According to this study by Nokia, Android accounts for 26.64% of infections, while the iPhone only accounts for 1.72%. I'll stick with the iPhone, and never sideload anything.
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
Is this just mobile phones or other systems as well? Android runs on a lot of devices out there.According to this study by Nokia, Android accounts for 26.64% of infections, while the iPhone only accounts for 1.72%. I'll stick with the iPhone, and never sideload anything.
SCOTUS. Prove Apple is a Monopoly and then you got something to go on. Apple will take any of these laws that are similar to what the EU is doing and run it up the courts. Their business is not anti-competitive or a monopoly. Not to mention, its not illegal to be a monopoly so long as you are not using your power to prevent others from entering the market. Apple's iPhone and iOS "IS" Apple's market. Nothing stopping Google or Microsoft from joining in the club of mobile devices with stores of their own. Oh, what they already do and did that.
These laws will have to apply to "all", and yes we are talking about Play Station, Xbox, Nintendo, etc. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to target just Apple for this.
I can't agree with the EU here. They have some other kind of take on that. IMHO.
Sure, we can have as many other competitors as possible. If you remember, we "had" more. People (the ones that elect representatives to government) choose Apple and Google. All others failed. And as far as I know, neither did anything anti-competitive to push them out or prevent them/others from starting something new.
You choose the word "morally". Do you pay the government a little extra each tax season? "Hey, you guys need a little more? I've got some more to give, take another "x" amount of $ or euro's. I've got plenty". They pay the taxes they are required to pay. Same as anyone else. Yes, it maybe lower than any of us would like them to pay. But, they are not skirting the laws.
The System does require, Apple & Co. just clever avoids it by using morally questionable methods, which will be closed hopefully soon.
Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Even in countries such as the Scandinavian ones, there's always some give and take.
Then dont side load. You shouldnt get to decide what I do with my device.
It’s slowly being developed, but ongoing…
So does every enterprise application and TestFlight app also give up privacy and security? No one says Apple can’t offer an optional program for signed releases. You just shouldn’t be able to pick and choose winners and losers. I started out not in favor of this, but this is finally going to put Big Tech censorship in its place and make this less of a ninny world.
But we (the UK where I live) voted to leave the EU ... because of .. sigh.
You’re making a false argument. Nothing will happen to the OS’s core APIs that protect your data on the device. Apple will be encouraged to create more robust permissioning. They’re using monopolistic tactics all over, and it’s obvious. Ever wonder why you can’t share your Safari passwords with Chrome on macOS, yet they have an iCloud Keychain app/extension for Windows that lets you access your passwords just fine? Why should they be able to restrict you to Safari on their platform? We fought against Microsoft in the ‘90s doing this with Internet Explorer; it was all over the front pages. Now they take the reigns and do it themselves? Garbage. Their recent “browser choice” feature in iOS 14 was an admission of guilt. Don’t believe their security lies and false pretense. They’re trying to protect their profits only.
Last edited:
You keep using the word morally, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
You don't have to use Safari on any platform.
What's your point with 90's MS? That users should have to pay for Safari?
This, precisely. Half the people in this thread are conflating the App Store with iOS platform security. The App Store is not about security, it's a distribution and revenue system. The security aspect is automated, both in the iOS platform and in the review process. Apple could absolutely retain that aspect - we already pay for that in our $99 annual developer program membership.
According to Apple's own PR, there are 30 million registered developers; that's $3 Billion in revenue just from developers. It's pretty clear that their developer ecosystem is already well funded and that wouldn't need to change either.
Of course i do, instead of paying taxes like everyone does, they make use of their company weight, size, global market power to avoid paying tax by using shady offshore practices and also by knowing its not the right way. Currently still a legal gray zone due to the slow adaptation of tax rules, but morally wrong. Especially for a company which keeps constantly stating “serving humanity, diversity and the environment” in their marketing crap.
Morality - Wikipedia
Last edited:
So what you want with your device. No one is debating that. But apple is under no obligation to help you.
There is tax evasion or tax avoidance. One is illegal and the other is not. You keep using the word morally to suggest tax avoidance has some moral code associated with it. If the corporate tax laws change, apple, google Et Al will follow the laws.
Sorry, you seem to be attacking me for responding to a point that was made: "so just don't sideload, no one is forcing you." My response is that you are forced to when an app you need is only available via sideloading. It wasn't a comment on whether sideloading is a good or bad thing.
Please read the point I was responding to: "so just don't sideload, no one is forcing you." My response was neither in favour of or against sideloading.
It's not childish at all. You just don't like the implication of taking responsibility for yourself. If a person wants to stick with apps that have privacy labels, stay in the app store. If your bank doesn't have an app in the app store, find a better bank. Up until about a year ago, no software I ever downloaded in my 30+ years of existence had 'privacy labels' and I didn't have any qualms about using such software before then.
I don't see how this is a big deal. Just make sure to the user, that sideloading will make blood come out of their pee, and the user understands that, and that's it. Everyone's happy. I doubt many people will trade off peeing normally to peeing blood.
Apple doesn't have a moral obligation to do anything because Apple is an idea, not a person. Ideas don't have obligations least of all moral ones. They grow to the size and shape of their environment.Of course i do, instead of paying taxes like everyone does, they make use of their company weight, size, global market power to avoid paying tax by using shady offshore practices and also by knowing its not the right way. Currently still a legal gray zone due to the slow adaptation of tax rules, but morally wrong. Especially for a company which keeps constantly stating humanity, diversity and the environment in their marketing crap.
Morality - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Nowadays ESG is the hip thing for businesses. Still no morality there, though they want to push it as such
WebKit isn't a browser, and Apple doesn't use its market position to force websites to only render on WebKit or run on Apple servers. They don't control the majority of internet devices, nor the majority of mobile devices. Safari isn't a market leader. They don't refuse to sell products to companies that work on competing standards.
This is what MS was doing in the 90s. Apple is nothing like that.