If they are able to get into your phone then you’re already in trouble and sideloading becomes the least of your worries.
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
There’s a hypothetical nuclear power plant with the option to have or not have a “blow up” button, it could be useful at some another hypothetical situation.
The concern is that someone could hack into the nuclear power plant system and trick the button from the inside… but they put it anyway because “if they already hacked into the system, that button is the least of our concerns”.
Why go nuclear on this? Why have this yet another venue and disregard it all as “it’s not more insecure”?
I’m not against or in favor as much, I don’t really know, but no one has given a compelling explanation of how “security is left unchanged with or without side loading”. For all I know, it would be great to just launch a poll, see what people actually want… MR has poll-style posts.
Malware isn’t blowing up the power plant. Uninstall the offending apps or you can wipe the phone and restore from a backup.
These apps still have to play by the rules the OS sets, they’d still be scanned and sandboxed and wouldn’t be messing the the fundamentals of how iOS works.
The only way these apps would be the blow-up-the-power-plant button would be if Apple had done a remarkably poor job implementing any sort of security into the OS. I don’t think that’s the case, but maybe I just put more faith in the iOS team than you.
No! For example some offline apps still share analytics data with the dev stuff like iOS version, IP address and many other info not necessary to the app functioning. Having a firewall would prevent that.
While security rules keep system running fine, they are not good enough to keep user privacy in default settings.
Chinese Advertising Association tried to introduce an alternative device identifier to bypass Apple’s transparency limit, but failed. Without the App Store being the only distribution platform, they can easily implement anything they want. So would Facebook or any other advertising & analytic companies.
Then don’t side load. I don’t know how much simpler it gets than “don’t push the button with the warnings all around it”.
The problem is, with Apple hurting advertising companies so badly, there’s a good chance that Facebook or some other big guys just pull their app out of the App Store, or at least limiting functionalities of apps from the Apple App Store, creating fragmentation of the platform. That would not be a benefit for most people.
Unlikely. Epic tried this on Android and had to being Fortnite back to the Play Store because of significant user drop off. They might offer it outside the App Store with extra features (and ad tracking) but I doubt they’d pull it altogether.
Undoubtedly, sideloaded apps will have more permissions than apps downloaded from the App Store because they won't need to explain to Apple why they need to request those permissions.
Chinese software companies are releasing apps on Google Play with fewer features than the apps they offer on third-party app stores or their own websites, and Google Play versions of apps will also entice users to sideload their "full-featured" versions.
It's hard to believe that something like this wouldn't happen on Facebook if iOS were completely open to sideloading and even third-party stores.
Chinese software companies are releasing apps on Google Play with fewer features than the apps they offer on third-party app stores or their own websites, and Google Play versions of apps will also entice users to sideload their "full-featured" versions.
It's hard to believe that something like this wouldn't happen on Facebook if iOS were completely open to sideloading and even third-party stores.
Definitely want a safe environment. So sideloading can reduce security. But for Apple, sideloading could lead to loss of revenue too. But then again macOS allows for installation of apps from outside the app store and therefore Apple could definitely offer it on iPhone.
You have a point on Fortnite.
Notice that Fortnite, while popular, still faces proper competition. If Fortnite is nowhere to be found, gamers can and will just play Call of Duty Mobile or any other shooter game instead. Facebook Messenger also faces competition from Signal, Telegram etc.
The real problem comes from apps that have no real alternatives, and are critical for a lot of people. And once there is enough momentum, we would ultimately come to a point when the App Store is not relevant anymore. Bad money drives out good, at least on privacy level.
I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I feel worried.
Tim Cook: Users Who Want to Sideload Apps Can Use Android, While the iPhone Experience Maximizes 'Security and Privacy'
...tells the CSAM Hypocrit...
Don’t be so naive. Instead they will split the app into two. A basic version for the official store and a ‘bells and whistles’ version available from the hypothetical Facebook store. Facebook would have EVERYTHING invested in this - they won’t cut off their users but they’re sure as hell persuade the bulk of them that the Facebook store version is just as privacy protecting as the AppStore version.
It’s a tactic they already use by cutting off messenger from the app and insisting you download the messenger app instead. Sure you can go on the desktop web version and have it all combined but that’s the only way.
Why? The guy is lying. There is nothing wrong with side loading apps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well by the standards of the very blunt instrument of "just go elsewhere regardless of other functionality" that's been deployed by some here, you can choose a non-smartphone if security is that paramount to you.
Nokia still makes really nice ones.
Then don’t buy iPhone. Problem solved?
I heard Pixel 6 is quite good so there’s the door..
Users Who Want to usb-c Can Use Android.
Users Who Want always on display Can Use Android
Users Who Want multitasking Can Use Android
Unfortunately this is the apple way and they are making it know. Apple decides what the user wants, take it or leave it.
Can you imagine buying a product and a whole bunch of people tell you you're not allowed to opine on it? Like imagine buying a Toyota car and discovering the engine shuts down whenever you leave Toyota-approved roads (for your safety™ of course). So you go online to state your case and suggest there should at least be a way to disable that "feature" for those that truly need it, but then a bunch of upstanding gentlemen succinctly explain to you that only utter morons drive anywhere other than their nearby Walmart and Toyota dealership and only the most depraved reprobates dare criticize Toyota and its glorious leader.
Yep, EXACTLY like on Android where the Playstore is just a barren wasteland with none of your precious social media apps available at all...
When you but an Apple device you know what you're getting and you agree to play by the rules. Just because you don't like the manufacturers rules doesn't mean they need to change for you. And YES $$$ is a part of it too - after all Apple is in the business to make money.
I want a Tesla but I also want a gasoline engine, well Tesla doesn't make a car with a gasoline engine, but nothing stops me from buying a Tesla and putting in a gasoline engine. I just don't expect Tesla to support me going forward.
I want a Tesla but I also want a gasoline engine, well Tesla doesn't make a car with a gasoline engine, but nothing stops me from buying a Tesla and putting in a gasoline engine. I just don't expect Tesla to support me going forward.