And also free to be the target of a virus/vulnerability. Or even a payment issue/problem/scam. And the freedom to deal with such things on your own.
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.
U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And also free to be the target of a virus/vulnerability. Or even a payment issue/problem/scam. And the freedom to deal with such things on your own.
Yes, I know the history. I am not saying I agree with Apple's position there. But, I believe Apple said the same thing to Netflix and they did put each app as a separate download.
The fact that Apple set the policy that the games had to be separate installs for the service to be in the App Store does not negate the fact that Microsoft has released GamePass (or is it Cloud? Not a gamer so not really sure of the name) is not available via a web app.
I own two iPads and a MacBook. My phone though, is an Android phone because I wanted more freedom and ability to customize as I see fit.
That being said, if Apple begins to allow sideloading on the iPhone, it needs to be because consumers have demanded it. I don't want the federal government involved and every aspect of life. Government is FAR to big as it is.
That being said Part 2, IF Apple allowed sideloading, I'd switch to it.
That being said, if Apple begins to allow sideloading on the iPhone, it needs to be because consumers have demanded it. I don't want the federal government involved and every aspect of life. Government is FAR to big as it is.
That being said Part 2, IF Apple allowed sideloading, I'd switch to it.
If you're a liberal the answer is Yes. If you're a conservative the answer is No. So it depends on which side you fall.
GamePass is just a subscription services, downloads of games is just like Apple, individual downloads.
I agree. The other option would be for Apple to approve all Apps that don't violate security and don't misrepresent what they do. Then Apple can keep their monopoly. But, in my mind anyway, they should not be able to both censor content and have a monopoly.
When side loaded malware gets a user's data it will also collect all the data and information you shared with that user:
- your emails
- your messages
- photos you may have shared
- your contact info
And then you are a target to be pwned too. This already happens with hacked or remote controlled desktop operating systems, as anyone who has watched scam baiter videos will know well.
- your emails
- your messages
- photos you may have shared
- your contact info
And then you are a target to be pwned too. This already happens with hacked or remote controlled desktop operating systems, as anyone who has watched scam baiter videos will know well.
Last edited:
Scams happen regardless of whether you can side load an app or not. Heck, if you try to activate Microsoft Office on Safari using Siri Suggested Sites it will redirect you to a scam site instead of the actual Microsoft Office site. And that is Apple indirectly assisting in scamming the customer.
Consumers should be able to have the choice to allow more choices for apps at the expense of security. Most would likely continue to use the App Store regardless.
Consumers should be able to have the choice to allow more choices for apps at the expense of security. Most would likely continue to use the App Store regardless.
What you don't understand is Apple is a public corporation with fiduciary responsibility to it's stock holders (like me) to create profits for dividends, research, innovations and support their employees. You don't think that Samsung, or any other major corporations don't have "profit motives"? The word 'motive' connotes something evil. With out profits, no business large or small can survive, just look at what covid has done to hundreds of businesses.
They definitely care about security & privacy because that absolutely affects the bottom line as well. Opening their devices to side-loading would affect consumer trust in the App Store, App Store revenue, Apple’s support to and from developers and the perceived quality & reliability of their products.
It’s in their best interest to protect consumers best interests.
I’m kind of repeating what you said but wanted to add the additional info behind it. It’s not just about App Store profits.
As you know streaming content using a app is different than partial client/web interface app to run cloud based games. But since we are touching on X Box game pass if one looks at their website, (see all plans) , you can see why Apple desperately needed to protect their precious Arcade service. IMHO Apple is nervous about its survivability in the long run.
We shouldn't listen to any hospital "geared towards helping patients" either huh? Business exist to make profits, but they can also want to advocate for other things.
I hadn't meant that. The Mac for better or worse allows pretty well any software to be installed. No App Store required, although of course Apple offers one, you can run your Mac out of the box and add 3rd party software without ever creating an AppleID etc.
But for the phone maybe greater security is desireable so the freewheeling Mac approach isn't a good idea. If so, then some kind of curation of apps is needed, hence the suggestion of a new Apple business through which all iOS apps go in fair competition and with careful review and scrutiny.
Exactly. I don't have any subscriptions with them. They don't hold much data or information about my life that I have to migrate. I can easily mix and match - enjoy my Double Whopper® with my Chicken McNuggets®.
You do know that there's a difference between theoretical possibility and practical feasibility.
For consumers and app developers alike.
Like... designing and manufacturing one's own smartphone and rolling one's own OS (that is usably day-to-day) vs. buying some bread and minced meat to make one's own burgers?
