Tim Cook Delivers Speech Emphasizing Apple's Opposition to Sideloading

[I7guy]

I read the post I initially responded to alright. Corrections after the fact that conflict with the initial observation than accusing people of not reading posts …

Why don’t you simply acknowledge that your initial representation of sideloading was just plain WRONG! Adding insult to injury … than proceeded claiming you had some kind of special insight on the subject that very few could grasp.

Just say … “I made a mistake. Inspite of that, I keep the same opinion I had because … etc etc etc”. It is simpler and more to the point you want to make.

Maybe my phraseology or sentence construction could have been better, or the post was misunderstood. Moving on.

@I7guy,

Here is the drill. You believe that having a private expert in security and privacy, mediating Joe’s access to Apps provides him with a safer environment.

I agree with it … with one or two conditions also related to security and privacy.

This works well if such expert has no conflict of interests in the App market and Joe as the ability to choose when to “call” the services of such expert …. Otherwise the user properties are in theory at risk also.

Neither of this caveats are guaranteed by Apple policies. In fact on the first … the conflict of interests are all over the place. On the second … well the mediator policies speak for themselves.

How are users and businesses properties at risk?

Well if these two security measures aren’t in place, the power of such mediator goes way beyond advisory. It becomes a gatekeeper of digital commerce, a power that the mediator can use to leverage other positions unrelated to users security or privacy. A power that Apple has used before at the expense of device owners properties as well as third party digital businesses.

This needs to be regulated with all users security and privacy in mind by people that actually understand how multiple security threats can interplay. With the understanding what is being secured are indeed users properties that sustain peoples lives that go way beyond the use of a device. Not just by opinion makers or people desperate to take a selfie on the next golden smartphone.

This is serious stuff.

This gatekeeper notion, applies to every business. WSJ is the gatekeeper of it's editorial content for example. Apple is the gatekeeper of it's ios app store. Costco is the gatekeeper of all that it sells within it's stores. Apple having that "gatekeeper" is a good thing. It's not the peoples store, which is what this odd legislation is proposing. And yes Apple has to play fair, and when there is an issue it needs to fix it. However, it is still the gatekeeper...a good notion that is supposed to connote something bad, but in reality it is something good.

But because the app store isn't perfect, throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the way to go, imo. In fact, imo, all issues are going to be magnified.

And as I said before, like death and taxes, if this legislation is coming, then it is coming. Yes it is serious, but I'm not for taking the ios app store and handing it to the people.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

This gatekeeper notion, applies to every business. WSJ is the gatekeeper of it's editorial content for example.

I understand you analogy but you know that WSJ produces their own content right? It actually pays people and businesses to produce content for it … not the other way around. Apple model … the App Store gets payed by everyone … how? Gatekeeper.

Anyway, keeping with the curation analogy don’t think privacy and security is concerning with the editorial power of Apple over its App Store.

But the one App Store whose policies enforced Apple power over hardware devices owned by users and its use to leverage other unilateral actions to their benefit alone … even against user properties themselves.

The iPhone was never marketed to users as a setopbox for Apple broadcasting/programming much less priced as such. Most users not long ago did not even knew what sideloading is … heck even today most don’t.

I mean, analogies are always a bit off. What we can do is keep with the events and facts on the table regardless of art in other contexts. They are important for understanding but not to guide decisions in context.

Cheers.

 

[BaldiMac]

The iPhone was never marketed to users as a setopbox for Apple programming much less priced as such.

I'd argue that's exactly how it was marketed and priced. Apple's curation of apps on the iPhone has been part of their marketing since the App Store launched.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'd argue that's exactly how it was marketed and priced. Apple's curation of apps on the iPhone has been part of their marketing since the App Store launched.

I understand you would. But the iPhone was actually launched without an App Store. In fact proven events show that it might now be even in the agenda until after the iPhone was released. Anyway, one just needs to have a look at the history of WWDC on the subject and see when the inflection point happened. No need to argue much about it.

 

[BaldiMac]

I understand you would. But the iPhone was actually launched without an App Store. In fact proven events show that it might now be even in the agenda until after the iPhone was released. Anyway, one just needs to have a look at the history of WWDC on the subject and see when the inflection point happened. No need to argue much about it.

I specifically said "since the App Store launched."

 

[I7guy]

I understand you analogy but you know that WSJ produces their own content right? It actually pays people and businesses to produce content for it … not the other way around. Apple model … the App Store gets payed by everyone … how? Gatekeeper.

Costco gets paid by the manufacturer and collects rent from the buyer. Similar principle.

Anyway, keeping with the curation analogy don’t think privacy and security is concerning with the editorial power of Apple over its App Store.

