Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” | Hacker News Reader

Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user”

arstechnica.com

38 pointscrackercrews44 comments

> That would destroy the security of the iPhone and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store, where we have privacy nutrition labels and App Tracking Transparency... these things would not exist anymore.

Trying to give “Tim Apple” the benefit of the doubt, I seriously cannot see how his comments jive with reality. If you give me the option to side load apps (and hell, make it as obscure as running an app on macOS from an “unidentified developer”) then:

- The App Store is still as safe as ever

- The vast majority of people won’t sideload as getting an app on the App Store is the lowest-friction method

- iOS’ “sandbox” model and OS-level security settings still (approximately) guarantee some level of safety w.r.t. tracking, unauthorized file/camera/mic access, etc.

- This would finally allow the iPad to enter true “pro” territory.

I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security.

But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”

>But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”

I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple.

Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads)

The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.

But this stuff is a direction continuation of his policies. Tim Cook was clearly picked to be a safe pair of hands - Jobs would have been making the exact same arguments in the exact same way.

It was certainly the right policy in Steve Jobs era. But is it the right policy now? As a matter of fact Jobs fought internally for side loading. Even Phil Schiller argued they should run it a lower commission once they reach critical mass. And Tim Cook is looking at it as a lost of revenue only. This was also apparent when Tim Cook decide to start a whole 5+ years operation to undermine Qualcomm ( and later IMG and Dialog), something that Steve Jobs thought was worth it.

Jobs would have listened and rethink. Jobs is great for changing his mind. Tim Cook is taking a few of Steve Jobs last policy as gospel and counting pennies. ( Which is a good thing as a COO, not so much as an CEO ) In many ways Tim Cook feels more like John Sculley.

Sideloading is always panned under the guise of security. It's all bs.

* If the devices were secure enough, we could run untrusted code with no consequences. Like practically every website on the planet

* If side loading was so dangerous every windows and Linux machine would be filled with viruses.

* Apple and Google claim their app stores are "safe" from malicious apps. This is clearly not the case.

The app has to declare permissions before it's launched their 'nutrition' label could be shown based on that. The only, debatably, valid part of this argument is those apps can't be vetted by apple for user safety before installation the same way apps on the app store are.

> I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security. I installed F-Driod yesterday on a new Nokia Android Phone. It requires you to confirm that you are happy to run the untrusted app, and away you go.

I guess a non-technical person could be tricked into performing the steps over the phone by a scam-artist...which is always the danger with these things.

The App Store profits and user privacy are two different issues. It's not all doublespeak:

Since an i-device is restricted to Apple's app store it's Apple who can make the call what kind of app behaviour is permitted. They communicate this very clearly and sell devices where the user can expect apps don't try to deceive them. (yes, this is fallible, but the App store is curated and offenders can be and are removed).

Allowing sideloaded apps will make it very easy to break these promises since users don't read the small print and will install whatever social app their friends are using. Already Facebook has expressed disagreement about the new app privacy labels, so I fully expect them to jump to sideloading as soon as Apple allows this (or is forced to allow this).

Consequence is users have no choice then to install Facebook apps from a non-privacy respecting source since there will be no messaging apps with privacy guarantees on the app store. At the least Facebook will have more leverage to press for less user protection. I see this as a loss for users (like myself). I like having at least a bit of privacy protection and until there are other ways to guarantee this I will accept the App store model as the lesser evil.

The iPad will never be a true “pro” device until any arbitrary code can be run on it without paying $99 per year to Apple for the privilege (Apple Developer Program).

I highly doubt any issues with security of the Android ecosystem in general have anything to do with side loading.

Reading Sheeple talks are always fun.

It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part.

The security thing is just a joke. The walled garden isn't safe (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...)

I mean, if the app I want is on a single store, do I have a choice? Are users really itching to install the Epic store so they can have more choices? The Epic store will be shoved down their throats.

As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.

