Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
1. Tim Cook is full of shit, they know if they allow sideloading then cash cows like Fortnite and other apps that make a significant amount from iAP purchases will bounce.
2. On the other hand I think what apple wants to prevent is apps like Facebook Research. Not sure how many of your remember the story but Facebook was giving out gift cards in exchange for giving access to all of your user data. This was bypassing the App Store by using an enterprise cert instead [1].
---
In a way Apple already gives you the ability to sideload apps, it's called the Apple Enterprise Certificate. But unlike actual sideloading, it carries some major gotchas.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
I think it was fairly clear in the email released in court, ( it is a great read for anyone with deep interest of Apple )
There are three camps in Apple;
Tim Cook, and Business Execs - Doesn't really give a damn about it. It is not about security ( hello macOS? ), it is about revenue and profits. They dont want to lose the money they think they "deserved". And basically want people to pay rent on App Store and their API. Perfectly valid business perspective whether you agree or disagree with it. Just dont put some privacy and security label shit in front of it which is what Tim Cook is doing in the public.
Philip Schiller, Craig Federighi, the old Apple idealistic Camp - Really want App Store to be perfect, no crappy Apps, no scam or spam. Trying to help developers when possible, willing to lower their App Store commission. Unfortunately this might have been possible during early iPhone era, but an impossible task once you have 1 billion iPhone user. Not only have they not achieved the goal, gotten more resources for App review team. They have also lost the battle in App Store commission. They have basically settled for good enough.
Steve Jobs, Scott Forstall, some other Software Eng - SideLoads or some form of it. Basically believe there is no way all business could rely on App Store. ( The birth of Apple Enterprise Cert ). But believe user can be somewhat protected with OS software and technology built in rather than App Store gatekeeping. They lost the battle.
I generally think the power balance in Apple has tilted. Especially since Johny Ive became CDO and left while Alan Dye became VP of HID.
Someone used to work on Apple App Store / Developer Relation team wrote something on it for those interested.
https://mailchi.mp/eb9158dad79e/v3n6-my-life-in-the-apple-ec...
Apple's M1 based tablet that's not allowed to use MacOS and end users restricted to that closed ecosystem.
It's really time once again for active Antitrust enforcement there and all of theses locked down devices and the search engines that are mostly useless now for any productive research or unfettered usage.
I also often see people try to either use the jailbreak term for Android or change it to root, but with the same wrong meaning, but there is no jail, you don't need root for much, and it's also unrelated to unlocking your bootloader and flashing a custom ROM. Even a fairly-locked-down Amazon fire tablet lets you grab the F-Droid apk and install it. It's just normal.
Bit of a tangent probably. I also agree it shouldn't seem normal to people to not let users use their computers for whatever they want.
Let me have the choice to enable it.
Make it a one time exercise. Add some screens to enable it. Try to scare the shit out of me when I’m enabling it while giving me option to stop and let it remain disabled on every screen.
Regularly give me notifications about side loaded (which is just installation) apps and remind me what they’ve been doing.
Above all give me options to provide fake/mock permission/data to apps without them having any way to figure it out. But the problem here is apps like Facebook and Truecaller will find a way or just declare it’s mock data and will lock you out and Apple can’t do anything about it.
As of now Whatsapp and Truecaller are useless on Android without all the sneaky permissions. But on iOS you can use them just fine with ZERO permissions. If they didn’t function without permissions they don’t need to function, Apple wouldn’t have allowed them in. So it really isn’t that simple.
This is why you cannot run the iOS apps you want to run on any Apple Silicon machine. Not only it is up to the devs but Apple blocks it server-side, even if it is unsigned.
'At this point there’s no known workaround for side loading iOS apps on M1 Macs, so we’ll have to wait and see if Apple will once again reverse its decision or if someone else will be able to modify the operating system to install any iOS apps on compatible Macs.' [0]
Good luck on waiting. Cook's response seems to have made option 1 hopelessly unachieveable. [0].
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2021/02/09/apple-once-again-starts-block...
The definition of privacy involves having control of your data and device. A corporation controlling, preventing, and spreading against your ability to do things on your device is the opposite of privacy.
What’s next? You going to use that same article to argue that the USA is equivalent to North Korea?
This is not a value judgement on the ethical nature of said state actors. But that’s the difference — one is legal and desirable for all consumers, so they can pursue it. One is illegal and would put them in violation of federal law, so of course a public company cannot.
The weighing of leverage is more or less how the market has and still works to this day. Thus if you send me or my family out there to negotiate with Popeye's (which really wants you to create an account), or Walmart, Facebook [1], or even a small company making todo apps, I will simply not win, and neither will my family members.
I love that cross-app tracking is now opt-in, because that's not something I'd ever imagine negotiating with any company, ever. I love the fact that all subscription-based services purchased through the iOS platform can be managed in a centralized place. I love that companies that provide services on iOS must provide a way to register with Apple's anonymous account service. I love that companies seeking payment on the iOS platform must support Apple Pay, which protects my payment information.
Without Apple I'm not sure how you'd ever negotiate these things to happen.
The parent comment raises a point which I frequently see in HN threads: Apple, despite deficiencies, solves concrete privacy problems for regular, non-tech users, often in ways the users haven’t thought of ahead of time. I often see comments such as these upvoted; yet they have no responses, neither in the form of rebuttals nor supporting confirmations. What gives here? Is there some silent majority which prefers not to weigh in on these matters, or is this merely observation bias oh my part?
Edit: syntax
And then I get to play the “is this malware” game coupled with no refund support.
Hooray for Android inspired sideloading.
Apart from that, if apps installed normally don't pass iOS security requirements, that means the iOS sandbox is flawed somehow?
As for “don’t install it if I don’t want to” you mean don’t I stall any software that insists on sideloading.
There's always ways to hack around the limitations with enterprise certs and a whole other platform that does allow whatever you want. Family member just needs a phone that's almost impossible to break the OS? Apple. You want to play Dolphin on your phone? Android.
Surely there's a middle ground between no third party store, and the jungle.