Apple’s basically saying, “Get Bent” and those that want to sideload AND own iOS devices at the same time are like “Ok, Tim, but why don’t you first answer me this… which angle?”
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
Based on responses from several in this and other threads on the topic, I'd say many are talking about those use cases. But we could even restrict to just signed apps and still talk about issues.
Well, according to Apple, this does seem like a compromising attack vector. Epic v. Apple revealed Apple's current understanding of the situation, which called macOS' gatekeeper less secure than iOS walled garden.
The enterprise situation is a bit of an oddball (in terms of if organizations are misusing it), but not in terms of security -- the purpose is for the organization to be in charge of their device's security, so they take the risks as an entity to install their own internally developed app. Presumably, these apps aren't tools for hackers, but tools for normal business operation.
Precisely. A chose specifically not to side load, but they were negatively affected by iOS' choice to allow sideloading.
That's the key point. There is objectively more protection for iOS users who do not want to side load when the device is locked down in this way.
I think the biggest question is --- what are these apps that people are wanting to install that aren't already on the app store? If they're not apps for illegal activity, then I see this is a great business opportunity: app development isn't that difficult to get started with, and if there's a need, then fill it, and make some money while you're at it.
Apps that I code myself or just compile from opensource repositories. And no, I don't see why I should be spending a 100 dollar subscription fee so I can install my own tools on my 1500 dollar phone, which actually is a computer just like my Mac (where none of that is an issue!).
Apps that do more than apple allows...
... like giving properly detailed information on WiFi signal strenghth from the transceiver, for instance.
... like porn - I don't need those but it's not illegal so why on earth should people who want it be patronized by a tech company basically forcing their own morals on their users?
last but not least: Cheaper apps and subscriptions. This is a rip-off - and it WILL end sooner than later.
again: why does nobody properly answer the one obvious question? Why is it allowed to freely install software on computers but not on phones (that basically are computers)? - think harder!
I think that is the wrong question. The correct question is: is apple legally allowed to run the App Store as they have been running it?
There are many ways to send a message to companies (our suppliers) in our system. That just is only one. Another is trough debate ... courts and so on.
You see, even Apple buys from suppliers that it might not buy from given other circumstances. One just buys from one or the pondering all facets … but it does not mean one should stop looking for better …This is not such a weird behaviour as you might think. Neither choosing a supplier is necessarily an act of total agreement with all facets.
When you hit an argumentative wall you seam to come with that strawman argument that eschews everything into voting with your wallet. If such as stance was a fact of nature than the USA would still be a country of smokers. Or worst, it would still be run by the Britain.
This is to say that praxis change through the influence of many activities not just buy buying or not buying. The idea that a person is totally free to buy whatever is simply not true in practice. One buys from what is available.
That question was already partially answered in court and things are running in other courts not that favourably to your narrative. But you insist that is not the case and hope for an answer that fits you narrative, appeals and all. Hey, it might happen, but at the moment that is not what is happening.
Whatever happens Apple will be fine and so will shareholders. Been saying for a long time, all this is a distraction for Apple and it should instead settle it quickly and look for other opportunities to finance itself. This company along side Google, Microsoft, Amazon and partially Facebook are the Apex of our era. You don’t promote change to an Apex seller by simply voting through your wallet ... that is naíve.
Last edited:
Sure, lawsuits are one way to change things, and it's a hit or miss proposition as we've seen. Regulation (monday morning quarterbacking) is another. But it's my belief, where there isn't a legal wrong to be righted, sales are the sure fire method.
In the US. "my narrative" was upheld. And of course, the entire appeals process is now in motion.
You're right anything can happen. An asteroid could also hit the earth tomorrow, eradicating all of existence.
Voting with your dollars to change a product feature set, is the only sure fire method as for one example, Blackberry found out the hard way.
Given what you have been saying all along don’t understand how you can say that. A court just ordered Apple to lift some in app constraints that can potentially give more user options including the activation of alternative payment methods from the app.
1. Ordered to change their product and service allowing linking to functions that were otherwise forbidden by Apple.
2. Do not persue the suppliers that use such change to their advantage.
A few weeks ago you would be argumenting the voting through the wallet for such a thing.
