I love that they don't allow side-loading. Long live the walled garden. (I mean this non-sarcastically)
The issue is starting from the boot-rom and up apple is effectively using cryptography to retain the property right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu. Effectively you have to ask apple for approval of any code that will run on your own hardware. If they sign the code they allow it run if they don’t its excluded from running. If you have to keep asking a 3rd party to do something with something you bought you don't fully own it.
The thing is normally a seller wishing to retain some rights to real or tangible property would normally require a legal contract between the buyer. Here however apple is using cryptography to bypass traditional legal means. You can buy an iPhone, iPad without signing any contract. Yet this effectively retained control of the hardware still exists. You can’t just buy the hardware and throw linux or android on it short of finding a weakness in how code is loaded.
> right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu
Yes I like it for the phone. The walled garden has very little malware and has high quality apps. I am never pestered to install crapware or malware and I don't have to be paranoid about it. You can still run your own development software on these machines, and software distributed in controlled channels outside of the store. The controls are reasonably convenient and necessary to keep unwanted software out.
Compare it to Android Play Store or much worse the Galaxy store situation. The grass is much greener in the walled garden.
For the Mac, it's a different story, you can and should be able to run whatever you want on it. But iPhone as a product is a well tended garden (controlled but quite wide and powerful) and I can appreciate that.
- Apple giving a shit about app curation versus Google Play being a trash heap
- Android having the ability to install third-party-signed apps
Nothing about having the ability to install software outside of Google Play necessitates Google Play itself being a tire fire. Same with Apple: if they tomorrow decided to open up iOS to non-App-Store apps, it wouldn't impact the quality of curation on the iOS App Store.
For the record, I daily drive both an Android phone and an iPad, and don't really worry about malware on either of them. My main gripe is not having any good virtualization options to really stretch the iPad's legs on more developer-centric workflows. That's a particular category of app where App Review has ranged from somewhat hostile to extremely hostile. The end result is that not a lot of people actually bother working on such tools because the chances of actually getting into the App Store and being useful to a wide swath of people is marginal.
Yes, it would. Developers who are today forced to go through the app store would self publish rather than use the app store. Whether or not they use this power well is a different question but there is no question that opening up other distribution channels would directly impact the app store, (which is a huge part of the value add for an iOS device to me)
Secondly, if apple just allowed loading your own signing key it’s not like malware writers can sign their crap with their own key, and expect it to run.
b) You need to stop using the term extralegal. You agree to the terms when you first use the phone. Apple is not doing anything without your explicit permission.
Extralegal just means outside of the scope of law or a legal framework. Here apple using cryptography starting from the boot loader to effectively retain the right of exclusion regarding what code may or may not run on the ARM CPU. The sale of the tangible property should include the right of exclusion to the buyer short of a legal agreement at the time of sale allowing the seller to retain some rights. Thats why its extralegal there is no contract just apple using public key cryptography in rather hostile manner that diminishes the property rights of buyers.
Here is a simple test if you have to ask 3rd party to do something with something you “own” you don’t fully own it or your rights are diminished in some manner.
We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
You still wouldn’t need to be paranoid if sideloading became possible. Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers.
We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
If I didn’t, I wouldn’t buy an iPhone. What’s the problem?
They are both well-tended gardens of different types for different uses. Much higher walls on the phone is a great feature IMO.
That's not at all obvious. What is the distinguishing characteristic that makes it reasonable for a giant corporation to have total control over how you use one but not the other?
I would understand (though personally disagree) if you wanted the walled garden everywhere, but it seems contradictory to only want it on phones and not computers.
https://www.androidpolice.com/microsoft-teams-911-break-emer...
https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/r4xz1f/pixel_p...
Interesting quote: Cause let's be real, as someone without a landline, I sure as hell don't want a phone that freaks out when I try to call 911 in the middle of a life threatening emergency. I'm supposed to trust that a phone will do the main thing is built for, and place the call, and let me speak to the human on the other end.
If you're worried about low-quality software being side-loaded onto the phone, you can just not side-load anything. That's probably how most Android users use their devices. But it's nice that the walled garden has a gate.
