rock bottom prices. What is lowering Apples commission going to achieve for consumers?

 

[OnawaAfrica]

Dear lord I hope Apple loses this.

i hope u ready then to get ur data stolen by sideloading a malicious app on ur iphone

 

[OnawaAfrica]

Apple wants to control everything, and is not and never will be perfect at it. Malware can and will make it through the store. (and has)

Sideloading of apps will always be a requirement for power users.

Android already allows this and can be just as safe. Apple doesn't want to do this for the protection of users, they want to control the market. BIG difference. Really think about that.

Edit: Apple doesn't need to be in the security business. There are anti-malware companies that exist for a reason, and that's all they do. So many ways Apple can protect consumers but they opt out of that because they are co-mingling security issues with their overriding desire to take 30% of the bottom line.

many of the so called 'anti malware' companies are spying on u for goverments etc. and creating and spreading malware by them self

 

[OnawaAfrica]

Half this forum appears clueless.

Sideloading on an Apple device will still be sandboxed.

There will be no impact from scams/malware anymore than scams that already exist and skate right through App review.

you wrong when u sideload apps it wont be reviewed by apple before u sideload it

 

[OnawaAfrica]

Apple store rules are abusive and change according Apple´s needs.

Dude, just put your self in the pants of the developers, who have business and families to feed. For example... Facebook built a free social network in exchange of gathering data that to show relevant ads. (That's their whole business model)

Before, if you didn't like to be tracked... you wouldn't install Facebook. Well now.... Apple lets you download the app and later asks you... do you want to be tracked?

So now you can have the app and not be tracked. That's abusive, its totally wrong.

Its absolutely not fair, since there is no other place to download those apps.
Apple deserves a bit hit in the head.

If you are concerned to security... just use the official App Store.

apples roules for the appstore havent changed in years any significantly really. I am a iOS and mac App Developer since long and i make enaugh to feed my family from my apps. Choosing if the app is allows to rack u or not is not abusive. it would be abusive if apple blocks it always without asking you.

 

[Hexley]

People laughing at Apple's excuse do not understand that most consumers are not MacRumor forum members.

Personally I do not mind paying for apps.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Personally I do not mind paying for apps.

This discussion has nothing -- literally absolutely nothing -- with "paying for Apps or not

 

[Michael Scrip]

But 12% is as arbitrary a figure as 15% and 30% are. What makes you think developers will suddenly be happy with 12%. What figure is suddenly going to make many more businesses profitable that aren’t already profitable at the 15% and 30% commission?

Hey man... it was just a suggestion.

We know developers complain about 15% and 30%... so obviously higher fees isn't the right answer.

So the only other option is... lower fees.

The App Store is already a massively competitive place with rock bottom prices.

Oh I agree.

What is lowering Apple's commission going to achieve for consumers?

Hold on... this was never about consumers.

It's about a handful of billion-dollar developers who don't want to pay millions in fees every year.

Notice who is filing all these app store lawsuits... it ain't Joe Consumer...