I'm 100% with you on that, right up until the point where your convenience takes away my choices.
I'm sorry that your family is dumb, I really am, but that's not my fault or my problem.
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
I'm sorry that your family is dumb, I really am, but that's not my fault or my problem.
As far as I'm aware, iOS still allows you to install apps the same way you could prior to the app store -- via web apps.
Once the "if you don't like it, just shut and leave" folks show up, I tend to stop being as scrupulously polite as I might otherwise be inclined to be.
I said "unsigned." An identified developer entails the app has been signed, and you're allowing signed enterprise apps to run. Very different.
You mean they're not my buddy?!
I understand why Apple would fight this tooth and nail. At the risk of being accused of being doom-sayer, if Apple were to allow sideloading it would be the beginning of the end of their gravy train.
If sideloading was permitted, all it would take would be a single must-have blockbuster app that wasn't in the app store to bust the dam wide open to sideloading. Many people who are vehemently against sideloading apps on their devices would feel the pressure to break down and sideload the app. Especially if they've been trained to satisfy their FOMO.
Heck, a smart competitor could underwrite the next Instagram (not that function specifically, but an app that received a lot of buzz and installs) and not put it on the app store... resulting in a large percentage of iOS/iPad OS users opening the door to sideloading.
I could see Microsoft pulling Office from the app store and only make it available from their own server.
My point is - if the company really wants to nanny and protect their dumb users, they should do that on the entire product line. Because there is good number of such dumb users that own both Apple phone and Apple computer.
Choice to protect only the phone part clearly shows their intentions, and this is sole profit.
This works both ways: I'm sorry you chose to be on the Apple ecosystem, when they've made it clear for a very long time that they want iOS locked down, but your desires for iOS to be Android takes away from my desire for it to not be.
There have been a lot of elevation bugs in both Windows and macOS.
So even if the user didn't have administration privileges, bugs made it possible to elevate the user to admin and thus also the applications.
If the system lacked code for users even having administration privileges, such bugs would have no effect and the system would be more secure.
It's the same with side loading. If there isn't code for side loading, it can't be a security threat.
I loaded an unsigned app on my Mac just last week. It's a little utility that change the way macOS displays fonts on non-Retina external displays. The dude who made it said he wasn't going to pay Apple $100/year to give away a tiny, simple utility for free.
My Mac allows that app to run any time I want it to, because ... I flipped a toggle (several toggles, really, but whatever). No other unsigned app can run on my Mac, just that one, because I jumped through all the hoops required to give it -- and it alone -- special permission.
No its not. I cannot install any enterprise or signed app I want if I'm not part of that enterprise. I literally have the app store as my only choice for my personal device.
Which is great. That's what debate is all about.
You'll notice I haven't told you to toddle off to Mars or whatever and get off my planet.
Apple openly admits that macOS is less secure than iOS. They also openly admit that the mac app store is a failure, so the amount of time they spend policing it is presumably a lot less.
The alternative would be for apple to lock down macOS, which many users here fear Apple will do. I don't believe Apple will do this, although, if they had a completely altruistic privacy stance they would.
The only ones who looses big are developers, which I don't mind. And some advanced users, which I also don't mind.
Those who benefits are people who don't know about security. Which is most people.
Actually, it's not very hard to side load an enterprise-signed app, whether you're part of the enterprise or not. You also have the option to sign apps yourself.
So send them to the Apple Store when they have a problem? If you don't want to do anything then don't, no one's making that your job.
No, but you've alluded that people who disagree with your stance have terrible character.
Also, I've not said you should leave, either. I've questioned why you choose to stay around -- inquiries are not commands.
It's not my problem you want freedom since I don't care about you.
I am willing to sacrifice your freedom for my convenience.
You can already have all the freedom you want in Linux and Android if that's what you value the most.
This is a lot of huffing and puffing at this point. I think antitrust victories in a few countries will force this to change rather rapidly—and not just with Apple.
