I see nothing about that that justifies the change. The iPad isn’t a computer and Apple never claimed it was.
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
This idea is false. Just because a user doesn't use these apps doesn't mean they won't be affected by their existence.
Is the driving test proctor held responsible when someone drives their car into a tree?
How so? Assuming the apps you want are on the App Store how’s the existence of sideloadable apps going to affect you?
Assuming that Android already allows side loading, how is not side loading on the iPhone going to affect you?
I am personally against side loading. I began putting an app on the iOS App Store in 2009. It's still there today, updated, of course. And I have a few more on the store. I don't know much about how side loading would work. I worry that the developer would lose control over their own apps. I worry about viruses. I'd hate to be sued over one of my apps, having been side loaded with a virus. I'm not sure that could happen, but it's a worry. I hope that my apps will not be sold from external sites. Apple has treated me with respect for all of these years. I have never felt that I was a small fry, even though I am. If side loading is implemented, I hope that developers have control over where their app is sold. Or I hope that Apple allows a setting that developer's can use which prevents their apps from being side loaded.
Just don't enable side loading on your device and don't worry about it.
It won't impact you in the slightest
Apple themselves have stated that macOS has far more vulnerabilities than iOS. And your claims that code signing prevents malware is not actually true. Already posted about that earlier with a link to an extensive study and you ignored it. Wonder why?
Exactly. Assuming all apps are on the App Store with the same features and price it won’t. Developers already insert code to bypass app store rules, so how long will they offer identical apps in the App Store?
If Apple didn't make money on the App Store, they could've kept it closed and made their money on device sales alone. It's their greed that made them lose control of their own creation.
Apple pulled one of my apps after it had been in the App Store for a year in a half.
It was the planet's ONLY per-Qtr, per-Device iPhone Unit Sales Estimator App, & it was based-upon two constraint-based algorithms controlled by sliders.
It was available in the App Store from May 2018 till Sept 9th, 2019, the day BEFORE Apple's BIG iPhone announcement that year.
It is, IMO, partially responsible for Apple's decision to stop reporting iPhone Unit Sales, which they announced on Nov 1st, 2018; its estimates were getting too close for comfort for Tim Cook.
I plan to resurrect it as a "Sideload-enabled App" for the General Public !
It "could" become one of the first Prime Examples of why Sideloading is a benefit !
The name of the app is Timmy, & it's a good fit for anyone who knows the smartphone industry well.
"Timmy will tell you things that Tim Cook never would !"
It was the planet's ONLY per-Qtr, per-Device iPhone Unit Sales Estimator App, & it was based-upon two constraint-based algorithms controlled by sliders.
It was available in the App Store from May 2018 till Sept 9th, 2019, the day BEFORE Apple's BIG iPhone announcement that year.
It is, IMO, partially responsible for Apple's decision to stop reporting iPhone Unit Sales, which they announced on Nov 1st, 2018; its estimates were getting too close for comfort for Tim Cook.
I plan to resurrect it as a "Sideload-enabled App" for the General Public !
It "could" become one of the first Prime Examples of why Sideloading is a benefit !
The name of the app is Timmy, & it's a good fit for anyone who knows the smartphone industry well.
"Timmy will tell you things that Tim Cook never would !"
100%
Anyone upset right now- Apple had chance after chance to avoid this “nuclear option” if they had compromised on commissions and IAP. If Apple decided that the best idea was to play a game of chicken with regulators where they effectively make App Store reform an all or nothing deal and end up getting hurt, then they made their bed.
So in your current world, you buy everything in your life from Apple? You don't buy anything online from any other company for fear your privacy would be affected? Let's get serious. Your "privacy" is already affected. And if giving someone your CC number and an address scares the crap out of you, then you shouldn't be online in the first place.
Seeing as Impossible and Beyond are actively courting fast food companies to include their meatless burger patties as an option to customers, this analogy doesn’t do what you think.
There are many many more iOS devices out there than Mac computers. There's more bang for the buck to infect an iOS device.
Just do what you do on the Mac, Apple. Have a database of verified developers, and prompt a warning for unrecognized ones. Not that difficult.
Yes. Let’s assume it’s all or nothing. Either you post your information online for everyone to see or you can’t use the internet.
Sheesh. How about, if we use companies like Apple and Amazon to limit merchant access to customers we can reduce hundreds of companies having potential data leaks to just a few.
That said, I also support strict liability laws that would hold individuals within the corporation responsible for putting customer’s at risk. Not the company, employees.
Not the same situation at all. Walmart branded products are owned by Walmart, so they can sell them anywhere they choose. Non-Apple branded apps aren't owned by Apple, so developers shouldn't have to go through a middle-man to sell them.
I think Apple have made serious mistakes here, but I also am not fond of how ignorant legislators seem to be about the computer industry. There’s so much more fundamental regulation needed here (such as banning EULAs and holding companies accountable for garbage software, which is almost everything), and they tend to word legislation in a way that ends up allowing something worse to be excused, usually by one of the companies lobbying for the legislation.
I’m not anti-government. I’m pro-expertise-in-government, and the US government was long ago gutted of any actual expertise, in order to appease “small government” rhetoric that actually is all about funneling public money into private hands.
I’m not anti-government. I’m pro-expertise-in-government, and the US government was long ago gutted of any actual expertise, in order to appease “small government” rhetoric that actually is all about funneling public money into private hands.