But the one App Store whose policies enforced Apple power over hardware devices owned by users and its use to leverage other unilateral actions to their benefit alone … even against user properties themselves.

The software is not the users' software. It's licensed. And the consumer can do what they want with the hardware. Apple doesn't have to help them.

The iPhone was never marketed to users as a setopbox for Apple broadcasting/programming much less priced as such. Most users not long ago did not even knew what sideloading is … heck even today most don’t.

I mean, analogies are always a bit off. What we can do is keep with the events and facts on the table regardless of art in other contexts. They are important for understanding but not to guide decisions in context.

Cheers.

The facts are this is Apples' storefront and they have always been in control, since 2008. The rules have shifted with the times and tech, but basically similar for 14 years.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

specifically said "since the App Store launched."

You did. I thought you mistakenly mentioned the App Store when you wanted to say iOS or the iPhone.

Otherwise your remark has little sense considering that I have specifically mentioned the iPhone. Another one moving posts ever so slightly?

Anyway keeping with your off the cuff remark, it’s irrelevant not only to mine but also sideloading.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Costco gets paid by the manufacturer and collects rent from the buyer. Similar principle.

Now we are moving from WSJ to Costco … it’s impossible to keep up.

As I’ve said before nothing in sideloading pinches Apple rights being the sole decision of what it sells in its App Store. In other words, user rights for privately installing third party software not taken from the App Store in their iOS devices all without asking Apple permission, for the reasons pointed above, does not conflict with Apple right to sell on their App Store only what it wants.

Take for instance the Apple Stores .. users can buy stuff to be used with their iPhone and iPads there as well as in other places. Some of them not created by Apple. There are no security hazards involved by default as you imply. Why suddenly there is for Apps used with iPhones and iPads?

So don’t understand why you and @BaldiMac gravitate to that point. Is not even in question.

 

[BaldiMac]

You did. I thought you mistakenly mentioned the App Store when you wanted to say iOS or the iPhone.

Otherwise your remark has little sense considering that I have specifically mentioned the iPhone. Another one moving posts ever so slightly?

Anyway keeping with you off the cuff remark, it’s irrelevant not only to mine but also sideloading.

I didn't move any goalposts. The App Store is a feature of the iPhone. Curation is clearly a part of Apple's marketing.

 

[BaldiMac]

Now we are moving from WSJ to Costco … it’s impossible to keep up.

As I’ve said before nothing in sideloading pinches Apple rights being the sole decision of what it sells in its App Store. In other words, user rights for privately installing third party software not taken from the App Store in their iOS devices all without asking Apple permission, for the reasons pointed above, does not conflict with Apple right to sell on their App Store only what it wants. Take for instance the Apple Stores .. user can buy stuff to be used with their iPhone there as well as in other places. There no security hazard involved by default as you imply.

So don’t understand why you @BaldiMac gravitate to that point. Is not even in question.

You're simply not follwoing the conversation. No one thinks that sideloading affects Apple's ability to curate the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

Now we are moving from WSJ to Costco … it’s impossible to keep up.

Well there are many similar analogies of real world storefronts that sell other peoples wares.

As I’ve said before nothing in sideloading pinches Apple rights being the sole decision of what it sells in its App Store.

Yes, and imo, that is good.

In other words, user rights for privately installing third party software not taken from the App Store in their iOS devices all without asking Apple permission, for the reasons pointed above, does not conflict with Apple right to sell on their App Store only what it wants.

You can sideload all you want, Apple doesn't have to help you. If you want to sideload there are dozens of alternative devices.

Take for instance the Apple Stores .. user can buy stuff to be used with their iPhone and iPads there as well as in other places. There no security hazard involved by default as you imply. Why suddenly there is for Apps used with iPhones and iPads?

Generally mass produced electronic consumer oriented devices, don't come out of the box with functionality designed to defeat security systems.

So don’t understand why you and @BaldiMac gravitate to that point. Is not even in question.

In this grand, wide world of ours is it possible that individuals have differing thoughts and perspectives?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You're simply not follwoing the conversation. No one thinks that sideloading affects Apple's ability to curate the App Store.

Só why Apple right to decide which products to market on their App Store is even a theme in a thread about, sideloading, privacy and security? Indeed I’m not following the conversation, maybe the thread theme.

 

[BaldiMac]

Só why Apple right to decide which products to market on their App Store is even a theme in a thread about, sideloading, privacy and security? Indeed I’m not following the conversation, maybe the thread theme.

Seems pretty straightforward. Apple curates apps on iOS through the App Store. Legislation to allow sideloading would bypass that.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You can sideload all you want, Apple doesn't have to help you. If you want to sideload there are dozens of alternative devices.

