Here's the actual adult view: the internet exists and allows iPhone users to pay for products/services online as well as use web apps or cloud based app services.
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
There is nothing wrong with sideloading and everything to do with power and control over a market.
Apple and this forum can fight and argue all they want but developers deserve an option to sell without gangster-like mandated 30% cuts. All that matters is the process for how this is done.
Apple and this forum can fight and argue all they want but developers deserve an option to sell without gangster-like mandated 30% cuts. All that matters is the process for how this is done.
How Apple should implement sideloading (if they need to by legislation or otherwise do so by choice)
This post is due as a response to recent developments of Apple possibly being forced to allow sideloading. Sideloading brings great choice for the user and by itself is a positive thing, but I understand all the privacy and security concerns around it. I've used Android for quite a while and...
forums.macrumors.com
This recaps in better detail the comment I made earlier.
Gangsters don't create wildly popular hardware and software in order to take a cut. Gangsters simply threaten violence to take a cut. Comparing Apple to mob activity is inane.
Except that people don't want iOS to be like macOS. It's biggest feature is that it is a closed OS and has been since day one. Which is a huge win for privacy/security.
The government wants to kill choice here.
Side loading does not bring "great choice". Android users overwhelmingly DO NOT use side loading. That's already known.How Apple should implement sideloading (if they need to by legislation or otherwise do so by choice)
This post is due as a response to recent developments of Apple possibly being forced to allow sideloading. Sideloading brings great choice for the user and by itself is a positive thing, but I understand all the privacy and security concerns around it. I've used Android for quite a while and...
This recaps in better detail the comment I made earlier.
Assuming that weakened privacy and security are not the intended features of this legislation.
Really curious how much this is actually pushed by "small developers" that are actually independent (as opposed to large ones that are significantly bankrolled by TenCent or small "shops" that exist solely to create static due to their "allegiances").
Because app sideloading is probably racist - they just haven't figured it out yet.
The Epics and Facebooks of the world that are fighting for this want absolute control over the market and the power to undermine everything Apple has put in place to protect users particularly on the privacy front which politicians want as well hence their constant support, the 30% cut is a distraction it’s never been about that as they have much more to gain by removing the middle man and feasting on unrestricted user data.
No impact on user data will result.
Side loading would be code signed to prevent malware and all normal iOS user data protections and prompts would remain.
Of course it would still be sandboxed! Jailbreaks nowadays usually have to exploit some vulnerability via DFU mode or similar, as the sandbox seems to be solid now. If the sandbox has a vulnerability, it could be exploited by app-store apps just as by sideloaded apps, the only difference being that Apple might notice the exploit during app review (which I wouldn’t bet on). Note that even for sideloaded apps, Apple could check the app package for exploit patterns during installation, as a security measure — they could apply the same automated checks they perform on app review.
Code signing is not infallible per malware.
Understanding Code Signing Abuse in Malware Campaigns
Using a machine learning system, we analyzed 3 million software downloads, and provide insights in this three-part blog series. In this part of this series, we discuss the problems regarding code signing abuse.
I think it's become clear that a vast majority of people arguing against side loading simply have no idea how their devices and the system currently works.
I wish some would step back and listen and learn.
Almost all the "fears" are unfounded because people don't even know how it currently works and honestly how little would really change with side loading.
Apple has done an incredible job muddying the waters and throwing around "security" and "privacy" as meaningless buzzwords in this situation.
This is ONLY about protecting their monopoly on where people can get apps on iOS.
It's a monopoly they don't enjoy on macOS and the world and their users are doing just fine.
I wish some would step back and listen and learn.
Almost all the "fears" are unfounded because people don't even know how it currently works and honestly how little would really change with side loading.
Apple has done an incredible job muddying the waters and throwing around "security" and "privacy" as meaningless buzzwords in this situation.
This is ONLY about protecting their monopoly on where people can get apps on iOS.
It's a monopoly they don't enjoy on macOS and the world and their users are doing just fine.
Last edited:
That makes no sense
Your post said not one thing about "app stores"
You said:
The "core of iOS" is already limited access
No third party can "do whatever you want on iOS" right now, nor would that change with code signed side loading.