Anyway … will see how this unfolds.
Last edited:
You DO know that the current "Windows" phone, the Microsoft Surface Duo is an ANDROID phone right?
The Windows OS phone is discontinued and no longer made.
I probably didn't understand side loading when I first bought my iPhone. But I do know security was one of the appeals of the phone to me when I first got it. I do think, now, that not allowing side loading is part of the reason the iPhone is more secure. Also I don't think the average user understands or cares to side load apps anyway.
The problem, as I see it, is we may not have another option if this is where apps that we use go. In other words, lets say you use Adobe Cloud apps. They could pull it from the Apple app store and require it to be side loaded. There are apps I use on Mac that aren't in the App store, for example. Those apps are a pain for me to update, have licenses that limit the number of machines I can use them on, etc. Not something I am looking forward to on iOS.
Many of those personal data can be turned off.
Presuming every Mac user has a Touch ID based Mac or has these sync features turned on plays only to the common thought were all the same in our comfort level. That’s not the case nor true.
Credit card by default is not sync’d. You’re promoted to enable it and still have to confirm before enabled.
The core hardware is not the same. Arm in iOS devices is only the same via instruction set alone. The chip vastly differs as to the oS that control each. Reach as far as your want but the differences are significant as well as the practices of others.
Shopping online on computers has dropped significantly vs mobile devices on a global scale. Every major vendor online has an app for any platform, and their quarterly numbers show more shopping done on apps than on web store fronts.
I think Apple should promote users not to enable integration with macOS. It’s a security hazard. Better still, Apple style entirely remove such facilities.
I would like to see those numbers. On the other hand, surely you are discounting app acquisition or digital services subscription. Because besides that … the App Store does not dip in. I think they should and enforce the in app purchase mechanism on groceries and everything else altogether. It’s using Apple tech anyway right?
I tell you this. People that aim security and privacy at the expense of having actual choices in every single step in the relationship with others, including businesses … deserve neither and will end up not having neither. It’s a loose loose game except for the ones that dictate the policy. Just give it time.
This is marketing by fear. It’s not even real. Do your job … don’t cross the sidewalk while it’s red … you’ll be fine. Have a look on YouTube on how people are actually being scammed … no one can survive its own ignorance, educate yourself.
- Don’t play money games and prize you from giving your phone number
- Don’t provide your credit card info to non well known shops. Or use your bank facilities with prepaid visa cards for that matter. Or use PayPal, Apple Pay or sorts.
- Do not share your screen while making transactions.
- Do not download software unless expdcitely needed. Do your research.
- Enable all OS native defense mechanisms.
- Do not open unsolicited email … delete immediately.
It’s not that difficult.
Last edited:
Apple users would be very happy with the security benefits of removing macOS integrations altogether, and keeping that sensitive data only on the phone. They make it clear that security is the priority.
Since Craig Federighi is so unhappy with the current state of macOS security, this might be a way forward for Apple.
Since Craig Federighi is so unhappy with the current state of macOS security, this might be a way forward for Apple.
Hehehe. That was the Topic of the last Apple conferences. It was all over the place indeed. Probably a result of deep market studies. I think they should remove the web browser / safari too. Just apps and the App Store.
I wonder what are the apps on the top people's screen time in such an environment? Facebook, What's App, Instagram and Tim Tok? The lovely bubble of security and privacy.
PS: By the way, Apple should stop using macOS altogether for work. Its nonsensical that the most secured environments, usually the workplace, are using the least secured OSs, security hazards.
iPad OS in the workplace, wow. I think Fred should be unhappy with the bad job he is doing with iPad OS for actual $work$. You know, the things that gets $money$ done, not TikTok. It's a side kick at best.
Last edited:
The difficulty is when a valid software creator has sources of wanted software at various locations on the web. Paid or free. When downloading to your Mac or PC said software can be repackaged to include unwanted sun software be it ransomware malware Trojans or etc.
End user will be none the wiser ! Sooner or later keystrokes are saved.
Network intrusions in corporate offices are even via printers on LAN or etc.
