U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple

[threesixty360]

I still don't understand why people who've lived in the free and open world of PC OS's cant see that changing mobile devices to just be the same as mobile PC's will bring us exactly to where we are now in PC land: anti virus software, relentless malware and ransomware attacks, and so on and so forth. Its not like you need to be a genius to work that out.

Android is already somewhat like this. Why on earth would any sane person want iOS to be the same? Why cant I choose NOT TO have an open OS? I actively dont want one for my personal phone. I really, really dont.

I feel like govt's are actually turning on a consumers right to choose something different by trying to legislate so that there is no difference in the market. How peverse is that?

 

[TracerAnalog]

I was looking at this from the article.

While I am not at all interested in the mobile games for iOS, iPadOS, and tvOS its hard not to think about all the attempts from gaming companies to get Apple to allow cloud based gaming, instead of all games being filtered though the App Store service. Then you have Apple creating their own Apple Arcade service. So even if you see the ecosystem secure and protected, its almost impossible to ignore their absolute gatekeeper power. Its a tough call where you draw the line, but its seems like Apple could budge a bit and find ways to allow cloud based gaming to remove this impression.

Finally, a reasonable reaction. Thank you.

 

[applicious84]

Well, the iVirus Pro is our most private virus.

I wouldn't go around sharing your private virus here

 

[SFjohn]

Should this ultimately go from discussions to a signed law, that choice will still fall to the owner of the device, no?

Therefore, those of us who are against it can simply stick to the Apple "seal of approval" on their own App Store and apps and say no to other options.

No. Let’s say you & your bestie have iPhones. Your bestie sideloads an app call “CandyShopFunX” and you stay with Apple Only for security. ”CandyShopFunX” is fun to play but has three hidden features: it downloads all of Apples’s codebase for the iPhone, records all your keystrokes and logins (reporting both back to criminals), and attaches an invisible link to it’s hidden features to the pics (or any typ of file) you send your bestie that has everything Apple only. It’s a virus. You open that pic (or any typ of file) you don‘t have “CandyShopFunX” but you‘re now infected and have lost EVERY BIT OF PRIVACY you had and this virus keeps spreading. Your bestie currently has choice as they can choose an Android phone and sideload all the want. It’s what most people do. Does your bestie really NEED an iPhone with sideloading? No, no one does. But there are governments (including the USA) that want that to break Apples’s Privacy lock and they’ll do whatever they can to accomplish it, including making specious arguments like  has monopoly power.

 

[applicious84]

I dunno, for all the complaints about what's fair and what isn't, I'm really glad everyone here is looking at the nuance and complexity of app stores. For myself, I just keep looking at my portfolio ?

Walmart, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, Google, JP Morgan...These companies are making me rich ???

Rich ?????????

Bwahahaha. Fight over what's right. I'm rolling in the dough ?????

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

I still don't understand why people who've lived in the free and open world of PC OS's cant see that changing mobile devices to just be the same as mobile PC's will bring us exactly to where we are now in PC land: anti virus software, relentless malware and ransomware attacks, and so on and so forth. Its not like you need to be a genius to work that out.

iOS can already side load. Opening up iOS to third party app stores will not change the fact that all apps will be sandboxed and the platform will remain immune to most PC-style malware. It won’t be immune to scam apps, but the official App Store already has plenty of those. Sideloading != jailbreaking.

 

[ian87w]

I'd say this again.

Forcing sideloading on iOS is removing choice. You are forcing Apple ecosystem to be the same as Android instead of being unique. That means less choice.

 

[HiVolt]

This would only put Apple users on par with Android - that they could have a choice.

Nobody is FORCED to use anything else but the App Store. If you want safety, stick with App Store.

Apple could easily allow the same thing like they do on the Mac, signed developers.

 

[dba415]

I'd say this again.

Forcing sideloading on iOS is removing choice. You are forcing Apple ecosystem to be the same as Android instead of being unique. That means less choice.

Not true at all. You can turn off side loading in Android, and Apple could do the same thing.

 

[StupidOpinion]

none of this would be a thing if apple wasn't so greedy in the first place. it does not cost 30% of revenue to run the app store. lets not pretend like apple even needs more money.