So do many who advocate for allowing Apple to do everything as they please and charge everything they want. In the name of business freedom, lean government and protection of consumers.
The irony with that is of course that they'll happily submit to Apple that in many ways behave like an authoritarian ersatz government of their own:
- propagating the need for strong government and leadership and having a tight grip on power
- deciding what's allowed and culturally/morally acceptable on their platform and what's not. Approve or deny.
- censoring content where it's doesn't confirm to social standards - or is a threat to the monopoly of government.
- taxing every businesses 30% on their revenue. Accept it or go out of business - everyone knows "the law".
It of course happens all in the name of benevolently protecting its citizens-consumers from harm by malicious actors, the criminals and terrorists on their turf. And think about all the children.
Don't like it?
Well, you can always move to Canada or Mexico.
Or incorporate your own country with your own rules and laws somewhere else, can't you?
Everyone has a real choice!
Sure we all have a choice and one choice is to vote for those who represent our interests. If you don't like what Apple is doing another choice is Android. Or you can build your own smartphone and upload/download and sideload.
Leave it to Apple to claim that customer freedom would result in malware, scams, and ransomware while turning a blind eye to those exact things going on in the single app store that they already manage.
And only Apple could say with a straight face, and expect consumers to believe, that adding more players into a market would result in *less* competition.
What a joke. And they don't even qualify as bad jokes.
And only Apple could say with a straight face, and expect consumers to believe, that adding more players into a market would result in *less* competition.
What a joke. And they don't even qualify as bad jokes.
You already have that, even in Apple's store. More and more are brought to light every day while Apple continues with this obviously faithless and unfounded argument that somehow they are some panacea of safety when it comes to apps. Literally the only thing they are trying to do is maintain their monopoly over what apps can be installed by consumers on devices they paid for and own.
The consumer is their own best advocate, no matter which platform you are on. If it sounds too good to be true, well, that's because it generally is.
America isn't "dogging its own industry" with these laws. This is anti-trust, plain and simple, because Apple to date has not been a good actor in terms of monopoly power over iOS app distribution, and it's become visible now the harm this is and has been doing to both developers and consumers.
Once the option exists, big players will use it and the floodgates will open. Apple just needs to actually take the App Store as seriously as they claim to.
I mean, it's simple, really. If you don't want to wander outside Apple's walled garden, you don't have to. Nobody is forcing anyone to sideload an app or add another app store to their repositories, like you can with Amazon's store on Android.
Even on Android, most people just play within the Play Store's fence.
But for those who want/need something that is not there, and know what they are doing, they still have the option to do so on Android, while Apple maintains a monopoly grip on iOS app distribution.
Normally I would say no and let a free market decide, but this is really an anti-trust issue, and by definition the free market is already being interfered with and distorted by a bad corporate actor, in this case Apple.
It hasn't been about security and protection for a very long time, despite Apple's claims to the contrary.
Apple has effectively created a product, and then charges anyone who develops an application for that product, first with requiring an Apple Developer account, and then again when distributing it to end users as they force you to go through them, at the price they demand, with no other options or recourse. That is by definition monopoly power, and Apple has managed to hold on to it for a very long time with smoke and mirrors about security and customer safety.
I would generally agree that politicians waste time and tax dollars, but this is one of the very few areas where they at least try to be good for the consumer (anti-trust, at least when it's not abused).
Apple has a clear monopoly in regards to app distribution on iOS, and it's become more than a little harmful to developers and consumers alike. They have a clear cut case to act here, despite the smoke screen Apple has successfully used up to this point. The smoke is clearing and Apple is doubling down and saying it louder in hopes of keeping their cash cow a the expense of a legitimate market, thousands of developers, and millions of consumers. The thing is, even if these laws are passed, Apple's stock will be minimally affected if at all, while developers and buyers will win back what they should have had in the first place. The freedom to distribute their products as they see fit and the freedom to use their property (i.e. the iPhones/iPads they have paid for and OWN) as they see fit, with whatever software they can find for their personal need or desire.
I don't think anybody is arguing to the contrary. On Android, Google (or Samsung, or whomever) isn't liable when you install an application from some other source than the Play Store, or the app store made available by the manufacturer.
Apple can easily be a good corporate citizen and still not warrant other companies' or individuals' actions.
And nobody is forcing people to sideload or use other app stores. People are just saying there should be the options for the consumer, and that includes the responsibility for your choices.