People do and say dumb things that’s a given. However the pursuit of cheaper pricing on software can lead to users going to non root official sites. It’s been this way since the early 90’s just now the stakes are higher.
My argument is how good is PC Mac software stood the test of time vs mobile phones being circumvented. Not what makes more news but actual breaches.
Equifax’s breach surely didn’t start from an employees smartphone.
The solution is simple and it has been used by people for centuries. Users should always acquire and download goods from trusted sources.
1. From the software creator facilities otherwise indicated by the company.
2. From trusted digital establishments. App Store, or any other.
This is what I've been doing for decades without a problem. On top MacOS has a further measure is great ... the system warns when the the package has not been signed and Apple is not able to verified it.
Been doing that for decades and never got a virus, malware or whatever. I buy from the App Store, from Microsoft, from Epic, from Panic, Setapp, Netflix, Spotify, Apple Music or whatever. Pay with Apple Pay, Pay Pal, temp credit / debit cards ...
Now, not to say this is 100% error proof but nothing is. There has been reports of people getting conned by apps in the App Store also.
When you are out and about you don't enter into dodgy venues or alleys ... places that anything can happen. When you do so its because you decided to. This is openness is fundamental for the your security and privacy as well as freedom of choice.
I guess Apple Car will only take you to places in the App Store or in your contact list right after verified by the company? Has absurd this may sound, for someone that has been using computers since 1982, this brave new Apple world for the future of computing looks precisely like such a car, privately controlled while people delegate the driving seat to the “$sharks$“. Maybe your children will start questioning themselves about current cars, dark alleys and so on, … when the times comes ...
"Network intrusions in corporate offices are even via printers on LAN or etc."
Probably its easier to get into your living room than entering your network printer in the living room. Sarcasm.
Best regards,
Judge Dredd.
PS: My impression is that the US culture has lived better days ... weak cultural standards pushed by media and marketing ... iJustine and so on. The sense of insecurity comes from this weak cultural phenomena where people distrust even themselves as they do not look as good and energetic as iJustine, hence look for drastic solutions such has the ones being proposed by Apple ... Big tech exploit a hack like any hack partially based on reality. Not only pushing for a further sense of insecurity but also offering ... here is the pill for your own ignorance and lack of willingness to understand your reality ... just give us ( big tech) the power to ultimately fully and totally decide for you which apps are good and which aren’t … now apps … next …. while offering pseudo liberties / options. But hey, in history worst solutions were found.
Meanwhile the Russians and China push for further insecurity ... Apple complies with their $demands$ to keep playing in these regions as they know that these have no problem to kick them in the butt. While in democratic countries, traditionally more conscious hence indecisive on certain matters, the company tries to dodge even fair court decisions protecting your rights both as a customer and as a supplier if that is the case with all sorts of judicial malabarism and social marketing strategies … all to keep full control over what apps and digital content you may or not consume through your phone … according to their own $$$ heuristics and opportunistic moral stances.
Crazy isn't it?
EDIT: Honestly I'm not against Apple. I'm an avid user for the time being … just today ordered a stainless steel Apple Watch . But make no mistake, I know precisely were the company is, Tim, Fred and Co. I have more "contempt" regarding my fellow Apple users and customers, voluntarily play the flute in this gaslighting orchestra because ... who knows. Human are humans.
I’m a strong believer as Apple seams to have changed stance regarding the Right to Repair … will see … it will change also the App Store policies towards a more balanced power approach between users, Apple and the users suppliers. Ans stop instrumentalizing people privacy and security to get more control over people properties and monetising it as they see $fit$. The issues of privacy and security are too serious for such a cynical stance.
Last edited:
I'm of the mind and experience of how using the basic internet for software on smartphones has failed. As previously mentioned Nokia with their 400+ game catalog for Nokia N-Gage/N-GageQD devices long long ago. Activation, EASports and many other developer houses lost a GREAT deal of dinero back then. I'd say it emboldened cellular carriers to keep pushing apps/mostly games from their mobile portal.
Let's not forget Andy Rubin's second mobile OS foray - Danger, Inc and how Paris Hilton leaked all the direct numbers for everybody who was everybody in Hollywood - B Willis etc. that was fun for them as anyone that found out could call them directly on a persona level lol.
