Tim Cook: Users Who Want to Sideload Apps Can Use Android, While the iPhone Experience Maximizes 'Security and Privacy'

[Nuno Lopes]

Could be potentially catastrophic.

Yes. Such conclusion is really driven by the experience in other systems. MacOS, Windows, Linux … server farms … all catastrophic … One is only reasonably safe within the sphere of the App Store and accept to pay for things that technically does not distribute, support … heck even curate in any shape or form … the future of users privacy and security is Apple digital sales by policy. That will save us all from a potential digital $catastrophy$ and set the path to a future healthier life, greatness, creativity, competition and innovation.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes. Such conclusion is really driven by the experience in other systems. MacOS, Windows, Linux … server farms … all catastrophic … One is only reasonably safe within the sphere of the App Store and accept to pay for things that technically does not distribute, support … heck even curate in any shape or form … the future of users privacy and security is Apple digital sales by policy. That will save us all from a potential digital $catastrophy$ and set the path to a future healthier life, greatness, creativity, competition and innovation.

Yes, millions of users on other systems have been targeted by bad actors with scripts that walk the non-tech savvy user through reducing the security of their system by installing back doors, keyloggers, etc. with catastrophic results. Savings wiped out, identities stolen, credit ruined, lives severely impacted by those who have not only an interest in conning users, but an active avenue through which to con those users.

Every server farm being run by teams of professionals, hardware AND software security specialists running all the latest patches and secured well doesn’t help the grandmother in London that was just talked into installing a screen scraper on their Windows computer which will be used over the coming weeks to chip away at her bank accounts. Right now, users can’t be talked into installing malicious code on their systems. If sideloading becomes possible, they WILL be. What do folks suppose would happen once malicious companies are able to talk iPhone users into installing malicious software? That they WOULDN’T do it?

I understand that folks want Apple to lower the security of iOS. And, I’d hope the same folks know that lowering the security of ANY system puts the users of that system at risk.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, millions of users on other systems have been targeted by bad actors with scripts that walk the non-tech savvy user through reducing the security of their system by installing back doors, keyloggers, etc

Yes, millions of people are targeted by bad actors every day. Even good actors sometimes act badly. So? Do you think iOS aren’t also? This is not only a thing of the digital space.

The question is wether because of a fact of life one will than run to an an actor giving them rights over your and others properties because you live your life scared as hell. Or will you educate yourself like people have done in history in order to make informed choices over the things and within the things you use, rather let anonymous people making choices for you across your entire life. If you choose badly you will be little more than a $puppet$, becoming an IP of some other actor. It is happening right now in the App Store!

You see, the divide between digital and physical is mostly conceptual now and soon it will be even under your skin.

Let me ask you this. Soon you will have a chip under your skin augmenting your capacities … what’s the divide between you and some actor IP? Will that actor deserve 30% of your life’s value?

I think your stance is as based in fear and non personal responsibility as it is stupid. Technology wasn’t invented in the last three decades … it has always been around since Man exist. The world is as safe and dangerous as it ever was.

If you want to understand what is the significance of a mix of private security and governments that resign themselves from such a commitment to their citizens just have a look at third world countries. Have a look at Brazil.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, millions of people are targeted by bad actors every day. Even good actors sometimes act badly. So? This is not only a thing of the digital space.

The question is wether because of a fact of life one will than run to an an actor giving them rights over your and others properties because you live your life scared as hell. Or will you educate yourself like people have done in history in order to make informed choices over the things and within the things you use, rather let anonymous people making choices for you across your entire life. If you choose badly you will be little more than a $puppet$, becoming an IP of some other actor. It is happening right now in the App Store!

You see, the divide between digital and physical is mostly conceptual now and soon it will be even under your skin.

Let me ask you this. Soon you will have a chip under your skin augmenting your capacities … what’s the divide between you and some actor IP? Will that actor deserve 30% of you life’s value?

I think your stance is as based in fear and non personal responsibility as it is stupid. Technology wasn’t invented in the last three decades … it has always been around since Man exist.

