The vast majority of folks using iPhones are NOT using macOS, so removing those integrations… I can’t say that they’d be happy or not. They just wouldn’t care.
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
Why on earth would people who want porn apps patronize a tech company that’s forcing their own morals on their users? Actually, for people who find porn apps important on a smartphone, they’ve dumped the iPhone long ago. If folks that want sideloading would do the same, I’m SURE they’d be just as happy as those folks
The scale is absolute freedom vs draconian control. I think most people that live in free countries know the mess and uncertainty that comes with freedom, but still choose to accept it over the alternative.
But because Apple is such an attractive and irresistable company to them, they've gotten themselves bending over backwards and using doublespeak like locking down the phone is for human rights.
But because Apple is such an attractive and irresistable company to them, they've gotten themselves bending over backwards and using doublespeak like locking down the phone is for human rights.
Last edited:
When Apple decides to discontinue the Mac, it will be because no one’s buying them anymore. Which likely won’t be too long anyway.
Most people that live in free countries aren’t “free” to do whatever they want, though.
Technical mambo jambo hehehe. What does even mean “executable code from anywhere”.
Last edited:
Is that an abstract thought?
Let’s get real ask his wife if she was scammed anywhere else that way. Say, in macOS, Windows or Android. Heheh
That world you talk about as being extremely insecure and dangerous that is where everyone lives really. The oddity is the App Store world by the way where it’s possible to charge for things beyond apps, things that the App Store does not produce or distributes … that is odd isn’t it?
The App Store has its merits though, if it charged only for things that either actually distributes or produces. But as it is, the sum of its policies result in being a gateway around billions of users to all and any digital goods served by devs apps. Wether the App Store it’s self either distributes, promotes or produces is irrelevant.
PS: There are plenty of those Apps in the App Store. Technically it’s not a scam even though people feel scammed of course.
Last edited:
It’s not really odd when on understands, that someone’s intellectual property is being used. A dev made a conscious decision to use apples ip to perform transactions. And hence apple is compensated for use of its ip when a transaction is involved.
I think all properties should be protected equally. Material, digital, intelectual … and no one is denying Apple its properties by eventually wanting to install apps that may not be in its Store.
The oddity in your thought is that intelectual property supersedes all other kinds of properties that are at play and being used.
The question courts is if Apple is abusing their intelectual property.
In particular their store is supposed to sell Apps as per their marketing spiel. Now you seam to be inclined that Apple is not selling apps rather than licensing the use of their IP. These issues are being conflated into one when are fundamentally independent … usually a sign of abuse of ones intelectual property over entities and genres of properties.
I understand the allure of concepts such as intellectual property to speculative markets. Is so abstract and malleable that can serve to justify anything including irresponsible behaviors.
For instance if I license you some intellectual property and happens to act against the ”buyer” … oh well it’s just intellectual property, you came to me for it, it was your decision. But if go to a restaurant and happen to suffer from food poison … oh … oh … oh. Furthermore if it’s found to be purposeful it may even be criminal while the other is just being smart right? What makes the second easier to ascertain reponsability between parties is due to its non abstraction nature.
I think balance is key. There seams to be no balance in this context due to the way Apple policies are being stacked. The agreements change unilaterally because in effect user and devs have no agreement power in this space … but to leave their $properties$ behind … which is the same as having no power.
Last edited:
And they are...but if you want to use my intellectual property unless I give it to you for free......
It's not really odd as you think.
It's not really odd as you think.
Don’t understand. When Apple sells a third party App there is no intelectual property being used by the third party. Devs or users aren’t licensing any Apple IP in such a transaction … its Apple providing a service. Is Apple acting on their own IP to sell third parties IP and using material properties such as their devices to that effect. At most is the user licensing the dev the use of the App (its IP). In no way is devs or users using Apple IP for that matter. When you buy on Amazon you aren’t using Amazon IP, neither are sellers using theirs. Same thing here.
Both users and dev agree or not with the terms of the sale. The question in courts is whether such terms are fair and trustful considering that non agreement from users might cost them thousands of dollars … and potentially millions to devs. This is something that does not happen say in an Amazon sale … you can always buy the same thing somewhere else if not happy, or find it cheaper … Amazon by selling say an iPhone does not require 30% of App Store sales on those units for instance been if say the App licenses Amazon IP (say cloud services and APIs). Apple simply has the means to enforce such a collection as it is the gatekeeper devices bought by one in two Americans.
You see of this was about the use of Apple IP, than Apple would than be licensing it’s IP multiple times to users (ability to run apps)… now that is even more non standard. This practices is called doubled dipping.
