Curious, will you sell points that are actually relevant in your shop, or will you just stock more of this absurdity?
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. Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Another Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You missed
The example would be multiple markets next door to each other, not one inside the other.
no offense to you, but it’s comments like this that make me wonder… do people think that device “bricking” is a common occurrence when dealing with jailbreaking and other untrusted software?
in my experience jailbreaking for over a decade, i’ve rarely, if ever, seen a case where somebody irreversibly bricked their phone using software alone. anything is fixable.
and, regardless, sideloaded apps would have a COMPLETELY different (lower) level of access than jailbreak apps.
basically… if you’re a dev and can hack an iphone using a sideloaded app, you should really be selling that back to apple for several thousand $ in bug bounty reward money.
people are treating any individual sideloaded apps like they’re their own standalone jailbreak mechanisms.
But if you're uninstalling them, then haven't you already bought them? How are devs losing money? Also, almost no one is going to do this because it's not that big of a deal.
Never seen it myself either and I've been JB'ing since the very beginning ... as have 3 other acquaintances of mine.
Some of these folks simply have no idea what they are talking about nor how the existing system even functions.
I’d invite you to elaborate. My intention was to note that if Apple (or another company) were to go to a full proprietary system without an app store on AR/VR goggles, automotive entertainment system, etc. and only offered apps they created or direct partners of theirs created, users would have far fewer apps as options. If they can’t get a return on investment that satisfies their shareholders on the app store, they may not offer it (or may not even offer the product).
Apple’s largest platform competitor is Google for phones/tablets. Google monetizes very differently — through ads and tracking for the most part; though, they also take a cut on the Google Play Store. That impacts privacy/security. Apple’s model largely enables Apple to take a more privacy/security-conscience approach. If monetizing apps isn’t an option, they may very well feel they need to abandon security/privacy (or at least some aspects). That takes away the security/privacy choice. They are in competition for investor capital against Alphabet/Google and others in the space.
Edit: edited to note Alphabet is the company with which Apple competes for investor capital as it is the parent company of Google.
Some kind of weird reverse Robin Hood.
But I think cutting your penis off in public would hurt devs even more.
one of my biggest gripes with apple users is that they believe that just because apple allows something or sells something, does not mean that you need to buy into it. i remember a while back, there was some rumors about macbooks possibly having a touch screen and people in the macrumors forums were acting as if they will suddenly have to use the touch screen. if you don't like touch screens, then don't use the touch screens. nobody is forcing you to do anything.
even if apple allows sideloading apps, if you do not trust the security of the sideloaded apps, then don't use them. i also have to believe that there is no reason why any sideload apps must be exclusive to the sideloading and can't be on the app store as well. for example, if i made an app that i want to sell for $10, i can also sell this app on the app store at a cost of $12-13 so that i would make the same profit regardless of where the consumer buys it. as far as i can see, the only "problem" with this is that apple and any of their investors would ultimately make less money from this. as a person who isn't invested into apple, i don't care.
if any of you guys in this forum are defending apple in this case, can you at least do a solid and admit whether or not you are financially invested in apple? thank you.
even if apple allows sideloading apps, if you do not trust the security of the sideloaded apps, then don't use them. i also have to believe that there is no reason why any sideload apps must be exclusive to the sideloading and can't be on the app store as well. for example, if i made an app that i want to sell for $10, i can also sell this app on the app store at a cost of $12-13 so that i would make the same profit regardless of where the consumer buys it. as far as i can see, the only "problem" with this is that apple and any of their investors would ultimately make less money from this. as a person who isn't invested into apple, i don't care.
if any of you guys in this forum are defending apple in this case, can you at least do a solid and admit whether or not you are financially invested in apple? thank you.
I have been jailbreaking since the 3gs and I was also unlocking until Tmo came out with their awesome intl data plan, and I have never heard of it happening either.
For me.... Sure, I'd love the option to sideload.
For my 74yo mother, it's a scary thought of what may happen to her iPhone, her privacy, and potentially her money...
For my 74yo mother, it's a scary thought of what may happen to her iPhone, her privacy, and potentially her money...
You have good reason to believe that -- that exact thing has happened with the macOS App Store
Finally. Good news for consumers. I hear a lot of parrots under the spell of Apple's marketing department, but haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why security or even privacy would be on the line. The only thing on the line here is Apple's huge profit margins.
Either way, I'll stick with what's in the App store.
If I want a "walled garden" I use an iPhone. If I want the Wild West, I would run Android.
20 years ago it, was a different world. So much of our lives and what we do is on these phones now, I simply don't want to expose myself to the extra risk. I'm sure any sort of side loading of applications would be a "do at your own risk" proposition.
If I'm that interested, I'll go buy a cheap droid with a burner SIM and toy with it. I don't want my bank account messed with. I gotta pay the figurative rent.
If I want a "walled garden" I use an iPhone. If I want the Wild West, I would run Android.
20 years ago it, was a different world. So much of our lives and what we do is on these phones now, I simply don't want to expose myself to the extra risk. I'm sure any sort of side loading of applications would be a "do at your own risk" proposition.
If I'm that interested, I'll go buy a cheap droid with a burner SIM and toy with it. I don't want my bank account messed with. I gotta pay the figurative rent.
And that's the thing, you can do exactly that. No one is saying you should be forced to go outside the walls of the App Store, ever. All we're saying is that we should have the choice to decide for ourselves.
What's amazing is how Apple was able to be very profitable while developing amazingly popular products before the existence of the iOS App Store. I wonder how they did it. /s
Again, this is a completely different situation. In your scenario, Target would be forced to sell a competitors product. With sideloading, developers would just be selling their apps directly.
Your example would be more applicable if this legislation would require iPhones to be able to run Android software and apps and the Google Play store. But it doesn't.
Those of you against third party application sources...
This is your way!
Bravo to @IIGS User for being an adult and simply making a choice he/she prefers!
Politicians are cheap especially the radicalised ones who want to break privacy and take bribes from data hungry firms.
Installing apps on desktop operating systems isn't considered side loading.
But we now live in an age of ransomware and massive attacks on networks by state actors. Companies like Apple and Microsoft have done a lot of work to mitigate this but hackers and malware coders are always two steps ahead.
Anyone who advocates side loading is either ignorant or a beneficiary of cyber attacks. People who own crypto benefit from ransomware demands. That's who to point the finger to when you see people with this anti-privacy and anti-security worldview. They are dangerously radicalised and don't care if they profit from cyber crime.