One time, when I was a kid, my mom grounded me until I cleaned my room.
Yes Apple makes billions from the App Store for doing almost nothing. It's the devs that are creating value for the users by getting them to purchase and pay for stuff. At best, the App Store should be a one time listing fee. Taking a cut for subscriptions and purchases after the fact is pure greed.
Yeah, like for example, macOS allows sideloading, and doesn't have a privacy and security problem. Oops. Entire argument blown out by your own products Timmy.
Again, that's directed at the people who blindly defend Apple and fall all over themselves in their headlong rush to tell anyone who disagrees they should just leave the ecosystem, as if that's as simple as just buying a new phone.
If Apple were actually doing it for the reasons they cite I might be inclined to agree, but the sorry state of the App Store (it's full of scams Apple does little to nothing about) puts the lie to that, as did their recent push to invade all of our devices at their leisure just to double check that we're not a bunch of pedophiles.
It doesn't because that exploits something in the OS to gain root access. Root isn't required to side load. I can build myself, that requires extra equipment and source code access. That is not this version of sideloading we want. Certificates grant other access to the device that I don't want to give out. Again, just loading an ipa should not have those requirements. I dont need to install certs or download source to get apps on a mac.
That particular quote was responding to a post responding to something I said.
To get apps to run on a mac that are not from the app store or from identified developers, you have to enable a toggle in your security preferences. What you don't realize is the fact that that toggles exists effectively makes macOS a less secure platform than iOS. Apple, a company who prides itself on its privacy/security stance, freely admitted this under oath.
This is a gross mischaracterization of the technology as it was presented. Read the papers (not just Apple's white paper, but even the papers from the researcher who called out Apple on the method) and you'll see that what you're saying doesn't align with what was actually being proposed.
If you truly are one of the (very) few people here hyperventilating about the evils of sideloading who wouldn't miraculously discover a newfound respect and admiration for it the instant Apple said, "You know what, we were wrong and sidelaoding is actually grand," then I sincerely apologize.
I'm ok with signed apps. EG gatekeeper has three levels. app store only, signed, unsigned. I say start with app store and signed for ios. See how that goes. They can always be like "Whoops, that was a can of worms we're going to close in ios x.xx" but at least try it. If things go well think about unsigned. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What was actually being proposed was a way for the Chinese Communist Party to have Apple search every iOS device in China for things the government disapproves of.
It's hard to take you seriously ("I'm sorry") when you suggest I'm "hyperventilating about the evils of side loading."
This is more or less how it is currently, although you have to install the security certificate that says developer X is trusted, so you can use apps signed by X.
Ditch the cert install requirement and I'm on board. That's how the mac works. But its not how iOS works right now
I don't think anyone is saying it wouldn't decrease security, only that it would decrease it in a way and to an extent that we find entirely acceptable, inasmuch as it would bring iOS into alignment with literally every other OS we use in our daily lives without incident.
And Apple has openly admitted that there is more malware on macOS due at least in part to this difference.
You could begin by explaining why the world's tyrants wouldn't abuse this capability if it existed, given that they're tyrants, or why Apple wouldn't have to let them do it, given that the alternative to following local law would be, for instance, ceasing business activities in China.
Actually, many, including yourself, have said it would change nothing as long as you don't touch the "nanny toggle." My arguments have been that that's false, and it would indeed decrease security. I've not discussed anything about an "acceptable" level of decreasing security.
... none of which has ever affected me in any way, just as it wouldn't on iOS, for the same reasons.
You said to me,
And there’s no way that they did that because the App Store is a money hose that they don’t want to turn off, right? Tim Cook also said they treat all developers equally, and we know that that was a lie. They also said the App Store is safe despite it being riddled with scam subscription apps that don’t do anything.
