“If you take steps to lower the security of a system, then you end up with a less secure system and invite NEW exploits.” Enabling sideloading lowers the security of the iOS system and exposes millions of non-tech savvy users to new risks.
Considering that Sideloading is giving the user option to use native apps sourced through others entities but the embedded App Stores … i don’t agree with you conclusion equating it to lowering security. So we disagree.
If you understand the architecture of iOS in particular its implementation of concepts such as Sandboxing, that is stricter if not more advanced than macOS, you understand why it is more secure … yet less flexible.
A short glimpse from Apple:
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/web
Sandboxing is say a locked area in the OS where the App executes and access its data at runtime. If it needs resources outside such area it asks the users to unlock it for specific resources. Us up to the OS making sure that the App does not execute beyond what the user or the system granted.
One must do their due diligence and perform an assessment to determine if it’s actually a security threat and also determine the severity of the threat. Once determined, one should always take steps to increase security, not decrease it.
Agreed. In my opinion the main threats do not come by giving people options over their sources for digital goods, retailers or suppliers.
In particular I argue that retailers that do not even have the products being sold on their “shelf”, yet impose their own POS within the realm of third party properties by policy because technically they can are a threat both to users and the digital economy. Such practice inevitably devalues both consumers and suppliers properties in favor of the POS controller properties, direct or indirect … as there are no property boundaries if not the ones established unilateraly by the controller, that in turn changes those boundaries in time as it sees fit. This is not theoretical … it is happening.
The severity of such threat is being discussed by regulators and judicial courts. I believe that such threat in a open ended system such as iOS will just grow.
Now if you than argue that allowing Sideloading is not the only solution for such a threat … I agree. There are some court decisions taken place along that line.
For me, this threat is the only one that matter on this discussion. Not even Sideloading or not Sideloading is much of an issue for me, if not just a solution to avoid such threats amongst other solutions. I guess it will depend on how hard will Apple make finding other solutions.
Make no mistake. This is not just a discussion around Apple practices only, its just the company leading the pack. But is actually about the shape of the future of digital economy. But not only the digital economy but also the physical. Has the digital and computing reaches more physical touch points: cars / transportation, peoples homes, health devices, computers used by companies (entire industries) so on and so forth. Whatever comes, will also regulate Big Tech able to enforce these kinds of practices.
Cheers
PS: Equating loading apps sourced outside of the App Store, aka Sideloading, as of lowering security in one line, removing a lock … your words. In the other line arguing that the App Store is not being used in this context as a security lock makes no sense. One implies the other. But I guess, all comes from the gift of parliament.
