I was worry a lot less on iOS. Thats the point I'm making. And I want to have the choice to worry less.
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
Whatever, I probably will if you say I'm trolling again.
This is not a legal forum, nor a formal debate site, it's an Apple rumors site. And no, I'm not going to do be bullied into doing your work for you as I don't think it would change a thing if I did. If you want to have a real discussion about anti-trust issues, you really need to do the learning yourself, and there are there places that would revel in such a discussion.
There are several faulty premises in your post:
1. Sideloading (aka installing manually) is not an "Android feature". It's a basic operation on every single computing device - including Android, MacOS, Linux, and literally every other operating system.
2. If you own something, it's your basic right to use it in a way you see fit, so long as it doesn't harm others and isn't illegal. If the government told you that you can only buy gas from Exxon, because they get 30% of Exxon's profits, and Exxon sells gas for $15/gallon, you'd be up in arms, but if Apple does it you're magically OK with it and spend a whole post justifying it by victim blaming users.
3. Comparing iOS/iPadOS devices to Mac computers 11 years ago (when they were a mere fraction of the overall PC market) is comparing Apples to Oranges. iPhones account for 50% or more of the GLOBAL smartphone market. That's as much as all Android and other OS players in the space COMBINED. A monopoly exists not because there is only a single player in a space, but a single player has enough market share and power to interfere with and distort a free market, and the company is acting badly. Never mind that Apple meets ALL of those criteria, it's not the real monoply here...
4. ... which is app distribution on the largest mobile platform in the world. In literally every other OS in existence, PC or mobile, you can install software obtained from wherever you please and/or was the best option for you. That's currently a no-go on iOS/iPadOS, because Apple forces developers to pay for a developer account, only distribute on the platform via their app store, and charges an extortionate amount for the "privilege" of doing so. This violates the basic rights of business to sell their products however they choose and consumers to purchase from whomever they choose. Apple has forced themselves upon both as the middle man in order to extort pure profit at your and the developers unnecessary expense. That is by definition a monopoly, and it also is abusing both their partners and their customers.
5. No, you choose to buy an iPhone because, generally, it's a good product. People don't buy features so much as benefits, or perceived benefits. The iPhone overall is a good product (obviously, given its market share), but...
6. ... customers don't want their devices, which THEY OWN, artificially and deliberately hamstrung for the sake of Apples extortion scheme. This is fundamental to rights of ownership of the device. Apple owns the IP of the OS and licenses it under terms, sure, but that being the case then as the owner of the device you should be able to choose a different OS to install on the device you own, and that's not yet the case with smartphones, so Apple needs to step carefully in this case. Regarding the App Store they've been blowing smoke successfully for so long they are now shocked....shocked, I tell you... that people aren't buying into their BS any longer and are (rightfully) angry.
7. You're conflating practices with product. People love the product, even the ecosystem, but not being locked into it with no other options to deploy software on these devices, like every other platform/OS out there. See #6.
The sad thing is you can't see the enormous and glaring contradiction in your argument.
Even if Apple ends up allowing other stores or manually installing apps outside the App Store, you would still have what you want, because it wouldn't be enabled by default. You could leave it off and still have everything you're happy with right now, while giving others the ADDED choice of being able to step outside that walled garden if they desire to, which affects nobody but them.
and the argument that developers will abandon the App Store is pretty unfounded. You still see all the apps you could possibly want in Google's Play Store or Samsung's own store. The fact that I have Samsung's store in addition means I can download phone/Samsung specific applications like themes without any issues. Or, if I don't like the price of an app in Google's store, Amazon's has most of the same apps, often at different/better prices. And still no security issues on the devices related to those stores.
Instead of deflecting, do you not think that my question (the bulk of the comment) is a valid concern?
Just for your edification:
Forum Rules
Jump to: Instantly Bannable Offenses | Advertising/Self-promotion | Things Not to Do | Minor Problems The following rules govern use of the forums. You are also responsible for observing the Regist...
And you could also do without an automobile and use a horse and buggy, but nobody is going to suggest you do so in the developed world.
Silly analogy. I'm going to posit, some people need a cell phone, not a smartphone. And theses days even a basic flip phone has the basics email, facebook etc. People may not need a mercedes s class, but many need a reliable automobile, of which a horse and buggy falls far short.
Not even close to an apples to apples comparison but ok, I'll play.... plenty of civilized people live in the developed world without owning an automobile.
[snark] Public transportation is a new and exciting technology you might want to research. [/snark]
They could very easily - Apple just doesn't want to give up any control over their sweet sweet revenue juice lockdown on iOS.