Well what is being discussed is not really about Apple helping users rights in privately installing Apps on their devices … but actually not putting obstacles on it as it has been doing to great lengths. To the point where some institutions are ready to turn those obstacles illegal. Apple or anyone who attempts the same conduct.


Also it’s not a question of users being able to buy other devices.

You should take a look at Apple simply closing down the App Store in Russia. By doing that it removed the ability of iPhone and iPad owners installing apps just to name one, … hurting users properties. It also hurt digital businesses. You can imagine such power if this practice is spread to smart cars, computers in hospitals and so on and so forth.

When business are relatively small or local, … its manageable … but when global and gigantic it becomes a security threat to businesses and users.

So it’s quite natural that countries outside the US will not grant Apple such power.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Seems pretty straightforward. Apple curates apps on iOS through the App Store. Legislation to allow sideloading would bypass that.

Look you are playing with words … not into that … Regulation will stop the wording nonsense. In particular, yes Apple can decide over which apps and digital services the App Store sells, but it will not be able to decide which apps users run on their iOS devices. The device was bought amongst many other things, to run apps. That is for the user to decide, it was never the deal marketed.

Which apps and digital services to use or hire on one’s property is a private matter as well as a security matter. Safe OSs should support this stance as well as other safety measures.

 

[BaldiMac]

Look you are playing with words … not into that … Regulation will stop the wording nonsense.

You asked a question. I answered. I'm not playing with words.

 

[turbineseaplane]

All this can be boiled down to..

iOS Developers should be able to directly interact and offer their software to end users.
End users should be able to install Apps from whatever source they'd prefer.

Apple should not be forcing their way in the middle of any of that.

They've built a wonderfully secure iOS software design/structure.
If they want to keep offering their own curated App Store, they should!

Choice of software and sourcing location need to be up to the end users (owners of the devices).

tldr - make iOS like macOS -- the platform it was originally based off of anyhow.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You asked a question. I answered. I'm not playing with words.

I spoke about Apple deciding which Apps users can run, you replied with App Store curation rights. Now after all is about curation in iOS. Does the iPhone support officially any other OS? Can regular users privately install Apps by any other means supported by the OS? No so we end up Apple deciding which Apps users can run on their devices or not and without any privacy in this context. And it used this power to shape digital commerce to its needs.

Yes I asked you a question but did not answer it. Instead confirmed my original assumption.

Waste of time.

 

[BaldiMac]

I spoke about iPhone, you replied with App Store curation. Now after all is about curation in iOS. Does the iPhone support officially any other OS? No so we end up Apple deciding which Apps users can run on their devices or not.

Yes I asked you a question but did not answer it. Instead confirmed my original assumption.

That’s just a silly distinction that you continue to make. iOS and the App Store are both features of the iPhone.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That’s just a silly distinction that you continue to make. iOS and the App Store are both features of the iPhone.

I did not made that silly distinction you did by stating that I have not fully read your comment. Waste of time.

We all know that Apple sees the iPhone, iOS, the App Store and anything it puts in by default as one product. That is why I mentioned the iPhone and not the App Store, or iOS alone. You were do one who made the distinction by mentioning the App Store to argue a specific point to then correct me when I used both terms interchangeably … moments later call me silly only to come around and state it’s all the same thing as far as you are concerned (like Apple). Are you ok?

Microsoft attempted something very similar with accruing all sorts apps and digital services baked into the OS sidelining the competition over a decade ago and was barred in the US, EU, Australia … and was selling like cupcakes. So sales is not a confirmation of better privacy, security … or best practices or even users agreeing with a specific practice. Neither being a monopoly is a precondition of regulation … it’s about having great power and if companies dimwits such power.

The way these thing interplay as a conglomerate will be regulated. The results of such vision is telling … inspite of certain benefits, absolute power over what users can install on their devices is a privacy and security hazard. What can be done with such power Apple has been demonstrating in many ways against iPhone and iPad owners.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

In this grand, wide world of ours is it possible that individuals have differing thoughts and perspectives?

Of course it possible. That is not what is at play, we are discussing our different perspective. I just called your attention that Apple ability to decide which App or digital Services it wants to sell on the App Store is not questioned by the eventually unlocking sideloading on iOS. You agreed with that.

