Apple can use their trillions to run sideloaded apps in a container like how Android runs inside a container on ChromeOS but it's obvious Apple don't plan to relinquish their excessive control and profit.
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
Apple can use their trillions to run sideloaded apps in a container like how Android runs inside a container on ChromeOS but it's obvious Apple don't plan to relinquish their excessive control and profit.
This is a fair concern, one I do not really have an answer to debate with.
Personally, I would judge each app on an individual basis, to see if the "risk" of side loading it would be worthwhile given the developer's history and my need of the app.
I see this argument a lot and it did happen on android to an extent but I think most of those devs walked it back and put their apps in the store since they couldn't get enough people to sideload them to reach whatever install base target they had. Amazon Prime Video is the one I'm thinking of. Started as sideload only but they eventually brought it to the store.
Yea.. no thanks apple! Your smoke and mirrors did not work in South Korea nor should it work here in the states.
I don't think requiring Apple to allow side loading and use of other purchase systems makes any sense.
Presumably, the 3rd party systems must also be required to permit side loading and other purchase systems too, and so on ad infinitum to uncontrolled market complexity. This amounts to an indirect and cumbersome way to address the underlying issue, which seems to be fair competition in the app market.
A simple, non exponential runaway approach might be to require that the App Store be run as a separate business, with the offerings of Apple developers and all other developers being treated equally and uniformly in all respects. This safeguards competition and also allows this App Store to use rationale, rigorous review for security, infringement etc.
This would require some refinement to work out, as some Apple software "apps" are hard to separate from the hardware + software total offering that is an Apple product.
Presumably, the 3rd party systems must also be required to permit side loading and other purchase systems too, and so on ad infinitum to uncontrolled market complexity. This amounts to an indirect and cumbersome way to address the underlying issue, which seems to be fair competition in the app market.
A simple, non exponential runaway approach might be to require that the App Store be run as a separate business, with the offerings of Apple developers and all other developers being treated equally and uniformly in all respects. This safeguards competition and also allows this App Store to use rationale, rigorous review for security, infringement etc.
This would require some refinement to work out, as some Apple software "apps" are hard to separate from the hardware + software total offering that is an Apple product.
Good to see. Let’s hope for an end to one App Store.
Technically you can already side load. Pay for an Apple dev account and side load to your heart’s content. It’s still sandboxed and perfectly secure. It’s not as if this bill would force Apple to unlock the iOS boot loader or give users admin rights like jailbreaking does.
Not different - at least insofar as you have laid out here. I use LG TVs. I want to add an app. I can only add an app from the LG store built into the TV. That is not monopolistic. It is vertical integration.
The fact there are many brands of TV is irrelevant. I cannot use the Samsung TV App Store as an alternate storefront for my LG TV.
The number of devices (iPhone vs Kindle) also has no bearing on this.
I only buy major applications like Office 365, I mostly use apple 1st party apps, they are plenty good enough. I don't do games, at all. I subscribe to video and music services. That's it. The problem is that most apps will require side loading, not because they think they can make more money by bypassing the app store fees, but because they can put tracking software in the application because they won't have to follow the app store rules about disclosure. Even stuff like the ecobee app or the Roku app with require side loading because what they want most of all is to have data about you that they can sell. The money is not is selling the app, its in selling your data. Apple limits that, to an extent, and that's what the push for sideloading is really all about.
I really don't understand all the Apple defenders here... How can you believe anything they say when the profit motive is so blatant?
U.S. bills that would require major changes to the App Store would ultimately cause consumers to be targeted with malware, ransomware, and scams, Apple's Senior Director of Government Affairs Timothy Powderly said in a letter that was sent today to the Senate Judiciary Committee and that was obtained by MacRumors.
Apple sent the letter as the Judiciary Committee prepares to consider the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open Markets Act, which were first introduced in June 2021. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act will be examined first, and if implemented, would prevent "dominant platforms" from "abusing their gatekeeper power" by favoring their own products and services over those of competitors.
In short, the legislation would enable sideloading, which Apple is stringently against. Sideloading would allow apps and content to be installed on iPhones and iPads through alternate app stores, bypassing Apple's App Store and the privacy measures that Apple has put in place.
Apple says that bills would "hurt competition and discourage innovation" by making it "much harder" to protect the privacy and security of personal devices in the United States.Apple claims it would also be restricted from providing new privacy and security protections under wording that maintains such features must be "necessary" and "narrowly tailored," which the company says is a "nearly insurmountable test" that could prevent customers from having access to a "smart mobile device that provides them with the highest-level of security and privacy protection."