Installation of software by trust companies such as Adobe hasn't improved much either with their Creative Cloud. From a corporate experience procurement gets the license and registers to the corporate users email address, end user will need to get the package internally for installation yet still need to register the license over internet. I've not had to do this on iOS or Android with my lil experience dips in/out either.
Epic now is pushing to have the app store absolved or destroyed saying 1 store for ALL platforms. Sounds great, but then WHOM will be in control of said central store, Epic?! Hell no. Questions with this:
- whom will be in control of a 1 store for all platforms?
- whom will control uploads for software to be deployed for any platform when end users request?
- whom will control the pricing?
- whom will guarantee and manage not just pricing/sales/distribution yet also refund requests, is arbitration going to be done and thus nullify the majority of requests? IF an end user has a valid refund request/debate yet not granted .. they will NOW be fully locked out from any available venue to source their software needs elsewhere as this uni-store will be the end all and be-all. That seems a lot more draconian than what we're seeing now.
- whom will control and guarantee payments to vendors/software creators?
- what will be the code standard? Game engine standard? etc.
- whom will control pricing for a users single platform purchase needs vs all platforms, authorized limit of users on 1 or all platforms and even moreover lets consider the upgrade from 1/2 platforms to 5 how would pricing favour or dis-favour such a move for the end user? I think we'd be right back to the control, profits argument we have today over Apple and their App Store.
This isn't gaslighting I'm debating but ease of use. Make no mistake if Apple wasn't the top 3 distributors of games globally NOR having the highest revenue/profits of mobile device and software distrution revenue they'd not be the centre of this wild debate it would be somebody else.
Think of firmware updates for headphones, accessories that connect to our phones and computers, or the software already purchased/downloaded (even free/freemium) how will that be organized under Epic's proposal?
Do you recall the early gaming days of Clancy's Urban Ops, America's Army, etc where if you built your PC and something didn't work ... NVidia would point you to motherboard manufacturer, ATi would/could do the same, then the motherboard manufacturer would say you have the latest BIOS go back to take to Intel or bak to NVidia/ATi to resolve drivers or performance or lack of working component therein, then power supply manufacturer - yes this really did happen in the 90's and it was terrible!
Most of what Epic recently is proposing is already done based on accounts and purchase history/db logs etc.
I'm not really following the whole right to repair argument, sure it has value, I just saw that writing on the wall for most computing electronics back in 2012 when Apple started gluing their batteries to the shell, and today we'll see it with electric cars. Most people don't have a clue how electricity in computing components actually works in order to fully repair. Now sure open up full repair but then the cost of components will skyrocket (to help deter) or even place blame and failed repairs to the repair shop or end user which will bite off the warranty. It's a fine balance to get right but just about any device has restrictions on what CAN be done/cannot by the end user or authorized repair shop which allows the manufacturer to do just that. that last part has been there more than 40yrs of all kinds of appliances (queue fridgedair repair man commercials of yesteryear lol).
The incentive of privacy and security, look no further than the credit bureaus, institutional banks, and your government. Just look at the red tape needed to change your name not sourced from marriage. Some countries will not let you change the equivalent of social security number.
The biggest security loophole I seen or experienced with Apple's ecosystem is the Watch.
Don't have disrespectful or distasteful woman sleep over or be with you while you're sleeping and access to a computer.
Sad dude is sleeping with WatchOS on. (Sleep /DND on or off doesnt' matter because turning off is easy with 1 swipe).
hating GF accesses internet on PC/mac ... icloud.com
holds iphone to your face pulls your eyelids open (you're in deep sleep),
swipes up on iPhone WatchOS auto unlocks the phone.
if you have password there in Notes - even better they've got the easy part. But phone unlock.
pw reset, 2FA sent to phone and Watch - watch you accept (remember the watch doesn't LOCK while on wrist),
Boom they have the 2FA code their in.
Access to emails, contacts, calendar and notes (if anyone saves critical data therein .. huge in, and all while you're sleeping.
This is what I meant by the crucial information is right on your phone has more value than your computer. I didn't convey it this way but it's very easy. Once on phone/mac hey your passwords saved using iCloud to keychain.