If you want to understand what is the significance of a mix of private security and governments that resign themselves from that regarding commitment with their citizens just have a look at third world countries.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yes, millions of people are targeted by bad actors every day. Even good actors sometimes act badly. So? Do you think iOS aren’t also? This is not only a thing of the digital space.

People are being attacked on other platforms and they should be able to be attacked, in the same way, on iOS? I guess that’s one way to see it.

Or will you educate yourself like people have done in history in order to make informed choices over the things and within the things you use

This is a good point, and I agree that people should educate themselves, understand that Apple doesn’t provide sideloading and make an informed choice over the phone they buy.

And, remember, if one chooses badly, one becomes little more than a $puppet$.

I think your stance is as based in fear and non personal responsibility as it is stupid. Technology wasn’t invented in the last three decades … it has always been around since Man exist. The world is as safe and dangerous as it ever was.

No, my stance is based on what any security review will tell you. If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits. That’s no more fear than being “afraid” that after letting go a ball at sea level, the ball will trend downward.

Now, I know why people WANT to decrease the security of iOS. However, you can’t decrease security and end up with a system that’s just as secure as it was previously.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, millions of people are targeted by bad actors every day. Even good actors sometimes act badly. So? Do you think iOS aren’t also? This is not only a thing of the digital space.

The question is wether because of a fact of life one will than run to an an actor giving them rights over your and others properties because you live your life scared as hell. Or will you educate yourself like people have done in history in order to make informed choices over the things and within the things you use, rather let anonymous people making choices for you across your entire life. If you choose badly you will be little more than a $puppet$, becoming an IP of some other actor. It is happening right now in the App Store!

You see, the divide between digital and physical is mostly conceptual now and soon it will be even under your skin.

Let me ask you this. Soon you will have a chip under your skin augmenting your capacities … what’s the divide between you and some actor IP? Will that actor deserve 30% of your life’s value?

I think your stance is as based in fear and non personal responsibility as it is stupid. Technology wasn’t invented in the last three decades … it has always been around since Man exist. The world is as safe and dangerous as it ever was.

If you want to understand what is the significance of a mix of private security and governments that resign themselves from such a commitment to their citizens just have a look at third world countries. Have a look at Brazil.

Yes, vote with your $$$ if you don't like what you see.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits.

But you are conflating users having the option from who to buy a book or math classes in app with lowering security. That is the error of your judgement. It’s a ridiculous conclusion isn’t it?

Sideloading is not necessary if users are given such an option. Specifically things that the App Store does not provide the technical infrastructure to run, distribute and promote, case in case, all things but the objects we call Apps/Software Programs … except for a POS by policy.

In fact, it can be easily argued using logic that you only buy from one supplier all your assets you increase your insecurity exposure while reducing your privacy and capacity to choose. it’s crazy to think otherwise … history has proven time and time again that is the case.

Have not read any security reports effectively linking using multiple suppliers with insecurity in the way you do.

Furthermore, in fact if you read the technical justification why macOS may be less secure than iOS … has nothing to do with the App Store. Nothing, zilch, nada.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, vote with your $$$ if you don't like what you see.

A lot of people voted with their wallets, bought tobacco and smoked in public spaces. So? Dependencies …

The relationship between say using a good camera, making a phone call and buying book or taking a math class is far stretched. The fact it it can created is a testament of the elasticity of the digital material in comparison with the physical. Nothing more than that. Meaning, it’s not a natural cause and effect conditioning neither a security rule, it’s fabricated by us. It’s not based by moral stances over IP but ones company interest in power and control.

PS: Last time I’ve read some history democracies and liberal markets weren’t created through wallet votes … but common sense where no entity rights are absolutely above others regardless of their contributions.

 

[I7guy]

A lot of people voted with their wallets, bought tobacco and smoked in public spaces. So? Dependencies …

As well participated in philanthropic endeavors. So, humanitarian…

The relationship between say using a good camera, making a phone call and buying book or taking a math class is far stretched. The fact it it can created is a testament of the elasticity of the digital material in comparison with the physical. Nothing more than that. Meaning, it’s not a natural cause and effect conditioning neither a security rule, it’s fabricated by us. It’s not based by moral stances over IP but ones company interest in power and control.

