Side loading doesn't mean you can find them in App store. You need to download them from somewhere else outside the App store. It is upto the individual to decide whether to install it or not
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
That's certainly a debatable point I agree, but given that the app store and Apple devices are two different things, and since there is so many Apple devices (over 1B iPhones), it's reasonable to say the Apple app store does have a monopoly in the iPhone app segment in the economy.
There's nothing like the Apple app store in android land, because they already allow sideloading, so no monopoly there.
No, they aren't, but they are forcing me to use the Apple app store since I already own an iPhone -- that's the problem.
Not correct, market share in a segment of the economy is what defines a monopoly, not that there are other alternatives.
They basically do since they're the sole arbiter in what's in the app store. If they don't like you, they have the power to block anything you do and that's just what's wrong with a monopoly.
More like Apple does not want to give up their monopoly/control on what applications users can install on devices they purchased from Apple. Apple just needs to add a sideloading option and stop the fear mongering like the world is going to end by allowing side loading.
Apple would not be responsible and my guess is that the user would be forced to factory rest their phone in DFU mode if they get infected with a virus. So I doubt their Apple device would be permanently bricked by a virus.
I have a Samsung smart TV, it has it's own app store, and also allows the google store, if your tv is Android, are you sure you can't do that? (android normally allows it by design)
Are there 1B LG TV's?
What a phenomenal way of introducing state-sponsored malware full bore into the iOS ecosystem.
Still wrong, that was the way it was when the first M1 was shipped, and for quite some time after that. I think it's still opt out as I never got any notice of a change like that.
It's opt in to compile for both systems, but that's not what we are talking about here.
LG is the Apple of TV brands. They do very very well in the high-end. https://brandequity.economictimes.i...et-share-in-super-premium-tv-segment/59046779
I suspect it will since Congress has the authority to regulate bussiness in the United States.
Imagine if you had a private road network. And instead of the govt setting the rules for car manufacurers on emissions, fuel types, car types and car safety, driver's license requirements- you'd dicate what car can or can not drive down that road. Futhermore you's demand that ALL car mfgs would use only the fuel you provide and only use tires of a certain type, and demand that all the cars had interior and dashboard design strictly according to your regulations - including small details like seat colors and trunk size.
Then on the customer end you'd ban customers from driving any other cars that they have, use trailers other than the ones you provide, ban any and all car customizations, and lock all cars to a certain speed limit and steering override so that beyond what you allow them - is impossible. You also have a chokehold on all fuel suppliers and you sell your "own" gas at 20 bucks a gallon. No other fuel allowed.
You justify it by saying it's very convenient, safe, secure, that you always know what's best and if someone does not like that you ban them from delivering cars for your road network and to dissatisfied customers you just say "drive what and how I tell you or get lost".
That is literally the iOS ecosystem as it is today, instead of cars it's apps, instead of roads it's the ecosystem provided, instead of drivers it's device owners and users.
Then on the customer end you'd ban customers from driving any other cars that they have, use trailers other than the ones you provide, ban any and all car customizations, and lock all cars to a certain speed limit and steering override so that beyond what you allow them - is impossible. You also have a chokehold on all fuel suppliers and you sell your "own" gas at 20 bucks a gallon. No other fuel allowed.
You justify it by saying it's very convenient, safe, secure, that you always know what's best and if someone does not like that you ban them from delivering cars for your road network and to dissatisfied customers you just say "drive what and how I tell you or get lost".
That is literally the iOS ecosystem as it is today, instead of cars it's apps, instead of roads it's the ecosystem provided, instead of drivers it's device owners and users.
I'm not sue that helps the cause, even it states *aims* at 50% of the high end, but anyway, if I but an LG TV, I'll drive it with something else if LG doesn't have an app that does what I want, unlike iPhones. The markets really aren't similar at all.
ahh C'mon its not like that all with Android. I've own Android for several years and still not infected. I think you need to see for yourself
As others have said, they are not general computing devices so there really isn't that much of a necessity
I think monopoly talks for smartphones around the late 2010's were ridicolous, because they weren't still considered general computing devices
These days, it's downright impossible to do some things without a smartphone, they have become THE general computing devices, any anti-competitive tactics have more repercussions for society
Google and Apple brought it to themselves when they pushed them to become every day necessities
I'm actually surprised WebKit isn't talked that much when it comes to antitrust legislation
The senate is missing one key part - People spend the extra money for iPhones BECAUSE they want to be in the Apple ecosystem. Nobody would spend the extra money on an Apple device if it wasn't integrated into this ecosystem which includes the App Store.
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
The App Store and all of its restrictions are one of the major reasons people enjoy iPhones, especially because they're protected from malware when shopping inside it.
I would understand if Apple had a big monopoly but you have a choice. Get a Samsung, Sony, LG and you can sideload all you want. Yea
No one should be asking for Apple to make this easy for consumers to do. It should be possible to install apps on your own iOS device if you want to and if you know how to. Maybe a Terminal-like interface that accepts Unix commands. Something that would scare off my mother but would still let more technical folks run packages and install apps.
It's waaaay past time for this to happen. The iPad Pro with its M1 chip is dying to be unleashed and not held back like some old first-gen iPad Pro with an A9X.
It's waaaay past time for this to happen. The iPad Pro with its M1 chip is dying to be unleashed and not held back like some old first-gen iPad Pro with an A9X.
You don't need a smartphone to function in society. You don't have to do any of those things on a smart phone and side loading applications would not change any of that functionality.
The problem arises when some new app that everybody wants, or, say, some app that you need to use for business, decides to only publish on some 3rd party store and not on Apple's App Store. Then the whole, "well but you don't have to use other app stores" argument falls apart.
And there will no doubt be 3rd party app stores who will push hard to get exclusive deals for some apps, to get people to use their store.
I get really tired of the naive, "well but you don't have to use it so everything will be fine" argument.
It works just fine on the Mac that way, all fearmongering of Apple is just that. It is just a way to limit choices by people who want a better selection of apps than what Apple permits. People use the Mac App Store because of convenience. Otherwise go to trusted developer and down load an installation package from them, no other app stores involved.
Surprisingly most people, including politicians, are able to do more that one thing at a time.
iOS Geek: I'm not speaking to your position on this because I don't know it, but it's interesting how the one's complaining about the government's inability to protect us are usually the same ones whose party has worked very hard to defund the CPSC and to weaken consumer protection laws.