It's all and only about money.
Apple are just muddying the waters to get people arguing about other points.
I see it as people are purposefully ignoring apple’s philosophy and are confused over the talking points.
Companies do pay for their apps to appear on a TV. It is not free. There is a one time royalty claimed by LG, Samsung, TCL and every other TV if the app appears "natively" (or built in) on the TV. But there is no fee to install apps. Very similar to a Roku TV having the Netflix button. Netflix pays Roku to have that button on the remote.
Companies already force users to side-load apps on Android. Try to install Fortnight on Android. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install-fortnite-on-android-devices
Providing these workarounds allows malware and crapware to be forced on users.
Very well said!
You know the Apple "apologists" are losing the battle to continue defending Apple's egregious practices of the App Store when a separate topic like "Side Loading" and alternative App Stores has them crying so much about how 'concerned' they are for their device security and the security of others. Especially when any alternative App Store or way to side load would be completely OPTIONAL for the user.
It's the beginning of the end for what Apple has been getting away with. This legislation is gaining momentum and has bipartisan support... it successfully made it out of committee today, a first step.
Senate committee votes to advance major tech antitrust bill
The bill has significant implications for Amazon, Apple and Google in particular.
Apple controls the OPERATING SYSTEM and always will. They can easily patch it anyway they want to stop any sort of malware or crapware, as you put it, that someone might develop. This is a terrible argument at its core, especially when side-loading would be completely OPTIONAL for users.
I get how this benefits other companies… but you are saying market competition in AppStores is the benefit to the user…
If apps didn’t just use side loading to avoid legit AppStores(they already do it on Android) or IF you could sandbox the apps completely(making VPN/keyboard and lots of other apps off-limits) then I can see this being a positive for the consumer.
The huge negative is that every user now needs to know what AppStores are safe, the users need to not fall into being pressured by banks/schools/governments into clicking “accept”, and making sure anyone else who might use a shared device also cares about security.
China forcing Uyghur phones to side-load a tracking app for their current genocide really brings home how bad this already is. China forces tourists to side-load apps that read all their texts/communication if they go anywhere near Kashgar(Uyghur majority city). https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...re-phone-scanning-app-xianjiang-border-2019-7
No, nobody *forced* me to sideload Fortnight, I can always choose not to. (and did choose not to!)
Personally I do not care that much about the commission rates, but more about the API's. Apple should not use private api's for their own apps, while restricting developers. Developers should be allowed to use the same API's and access to the system as Apple does, so developers can make Apps that are better than Apples own. Developers can build amazing applications, Apple should make that possible.
If you want the upmost in security, only use the AppStore apps. But Apple does use it's muscle to force developers to use Apple products. For example, if you want to use Google or facebook login in your app, not you have to include Apple's login as an option as well. This should be left to the developers, not an autocratic Apple that pressures developers to their will.
Opening up sideloading will also open the global IOS platform to apps and capabilities that Apple does not want anyone else to have. It is good for users, bad for Apple. That's why they are against it, using security as an argument, what they are really trying to do is to control. iPhones and iPads are too big to be controlled by one company.
Opening up sideloading will also open the global IOS platform to apps and capabilities that Apple does not want anyone else to have. It is good for users, bad for Apple. That's why they are against it, using security as an argument, what they are really trying to do is to control. iPhones and iPads are too big to be controlled by one company.
This entire thread is tl;dr, but I will say this: iOS/iPadOS represents a fairly small percentage of the global market. Windows, macOS, and Linux (including Android devices as well as servers) represent the overwhelming majority. The only operating system that does not allow sideloading is iOS/iPadOS. The majority allow it and, yet, the world has not collapsed. There are exploits, there is data theft, but the majority of computer life moves on without society falling apart.
OMG no! However, I'd be happy with setting choices of:
Allow Sideloading:
- Don't Allow
- Always ask before installing each app
- Always Allow
Or maybe not. The bill could just die. This “apologists” hopes that it does. (If what the GOP did recently it may just do that.)Very well said!
You know the Apple "apologists" are losing the battle to continue defending Apple's egregious practices of the App Store when a separate topic like "Side Loading" and alternative App Stores has them crying so much about how 'concerned' they are for their device security and the security of others. Especially when any alternative App Store or way to side load would be completely OPTIONAL for the user.
It's the beginning of the end for what Apple has been getting away with. This legislation is gaining momentum and has bipartisan support... it successfully made it out of committee today, a first step.
Senate committee votes to advance major tech antitrust bill
The bill has significant implications for Amazon, Apple and Google in particular.www.cnbc.com