Apple provides a platform for distribution of goods. It’s their ip and their rules and completely opt-in. They’ve been honing the TOS for years.

PS: Last time I’ve read some history democracies and liberal markets weren’t created through wallet votes … but common sense where no entity rights are absolutely above others regardless of their contributions.

Are you saying that apple built its ip from Ill -gotten gains?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple provides a platform for distribution of goods.

In what way the App Store provides a platform to distribute say, Netflix Videos, Email Services, Remote Lessons …? I mean, you say that Apple provides a platform or do just that amongst many things … please explain.

Your inaccuracies in perception are entirely fitted to charge for IPs that aren’t Apple’s. Apple provides a platform to build, distribute and sell software applications than run on iOS … nothing more … Technically what businesses build with it, its not their IP to charge for .. yet they do by policy. Say someone builds an app to distribute and sell books, or say to provide remote lessons, it offers no platform to do that. Such platforms are created by third parties, not Apple. As such aren’t part of Apple to charge for, never was.

Do brick suppliers provide a platform to make shopping malls? Of course not … technically the fundamental premisses required for such a conclusion are nonsensical … the great digital blur. Now if brick suppliers had the potential to control people by say a device that would imped them entering such shopping malls, houses, offices …, whatever uses the suppliers bricks … heheheh gotcha… billions of them … there is no need to supply such platform …

 

[I7guy]

In what way the App Store provides a platform to distribute say, Netflix Videos, Email Services, Remote Lessons

Well technically I agree if Safari is being used. But if an app is being used are you saying there is no Apple proprietary IP embedded within the app? If so, then apple is providing a platform.

…? I mean, you say that Apple provides a platform or do just that amongst many things … please explain.

Covered above.

Your inaccuracies in perception are entirely fitted to charge for IPs that aren’t Apple’s.

There are no inaccuracies in perception, maybe inaccuracies of opinion of how the app store should be managed?

Apple provides a platform to build and distribute software applications than run on iOS … nothing more … . Technically what businesses build with it, its not their IP to charge for. Never was.

App Store (Apple) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well technically I agree if Safari is being used. But if an app is being used are you saying there is no Apple proprietary IP embedded within the app? If so, then apple is providing a platform.

I haven’t said the iOS apps don’t make use of iOS builtin components, therefore some of Apple’’s IP. You are moving the targets … heheh.

Here is what you said:

Apple provides a platform for distribution of goods.

I argued that it does no such thing in general … only one kind of goods …. software programs, apps if you will. It provides a platform to build, sell and distribute software programs that run on iOS. Nothing else.

Safari does not provide a platform for none of that either (HTML, CSS, Javascript) but to build and run web apps. From iOS technology or web technology to say creating and streaming videos goes a very long distance … even longer to a business doing it ….

The App Store is not a platform to stream games or videos, math lessons, vídeo conferencing … whatever digital but apps, yet it wants to sell and charge for as well as other kinds of digital goods and services for which it does not provide a platform for.

If I agreed with such generalization nonsense I would need to agree that that Qualcomm provides Apple the platform to distribute iPhones / iOS. You see, last time I checked Apple embeds Qualcomm IP on their systems. Heck Qualcomm could even say that all iOS Apps would require payment as it uses their IP. Using your reasoning than I would have to agree right? But I think such kind of argument is nonsense both when applied to Apple, Qualcomm or to whomever comes with such a gaslight.

Now of course if ones uses someone else’s products and IP it needs to pay for the just measure of what they provide in comparison with similar products allowing developers and digital services to build software programs. Not for what one has built with it … that is entirely he or she IP and success as much as the iPhone is of Apple.

