Please explain to me then. How will I be able to maintain my walled garden setting if the App isn’t on the App Store?
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
Free apps will not have this restriction but any app that needs to be paid for or has IAP will require a login account and payment information.
The only valid evidence I have is Android market, and it clearly states that vast majority of users still buy their apps via the official store. I just want you to show me your evidence which states it might be the opposite with AppleStore and opportunity to sideload. Not predictions and guessings.
Can we PLEASE have civil conversations here? I’m tired of people attacking my grandparents, or saying English isn’t my primary language. Or shoving words down my throat like this. I am all for right to repair.
You seem to be muddling up a lot of basic words and phases (e.g. from post 717: "Malware exists or not? If it does, side loading makes it worse by definition"), which is why I assumed your first language isn't English. A lot of your posts read the same way as texts I get from my non-native English-speaking friends. It wasn't meant as an attack, hence the apology. I'm probably going to stop replying now because I don't see this going anywhere productive from here.
This has been countered many times already. Epic also sued Google with one of the arguments is that it’s too difficult to side load on Android.
You were saying that people were saying things, and that it is true and laughable. I told you to dial back a bit with statements like "this is x and that is b", which, since we are arguing about is, appears to be conflicted, therefore rendering the nature of a "fact" undone.
What I would like to hear is how a sophisticated hacker - who is a signed developer - bypasses all the security safeguards that iOS provides and even maintains the ability to distribute apps should they succeed.
They are asking you to provide the evidence of the "countering". I am asking for that evidence too because Android and the MAS to me look the opposite of what you are suggesting.
I’m sick of the attitude in this thread. Attacking my grand parents, saying English isn’t my primary language, making assumptions. The other side isn’t much better you know, posts like “you are wrong”. That reads the same as a text to me as well.
So lets try to debate in good faith... as there are no meaningful alt-stores for iOS at this time there is no evidence available. One can however look at existing, similar, marketplaces and extrapolate what will likely happen and what will likely happen is:
Alt-stores from the likes of Steam or Epic will try for app exclusives, they already do it on other platforms.
Alt-stores will have alt-payment processors, the more places your personal information exists in increases the chance that your data is compromised.
If you have a reasonable challenge to these items I'm all ears.
Epic is suing Google over Fortnite’s removal from the Google Play Store
Apple was just round one
www.theverge.com
Read the legal documents. Proof is there. They feel it’s too difficult to side load which is why so few people do it.
An os with a single point of entry is more likely to be compromised by a bad actor if another point of entry is created. Especially if the second point of entry is less guarded than the first.
Are you saying it’s a not true statement? Alternate facts don’t wash with me. Do you have proof that multiple entry points to a system is more secure than a single entry point?
I never did that.
I think it was a fair assumption. It's not like I mocked you for it, I just thought it explained the breakdown in communication.
Nothing wrong with assuming things.
That's cool, I'm not talking to them. You're free to think what you want. I've chucked you on my ignore list now, so there's no more worries about future interaction.
ApplePay is accessible from third-party apps, and most apps promote it because there appears to be no higher commission than, say, PayPal or anything else. It won't be less secure if Slack would use it in their MAS version or the one from their website, because they can't control ApplePay. As much as they can't control PayPal.
You‘re conveniently ignoring the fact that AltStore exists.
Good idea, this is getting really exhausting.
You‘re right that a single entry point is more secure, but that conveniently ignores the fact that said alternate entry points ALREADY EXIST and the only restriction is the need to refresh apps every 7 days without a paid apple developer account.
Just another point to add to the pile, you all know that ios allows anyone to write apps for it, right?
Sideloading already exists. It has done forever, because since third party apps were even a thing you could download XCode, and write whatever apps you want, that display or do whatever you want within the limits of the API, and crucially, SIDELOAD THEM onto your iOS device.
There are 2 restrictions that would be removed with the introduction of this bill;
1. Apps need to be resigned every 7 days
2. Only one device per apple account can use sideloaded apps at once
These 2 are the ONLY restrictions that would practically change. No sandboxing downgrades, no forcing people to use apps they don‘t want, no forcing people to use payment providers they don‘t want.
If Epic wanted to, they could distribute their ipa for fortnite RIGHT NOW, and put their own payment processor inside, and you, me, or anyone with an iOS device could use it. The only issue is that no user wants to reinstall fortnite every 7 days.
Sideloading already exists. It has done forever, because since third party apps were even a thing you could download XCode, and write whatever apps you want, that display or do whatever you want within the limits of the API, and crucially, SIDELOAD THEM onto your iOS device.
There are 2 restrictions that would be removed with the introduction of this bill;
1. Apps need to be resigned every 7 days
2. Only one device per apple account can use sideloaded apps at once
These 2 are the ONLY restrictions that would practically change. No sandboxing downgrades, no forcing people to use apps they don‘t want, no forcing people to use payment providers they don‘t want.
If Epic wanted to, they could distribute their ipa for fortnite RIGHT NOW, and put their own payment processor inside, and you, me, or anyone with an iOS device could use it. The only issue is that no user wants to reinstall fortnite every 7 days.
It’s a question of how inefficient is apple’s review process to actually prevent scams on the App Store? 10%? And how much worse does it get with side loading compared to the freedoms we consumers get? Will it be 100% worse? 1%? 20%?
If App Store and google play have about the same amount of scams and viruses is the forced curation only by apple worth it then?
Not at all, lets put this to bed ALTSTORE EXISTS. There, I'm on record.
I'm just saying that IMHO they would currently represent an insignificant number of app installations against the total number of iOS apps currently installed, therefore its presence is insignificant today.
I wouldn't even say that it's more secure, it is just reviewed in terms of content. It prevents us from buying a file manager app which secretly also runs custom ROMs. Or let Pronhub distribute their own app.
They will screen it for code which won't run on iOS anyways anymore.
And they will continue to let developers track us even if we revoked our consent.
That is some stuff that I take seriously, and what Apple should address. Not augment some danger where there isn't, and distract from the platform's more severe problems.
People think themselves safe when they aren't, and Apple is responsible for that.
“Secretly runs custom roms“
That doesn‘t mean anything i‘m afraid. “Custom roms“? What does that even mean?
I’m not ignoring anything. That’s not something that a general user can even slightly access, if persuaded, tricked or just are stupid. It’s a feature that you specifically need to subscribe to.