Now the opinion of @BaldiMac seams to be different to yours in certain specific things. He argues that side loading impairs such App Store ability because the iOS, iPhones and iPads are the same product as is the App Store ... its one conceptual unit. Is all the same thing for him and Apple (Tim Cook). So in the end of the day he believes that sideloading impairs Apple ability to decide / curate which Apps iPhone and iPad owners can install on their devices and which cannot ... regardless of their opinion or needs.

duh ... of course ... didn't he get the memo? That power and how is Apple using it is precisely what is being observed by regulators and why side loading is being considered as a possible measure to introduce more fairness when customer / apple or google / digitals services meet together in the users devices. Considering that these so called popular devices are owned by billions of users.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Now the opinion of @BaldiMac seams to be different. He argues that side loading impairs such ability because the iOS, iPhones and iPads are the same product as is the App Store ... its one conceptual unit. Is all the same thing for him and Apple (Tim Cook).

With interpretations like “all one conceptual unit”, I’m surprised folks such as Baldi aren’t advocating for Apple to take a cut of all transactions that go through the device, period.

Should Apple get a cut of a sale where I purchased using Safari on a website?

 

[BaldiMac]

I did not made that silly distinction you did by stating that I have not fully read your comment. Waste of time.

We all know that Apple sees the iPhone, iOS, the App Store and anything it puts in by default as one product. That is why I mentioned the iPhone and not the App Store, or iOS alone. You were do one who made the distinction by mentioning the App Store to argue a specific point to then correct me when I used both terms interchangeably … moments later call me silly only to come around and state it’s all the same thing as far as you are concerned (like Apple). Are you ok?

You are just making stuff up. I didn't correct you. You've accused me multiple times of playing with words because I referred to the App Store instead of the iPhone which is silly

Microsoft attempted something very similar with accruing all sorts apps and digital services baked into the OS sidelining the competition over a decade ago and was barred in the US, EU, Australia … and was selling like cupcakes. So sales is not a confirmation of better privacy, security … or best practices or even users agreeing with a specific practice. Neither being a monopoly is a precondition of regulation … it’s about having great power and if companies dimwits such power.

The way these thing interplay as a conglomerate will be regulated. The results of such vision is telling … inspite of certain benefits, absolute power over what users can install on their devices is a privacy and security hazard. What can be done with such power Apple has been demonstrating in many ways against iPhone and iPad owners.

Microsoft got in trouble for entering into contracts with PC manufacturers to keep them from installing competitive software, specifically alternative web browsers. Apple has not done anything like that. They only control their own products.

 

[I7guy]

Of course it possible. That is not what is at play, we are discussing our different perspective. I just called your attention that Apple ability to decide which App or digital Services it wants to sell on the App Store is not questioned by the eventually unlocking sideloading on iOS. You agreed with that.

Yes, I agree that Apple should call the shots. It's their software, hardware and intellectual property.

Now the opinion of @BaldiMac seams to be different to yours in certain specific things. He argues that side loading impairs such App Store ability because the iOS, iPhones and iPads are the same product as is the App Store ... its one conceptual unit. Is all the same thing for him and Apple (Tim Cook). So in the end of the day he believes that sideloading impairs Apple ability to decide / curate which Apps iPhone and iPad owners can install on their devices and which cannot ... regardless of their opinion or needs.

Of course, we can debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin until the cows come home. Again, Apple has to play fair, but it's their sandbox.

duh ... of course ... didn't he get the memo? That power and how is Apple using it is precisely what is being observed by regulators and why side loading is being considered as a possible measure to introduce more fairness when customer / apple or google / digitals services meet together in the users devices. Considering that these so called popular devices are owned by billions of users.

I'm for Apple playing fair, and government staying out. Especially when voting with $$$ works wonders. Ask Blackberry.

 

[I7guy]

Well what is being discussed is not really about Apple helping users rights in privately installing Apps on their devices … but actually not putting obstacles on it as it has been doing to great lengths. To the point where some institutions are ready to turn those obstacles illegal. Apple or anyone who attempts the same conduct.

This is apples' infrastructure, as long as in the end they don't break laws, they should be free to design the platform of their dreams.

Also it’s not a question of users being able to buy other devices.

You should take a look at Apple simply closing down the App Store in Russia. By doing that it removed the ability of iPhone and iPad owners installing apps just to name one, … hurting users properties. It also hurt digital businesses. You can imagine such power if this practice is spread to smart cars, computers in hospitals and so on and so forth.

Apple should be free to do that, as Google should be free to block services as they see fit. The app store does not belong to the people. As long as they are within the law they should own the management of the app store.

When business are relatively small or local, … its manageable … but when global and gigantic it becomes a security threat to businesses and users.

What threat? If apple disappeared tomorrow, there is Samsung. I might skip a beat (as millions of others) but would survive.

So it’s quite natural that countries outside the US will not grant Apple such power.

Then they should not have let apple in to begin with. Right?