But that’s an interesting question anyway. Apple and google can remove apps distributed through their stores. If a side loaded malicious app exploited this bug, would you have been in favor of google being able to disable those apps? Or should users wait a month until it is sort of fixed on some phones, and be unable to dial emergency services during the month where this was unpatched?
> Apple can also issue a revocation ticket for apps known to be malicious—even if they’ve been previously notarized.
https://support.apple.com/guide/security/protecting-against-...
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin...
And iPads?
This was simply the question I was trying to answer. No more.
My personal feeling, however, is that, if there is a suitable alternative, people should be allowed to buy a device knowing the limitations (artificial or not).
Nobody is surprised that there isn't an alternative App Store an iPhone or iPad. If that's important to folks, they have plenty of Android or Microsoft alternatives.
It feels a lot to me like people buy a blue car, then complain that it's not a red car. I honestly don't understand why people don't just buy the red car in the first place.
You can, legally. You have that right. You can legally jailbreak a supported iPhone in 10 minutes and sideload all day or lldb attach to whatever you want. Nobody will stop you.
But Apple doesn't want to support an open platform. That's their right. They don't want it to part of their ecosystem, their brand, or provide the avalanche of non-negligible support costs.
The distinction here is important and rarely addressed in these discussion.
I mean, Apple blocked countless jailbreaks as of today. It's AFAIK also against their ToS, therefore means they legally try to make it so you don't jailbreak. Can you _really_? Sounds more like a gray area they simply cannot control, but they're definitely trying their hardest to do so...
https://www.macworld.com/article/206764/jailbreak_exemption....
If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket.
> If side loading is allowed the amount of tech support I'll have to provide my family will skyrocket.
I mean, if apple ever allow sideloading I suspect it will be behind a 10 feet wall warning and obscure multiple clicks on settings, similar to how google does it.
I also suspect that my family will be divided into two camps: oblivious to the existence of sideloading or technical enough that won't need my tech support.
i don't even want to think about the level of intelligence you're suggesting your family has that they will go above and beyond the average person in deliberately breaking their own phones.
We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
The other side did not, until COVID started. Then they had to get one so their kid could attend online schooling. It is used just for that.
We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.
No, it affects everyone, even the people who don’t want it.
Consider the time when Facebook got caught spying on minors by abusing their iOS enterprise certificate, and expand that to everybody.
If Apple allowed sideloading, Facebook could just remove their application from Apple’s App Store. They would still have roughly the same amount of users, because even if a person doesn’t want to sideload, most of them will do it anyway if it’s the only way to get Facebook. And now all of those people, who didn’t want to sideload, will be subject to whatever Facebook wants to do that Apple’s rules stopped them from doing.
This isn’t really about individual choice, it’s about the effect on the ecosystem. As soon as you give giants like Facebook a way to opt-out from Apple’s rules, it affects the whole ecosystem, not just the people who choose to sideload.
Sideloading would probably be quite convenient for me personally. But I would rather not have sideloading because of its effect on the ecosystem.
Although, I am of the opinion letting people just load their own personal signing keys. Its not like facebook can sign their app with their own key and expect to work on other peoples devices in that situation. Unless its signed by apple’s private key that all devices would have stored. However, if you had your own signing key you could sign the linux kernel ect or whatever you want, but its definitely not a click/tap and install situation with your own signing key.
Further, its not just doom and gloom on other systems where being able to install software from any source as you please is the default.
You’re missing the original point I was making though.
In this scenario, Facebook removes their application from Apple’s App Store and almost everybody sideloads it. Ultimately, what happens to the people who do that is their own responsibility. Yeah, I get that.
Where does this leave the people who want to use Facebook under Apple’s rules but refuse to sideload it? They have had something taken away from them. Sideloading affects them even if they choose not to sideload. It affects the entire ecosystem, not just the people who sideload. “Just don’t sideload” advice doesn’t work.
You can use Safari
If Facebook pulled their app from the Apple App Store right now, would you be forced to use Android? You'd say they can't, because they'd lose the entire iOS marketshare, which is exactly the problem: Apple are forcing people to use their Apple App Store using their iOS monopoly power marketshare. Which is anti-competitive.