The only thing that is odd is than you don’t think your idea of use of IP id odd. It’s simply a non standard view over IP usage. It’s also odd that you seam to be so inclined to defend your IP on a company that has shown total disregard to third party IPs to the point its charges for sales of things that provides no service or platform. In no way the App Store is a social platform, or a video conferencing platform selling videos services, ebook stores … it is it just an App Store.
PS: Now devs code use Apple APIs to be able to work on iOS licensed by users … Which Apple currently provides a license to be used commercially in third party apps at a price €99 anual per seat. Both for iOS and macOS. In case of iOS, in app, can only be sold by Apple App Store.
But this is not what my previous post was about. But about the fact, that Apple not only charges the dev and users for the sale and distribution of the App but also for things that does not even distribute or effectively sell in its App Store, things albeit may be served by the App aren’t really apps or the app … enforced simply by unilateral policies.
This works because well one in two Americans are using the iPhone … gate keeper powering increases. Haven’t you noticed that as their devices market power grows as a collective more dipping are their App Store policies? In the beginning there was only standard app purchases. Than came in app purchases and subscriptions just for apps updated and so on. It cought up and started enforcing beyond apps, over video, ebooks, audio, streaming or not, now even remote classes, video and messaging services. Their device market power is what empowers is what is behind such policies changes … not through App Store competition. And now … if the M* devices catch any relevant market share … they are already gaslighting using security and privacy concerns around MacOS.
So I do smile when someone around here says that these policies were in place since inception … its simply not true. Policies are changing every year, encompassing more and more kinds of digital goods … for now. Give them enough market power and not so long from we will sew a well put reason to charge transactions around physical goods and sales. An Amazon without the distribution and warehousing costs massive profit margins. They are already doing it for digital.
Indeed your credit cards and contact info need to be protected … by them.
Last edited:
Judge in the US made it clear that Apple is entitled to be compensated for use of it's IP, even it the sale is made outside of the app store. Apple is legally allowed to be the gatekeeper, even if some don't like it.Don’t understand. Apple selling third parties Apps there is no intelectual property from the company being used by third parties. Devs or users aren’t licensing any Apple IP in such a transaction. Is Apple acting on their own IP and over third parties IP as well as users material properties such as their devices in order to sell. At most is the user licensing the dev the use of the App.
Both users and dev agree or not with the terms of the sale. The question in courts is whether such terms are fair and trustful considering that non agreement from users might cost them thousands of dollars … and potentially millions to devs.
If this was about Apple, than Apple would than be licensing it’s IP multiple times to user (ability to run apps)… now that is even more non standard.
The only thing that is odd is than you don’t think it’s odd your IP stance.
PS: Now devs code use Apple APIs to be able to work on iOS … Which Apple currently provides a license to be used commercially in third party apps at a price €99 anual per seat. Both for iOS and macOS. In case of iOS, in app, can only be sold by Apple App Store.
But this is not what my previous post was about. But about the fact, that Apple not only charges the dev and users for the sale and distribution of the App but also for things that does not even distribute or effectively sell in its App Store, things albeit may be served by the App aren’t really apps or the app … enforced simply by unilateral policies.
This works because well one in two Americans are using the iPhone … gate keeper powering increases. Haven’t you noticed that as their devices market power grows as a collective more dipping are their App Store policies? In the beginning there was only standard app purchases. Than came in purchases And subscription just for apps. It cought up and started enforcing beyond apps, over video, ebooks, audio, streaming or not, now even remote classes, video and messaging services. Their device market power is what empowers is what is behind such policies changes … not through App Store competition. And now … if the M* devices catch any relevant market share … they are already gaslighting around MacOS.
So I do smile when someone around here says that these policies were in place since inception … its simply not true. Policies are changing every year, encompassing more and more kinds of digital goods … for now. Give them enough market power and not so long from we will sew a well put reason to charge transactions around physical goods and sales. An Amazon without the distribution and warehousing costs massive profit margins. They are already doing it for digital.
Indeed your credit cards and contact info need to be protected … by them.
And I agree things could change in the future...anything can happen including the sun could swallow the earth and then we wouldn't have to worry about this nonsense.
@I7guy,
Every one is happy about the new features … in particular hiding email and so on.
But is Apple really concerned by your security or their control over you? You see, if you use this service it simply means that you loos almost control of your email addressés. Loose control of such thing you loose control of being able to be contacted if needed. You see, good solutions are ones that remove a problem while not removing things aren’t a problem.
Say that eventually you get fed up and decide to move to another platform. After a decade or so. Imagine how stuck you are with hundreds of fake email account uses by your subscriptions, emails addresses you have little to no control of to move out. The place you get say tracking information over your orders, payment receipts and so on.
