Just get an Android is such a terrible cop out. An android phone isn't simply an iPhone with sideloading enabled, there are plenty of other differences that people might also care about. Apple has never presented a convincing argument for why allowing signed apps with signatures that Apple can revoke (aka what Gatekeeper does on the Mac) would be unsafe. Fact of the matter is that this is about revenue and "security" is their shield.
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
A popular opinion! But- you know- also stating the obvious. Apple is a business who’s primary goal is to create revenue. Like all businesses.
Stating this as some kind of issue as you and many many others do is ridiculous to say the least. I mean… durrrr. Obviously it’s about revenue. Name a single business that doesn’t put revenue at the top of the list.
That does absolutely nothing at all to take away from the fact it’s also about security. You only have to have a slight amount of understanding in the subject to realise that not allowing side loading is a more secure model. It doesn’t matter whether you are in agreement or not, it’s an undeniable fact.
So. Please come up with a better argument that actually means something.
I agree it is much more secure, and furthermore it's in the best interest of Apple users if Apple applied this security model to the Mac as well, and also the web. Could you imagine how great the Internet would be if Apple curated what websites we could visit? It would be a safety paradise, and the idea just makes me feel so bad we are not there yet with the open web we have now.
Practice what you preach. I presented a specific argument on a specific security model they could choose to use that you have not adequately addressed. Why should I come up with a better argument if you'll ignore it anyway? As you said, Apple is a for profit business. They don't need random forum posters they aren't paying to carry the "security" shield for them.
I have numerous times addressed the problems with side loading.
My very favourite people are the ones that think they’re clever, especially if they think they’re funny as well, so please don’t think I’m directing this specifically at you, but don’t you think all of the insightful points you have made regarding the open web and macOS being locked down are somewhat beside the point? You see - nothing stops you from doing anything in the open web with either macos or iOS. Macos even let’s you download apps and install them! I know. Right? Mental.
By the way; That shwooshing thing you can hear whizzing above your head each time you comment on this thread is called ‘the point’.
Yeah, but just... wouldn't it be great if you couldn't access the open web on iOS though? Let's pause a moment and think about how amazing that would be for a second. What if it was as tightly controlled as the App Store? We could rid ourselves of dirty websites and vulgarity, and keep our internet family safe. Does a website illegally criticize a government or advertise a VPN circumvention technique? How would I know, I didn't see it! We could block game streaming and emulators there too, and make sure all payments across the world wide internet are routed through one provider only. The thought is so exciting. I would feel very secure, like someone up above was keeping watch over me at all times with their benevolent hand. Controlled platforms sure have their advantages..
Sorry, I was just daydreaming. I know I'm ignoring the reality of our unfortunate situation. Sucks we can't have this ideal utopian vision for a controlled future. Oh well, there's always iOS!
Sorry, I was just daydreaming. I know I'm ignoring the reality of our unfortunate situation. Sucks we can't have this ideal utopian vision for a controlled future. Oh well, there's always iOS!
Last edited:
You don’t have to side-load if you don’t want to. Option is here, it is up to you to decide
yes and all those developers who want their apps to be "side loaded" should join that team. Like GIMP, Krita, Audactiy, FireFox, and the rest joined Linux.
believe it or not, it’s possible to be both.
Not necessarily. Is Apple NOT ok with that? Yes, but that reasoning is a bit flawed.
Emulators – especially emulators of more modern systems – are hard to configure for your average user. Imagine having to download a BIOS! Wait, what's a BIOS?
If the price argument were entirely true, The x86 PCs would crush all platforms, as it's the most open platform ever. But consoles are selling rather well.
Why would you give up a platform where you can run everything for a closed platform, which can only run a fraction of available games?
Convenience. Console games "just work". The average console user doesn't want to deal with the innumerous problems a x86 PC can bring – and yes, even console games are more expensive!
If Tim were actually concerned about security he wouldn't be building a back door into the iOS with CSAM and setting the stage for massive 3rd party surveillance of our phones data and contents. Crocodile tears and smile, Timmy.
You’re conflating security with privacy. However nobody ever guaranteed you can act illegally and get away with it.
Sure there is more to it but that does not make his arguments less true.
I want my phone, the most personal device I have, to be as much of a closed system as possible.
The simple solution to that would be to avoid installing applications outside of the iOS App Store. Your device is as closed / locked down as you make it by restricting what you do with them.