Of course all of this reasonable reasoning goes bzerk if say Qualcomm had a device implanted in their tech that denied Apple users access to their iPhone if Apple did not further payed on top of licensing whatever Qualcomm thought it deserved for their IP. Heck, Qualcomm could even argue that it does such thing for their safety and privacy … lovely lovely. But such thing as nothing todo with the merits of their tech … it would be simply stand upon market power and moving unilateral gatekeeping policies on top.

Now, you could say “oh oh, the difference between Apple and Qualcomm in such a scenario is that Apple established the rules upfront”. Something that I’ve already written that is not the case. Initially, yes Apple established rules close to the value of selling and digitally distributing software programs … but than in changed policies to charge for things that they don’t do either as their marketshare grew by making in app purchases mandatory for all things digital (they later made up “reader“ apps as they started being pressured with lawsuits)… . Imagine Qualcomm later demand charging 30% of the App Store revenue in royalties on top of iPhone sales … as Apple success grows so did they dependency … “Oh we (Qualcomm) provide the platform to that effect …” What?

Somehow all this seams to come from a natural process of cause and effect in the Apple ecosystem … but there is indeed a weird element in the process … the gatekeeper element … it needs to be broken and will unfortunately because it could have been even better than it is today. It would not be necessary if Apple proceeded fairly and reasonably, close to selling and distributing software programs, not with what software programs might supply/sell their users (except more of software programs). But they seam to be insisting on carving the opposite path. They insist that in order to protect their IP they need to charge and sell things that do not build, produce and distribute because it uses IP already licensed and things already bought by users. … Qualcomm crazy but that is how they manage to get such abnormal profit margins in the App Store … “a miracle”.

PS: By the way, Apple uses loads of third parties IPs … if each required 30% or 15% their business would not even have started.

EDIT: I agree that App Store is a platform for Apple to sell and distribute software platforms made for iOS. Yet the policies surrounding in app purchases are targeted to charge for things that does not do either. To the point that Apple required say xCloud and Stadia to publish things that aren’t software programs in their App Store … game streams … to charge and fully control their market. Imagine what they can do to a school teacher vídeo streams … This fundamentally change the App Store agreements that came initially … abusive of the trust devs deposited in Apple and the App Store. They feel that they can do that because they are the gate keeper of billions of pockets .. nothing todo with what the App Store actually technically offers as a service.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Have not read any security reports effectively linking using multiple suppliers with insecurity in the way you do.

I said, “If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits.” I didn’t say anything about multiple suppliers.

If you believe that a system can have it’s security reduced while the security of the system remains the same, then, that’s your view and I don’t expect anyone will be able to change it.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I said, “If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits.” I didn’t say anything about multiple suppliers.

You also wrote …

“You can look at other platforms that already allow app deployment from many sources to see the answer to the “what if”.”

Sources is synonym with suppliers. So you are effectively defending the concept of an unique all things digital supplier as measure to increase users security and privacy. So logic would conclude that according to you, the possibility of having multiple suppliers lowers iOS users security and privacy.

The question than is how can one have multiple digital suppliers with one and only one App Store for all things digital. In my view … open the App Store to third party payment and billing processing, including devs, along with the current one if they ever so wish to use it, and let the the dev subcontract the App Store services for the distribution of their App. As it stands, formally the App Store is the only supplier/broker of all things digital in iOS. In iOS there is no possibility of direct sale and billing within the realm of their App / IP.

 

[EddieKeyton1]

If you don’t want to side load then don’t. Your security stays the same. Simple. His statements mean nothing. If apple allowed sideloading. Simply NOT doing it keeps your device just as “safe” as you thought it was prior.

 

[I7guy]

I haven’t said the iOS apps don’t make use of iOS builtin components, therefore some of Apple’’s IP. You are moving the targets … heheh.

Not moving targets, just ensuring when you post there aren't any curve balls.

Here is what you said:



I argued that it does no such thing in general … only one kind of goods …. software programs, apps if you will. It provides a platform to build, sell and distribute software programs that run on iOS. Nothing else.

So it's a false statement that Apple provides a platform for the distribution of goods. That's a narrow statement; unless there is an amount of pendantics.