 

[Ebarella]

No. Let’s say you & your bestie have iPhones. Your bestie sideloads an app call “CandyShopFunX” and you stay with Apple Only for security. ”CandyShopFunX” is fun to play but has three hidden features: it downloads all of Apples’s codebase for the iPhone, records all your keystrokes and logins (reporting both back to criminals), and attaches an invisible link to it’s hidden features to the pics (or any typ of file) you send your bestie that has everything Apple only. It’s a virus. You open that pic (or any typ of file) you don‘t have “CandyShopFunX” but you‘re now infected and have lost EVERY BIT OF PRIVACY you had and this virus keeps spreading. Your bestie currently has choice as they can choose an Android phone and sideload all the want. It’s what most people do. Does your bestie really NEED an iPhone with sideloading? No, no one does. But there are governments (including the USA) that want that to break Apples’s Privacy lock and they’ll do whatever they can to accomplish it, including making specious arguments like  has monopoly power.

People come up with some weird possibilities. How often does this happen in MacOS? How often does this happen in freaking Android?

Pegasus did something similar to your example in the closed iOS environment and it cost like 500k USD to install it on a victim because an stunt like that is incredibly difficult to perform without getting caught and getting you in trouble

 

[MysticCow]

So you’re forced to allow sideloading but nothing says how many items CAN be sideloaded.

Roku used to allow sideloading of ONE channel for development purposes. The only reason it ended was because we all used it to install VideoBuzz, which worked better than the official YouTube app.

 

[ChrisA]

Apple's response is total BS. Unlocking an iPhone would make the iPhone no less safe than a Mac.

So Apple must be arguing that Macs are plagued with malware, various, and the like?

The real reason is so darn obvious, Apple makes a ton of money from the app store and they do not want to give away that revenue.

Those who wish to not be exposed to the possibility of awareness could still use Apple's app store. In fact, that could be a setting o the phone (like there is on the Mac to allow 3rd party software or not.)


All it takes is ONE COUNTRY to pass a law like this. I seriously hope China or the EU passes one as Apple is not likely to be able to enforce a geographic limit as people would use VPNs to bypass it.

 

[Madmic23]

I'd say this again.

Forcing sideloading on iOS is removing choice. You are forcing Apple ecosystem to be the same as Android instead of being unique. That means less choice.

I don’t see this as “forcing“ side loading on everyone, but it would give people a choice. It would also break up Apple’s control over app distribution, and potentially lower app prices. Here’s how that works:

Let’s say developer XYZ has an app, and they don’t like that Apple charges 30% on in-app purchases. So, they encourage people to side load the app, and they use their own payment processing company that charges 10% instead. XYZ could lower their IAP price by 20%, or they could just take the extra money. They’re happy!

So what can Apple do? Because they have a massive scale for payment processing, they could lower their fee to 8%, or 5%. Now, Apple in-app payment processing is the cheaper option for XYZ, and they can return to the App Store and make even more money. Everyone is happy, except for Apple, who now actually has to compete on price instead of just forcing developers to use one option.

 

[mcnallym]

Why if people want android features are they buying iPhones.

App Store been around since 3G launched and been how get apps onto the phone since and over 10 years.

So anyone complaining that forced to use Apples App Store didn’t do research before buying/did research and now moaning about something that chose to ignore and bought iPhone anyway.

If want to complain that Apple has a monopoly then you have to accept that single products are a market.interestingly when pystar tried to argue that Apple had a monopoly on MacOS computers then the courts ruled that computers running Mac OS were not seperate to Computers running windows or Linux.

Nobody forces anyone to buy an iPhone. People saying need a smartphone in todays world, can you not do this on an Android phone.

You choose to buy an iPhone with all that entails.

If you want sideloading and non AppStore apps then android products are for you.

If you don’t like Apples practices then why on earth are you buying iPhones.

 

[Marshall73]

Allow side loading of apps once the user agrees to waive any responsibility of Apple over their data, the act of enabling sideloading also disables all of Apples services e.g messages and iCloud. Then if the user gets hacked it’s on their own heads.

 

[urnotl33t]

Is this really government's job to decide this?

Nope.

 

[urnotl33t]

It's not just malware we have to worry about. Look no further than Facebook to see how this will be abused.

