To each and every Apple user out there: Don't ever use anything other than the official App Store on your Apple devices.
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.
Upcoming EU Sideloading Bill Would 'Cripple the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Expect, Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mandating side loading is mandating a backdoor. That’s why we don’t want it.
I guess you’re not an average user… and that’s fine, and consider yourself lucky.
But the average person does NOT know and care which sites they are using…
That doesn’t prevent someone from using the ability to side load to exploit your device.
What does a bank have to gain by choosing not to be on the App Store?
Just like it has for the Mac that Apple brags about as being safe.
Sideloading? I think they mean “installing.”
And I suppose you couldn’t have purchased a different phone as you were forced to buy an iPhone?
That's a nice fantasy, but as has been previously pointed out, a separate version of iCloud exists for China.
No doubt Apple has a whole division dedicating to operating in China. Apple is not in the business of taking power away from the Chinese government. One could argue they are in the business of supporting the Chinese government, if they want to keep doing business in China, that is.
To be fair, a fake antivirus could just as easily instruct the user to install a profile onto their phone that installs a web clip (or multiple) that can't be removed, and they can then lock down the profile so that it can't be uninstalled without a password.
Heck, do the same with a free "VPN" that also includes a root certificate operated by the scammers inside that profile, and you could grab all of their passwords quite easily.
Scams don't need native apps, and this wouldn't change that.
So installing backdoors and giving unrestricted access to user data is actually beneficial to the masses?
It would just cripple the App Store monopoly.
The App Store was never good to prevent malware (since the review process can't reliably detect malware), it was good to disable spyware after users complained – this works also with sideloading if a developer certificate (that can be revoked remotely) is required for apps to work.
I strongly believe that sideloading would be positive for iPhone / iPad and Apple's revenue, since it would be attracting more customers.
The App Store was never good to prevent malware (since the review process can't reliably detect malware), it was good to disable spyware after users complained – this works also with sideloading if a developer certificate (that can be revoked remotely) is required for apps to work.
I strongly believe that sideloading would be positive for iPhone / iPad and Apple's revenue, since it would be attracting more customers.
Apple clearly haven’t greased enough palms. That’s how the EU work.
Seems you don‘t understand my point. If iOS is capable of sideloading this transfers power to the people.
Just wait until some of these politicians get their phones hacked and their private info released after they download something malicious off the web. Then either their opinions will change or whoever is bribing them will need to up their “campaign contributions”.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell"- Edward Abbey, environmentalist.
Just put a toggle in the Settings that switches side loading on/off. Have about 10 warning screens and call it a day.
I think Apple is creating a future problem for themselves by saying that side-loading is insecure. It’s inevitable that they will be eventually forced to allow it. At that time, there will be hundreds of sound-bites of Apple executives saying “Side-loading will destroy security and privacy on the iPhone”, and then Google or other competitors can use those sounds bites in ads saying that Apple isn’t secure anymore, time to switch to our platform instead.
Apple isn’t really using a logical argument against side-loading, they’re just using their marketing material.
Apple isn’t really using a logical argument against side-loading, they’re just using their marketing material.
Security is an issue on Mac and PC, but it has everything to do with apps being allowed to run with root privileges and very little to do with the apps not coming from the officially sanctioned app store.
For me, this isn't really about privacy; it's more about entitlement and greed. This smacks of politicians, with little understanding of the real issue or technology involved, trying to force a private company to design hardware and software to the advantage of other companies. For example, if I make a product (Apple), and invite suppliers (developers) to apply to provide materials (apps) included in my product, and I choose to include materials (apps) from company ABC (developer), am I being unfair if I don't design my product (iPhone) so supplier XYZ (developer) can make a buck off my product without guarantying the quality of their material (app) and indemnify me against harm from their material (unapproved app)? It's an argument that's more than a little disingenuous.
What you WILL lose if alt-stores and alt-payments are legislated into existence:
1) Privacy labels: If you think that stores like Facebook, Amazon, Epic or Indies will incorporate the privacy labels that Apple requires today I have a bridge to sell you. Welcome back full on tracking!