Like you said we're in a world where we dont trust ourselves or anyone else and reverted back on common sense. iJustine ... why even mention her? Uggh.
Yes. All that is true. I also remember that Apple was mostly bankrupt with 3 or 4 months to live with a stack of failed products when SJ came back. Also remember Apple Newton a failed Apple product. I also remember SJ‘s NeXT … This is to say failed products an or bad solutions happens to any company, in particular Apple. So do good solutions. This is no reason but insecurity to sustain the perception that this or that company come has some kind of liberator of technology or whatever of such kind.
In the context of mobile phones, before Apple’s iPhone there were a bunch of different options. From Palm Treo, Windows CE, Nokia, Blackberry. Some better than others …
Yet it definitely true that Apple turned the technical corner in this context with its touch UI, smooth and animated UI operation and putting together a Music Player, a Mobile / Messaging Phone and an Apex Internet Communicator into one. The later … Safari and Email. These features already existed in other systems, yet its implementation was glitchy and non smooth, unsatisfying operation. I remember thinking … ”the next step are third party apps” … so came the App Store. A brilliant adaptation from the console space, using Apple experience selling music / tracks that work both as the perfect show case of Apple technology as well as user convenience in downloading and finding third party Apps.
All this turning the corner by Apple as done very well for the company, transforming one that was on the path of being a footnote in the history of tech, into an Apex tech company, the most profitable and valued company in the world. Well deserved.
I don’t understand this part here. Our company simply registers corporate users email address, users download from the site and install the software, and activate with it … its all 99% automatic. Not much different than the App Store.
I will not dispute the fact that in abstract, let’s say if the world was composed only by one end user shop, one supplier, certain things such as managing receipts, heck to whom to buy this or that, wouldn’t be ”simpler”. The idea of one shop fits all … Heck why not one political party, one brand of milk, one ….. You are ignoring the hidden complexities and dangers of such a world that its being partially exposed with the App Store.
The way I see it, the time when is App Store ”experiment” went sideways was when Apple extended the concept of billing for shopping and distributing apps, to a shop of all things digitally concerned even when in effect does not do any distributing of such things but that devs app / endpoint. It went from a mandatory shop selling these assets, rationally backed by the App Store core features, to a mandatory POS selling third party music, videos, hosting services, teachers training videos, virtual classes, … all things that the shop itself does provide hosting, management or promotion services of these assets in any shape or form whatsoever. The epitome of such extension is indeed demanding stream services such as games to list each stream in its catalogue to be able to charge for it individually (things not at all hosted by the App Store, neither considered apps per si).
This was not at all the initial App Store charts.
This sounds all very abstract, but let’s make it real. Suppose you are a book author. You spent say 4 years writing the perfect science fiction story … the “Deep In 2 U”. One publisher signs you up. This publisher has a multiplatform abilities / shops. One for iOS, Android, Web as well as relationships with physical book stores to sell the books it’s signs up deals with. The interesting bit is that the App Store does not sell or promote this book. Yet, it will collect 30% of the revenue generated by your book amongst iPhone and iPad users … because well it hosts and distributes the publishers App. The App Store in effect did not have to compete to enlist you, did not discover you or invested in your work, did not host even your book, it’s all done by the publishers services nothing … still it collects 30% of its sales in iOS.
All for what? security and privacy … nhaaa. A passive revenue scheme, a cornucopia of revenue.
This is the fundamental problem of the App Store policies. Its a distorts the fundamental precepts of a competition. Apple answer, “well sell only on Android” if you don’t like the App Store. Apart from the fact that Google follows Apple foots steps on this (Big tech do), this is not the actual issue. The issue is that something that was born to sell the Apps it hosted, is now transformed into sell things it does not host because it holds the key to unlock users devices to access your book. Backed by billions of people that bought such devices. This is key to understand the abuse of power.