Having the option to install from other sources does not immediately mean your phone is any less secure, especially if you are't allowing / installing those applications on your device.
"The CIA triad of confidentiality, integrity, and availability is at the heart of information security."
Confidentiality
"In information security, confidentiality "is the property, that information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals, entities, or processes." While similar to "privacy," the two words are not interchangeable. Rather, confidentiality is a component of privacy that implements to protect our data from unauthorized viewers.Examples of confidentiality of electronic data being compromised include laptop theft, password theft, or sensitive emails being sent to the incorrect individuals."Information security - Wikipedia
From the user's point of view, CSAM means that the information and photos are no longer accessible only to authorized persons/entities.
The user is the owner of the data or photos and defines the permissions. However, CSAM undermines this.
I've not read one compelling argument for why specifically allowing notarized apps would be a security nightmare. If you have one, please share. If you've written it before, sorry I haven't read it. It's impossible to read every comment on every thread about this. WRT my post, I presented a specific scenario you chose not to address and then told me to come back with a better argument. It's not my problem that you chose not to discuss it.
Here's a question for you: you agreed Apple is about profit first. So wouldn't you also agree that if sideloading made Apple more money, they would allow it? They'd call it secure too, just like they did with the Mac. Unless Apple can quantify the difference in risk between an app store and an app store + notorized apps, the security argument is a house of cards. Yes, having some apps not go through the app store vetting process can be a risk, but so is allowing third party apps at all.
The idea that the app store is "more secure" and thus all other options are invalid just isn't good enough. The most secure iPhone is one with no ability to install apps whatsoever (original iPhone), obviously Apple didn't choose to keep that. Next most secure in theory would be downloading Apple only apps, then third party apps that Apple reviews, then notorized apps, then anything, then anything and with permissions disabled... etc.
Frankly, I think Apple's decision to lock users to the app store initially was the right one. It taught users a secure and trusted place to go for apps, gave developers access to a huge customer base, and built a robust ecosystem of apps, etc. But as the platform has grown, those training wheels have become more like an anchor (limiting possibilities) and it's time for them to come off.
Impossible? Are you joking? You accuse me of not having a point or not articulating an argument yet you can’t even be bothered to read the simple few pages where it’s relayed? I’m sorry - you don’t strike me as someone who takes things very seriously, or is even able to research the most basic things.
It’s easy to write a spiel dictating your thoughts, dismissing all others whilst openly admitting not even being bothered to read them. Sorry - finding it impossible to read them.
If you want to have a discussion, then let’s do that. But I’m not spoon feeding you with information you can easily just find out for yourself by reading. If you disagree and don’t want to change your mind, then fine. But that’s not the same thing as an open discourse, which of course means reading, and learning from, counterpoints to yours.
Someone could agree that, but Peter Drucker 101 disagrees with you. Apples dna is to provide a seamless integration of technology to life. They do that well and that is why they make quarterly record breaking revenue.
They want to control every aspect of the experience and that is why imo they don’t want sideloading. Because it’s a good possibility that porn apps, vape apps, gambling apps, etc could be pervasive and make apple look bad in a way they can’t control.
The issue is clearly not about signed apps. Apple already allows you to side load signed apps. The issue is clearly about side loading unsigned apps.
The only possible alternative issue is making loading signed apps (from outside the app store) easier. However, that would undermine the "just use the Gatekeeper approach" argument being spouted over and over again. Epic is suing Google because side loading "is too hard."
Sure. Who are you and what is your question?
Edit* oh you’re the op of the op of the op. Sorry could you please refresh me of your burning question that only I can answer?
Apple doesn't provide a consumer oriented solution for sideloading apps. The fact that they have developer and enterprise options doesn't change this, other than show they could make the option available. "Just use the gatekeeper approach" is a perfectly valid argument. Apple wants to paint sideloading as all or nothing because they don't really want to discuss that option. Obviously Epic prefers no restrictions, but that doesn't make it the only alternative available. I'm not setting out in search of a solution that pleases Epic, just a method to offer sideloading without compromising security.
WRT Epic vs Google: Epic isn't suing Google because they made sideloading too difficult, they are suing Google because they believe Google is actively working to block them from successfully competing with their own app/store. The sideloading hassle is but one bullet point in that larger argument. The most compelling arguments are the ones centered around Google using the weight of their Play services agreements to pressure OEMs into not pre-installing Epic's apps (not that I think bloatware is good).