The App Store and Apple's human review process protect customers from "malicious and dangerous code," and consumers would lose that protection should these bills be implemented. In the letter, Apple again highlighted a study that showed iOS devices have 98 percent less malware than Android devices as proof of the effectiveness of the App Store.
Apple says that the bill would be a "big win for those who would profit by collecting even more personal information," and that "millions of Americans" could be deceived into installing unwanted malicious software and would suffer preventable malware attacks. Regulators "should not ignore" the benefits that consumers receive from Apple.Apple is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee not to approve either act that's under consideration in their current form, and the company asks for the opportunity to work with the Committee to find solutions to "address competition concerns while protecting consumers' privacy and security."
Article Link: U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple
I'll take my chances with side loading any day for less money. Worked for me all those years on Android.
You are right, it should be up to the user if they want a walled garden or not.
However - those who oppose Apple's strict privacy rules within that garden will move out of it if they have the option.
So if you want to continue using Facebook's Apps, as one example of someone who'd love to kick down that wall, then you might find that side loading is required.
Then again perhaps that lot will discover the power of the people as their apps fall out of favour from not being installed any more.
That was only true for the first couple of betas. By the time it went live the default was opt-in and direct copy of .ipa was not longer supported. You can copy an .ipa from your phone to Mac today. You can even double-click and install it. But if the developer has not opted it it will not run.
What benefit would consumers get from multiple AppStores on iOS?
I see the benefit of allowing different payment options, but having certain apps only available in certain AppStores is such a huge problem I can’t see how a user would be rooting for this.
Is a game console needed as much as a smartphone?
A smartphone is becoming more and more of a necessity -- people use it to get online, to fill out online forms and applications, for doing their banking, for payments when shopping (since we want to go cashless), for travel/bording passes, for drivers license, for proof of vaccination, for storing medical records, for getting inside a supermarket to buy food (Amazon Go), etc.
I don't need a game console for any of that. A game console is a time wasting entertainment device, not a device to participate and function in society.
I get the whole “security and privacy argument”, but to please those who want to use their device in a much more open way (like a Mac or PC), why not just have an option in Settings - buried deep - that allows the user to override the App Store? They could put as many warning messages as they wanted before confirming, at least then it would be the user’s choice.
Apple is absolutely right about this. Sideloading would break their "It just works" ethos (though sometimes it doesn't work do to Apple ?) and open people up to mal-apps. For reasons like this I have an android for potentially sketchy apps/sites I need to use. Just like laptops; MBP from clean work, cheap Windows machine for dirty stuff
All these things are pretty much already possible on iPhone via the web browser/email. If we need better security on apps then we need it at the OS/sandboxing layer - not in the app approval layer!
Don't even need a paid dev account for that. It is how AltStore works. Only thing apps loaded via a free account are only "valid" for seven days so they need to be touched / reinstalled. Paid accounts are good for longer (a year I think). But AltStore takes care of that for you so not really a huge burden.
Side loading would not change this one bit, there would still be an App Store.
You probably also have your food selected and delivered for you. No sense wasting time selecting food, that is so 90s.
Side-loading and alternative app stores will make things worse for everyone. Apple should convince governments to consider iOS and App Store as FRAND patents and agree on a fair fee to cover iOS development and App Store management cost. Apple stands to lose more if it doesn't act fast enough.
then don’t download the apps , it’s no excuse since there has been way too many cases of bad apps already in apple store
The problem is once you can side load apps you’ll always have businesses and institutions that will require that you side load their app or this app.
Look at all the side loaded apps for the Macs. I wish Macs wouldn’t allow side loaded apps to force developer to run things through the App Store.
There are too many apps that Apple rejects for reasons not related to security. I would like a WiFi monitor app - nope Apple doesn't approve. I would like an app that offends Apples corporate morality - can't get that as Apple doesn't want to be associated with that. I have found with the App Store for the Mac that some sellers give more features if you install from them directly as Apple restricts what they can do in the App Store. Make it the same as on the Mac. Default is App Store but allow an option to install signed apps from other locations and even unsigned apps if you explicitly approve that app to run. Yes, if you leave the walled garden, the wolves may get you, so take care.
I agree that it is in Apple’s best interests to lower their App Store cut in order to keep control of iOS.
Unfortunately Apple has become addicted to the free 30% cut and the App Store, for Apple, has long ago transitioned from a place to ensure safety for users and an audience for developers to a place for Apple to extract rent. Apple has decided to dig their heels in on this and gamble that they can keep everything. They may be right. But if they are wrong, they will be very unhappy when the government steps in. Only then will they attempt to offer a compromise on their terms- and then it will be far too late.