Safari does not provide a platform for none of that either (HTML, CSS, Javascript) but to build and run web apps. From iOS technology or web technology to say creating and streaming videos goes a very long distance … even longer to a business doing it ….

Well seems to me it does as safari can duplicate the functionality in many apps.

The App Store is not a platform to stream games or videos, math lessons, vídeo conferencing … whatever digital but apps, yet it wants to sell and charge for as well as other kinds of digital goods and services for which it does not provide a platform for.

There is a very specific set of rules to which the fees and commissions applies. You may not agree or like those rules, but those are the rules.

If I agreed with such generalization nonsense I would need to agree that that Qualcomm provides Apple the platform to distribute iPhones / iOS. You see, last time I checked Apple embeds Qualcomm IP on their systems. Heck Qualcomm could even say that all iOS Apps would require payment as it uses their IP. Using your reasoning than I would have to agree right? But I think such kind of argument is nonsense both when applied to Apple, Qualcomm or to whomever comes with such a gaslight.

Because it's an essential patent, my understanding is that FRAND applies. The ios app store is an apple invention and apple does not license the use the app store to the competition except to sign up as a dev.

Now of course if ones uses someone else’s products and IP it needs to pay for the just measure of what they provide in comparison with similar products allowing developers and digital services to build software programs. Not for what one has built with it … that is entirely he or she IP and success as much as the iPhone is of Apple.

Again, bad analogy.

Of course all of this reasonable reasoning goes bzerk if say Qualcomm had a device implanted in their tech that denied Apple users access to their iPhone if Apple did not further payed on top of licensing whatever Qualcomm thought it deserved for their IP. Heck, Qualcomm could even argue that it does such thing for their safety and privacy … lovely lovely. But such thing as nothing todo with the merits of their tech … it would be simply stand upon market power and moving unilateral gatekeeping policies on top.

Now, you could say “oh oh, the difference between Apple and Qualcomm in such a scenario is that Apple established the rules upfront”. Something that I’ve already written that is not the case. Initially, yes Apple established rules close to the value of selling and digitally distributing software programs … but than in changed policies to charge for things that they don’t do either as their marketshare grew by making in app purchases mandatory for all things digital (they later made up “reader“ apps as they started being pressured with lawsuits)… . Imagine Qualcomm later demand charging 30% of the App Store revenue in royalties on top of iPhone sales … as Apple success grows so did they dependency … “Oh we (Qualcomm) provide the platform to that effect …” What?

Somehow all this seams to come from a natural process of cause and effect in the Apple ecosystem … but there is indeed a weird element in the process … the gatekeeper element … it needs to be broken and will unfortunately because it could have been even better than it is today. It would not be necessary if Apple proceeded fairly and reasonably, close to selling and distributing software programs, not with what software programs might supply/sell their users (except more of software programs). But they seam to be insisting on carving the opposite path. They insist that in order to protect their IP they need to charge and sell things that do not build, produce and distribute because it uses IP already licensed and things already bought by users. … Qualcomm crazy but that is how they manage to get such abnormal profit margins in the App Store … “a miracle”.

Bad analogy and reasoning up to this point.

PS: By the way, Apple uses loads of third parties IPs … if each required 30% or 15% their business would not even have started.

Clearly there is others ip in many tech products.

EDIT: I agree that App Store is a platform for Apple to sell and distribute software platforms made for iOS. Yet the policies surrounding in app purchases are targeted to charge for things that does not do either. To the point that Apple required say xCloud and Stadia to publish things that aren’t software programs in their App Store … game streams … to charge and fully control their market.

In other words, in your opinion, the ios app store shouldn't be controlled by apple?

Imagine what they can do to a school teacher vídeo streams … This fundamentally change the App Store agreements that came initially … abusive of the trust devs deposited in Apple and the App Store. They feel that they can do that because they are the gate keeper of billions of pockets .. nothing todo with what the App Store actually technically offers as a service.