Now this wouldn’t be a much of a problem for me if Apple had consistently shown common sense and respect over my properties and other third party properties. Which in several instances has shown none … and in effect as times goes by the company aggressive behaviour over third parties power seams to becoming worst … face lifted with notions of privacy and security. People think that abnormal profit margins come from what?
Every one is happy about the new features … in particular hiding email and so on.
But is Apple really concerned by your security or their control over you? You see, if you use this service it simply means that you loos almost control of your email addressés. Loose control of such thing you loose control of being able to be contacted if needed. You see, good solutions are ones that remove a problem while not removing things aren’t a problem.
Say that eventually you get fed up and decide to move to another platform. After a decade or so. Imagine how stuck you are with hundreds of fake email account uses by your subscriptions, emails addresses you have little to no control of to move out. The place you get say tracking information over your orders, payment receipts and so on.
Now this wouldn’t be a much of a problem for me if Apple had consistently shown common sense and respect over my properties and other third party properties. Which in several instances has shown none … and in effect as times goes by the company aggressive behaviour over third parties power seams to becoming worst … face lifted with notions of privacy and security. People think that abnormal profit margins come from what?
Last edited:
That may be a legitimate concern, so it's up to the individual to think their position in the matter. But I posit it's the same on any platform...you're a google person and get fed up and want to degoogle, except you have 10 year of emails on gmail. What is your strategy? Or you want to go to iphone, but you have thousands invested in android apps, games and hardware. One can turn any positive into a negative...
But it doesn't dovetail into many hot button topics, such as sideloading, 30% commission, "the appeal", CSAM and the list seemingly goes on and on and on.
For the moment, as this is a new thing,
I agree.
Nevertheless less I digress from you on certain issues in the App Store policies … it’s no longer a new thing. Neither should be up to the individual as individually have little power against trillions of dollars and depend on its phone to work.
In effect, the way I see it Apple is using its market power over billions of users to enforce a mandatory POS for things that it does not market, produces or distributes. To all and any digital business. It’s not just Apps … if it was probably I would agree with you … who knows.
It can do this All because it fully and unilaterally controls App distribution in iOS to these billions of citizens pockets. An App / Program has been always part of a technical architecture. A vídeos system, a music file … a word doc is not a computer program by definition.
Licensing the use of APIs SDKs and APIs is tangent. In effect it the company charges 99 a year per developer for commercial purposes. This pricing is in tandem with market prices for such general OS APIs … it’s competition even offers access to them for free. The only thing that is not in tandem are certain App Store policies that leads to the distortions mentioned previously.
Anyway I’ve said, this is not a new thing … time for regulation to trim this down effectively to Apps only considering the company trajectory showing total disregard over these issues while pressing foreword playing with the citizens emotions over a blantant sense of lack of privacy or security in the US. The funny thing is that people believe that by giving even more power to a third party that proceeds like this they will be more protected heheheh voting by wallet … $500 fore a malfunction in the light port hehehe … Wally’s…
Last edited:
So your saying that many iPhone users are incapable of making safe decisions. No one is forcing anyone to side load. Personal responsibility should be the deciding factor.
The IOS app store has been essentially unchanged since 2008. It was an amazing innovative business decision back then and continues to be one today. That some think the IOS app store has "too much control" I would point out the same amount of control existed 13 years ago.
Just don't allow sideloading; it will bring the entire ecosystem down.
And a similar thought for those who are yes or no thinkers.
Don’t understand why that needs to be said. No one ever thought otherwise. The question is one of policy around the App Store. Every entity, I repeat evert entity is deserved payment for the use of their assets by third parties, IP or material. Including of course Apple. It’s not God …. yet
It seams like we are talking a about company that does not get paid for what it does, even though its the richest tech company in the planet, with the highest profits, record breaker. Meaning, its least expected counter argument given the context. A beggars argument, applied to an extremely enriched entity, crazy.
If that is just an opinion let me clarify that it does not go with the facts.
Back in 2008 Apple launched the App Store with 500 apps give or take. The only medium that sells, distributes and allows installation of third party apps / software programs on iOS. The sale process was standard and straight forward … some apps were free to download … others required being payed before download and the consequent installation. For the sale of the software program / App, Apple would get a 30% cut.
This is the only thing that remain fundamentally unchanged as far as the App Store policies go.
Yet at this time developers were free to provide web links in app and communication emails for users to pay for content such as videos, music … complex services such as video conferencing … things that are not Apps. Apple would not get a cut from … which is ok considering that it does not distribute or sell none of these things, just software programs.