Plenty of crap has slipping through the App Store as it is because as many of us know, the trend is to pay more attention to really odd clauses in their policies or anything related to them not getting their cut rather than protecting the consumer. That's why so many of their content related policies are insane considering I can use Safari. What, if the degree of separation is Safari then it's okay?
My hope is we see the Mac model, which I like. App Store or signed developer or shut this off at your own risk. They're going to dig in as long as they can under the guise of privacy and all that, but eventually they'll lose and the group that will probably benefit the most from this will be developers who will actually be able to use their devices.
Plenty of crap has slipping through the App Store as it is because as many of us know, the trend is to pay more attention to really odd clauses in their policies or anything related to them not getting their cut rather than protecting the consumer. That's why so many of their content related policies are insane considering I can use Safari. What, if the degree of separation is Safari then it's okay?
My hope is we see the Mac model, which I like. App Store or signed developer or shut this off at your own risk. They're going to dig in as long as they can under the guise of privacy and all that, but eventually they'll lose and the group that will probably benefit the most from this will be developers who will actually be able to use their devices.
And that all sounds fine and logical, but ... Android exists. That's how it works in Android. How it has always worked in Android, and yet the Google Play store is still the canonical App Store for Android, all these years later. It's going strong. So if all these scary scenarios would come true on iOS, why haven't they come to pass on Android?You mean they're not my buddy?!
I understand why Apple would fight this tooth and nail. At the risk of being accused of being doom-sayer, if Apple were to allow sideloading it would be the beginning of the end of their gravy train.
If sideloading was permitted, all it would take would be a single must-have blockbuster app that wasn't in the app store to bust the dam wide open to sideloading. Many people who are vehemently against sideloading apps on their devices would feel the pressure to break down and sideload the app. Especially if they've been trained to satisfy their FOMO.
Heck, a smart competitor could underwrite the next Instagram (not that function specifically, but an app that received a lot of buzz and installs) and not put it on the app store... resulting in a large percentage of iOS/iPad OS users opening the door to sideloading.
I could see Microsoft pulling Office from the app store and only make it available from their own server.
We don't have to guess or wonder what would happen -- we have seen what happens. Some truly massive/popular apps (Fortnite) will ask people to sideload, sure. But most apps will happily stay in the Google Play Store, because that's the easiest way, it's the path of least resistance, and it gets their app in front of the most eyes.
For real, someone explain it to me: why would the App Store fall into instant ruin in the face of actual competition but the Google Play store is still thriving?
Great. Perfect. I'm 100% willing to sacrifice your convenience for my freedom. I'm glad we can agree!
Unfortunately for you, the courts / legislatures of the world are probably going to have some bad news for you one day soon.
I'll try not to gloat, but I make no promises.
And to repeat for the I-don't-even-know-how-manyth-time, there is code for sideloading. It's how devs test their apps. And yet my phone remains completely unmolested by malware.
People who want the freedom to install whatever they want on their devices already has an alternative like Android.
If you remove the restrictions on iOS we have no alternative.
You are arguing to take away our choice to get a unique system which is locked down and controlled by its creator.
I think the nuance should be side loading signed vs. unsigned apps. If people were only complaining about not being able to side load signed apps, then the obvious answer is: "stop complaining -- you already can side load signed apps". The issue is people want unsigned apps the ability to run, which is what a lot of the legislation will allow.
It won't. Apple is protecting its services cash cow and they're going to stretch that as long as they can. A cut of the subscriptions is huge and plenty of info has come out in the Fortnite trial to show what anyone who isn't completely naive already knows: it's about the money.
This has never been about anything but that. And don't get me wrong, the presence of the App Store is a big deal. As you point out, just like the Play Store is generally the to go place for most users.
What's so ridiculous is even if side loading is allowed, who is really going to do it? It's gonna be mainly developers and tech heads that wanna run stuff like emulators and other programs that aren't allowed because of some very wacky policies.
If I can do this on my Mac, why can't I do this on my iPhone or iPad?