In your opinion apple shouldn't control the app store, the end result being an app store with more crapware and malware?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If you don’t want to side load then don’t. Your security stays the same. Simple. His statements mean nothing. If apple allowed sideloading. Simply NOT doing it keeps your device just as “safe” as you thought it was prior.

You’re talking about the security of YOUR device. I’m referring to the security of the entire iOS system. If Apple reduces the security of IOS in order to enable sideloading, then EVERYONE’s iOS system is less secure. For those that are tech savvy, they’d know what to do to manage the lowered security. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks aren’t tech savvy and could be talked into enabling sideloading on their device for malicious purposes.

You’re right NOT sideloading keeps YOUR device safer. Your device being safe doesn’t do anything for the millions of devices that aren’t[\i] yours.

 

[EddieKeyton1]

You’re talking about the security of YOUR device. I’m referring to the security of the entire iOS system. If Apple reduces the security of IOS in order to enable sideloading, then EVERYONE’s iOS system is less secure. For those that are tech savvy, they’d know what to do to manage the lowered security. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks aren’t tech savvy and could be talked into enabling sideloading on their device for malicious purposes.

You’re right NOT sideloading keeps YOUR device safer. Your device being safe doesn’t do anything for the millions of devices that aren’t[\i] yours.

If apple allows sideloading it will NOT lessen the security of everyone’s device. Simply put, if someone creates some type of malware that is put onto a device via a side loaded app. That malware will NOT access an iDevice that doesn’t side load.

Of course there’s always a chance, but you take that chance right now using an iPhone. Tell me the last time someone you know that had an android that was hacked due to someone else sideloading an application? Get real.

You are more at risk surfing the web.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Sources is synonym with suppliers.

No, sources is NOT synonym with suppliers.

My point is, “If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits.”

I have an idea why folks want Apple to reduce the security of iOS, but it’s fairly certain that would be a detriment to all non-savvy users.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If apple allows sideloading it will NOT lessen the security of everyone’s device. Simply put, if someone creates some type of malware that is put onto a device via a side loaded app. That malware will NOT access an iDevice that doesn’t side load.

Remember on iOS devices today, the most reliable way of exploiting it is through the user that has it in their hands. You can send a malicious text (which has cost users 86 million dollars in the last year) or email with a link to a website, but that’s only going to get an attacker so far. What these attackers REALLY want is a way to have their software installed on millions of iPhones the same way it’s currently installed on many unsuspecting Windows devices.

The moment sideloading is available, these malicious actors will begin hitting iOS users in huge numbers, looking for those non-tech savvy users to exploit. They WILL find some, and WILL be able to exploit them because of iOS’s lowered security.

I understand why folks want Apple to lower the security of iOS, but that will be a detriment to millions of non-tech savvy folks if it happens. Bad actors are already able to make off with 86 million dollars just via texts. That number’s sure to increase if sideloading is enabled.

 

[Uofmtiger]

If you don’t want to side load then don’t. Your security stays the same. Simple. His statements mean nothing. If apple allowed sideloading. Simply NOT doing it keeps your device just as “safe” as you thought it was prior.

What happens when apps that millions rely on everyday like Microsoft Office or Adobe CC move to side loading rather being available on the the App Store? It will essentially force users to side load and that will open Pandora’s box. That is my main issue with it. Many will be forced that direction if they want to use certain apps that they already rely on.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Not moving targets, just ensuring when you post there aren't any curve balls.

Well if you reply to things that I haven’t said I wonder who is using curve balls.

So it's a false statement that Apple provides a platform for the distribution of goods. That's a narrow statement; unless there is an amount of pendantics.

Yes it is. It is false. It provides a platform for distribution of software programs that run on iOS aka iOS Apps. Not all goods consumimos in the iPhone or iPad are iOS Apps. Not being pedantic because if I take your false assement as true than App Store forcing charges In say for a teacher remote lesson through it maybe be considered a FRAND user of the teacher work on the part of Apple. I think it is not.

Well seems to me it does as safari can duplicate the functionality in many apps.