FTFY

 

[ian87w]

I don’t see this as “forcing“ side loading on everyone, but it would give people a choice. It would also break up Apple’s control over app distribution, and potentially lower app prices. Here’s how that works:

Let’s say developer XYZ has an app, and they don’t like that Apple charges 30% on in-app purchases. So, they encourage people to side load the app, and they use their own payment processing company that charges 10% instead. XYZ could lower their IAP price by 20%, or they could just take the extra money. They’re happy!

So what can Apple do? Because they have a massive scale for payment processing, they could lower their fee to 8%, or 5%. Now, Apple in-app payment processing is the cheaper option for XYZ, and they can return to the App Store and make even more money. Everyone is happy, except for Apple, who now actually has to compete on price instead of just forcing developers to use one option.

Personally, I think you misunderstood the idea of choice. For you, choice is, for some reason, the same as conformity. Meaning that if all platforms conforms to what Android is like, that's for some reason is "choice."

Choice means you have a choice of something different, not more of the same. Right now, consumers have choice for a smartphone platform. They can pick an open platform like Android, or they can pick a walled garden choice like iOS. Choice. Two different things.

Making iOS into Android is removing choice.

 

[CarlJ]

Android is already somewhat like this. Why on earth would any sane person want iOS to be the same? Why cant I choose NOT TO have an open OS? I actively dont want one for my personal phone. I really, really dont.

Indeed, there are currently two main choices of philosophy in the mobile space - a walled garden and an open free-for-all. And there seem to be a lot of people pushing hard to eliminate the walled garden option. And they convince themselves, and try to convince others, that this is somehow improving choice, when what it's really doing is literally eliminating choice - taking us from two available options down to one. And if you try to explain that to them, they usually counter with something to the effect of "but ours is better". Well, so much for freedom and choice.

If folks want an open free-for-all with lots of choices and "freedom"*, please, by all means, go get an Android phone right now. Then they'll have what they want, and we'll have what we want. The solution is literally right there, waiting for them to take advantage of it, today.

*: (I know what freedom is, and removing choices ain't it.)

 

[ian87w]

Allow side loading of apps once the user agrees to waive any responsibility of Apple over their data, the act of enabling sideloading also disables all of Apples services e.g messages and iCloud. Then if the user gets hacked it’s on their own heads.

This is impossible. The iPhone brand and Apple's logo are still on the iPhone, and consumers will associate anything wrong with it to Apple, regardless of the cause.

Heck, we have youtubers intentionally broke their Apple products and then blame Apple for not willing to replace them.

This is why Steve Jobs, and then Apple, is a control freak. Things like this is why they want to make sure they have control, because anything bad is bad for the brand.

 

[ss2cire]

Interesting, do we have free enterprise, or do we not? Where does it stop? Can I side load on my Kindle, how about my smart TV? Does amazon have to provide links to other marketplaces where the price may be cheaper? Is a grocery store liable if it sells it's own store brands?

This whole issue is made up to benefit a few rich and powerful. You can already get your product into the App Store and have customers access it free of charge. Just like Spotify, virtually all Spotify subscriptions are not paid through the App Store, because Spotify sells versions on lots of different devices, have a subscription - use it on Macs and iOS no fees to Apple. If customers really wanted this, there would be dozens of third party app stores selling subscriptions and "vbucks" for customers to use once you downloaded the app from the App Store. Sure a new customer would have to have the option to sign up and pay through the App Store, if they so chose, but like Spotify, few people would, so it is not really much of an issue.

while mostly true about getting your app on the App Store, you do have a $99 licensing fee to pay every year

 

[aidler]

Most of all it will cost ol Timmy money... and that is a absolut no go.

 

[oadrirhodoz]

Because when we're no longer forced to load stuff from the App Store and therefore can install apps from anywhere, people will only buy apps from the legitimate app developers and nobody will ever come up with the idea to install pirated versions of apps, right? RIGHT?!?

 

[icanhazmac]

These days, it's downright impossible to do some things without a smartphone

Wow, this statement couldn't be more wrong. Name one thing that is impossible to do without a smartphone.

Is is more convenient to have a smartphone? Yes.
Is it a requirement for anything? No.

One could very easily exist with a flip phone and a computer at home. Millions exist without any cell phone at all.