It fundamentally allows people and business to do repairs that for Apple would not be cost effective. It happened to me. A malfunction in the iPhone lightning port, as per Apple saying, made it impossible to swap the device battery. Rationale would say … well just repair the port too. But Apple said … “we don’t do that” … “only option is to leave your phone with us and pay us 550 euros for a refurb”. Well, I went to an unauthorised repair shop, fixed the por for 50 euros than went to Apple and they replaced the batter for 70 euros. Total 120 euros, not 550 euros the Apple was asking me to solve the problem in a device built by them … this is not good service!
Now, as you say, Apple can very well put the port part for sale for 400 euros. Hopefully not.
You see. Its all very well to discuss things in abstract for this things. But reality is way more interesting, fascinating. Believe me. Only then the right abstractions can be derived. The wrong abstraction leads to nefarious conclusions about reality.
Well if you have all your life keys in one box, that is than locked with one key. Its true that all it is required for a burglar to potentially have access to everything is to get to that one key and that one box. Its logic. To mitigate this … don’t store all keys in the same box, iPhone or whatever.
In the digital space these keys are digital, hence can replicate the box easily across in multiple space. If you do this across all your devices, albeit its convenient for all sorts of reasons, heck you might even loose that one device, you are indeed expanding the burglars attack surface. Again logic. To mitigate this, use 2FA and devices approval. If someone signs in into your account in whatever services, an SMS is sent to the your phone with a code that you than need to use to approve the device or sign in. The problem is that not all services still support 2FA … it should be IMHO a gov requirement for any digital service to be in operation. Heck even some companies don’t have such a thing in operation For their Intranet access.
Anyway, on Keychain. But you also have one 1Password, LastPass … The advantage is that works across platforms. Yet again, mandatory in app purchases, 30% commission just like that.
Funny enough users that don’t use this, tend to use one (password) for everything. Which is even worst. The attack surface are all the services you use with that key. Get the key from one service with no 2FA, the burglar gets the key for everything.
As for your story … Maybe the iPhone could from time to time in the background initiate a transparent FaceID process and lock automatically when it does not pass. Or say, take a picture, do a face picture scan and alert users later of the compromise.
Give me a concrete problem and a solutions can be found. But you seam to be conflating issues arriving to the conclusion that the App Store is fundamental to users security. it is not! It’s just an apparatchiks that fits the $distortion$ fully described above.
Such narratives sound the likes of a butterfly beating its wings in the Sahara desert leading to a tropical storm in the Amazon florest. So we kill all the butterflly in the Sahara desert, crazy. I mean, things are connected indeed, but proper well balanced analysis should be the path. We know when at the core for profit companies argue anything that helps them justify it and sell more. Yet its easy to spot this phenomena when the story becomes inconsistent, disconnected at times if not for a play in words inducing fallacious logic. Reason be damned.
Last edited:
Apple will soon discontinue the MAC because it is unsafe due to side-loading.
No, a device that can be configured to accept executable code from anywhere is less secure than a device that can’t.
Usefulness and security are one of those pairs that are inversely connected (and that seem to perplex security researchers
A device that offers NO downloads, not even firmware updates? On this sliding scale, those are the most secure.
A device that can be configured to download but from a single source? LESS secure.
A device that can be configured to download from anywhere? Even LESS secure.
There are lots of folks that want iOS to be less secure.
Ok, so someone not tech savvy got tricked into a subscription by a developer that had gone through the process to become a developer. And, the ONLY place for them to even have gotten the App on their system, currently, is through the App Store. AND, not only is it VERY easy to see where the charge is coming from AND easy to see that the subscription is RIGHT there in Settings to be turned off, there’s also the possibility of successfully disputing the charges. A pain, yes, but manageable. And, making it easy to turn off subscriptions? That cuts into Apple’s potential profits. Still, though, it’s there.
NOW, let us take that SAME person and put them in a world where scam Apps can come through the App Store AND FROM LITERALLY ANYWHERE ELSE. Apps that sign you up for a subscription using an innocuous sounding name as the charge and offering no easy way to find and stop the subscription. I would assume that your not tech savvy wife would be asking you about FAR more questionable charges on their bank statement. This WOULD cut into Apple’s profits, certainly, but would also cut into your bank account, potentially, far more seriously.
Just because you catch a cold doesn’t mean your immune system isn’t doing the work to keep you from getting infected lots of times everyday.