Meh. Allowing me to have more control over the apps loaded / running on my phone is absolutely in my best interest. This stuff is exactly why I totally reject everything Apple and their "walled garden" ecosystem. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

Why don’t you use an android phone?

I'm sure he does. It would be hard to reject everything about Apple but still use their phone. Even though their privacy angle is strong, I'll never use one of the devices either for similar reasons.

I do. And I just got a PinePhone as well.

Or Librem?

That's definitely of interest. I recently bought a PinePhone to evaluate, but I could see getting a Librem down the road somewhere.

I think Apple is clearly overplaying the role that their app store policies like the "nutrition label", reviews and app tracking transparency have in the iOS security model. To me, the security features that matter are from the operating system, its implementation of encryption and the sandboxing model that's enforced by it.

The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.

When I need a device I can completely control, I buy a device that I completely control. It’s not like there’s a shortage of options.

I would like to continue to be able to purchase a device that is well locked-down. If only for the benefit of my parents, who aren’t to be trusted to judge the privacy and security limitations for any given software.

Though, to be honest, I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.

Pretty much the only phone you have real control over and can buy with any moderate reliabilty is the pinephone. There absolutely is a shortage. Oh sure you can put a hacked rom on an Android but you can do the same with the iPhone. Even then you don't have control because the closed drivers are coupled to the userspace and there's a bunch of crap you can't get rid of combined with Google play and you effectively don't have much control at all.

> I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.

I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.

This. People want to enjoy the benefits of iPhone that were a result of apples locked down approach, while wishing it was more like Android.

This is definition of having your cake and eating it too.

Tim Cook's argument doesn't hold up in the most likely scenario: if users get a choice to install third party apps, the risk to a user who exclusively chooses Apple's app store remains nearly as low as today.

And choice is what Cook does support when it comes to iOS privacy controls (except there the change to Apple is a leg up over Facebook and Google).

What's best for the user, Apple's profits aside, is to provide a choice in both scenarios.

Sideloading isn't in the best interests of apple.

Anything apple says is an attempt to keep it's shady business of a gold mine

I am still running windows phone and that is thanks to side loading and replaceable batteries. Tim Cook can go to hell with his lies

Sucks that html is out of the bag already, doesn't it Tim?

To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari.

Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.

I fully support Apple and the rules they have to protect the ecosystem they have created.

They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns.

Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup.

They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden they have built.

The entitlement that some of these companies think they have that they just show up with a crappy game and loot boxes and think they get to dictate the rules. Sit down young’n.

While this comment may have a little too much dramatic flare, it is one of the few contrarian comments that provides concrete reasons for the position.

Does it though?

It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful.

It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.

Not forever, they can only rent seek as long as they provide a compelling device to users. Too much rent seeking = fewer app developers = fewer compelled users.

I agree with Tim Cook.

Could you say why? I am all for the Apple privacy and security features but disallowing side loading is merely taking away choice from users

The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue.

These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this.

Most if not all apple/iOS users are happy with the closed garden approach apple has setup.

Aside from a handful of nerds who don’t want to pay a an apple premium to put their crappy home brewed app on their iPhone at the risk of making the entire system vulnerable for everyone else.

> These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this.

To give you a specific example, if I wanted to install a gameboy emulator on my iPhone, I wouldn’t be able to through the App Store as emulators are generally disallowed, but if I could side load then I could install an open source one.

This would benefit me, and wouldn’t benefit any corporations.

Apple has already made money by selling you the iPhone/iPad hardware. If different app stores are allowed then Apple's app store does not host or review the app so they do not suffer any loss there. So this just means that Apple wants the extra money from App store and they don't care what users want. Now people say that Apple has the right to control their devices and that would be true...if they were leasing them but they are not, they are selling them and once sold the phones are not Apple's devices anymore. So when I ask Apple to allow me to use MY device any way I want they should not have the right to say no.

>The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue.

NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store?

None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power.

I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.

Are there any number of hoops that users could be required to jump through that would make you comfortable with this?

Sideloading is not in the best interests of the user. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

Reply on news.ycombinator.com