It seems this would likely become a threat to the security of electronic locks (homes, cars, hotels), phone based ID's (drivers licenses, passports and wallets).
Yeah I don't like this at all. I wish people would stop trying to turn iOS into Android. If I wanted Android that's what I would have bought.This is just sad. Third-party app stores sound like a great way to get the malware. Say goodbye to privacy and security.
Our privacy will be on the line and we will be exposed to the malware. I really hope Apple will find a way to stop this. The government should really stay out of this.
Maybe Apple needs to lock down "sensitive" APIs like location, contacts, etc. so they can only be called by apps signed by the App Store. If you want to side load simple apps (calculators, weather, etc.) you can but apps that could access your private info are restricted to the App Store. I doubt this would stand up in the courts though.
No, they wouldn’t. Apple wouldn’t be reviewing side-loaded apps. Do you even know what side-loaded apps are? Side-loaded apps aren’t code-signed. That is the entire point. You can install whatever you want at your own risk. Unless Apple made it to where only Apple-certified apps can be loaded onto iOS, but then that wouldn’t be side-loading. The best they could do would be the same as macOS, where they warn you that installing something could be stupid, but allow you to do it anyway.
No it's not fine. Lesson time: Analogies actually have to be alike in some way. You can't just say "this is like" and have it be true.
Let's look at the Leaf vs Frontier. The Leaf has physical characteristics that make it far less capable than a Frontier (even if a trailer hitch was added). The same is not true of the iPhone vs the Mac. If artificial restrictions were removed (i.e., not including a trailer hitch, or limiting apps to the app store) the iPhone would outperform some Macs. No similarity, so the analogy isn't applicable.
So let's try a different angle. Let's a assume you added a trailer hitch to a Leaf and it could tow small loads. The Frontier could tow whatever the Leaf tows, plus much larger loads as well. This could be similar to the iPhone running iPhone apps, and the Mac running both Mac and iPhone apps. However if you go back to the Leaf with the trailer hitch and say it can only tow Nissan branded trailers for "safety" purposes, while the Frontier can tow any brand; that would make no sense. So the analogy couldn't be used to support the idea that iPhone apps must be restricted to the App store for "security" purposes.
The Leaf vs Frontier analogy is bad because it bears no similarity to iPhone vs Mac. Different tools for different jobs? You'd be annoyed if your tools were artificially limited too. Instead of adding more bad analogies to the pile, why not try to explain why the first one fits if you think it's so good?
PS: Whether you agree with Apple's position or not should have no bearing on whether you think an analogy is good. A poorly written point is still poorly written even if you support the position they are trying to argue. Similarly, someone can make a good point that you disagree with. I've posted this in the odd chance that someone might actually try to generate better analogies in the future, but I'm not going to waste more time on it, unless someone makes a solid point.
I'm arguing and advocating for a model similar to macOS with code signing as the primary way this is allowed.
Allowing totally non code signed Apps is "an additional option" one has on macOS, that they could go as far as for iOS -- undetermined on that part. I'm in favor of that as an option, but willing to discuss that point.
They have that option.
What developers don't "deserve" is the right to upend a platform I like for their own greedy purposes. Don't want to live by the rules I've opted into? Not a problem for me, sell on other platforms.
Cloud based services provide apps. Those are available through the internet on iPhone. Web based apps are also a possibility on iPhone. The App Store isn't the only place iPhone users can find apps to use. So claiming that side loading is required in order to provide "choice" is not actually true at all. There are choices available already, it just isn't the choice that billion dollar companies like Epic, Microsoft, Spotify, Tinder would prefer.
Starting about a year or so ago (maybe it’s been closer to 2 now) DJI took their drone apps out of the Google Play store and forced Android users to download them directly from their site and side load-them. My first thought was not “Awesome! Now they can add features and functions the Play Store rules were causing them to hold back” but rather “ I wonder what nefarious BS DJI is up to that not even Google will allow it?” Thankfully, I could ditch my Android tablets for an iPad and at least get an Apple vetted version.