In 2009 revises its policies and launches in app purchases, in particular for content or access to new app features just for the Apps that aren’t free. The in app purchase mechanism was optional. Meaning, devs could decide if they wanted to use App Store payment system to collect money form their users regarding the use of their digital assets beyond the app, case in case content. But they could also direct users to their payment system for such purposes.
The controversy starts as some developers, rightfully started to question the nature of the App Store. Charging for content and service, something that is beyond the software program / App, does not look right considering the App Store provides no infrastructure or service for that matter … it just serves software programs for download and installation. But ok, it was felt optional. But some could envision this to be mandatory … visionary developers
In 2011, 3 years after, half a million apps, the App Store, starts rejecting apps that do not offer in app purchases for content and services being sold on the developers website or other surfaces. Case in case adobe e-reader … this was the eBook Shop wars. Don’t recall precisely but I think this what the time where Apple was found guilty of eBook price fixing. A few days later after the first App being banned because of this, Apple again revises its policies and expands in app purchase policy for free apps. Basically unlocking the freemium model already popular on the web. 30% cut, in app purchases still optional, ability to link to the web … ok … or not.
Apple again in 2011 revises its policies and required apps from publishers (I remember getting apps for certain news papers) to sell subscriptions in app even if the app was payed … so it comes in app subscriptions. Not only that, as if the publisher charged access to content outside the app, it was required to also offer the same charges / subscription in app for a price no greater than the ones offered outside. Already armed with hundreds of millions of iPhone users locked within the App Store sphere of influence, Apple through its control over what may be installed on users devices or not, starts creating a business model around mandatory charges around all things digital that it does not distribute, provide a service or technical infrastructure for.
There was a fare amount of controversy over such requirement so much so newspapers simply disbanded out of the App Store. There was also doubts if it only applied to newspaper and magazines for months … Funny enough … years later Apple offers a solution to newspapers and magazines to a problem it created … Apple News hehehe.
This was the start of Apple dipping deeper and deeper into charging for digital things and services that it does not distribute or provide a platform for and that does not sell, promote … … just the POS tech become mandatory by policy. Never seen for instance an book say from barns & noble being promoted or distributed by the App Store, say music, no? Can i pick up a digital album from its shelves no? Of course not, is only able to serve Apps, nothing else is in their shelves actually.
Also in 2011, a few months later ir revises again:
“11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app.”
So Apps were no longer required to provide in app purchase for content as long as no links to the web are provided in the app for payment … wait … they are after all … Apple provides all sort of “clarifications”.
Spotify and other thought about leaving the platform back than … the start of a long legal battle. You see Spotify customer used the iPhone as they do Android. Spotify was the number one music streaming services and this meant, chucking away a great number of subscribers for the likes of Spotify … Just notice, #1 music streaming service, not #1 dev or software program. Spotify was a threat to iTunes, considering that before Apple controlled around 70% of the digital music sales.
Even though a serious digital service company in abstract may choose to not to be present in a major OS platform, it does not choose its clients neither which devices they use. So in practice such choice is done by its users, not the company. Digital service companies follow their users to where they are or want to be, otherwise they loose them to someone else … Apple would say thank you for that -> Apple Music.
In 2015 Apple launches Apple Music rivaling the likes of Spotify. Funny enough, courts this and that, no long after, 2016 revises its policies and allows for the so called ”reader apps” not to be forced into providing in-app purchase facilities. Still no links to external payment methods are allowed even for payment of things that does not provide. Why does the App Store managers feel entitled to charge for all things that they did not create, do not sell, promote or distribute, nothing, is beyond me really … that is entire the workings of the App Store policy. Yes Apple offers a Dev Kit to build software programs / Apps, but such thing is licensed already … requiring its deployment and sell through the App Store … but that is complied already. So what other IP needs to be payed for to Apple? None … oh forgot the Policy, that is IP too
It also starts in 2016 to sell Ads and profiling users apps to provide targeted Ads. In way safeguarding users privacy as they explained but still.
So you see this is very short factual information already exposed how far off from reality is your opinion. In effect, the App Store policies have been changing dramatically every 3 to 4 years or so. As the sphere of influence grows, more iOS users, so does they bite over things that may be sold through the devs apps and infrastructure.
The way I see it there were 3 phases. One from 2008-2011 … 3 years give or take … the good phase. Another from 2011 to 2015 … another 4 years give or take … that I call the extraction phase or what I call the Big Squeeze. Than came to 2016 up until now … reader apps and all … the political phase … regulators / courts, a battalion of lawyers for the maintnance of the status quo. Preparing for the next phase if they happen to win … Apple Car … who knows … in a 3 decades HomeKit Houses … ? They are so unsafe and lacking in privacy at the moment with all those cameras being operated by iOS apps … who knows.
