And that wouldn't change, so your point is moot.
That's why I didn't. I argued that it makes no difference to me, since it would be a drop in the bucket of the many other payment systems I already use without issue.
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 Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bill just passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee. Passed 21-1.
EDIT: 20-2 according to CNBC
EDIT: 20-2 according to CNBC
Not seeing your point.
For any system I have, pc, mobile, gaming, I can purchase apps/programs from multiple stores except for iOS.
What point of yours am I missing?
The problem is they are spending time, money and resources to lock it down and stop owners from doing anything with products they already own. And actively tries to prevent loopholes.
These abilities are already built and exist, apple already allow users to pay for a developer account to side load apps on their account only for 1 year or rolling 7 days. It’s legislation to force apple to remove their anti competitive functions, not to write new code or support.
As we have seen with John deer, it started as something advantageous but developed to the justification and problem to protect the consumer from fixing things without special software costing farmers millions as they are forced to use official dealerships only and wait days for a 5min fix to do a harvest that needs to happen immediately.
Farmers don’t care about ownership as long as the equipment works and doesn’t prevent them from working.
But that is the thing, why should a company be allowed to artificially lock in their customers when they aren’t leasing it but owning it. McDonald’s using The Taylor Company’s ice cream machine. You needed a special code to diagnose error codes only a service provider knows, and when someone else made a fix that made it cheaper to diagnose because no service technician was needed and and easy to fix on the spot when the malfunction was known. Showing artificial restrictions for no reason
The problem is why should a company be allowed to lock in their users and companies to repair their devices? In EU every car/ John Deere equivalent equipment manufacturer must provide tools and diagnostic information for a reasonable price to any licensed mechanical shop and honor product warranties. So right to repair is not equivalent
Nobody what’s this when it cost you money to wait. And in EU this have been solved decades ago
Probably as I said before, make it illegal to do such investment to intentionally lock them in and treat competition on equal terms to their own apps or perhaps it might be decided that consumer devices doesn’t fall under apple (and equivalent) jurisdictions. Just as a business can’t refuse back people because it’s their store
That is the challenge.
Other than "Malware" or "security Risk" claims by competitors or security firms, post 2015 factual numbers are becoming harder and harder to come by.
Overly aggressive and somwhat self entitled. Are you quite young? I have noticed this with the younger generation. I suppose I was taught different values.
The thing is, this is a debate amongst tech enthusiasts. On side of which seems to want what they want, regardless of costs to anyone else (I know what I’m doing, it’s not my fault your grandparents are not educated enough, they should buy a dumb phone); the other side of this discussion are people of equal tech ability and interests, yet understand that the iPhone is unique in its standing amount the marketplace, the so called walled garden. This - regardless of the incessant blah blahing on this thread, will be compromised with the opening up of iOS. It’s a fact, and it’s undeniable regardless of what you want personally.
A bigger margin than the other bill, even after Apple sent their little letter. Hell yes!
For anyone late to the party on this thread.
1. Allowing code signed side loading will not increase user security concerns on iOS. Not in the slightest.
2. The only real concern Apple has here is the monopoly on App/in-App revenue they currently enjoy
3. All the concerns Apple are throwing up as distractions are things they've found great mitigations for on macOS
4. They are gas lighting everyone here. This is all and only about "money".
1. Allowing code signed side loading will not increase user security concerns on iOS. Not in the slightest.
2. The only real concern Apple has here is the monopoly on App/in-App revenue they currently enjoy
3. All the concerns Apple are throwing up as distractions are things they've found great mitigations for on macOS
4. They are gas lighting everyone here. This is all and only about "money".
Last edited:
Also, people believe that all the data access prompts will magically disappear because they were some magical App Store voodoo imprinted by skilled Apple devs after each review.
Ha. Depends what you consider to be young? Although you being significantly older would explain your apparent fear of the open internet, I guess.
Also, it’s interesting that you find your advice to me to be fine, but when it applies to you it’s overly aggressive. Maybe something for you to work on.
iOS still has its sandboxing mechanisms, nothing will change there. You can already use AltStore to sideload custom ipas from anywhere you want, literally all this would do is force Apple to allow a way to install the same stuff we already have but without the needless 7 day refresh timer.
Malware? No. Nothing will be compromised, iOS doesn‘t work like Android. Apps cannot see each other‘s files and must interact solely through features such as the share sheet. Aside from a jailbreak exploit (which if you keep up to date with iOS is a non issue) there‘s no risks beyond that which a user can expose themselves to already, this just makes it official.
All the people complaining this will take down the walled garden are having a laugh. Nobody who is unable to understand the consequences of this will ever be able to take the steps necessary to compromise their device in any way. All Apple has to do is make it buried and obscure enough that only technical users can actually access it, and flood the screen with scary looking warnings telling them that they are safer to stick with the app store, which they are.
It seems people were right with that grandparents thing.