2) Account Privacy: The current system allows for a single set of credentials for purchase and updates. Imagine having to have separate login accounts, including payment information for Microsoft, Epic, Google, Amazon, Steam and every other individual site to get an app from... that idea sucks! Just because that is the way PCs and MacOS operate doesn't mean it is good. I actively stay away from "no name" payment processors.
3) Now say your favorite app moves from the Apple App Store to Epic or Steam because they "bought" exclusive distribution rights, now you need to create an account, provide payment info, etc to another store for something you already purchased just to get updates. THEN after a year the app moves to a competing store because they offered a better exclusive distribution deal, rinse and repeat.
4) Support: Have fun when your 2 year old makes $5,000 in IAP that you didn't want and you need to go to Epic for a reversal. LOL!
5) A one of a kind ecosystem which provides and alternate experience to Android. Many of us appreciate the "one stop shop" aspect of the iOS store, IMHO far more than want it legislated into extinction. Once it is gone you will never get it back.
6) $99 dev fees. If alt-payments are legislated into existence do you really think Apple will not recover the revenue from somewhere? Get ready for dev costs to skyrocket and squeeze out the small devs.
All of these things negatively impact consumer experience.
PS - To anyone who thinks that app or IAP prices will go down with alt-stores or alt-payments.... again, I have a bridge to sell you. Costs to the consumer will not go down so will consumers gain from this forced legislation?
Put this simple question to consumers:
Which would you prefer?
1) A single source for all apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.
Or
2) Downloading "store" apps from Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Epic, Steam plus countless Indie stores, create individual accounts on all those stores where you need to provide your name, address, phone number, email address and credit card information all the while trusting that these stores will tell you about tracking and protect your personal information.
'Nuf said.
1) Privacy labels: If you think that stores like Facebook, Amazon, Epic or Indies will incorporate the privacy labels that Apple requires today I have a bridge to sell you. Welcome back full on tracking!
2) Account Privacy: The current system allows for a single set of credentials for purchase and updates. Imagine having to have separate login accounts, including payment information for Microsoft, Epic, Google, Amazon, Steam and every other individual site to get an app from... that idea sucks! Just because that is the way PCs and MacOS operate doesn't mean it is good. I actively stay away from "no name" payment processors.
3) Now say your favorite app moves from the Apple App Store to Epic or Steam because they "bought" exclusive distribution rights, now you need to create an account, provide payment info, etc to another store for something you already purchased just to get updates. THEN after a year the app moves to a competing store because they offered a better exclusive distribution deal, rinse and repeat.
4) Support: Have fun when your 2 year old makes $5,000 in IAP that you didn't want and you need to go to Epic for a reversal. LOL!
5) A one of a kind ecosystem which provides and alternate experience to Android. Many of us appreciate the "one stop shop" aspect of the iOS store, IMHO far more than want it legislated into extinction. Once it is gone you will never get it back.
6) $99 dev fees. If alt-payments are legislated into existence do you really think Apple will not recover the revenue from somewhere? Get ready for dev costs to skyrocket and squeeze out the small devs.
All of these things negatively impact consumer experience.
PS - To anyone who thinks that app or IAP prices will go down with alt-stores or alt-payments.... again, I have a bridge to sell you. Costs to the consumer will not go down so will consumers gain from this forced legislation?
Put this simple question to consumers:
Which would you prefer?
1) A single source for all apps, payments, subscriptions and customer service.
Or
2) Downloading "store" apps from Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Epic, Steam plus countless Indie stores, create individual accounts on all those stores where you need to provide your name, address, phone number, email address and credit card information all the while trusting that these stores will tell you about tracking and protect your personal information.
'Nuf said.
Last edited:
At a minimum, they need to have a slider, "Allow side loading?" If the user slides yes, developers need the option to prevent any of their own software to run on that device. I do not want any of my code running on a compromised system.
The problem for the EU is that they haven't provided any actual proof of "lack of competition". As Apple has recently pointed out, all the EU has is conjecture from a small handful of billion dollar software companies.