Craig Federighi ; side loading is a cybercriminal’s best friend

[Bombastinator]

27 minutes ago, Arika S said:

that's what the app store is..... that's not a solution.

 

 

normally, no. In this instance it is.

 

What is the danger to YOU, specifically you, saltycaramel, if Apple allowed sideloading and i chose to unlock the option on my iPad and you didn't?

Taking this as one random unrelated person vs another random unrelated person, which is I think the point being made, it would depend on the specifics of how the system works.  Is infection more communicable for some reason?     Would an even a small amount of infection have a significant effect?  There are places where android phones are not allowed but iPhones are.  Apple makes their money off phone and software sales while google makes their money a completely different way.  Sure they sell phones and software too, but it’s not their main, or even probably a significant cash flow source.  

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

Security of apps and payments on Apple’s ecosystem enabled a multi-billion dollar profits for apple.

Just saying.

They may care about profit but incidentally that also causes the software market to flourish.

Fixed that for you.

 

 

For these companies profit comes before consumers every time.  If it just happens to benefit a consumer then that is more a happy coincidence than planned priority.

 

[saltycaramel]

Just now, mr moose said:

Fixed that for you.

 

 

For these companies profit comes before consumers every time.  If it just happens to benefit a consumer then that is more a happy coincidence than planned priority.

 

Profits for both Apple and the software economy the mobile revolution enabled.

 

One pillar of the mobile revolution has undoubtedly been the AppStore being a secure “mall” for one-click payments for apps. 

 

Now suddenly everybody wanna side-load their own cereals into Walmart. 

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Sure they sell phones and software too, but it’s not their main, or even probably a significant cash flow source.  

The app store software sales is a significant profit source for apple, considering apple puts a 30% fee on apps, more apps are paid only, and there isn't any way but the app store to download software.

These scare tactics are tiring, as they keep insisting no one should have control over their phone or tablet, and only criminals would ever want to download apps that aren't allowed on the app store, even though the app store has had malware on it before.

 

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

->

 

Its kinda like pc, just more clear. 

 

I just don't think its healthy to patronize a group of people in the way apple does... if anything they should give the option for people who *really* don't want freedom and those who maybe like the tech but want to keep a free will while using it.

The last paragraph has some seriously screwed up logic in it.  It almost a paraphrase of Regan’s “they hate us for our freedom” line, which for some reason got bought, if only in America.  No one doesn’t want freedom.  That’s stupid.   What they don’t want is malware.  You could just as easily reverse it and talk about people who *really* like malware.  No one likes that either. Well, malware producers do I guess.  So a few vs none.

[saltycaramel]

 

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

and only criminals would ever want to download apps that aren't allowed on the app store

 

They never said that.

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

 No one doesn’t want freedom.

Nope, I know apple users that clearly say they do not want this freedom. 

Context is king.

 

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The app store software sales is a significant profit source for apple, considering apple puts a 30% fee on apps, more apps are paid only, and there isn't any way but the app store to download software.

These scare tactics are tiring, as they keep insisting no one should have control over their phone or tablet, and only criminals would ever want to download apps that aren't allowed on the app store, even though the app store has had malware on it before.

 

My understanding is it’s the same fee on apps that other Vendors have. The difference is it’s a bigger percentage of revenue. Apple eschewed big data collection already which is Google’s primary source of income. Them doing that is a primary reason I went apple.  Google data collection scares the heck out of me.  I find it orders of magnitude creepier than the walled garden thing. The google store and the apple store likely have similar numbers of sales.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Bombastinator

[saltycaramel]

Security is a balancing act.

 

People thinking they’ve figured it out when we still have huge security problems in this world (one day humans from the future will laugh at our primitive security) are being naive. 

 

Better to step back and always look at all sides of the problem in statistical terms, not individual “stupid users” or just the economic implications or just “muh freedom” or just “these are scare tactics”. 

[saltycaramel]

Why stop at smartphones.

 

Imagine when wearables will be a bigger part of our daily life how big of an attack surface there will be for bad actors to catch you off guard..

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Nope, I know apple users that clearly say they do not want this freedom. 

Context is king.

 

But were they speaking about the same thing you are?  I suspect not.  

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

But were they speaking about the same thing you are?  I suspect not.  

They obviously were,  you are the one that somehow took it out of context...

It went like this: "wouldn't you want to have freedom of what apps you can install or not?"

Literally answer: "no I'm too stupid/ insecure,  having this freedom would make me really uneasy..."

 

And that was that, I didn't have good arguments against that - and this is definitely a reoccurring pattern when im talking to apple users.

Like we live on different planets lol.

[saltycaramel]

I don’t want freedom when shopping for software or shopping for cereals at a mall.