I’m not that old, but I can assure you the internet is not the slightest bit open in comparison to what it was or what it should be. But we aren’t talking about the internet. We’re talking about Apples iOS software and where the best place 3rd party applications should be sourced from for the majority of users.
But what about independent developers who cannot afford to spend the money or time to get Apple‘s coveted seal of approval (which can be denied even to those in full compliance with their rules, as has happened many times in the past)?
Or simply those who wish to use software such as retro console emulators?
For anyone late to the party on this thread:
1. Allowing alt-stores will create a negative user experience as compared to the single point of service we enjoy today via fragmentation. Alt-stores will compete for exclusivity, fragmenting the experience. Apps will fall off of the Apple app store forcing consumers to use alt-stores and payment processors. When I need to restore my phone or when I buy a new phone I would much rather have a single point to restore my purchases from instead of several.
2. Alt-payment processors will create a negative user experience as compered to the single point of service we enjoy today. We read almost daily about retailers or processors getting hacked. Anyone who thinks that the user experience will be better by being forced to have login accounts with payment information in 10 to 100 different app stores is insane.
3. Vote with your dollars, if you don't like what Apple is doing, buy a different phone. If enough of you leave Apple will change their practices. Forcing change via legislation will not go well for any of us.
1&2: You can see it today already with Google's sideloading. Your fears did not come true, so leave it be. The first-party experience cannot be duplicated and 99 % of all apps will be there because they want to reach 100 % of all users.
3: It's simple: Don't tell people what to do, or augment their choices into what you want them to be their spectrum of choices. Voting with your voice is a reasonable way to transmit information.
If Apple is forced to allow sideloading, will you vote with your dollars as well?
If I wanted Android I would have bought an Android phone. Stop trying to turn iOS into Android.
Nope.
Debatable.
We can’t effectively vote with our wallets. How is Apple supposed to interpret what I do or don’t like about their product by not buying it. There’s a lot I like about iOS and iPhones, what if voting with my wallet changes the things I actually like rather than the ones I don’t. In fact, opening up the ability to install apps from elsewhere is precisely how you and I would be able to more effectively vote with our wallets.
I'd love to but if the Apple model is legislated out of existence I have no options, see how this creates LESS choice.
30%nor whatever it is, will be or should be, is the cost of business. I assume that these devs (even those that are coming to Apple not knowing the costs of doing business with them) already factor this in with their costs? I run my own business. Nothing is free. And as an iOS dev - aside living, taxes and equipment, an ‘all in’ single cost to Apple is likely cheaper and certainly easier to manage than other alternatives.
I think you may be missing the point ...
The App Store policies effectively reach way beyond distributing and selling software programs / Apps. Selling and distributing software programs is where the a thing started and what was promoted. Yet today it charges for the sale of things it does not sell or distribute, the sale of books, lessons, music, dating arrangements, …. whatever sold in software programs that aren’t even theirs. Digital or non digital is just a technicality … there are no boundaries being regulated.
So it basically charges a fee for anything it wants, it does really need to sell or distribute none of those things … even if if such a fee is 0 at points, it is what it is at their discretion banking on peoples smartphones and their good will … the perfect Trojan Horse unleashing the practice. Some might consider such thing an abusive practice.
Now you may want to buy all these and much more through Apple or Google, heck your next date, vacation, insurance groceries, music lesson, a tutor session on economics and business maybe? within any software program. Even if none of those are actually provided by Apple or Google. Fine, its your option, you may still have that.
But others may also to buy these things in app directly to the businesses that actually provide you with those on your mobile phone (its yours isn't it?) ... after all its their software to begin with. That is all there is really to it. Why don't you pressure Apple to say open an dating service, a grocery, a math tutoring service or whatever you need, you know actually compete for it, rather than compete by policy, you can than pay Apple for it and no one else.
Sideloading or not is irrelevant. We don't even need sideloading, multiple App Stores or whatever to regulate the above and still have plenty $$$$$ billions to "spare". Just some common sense and good will (less greed / speculative value and more product focus).
PS: ApplePay is not comparable to App Store. You may compare it with PayPay or something of that sort ... is a payment system ... these don't charge for the sale, but for the processing of the payment. Heck, have in app ApplePay and PayPall if you will.
Last edited:
1. Alt stores already exist. There‘s one called AltStore. All this will do is remove the 7 day timeout on these kinds of stores, nothing more.
2. Users who want to continue using Apple‘s own payment system will not be prevented from doing so. If you continue to buy from the app store, you can keep using ApplePay
3. iOS has many features that are extremely desirable and unique to the platform. Dismissing valid user concerns about Apple‘s bad app store practices, rejecting completely valid and worthwhile apps from entering the store simply because they didn‘t properly review them is not a valid argument. Telling people that if they don‘t like it they should put up or shut up when the outcome doesn‘t affect you in any meaningful way is disingenuous at best, outright wrong at worst.
It‘s a good sign that these bills are passing with an overwhelming majority. It‘s time for Apple to wake up and realise that developers and consumers are tired of Apple‘s policies.