The biggest shift was in 2011 when it starts to charge in-app payments for non app digital things and services. First optionally, of course, but than tighten the ducks throat to the ban.
Apple could very have chosen other methods to get payed for the App Store services and IP. For instance requiring payed services apps to ask their users for a app fee (buy it) … or charge for storage and distribution plans the way cloud services do as an option to in-app purchases. No, it decided for an mandatory in POS regardless if its App Store actually promotes and distribute such services beyond distributing the app. This would be the path to choose if indeed the all thing was about getting payed for what the thing actually does , case in case the actual App Store services being used. But in fact, it seams that Apple considers iOS users part of their IP so better start paying to access them on top of licensing. But hey, maybe I’m not far out from this line of though, they seam articulate this lately as protecting their users privacy and security against digital crooks … the dangers … so on and so forth … now thats kind of the latest 3 years stance.
One could say Apple invented iOS users, therefore the company is entitled to a cut over anything that gets sold to them when they are using the iPhone or iPad. I guess that is what people around here mean when they say … Apple create a market. One could say that as a result as an iPhone user your are Apple’s IP and had the privilege of paying for it without knowing …. Hehehehe … a brilliant legal argument … no?
But it all fits the blue bag semantics over what IP means … anything. The customer of a company, a user of some system can than be considered IP of the company. I believe that such use of the concept of IP to justify a cut of sales of indirect things and services is abusive not to mention to be against the precepts of a liberal market. Politically quite a fascist stance. The future of the society as we enter the Virtual Reality age?
Maybe I’m mistaken on the intentions but all this does stink quite a bit.
There is a term called “Entrapment”. This term is applied to illegal procedures where the police artificially create conditions inducing a someone to commit a criminal offence to than arrest them and charge them. In abstract as there is no legal basis for this term outside the law enforcement sphere, I feel the principle behind such tactic can be applied to many business practices including this one. A company creating the conditions inducing the suppliers and users to take and support an action, that that is than played against their interests through later unilateral amendments. Even after all the support that gave to such company not only by buying their devices but also enriching the Apple ecosystem with their creations that in turn helped the company sell even more devices. The iLife wheel.
Cheers.
PS: Anyway. Personally really love brilliant people. I think Apple its a brilliant company full of brilliant people. Even in this … so … I guess all my interventions are more of away of looking for forgiveness … I told ya … if no one listens … not my problem when Apple sherlocking knocks on your door … or ask for more money for you to be able to use your IP in your customers smarphones and tablets. You see, to control one thing one does not need to own it … it’s all about IP today I guess … right? My IP is larger, wider, better and more profound than yours. App Store rules
… the future of $iNnovation$.Chiau.
Last edited:
No, that is very much not what I am saying. I’m talking about the situation where, say, some app you very much rely upon moves onto the Epic App Store, and off the Apple App Store, and now people are faced with a choice of either accepting signing up for the Epic App Store and giving them payment details, or dropping that app and having to find a replacement.
I’m getting sick and tired of this “no one is forcing anyone to side load” argument being used as though it has zero effect on anyone who doesn’t want to side load. If you get your way, and make the iPhone just like Android with respect to side loading, you will be taking something away from those of us who chose the walled garden intentionally. And you’ll be doing it to make iOS just like Android when you could just damn well, you know, go use Android. Stop trying to turn two available choices into one available choice.
Well the leave us alone argument is old too.
What ifs. That’s your argument. What if there no issues at all.
Because “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”, is not an appropriate business strategy either.
You can look at other platforms that already allow app deployment from many sources to see the answer to the “what if”. The moment sideloading is available, scripts will be provided to all the malware farms on how to talk people through installing their malware. The only way that affects me, is I’ll get a few more questionable text messages, or phone calls… maybe? Likely true for a lot of people here, especially the ones who have no interest in sideloading.
The way it affects millions of other non-tech savvy OR gullible iOS users, who are not affected in the same way currently? Could be potentially catastrophic. The way it affects the family members of those potentially affected? Now, yet another thing you have to talk EVERYONE through, OR removing rights from, etc. I would guess that MDM companies would LOVE sideloading to be a thing, because then, more need for them!
That part of it isn’t even a “what if”, it’s a “consequence of”. You make any system less secure (like sideloading on iOS, or reintroducing kext’s to macOS) and there will be bad actors ready to pounce and take advantage of it.