Sure they could!
They could just find the setting that says, "Allow sideloading" and ...
... not touch it!
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.
Tim Cook: Users Who Want to Sideload Apps Can Use Android, While the iPhone Experience Maximizes 'Security and Privacy'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They could just find the setting that says, "Allow sideloading" and ...
... not touch it!
No it wouldn't. Just leave it on nanny mode and you'll be fine.
If they are executables, they are applications.
But if they were in the Mac App Store and would work without any restrictions, wouldn't it be better?
Ok. Now imagine your technically illiterate relatives choose to do all by themselves, so they log into Mac App Store, get the Metronome app, click on all the popups, get infected or what else, all by legal and recommended actions - from the same company that forbids them sideloading of apps on their phone, in order to not get infected.
Yes! How people don't get this is really beyond me. It's like they think Apple is their buddy instead of a soulless, planet-spanning, money-making machine.
Fundamentally, I don't disagree (as I do attempt to teach the unteachable), but see below.
There's a bit of stamping going on.
This is where the fundamental disagreement comes in. Altering the OS to allow side loaded (unsigned) apps to run is not as simple as adding a toggle switch; the changes required open up attack vectors that would be accessible even when that toggle switch is left alone.
And -- the best part of all! -- Apple gets 15-30% of the profits!
Everyone* wins!
(*who matters to Apple)
They don't have icons or live in the applications folder. I'm not opposed to them being in the app store somehow but right now the app store is too limiting for them to even function.
So why not use one of those other operating system?
Why do you want to change the uniqueness of iOS and make it more similar to Android? Just use Android.
What's your point? That the mac app store has malware on it? OK. I've never suggested that the mac app store was a great store (or even the iOS app store, for that matter) -- I've simply been stating that having it locked down to only allowed apps is safer in general. We an cherry pick specific cases of employees not doing their jobs, but it doesn't change the statistics.
Not necessarily. They already allow sideloading of enterprise apps. The capability is there, just blocked from all of us unless you want to become a corporation and apply to have that ability enabled of course.
Because I have been heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem for many years now. I think I've earned the right to say, "I'd rather it be this way than that way" -- just like every other paying customer.
It's fine if you don't agree -- I welcome you to disagree with me!
But you know what you don't see me doing?
You don't see me running around saying, "If you want something I don't want you're stupid and should just leave."
Because, dude, that's super rude.
It doesn't. In some ways its worse. They allow carriers to bake apps into their roms that cannot be removed. Rather not have facebook permanently on my device thank you.
Go implement an operating system kernel that allows unsigned apps to run freely only in the case some toggle is not clicked, and get back to me.
who forces the supposedly super risk-averse iPhone user base (a billion people?) to use any app? If iPhone users truly pick iPhones for the supposed added security (quoting Tim: " everybody else can purchase android), then the vast majority of the very same iPhone users would simply opt not to download apps from the then third party stores (or just software developers directly - which is what I would do). Both assumptions can't be correct at the same time. If users go iPhone because of this, then the majority of app developers couldn't exit the AppStore even if side-loading existed because users would choose with their wallets and not go for those apps .... see the logic in that?
Obviously, this isn't the case. I get iPhones for several reasons, the App Store is NOT on that list. I, like many, want it for iOS, it's continuity/conservatism, top notch hardware and build quality and superb long-term support.
However, I feel Apple is treating me like a brainless child. Can't do this, can't do that.
Mac computers: Also love them for similar reasons. Superb hardware, great design and... I really like MacOS over the alternatives. The patronizing is becoming worse, but still an order of magnitude less than on the iPhone. I want that on the iPhone. If I decide to install some software there, it's my choice too!
I return your question 1:1. Why can't it be both?
If you want the 'added security', pay for Apple's extra security pack... a new service just $9.99 per month? Why only offer locked iPhones? Offer both.... I guarantee, many more would go iPhone then! I would have zero reason for the one or other Android device at home then, Apple, just offer it to me and you make more money
why can't it be both? ;-)
I agree to some extent. Windows on MacOs have subpar security for non-technical users IF they decide to mess up the system. Well then. How about offering a 100% obvious SWITCH deep down in the iOS and MacOS settings where you have to type in your root password (or just phone key) and actually read and agree to step foot outside of Apple's locked down garden if toggled - in order to be allowed to install ANYTHING.
Apple doesn't even do that today with their App Store. Many data losses and security breaches from App-Store approved apps and service providers have been reported over the time yet Apple allows people without WARNING to install AppStore apps. Apple is not responsible for securing the servers of other services, they only check if the app code isn't malicious, so they deliver the users that feel secure to app providers with safe apps but "unchecked" servers - not better in any way. So why does Apple allow this and not force App-Store offerings to host every database of their services on Apple servers? Well because they don't offer such servers to commercial Devs. If they did when they started the app-store, they would have limited it like so too. It is not about security, it is about money!
Look, I'm clearly trying to over-emphasise this, but treating everybody like children isn't even the issue here.
If they were serious about security, they would lock down their computers just as much as they do with their phones and tablets. They can't because people wouldn't accept it. They were able to implement this early with the phones and tablets, that's why everybody thought this was the norm, that's the only reason it was accepted. First no apps, then apps under conditions (better than no apps)... so the entire thing grew and grew and most were accepting the terms.
well.. I wouldn't opt against Apple Microsoft and Co to offer a maximum lockdown mode for their computer OSs for the dummies of the world. Sandboxed, virtualised, everything.
Back to your question: "why can't it be both"?
I know why... because of dumb users. I even lock down my own computers in the same way, I'm not using an admin account for ordinary work and browsing. But if I need to do something, I'll sudo whatever needed and enter the password.
Apple states it sells gear towards 'professionals'. iPhone Pro, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iMac Pro..... why no 'pro' software modes?
;-)
Does it offer Apple's industrial design? Years and years of software updates? Does it allow me to iMessage with everyone in my immediate circle who only uses iMessage? Does it integrate with all my Apple services as flawlessly as my iPhone and iPad do? Does it work seamlessly with my Mac?
All that aside, telling people to quit the brand and go away because they want a freaking feature you don't like is just rude and you should really quit doing it.
We paid our money just like you did.
Any reason you didn't choose a more "open" system to begin with? Android has been around for a long time now, and has always offered these features.
I believe the OS you're looking for is called "macOS." You should look into it. It's been around a while, actually. I'm a little shocked you haven't heard of it.
If there's stamping, it's definitely not one-sided.
I think we have to leave it here then. I'm just not convinced that having that toggle would mean introducing the kind of security flaws you're suggesting or that Apple couldn't implement a secondary or alternative verification system to ensure the phone would be just as secure as it is now.
Completely disagree. If I can outsource the security to Apple for relatives that's a good thing. They won't and shouldn't be good at security and privacy. Apple should help them with that.
Some people want to teach people to repair stuff or grow their own food. I prefer to outsource almost every aspect of my life from getting a haircut to washing my car.
When I bought my first Mac (an 867Mhz G4 PowerBook, terribly used), there was no such thing as iOS. When I bought my first iPhone there was no such thing as an App Store.
iOS already does this. Look up enterprise app deployment. Also, wasn't arguing for unsigned apps. You can sign apps and still not have to use to app store to get them. I want this.
Totally fair objections.
Mocking people that don't want a security-altering feature is also an issue. We paid our money, too.