Irrelevant to the discussion In my opinion.

There is a very specific set of rules to which the fees and commissions applies. You may not agree or like those rules, but those are the rules.

I am not disputing that the App Store does not have a policy. That would be illogical. But the policy itself … haven’t you noticed already?

Because it's an essential patent, my understanding is that FRAND applies. The ios app store is an apple invention and apple does not license the use the app store to the competition except to sign up as a dev.

Don’t know if imposing charges or mechanism to charge for things that does not provide a platform for is within the realm of FRAND.

Again, bad analogy.

Why?

Bad analogy and reasoning up to this point.

Why?

Clearly there is others ip in many tech products.

Yes.

In other words, in your opinion, the ios app store shouldn't be controlled by apple?

No. That is not my option. The App Store is Apple’s property so it should in their control. Being in control does not happen in a vacuum however.

In your opinion apple shouldn't control the app store, the end result being an app store with more crapware and malware?

Has I’ve said its App Store is Apple’s property as such should as anyone should be in control of their property. If the control mechanisms over ones property conflicts with other properties and control mechanisms, which seams to be the case, than there is a dialog. Something that is happening in all sorts of platforms, from judicial to social and regulatory. Judicial and regulatory platforms are the ones that deal with such conflicts when dialog seam to have reached a dead end.

For me its quite clear that when any private organisation is able to charge for the sale of certain things that does not provide a platform to distribute or sell and the cost of not submiting to such charges is significant …. Such practice does not look in “FRAND” regarding the organisation use of these kinds of things to get their $$$. Given the “scheme” Is not only that third parties use iOS assets to build their apps, but Apple uses third parties assets to promote and sell iPhone in many ways. So much so that if t weren’t for third parties apps, most probably the iPhone value would be little more than a 2021 Blackberry being smacked front and back by Android ecossystem and we would be discussing other themes.

As I explained over and over again the bottom line is that App Store is only a platform to distribute and sell software programs that run on iOS … whatever devs distribute trough their apps or sell is beyond its abilities and capacity … Its their work, their innovation, their market. So the in app payment mechanism should be in my opinion required by regulators to be optional for anything that the App Store has no the technical capacity to provide a service and not something that could unilateraly be enfoced by policy leveraging on users devices/properties that they also do not own (locked in) … meaning it should be an opt in if the thing being sold is not technically an iOS app. So in these cases third parties could provide other means of payment as well as the App Store payment or not if they ever so wish.

In no way this diminishes the principle of Apple having control over its properties, curating apps and so on … I own a Car, have full control over it, yet cannot run over other people crossing the catwalk even if it happens to have sold them their shoes … this would not be an example of control but abstive use of property … at least.

This is the actual issue. All this sideloading biz is just a diversion to distract people from this practice. Futhermore, as a solution to stop this … it’s a cannon to kill a fly.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

No, sources is NOT synonym with suppliers.

I suppose your not familiar with the term “sourced”. For instance Apple sources it’s components for multiple suppliers … the sources.

As for your sentence point … yes end? Because that has never been your core point. I’m counter arguing your core reasoning against the iPhone and iPad users ability of sourcing apps from others entities but the App Store. That is what sodeloading is in this context. An argument that you equate to lowering security and privacy.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

What these attackers REALLY want is a way to have their software installed on millions of iPhones the same way it’s currently installed on many unsuspecting Windows devices.

Yes bad people are out there. But that is a horrible way to live limiting yourself and others, making decision around a problem you don’t know if have. It’s not just Windows by the way … you just might not know if you have one in your iPhone already … it may just be dormant … no? I remember the market had a malware like problem with Windows not so long ago … and it was not defined as malware … sideloading was actually the remedy.

 

[I7guy]

[….] As I explained over and over again the bottom line is that App Store is only a platform to distribute and sell software programs that run on iOS …[…]

Subject to the terms of the developer agreement which each dev must agree to. While apple has to be above board in these agreements, it’s still their store and they get to decide what the scope of services the apps will deliver and some other rules around these services. As I explained over and over.