Better if everything is checked in advance by some authority or trusted middleman, even if it’s not perfect and the occasional steel nut in the cereals could still happen. 

Imagine seeing some random dude in a coat placing his own cereals on Walmart shelves. 

 

This should be the default. 
Then only for adventurous users there should be a way buy stuff from stalls in the parking lot…

[Bombastinator]

18 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The app store software sales is a significant profit source for apple, considering apple puts a 30% fee on apps, more apps are paid only, and there isn't any way but the app store to download software.

These scare tactics are tiring, as they keep insisting no one should have control over their phone or tablet, and only criminals would ever want to download apps that aren't allowed on the app store, even though the app store has had malware on it before.

 

Re: scare tactics

your statement reads a lot into apple statements.  “Have control over their smartphones” is perhaps more about things other than the App Store.   Android has been reducing the ability of users to change settings.  As has Microsoft.  
re: the “only criminals” thing

One of the things about malware is a perpetrator doesn’t have to be knowing.  I’m recalling that takedown of that electrical thing recently which the US called an infrastructure security threat or something.  That one happened because some malware walked in with somebody inside their machine.

[saltycaramel]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Literally answer: "no I'm too stupid/ insecure,  having this freedom would make me really uneasy..."

 

Oversimplifying/gatekeeping security..

[Bombastinator]

25 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

I don’t want freedom when shopping for software or shopping for cereals at a mall.

Better if everything is checked in advance by some authority or trusted middleman, even if it’s not perfect and the occasional steel nut in the cereals could still happen. 

Imagine seeing some random dude in a coat placing his own cereals on Walmart shelves. 

 

This should be the default. 
Then only for adventurous users there should be a way buy stuff from stalls in the parking lot…

You mean like cereal already is?  The Authority in that case is the FDA.  Google “poison squad” some time to see what it was like with no FDA. I recall one of the things that caused problems was the use of formaldehyde as a common preservative in milk.  Apparently dangerous chemicals in food is a growing problem in China.  Saw a thing once where people were selling things on sticks that were supposed to be meat but were actually paper soaked in acid to make it look like meat.

[saltycaramel]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

One of the things about malware is a perpetrator doesn’t have to be knowing.  I’m recalling that takedown of that electrical thing recently which the US called an infrastructure security threat or something.  That one happened because some malware walked in with somebody inside their machine.

This. 
People victim-blaming “dumb users” fail to understand that as a society we are as secure as the weakest link in the network. There are big economic and geopolitical/espionage implications to this. 

[saltycaramel]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You mean like cereal already is?  The Authority in that case is the FDA.  Google “poison squad” some time to see what it was like with no FDA. Apparently it’s a growing problem in China.  Saw a thing once where people were selling things on sticks that were supposed to be meat but were actually paper soaked in acid to make it look like meat.

Exactly.

With apps and digital goods it would be even easier to sneak toxic food on shelves.

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

Oversimplifying/gatekeeping security..

And flag waving.  “Freedom” from and freedom to are both freedom.  It’s a vague word.  That said there isn’t enough data.  Google and apple aren’t necessarily playing the same game for the same reasons that we think they are.  Neither company talks about what they are doing and why all that much.

[saltycaramel]

Apple is playing the “let’s align our economic interest with users’ security and privacy, win-win.”

 

Google is playing “let’s pretend Android is open but don’t you dare disappoint us or you’re not getting Google services”

 

Meta is playing “I’m gonna make my hardware HMD devices and my metaverse-store, with hookers and blackjack”. 

[AndreiArgeanu]

Just now, saltycaramel said:

“let’s pretend Android is open but don’t you dare disappoint us or you’re not getting Google services”

Android is open source, google services are not. There's no pretending here. You can have android and do whatever you want with it, but you can't use google services if you do not abide by Google's rules.

[Bombastinator]

25 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

They obviously were,  you are the one that somehow took it out of context...

It went like this: "wouldn't you want to have freedom of what apps you can install or not?"

Literally answer: "no I'm too stupid/ insecure,  having this freedom would make me really uneasy..."

 

And that was that, I didn't have good arguments against that - and this is definitely a reoccurring pattern when im talking to apple users.

Like we live on different planets lol.

No. I don’t think so. Read that statement again.  Might it have been…sarcastic?  Who calls themselves stupid?  I might actually say something like that if I had already called your game before you opened your mouth and just wanted to shut you up.  Worked too apparently.

 

read that way it would be more “I already thought this one through and the use of the word “freedom” in that context implies an aggressive argument in the offing.  More of a performance than an actual discussion of the topic, so I’ll just agree with you in a way that leaves you nowhere to go so I can get on with my day.”

Edited November 4, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Blademaster91]

23 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

My understanding is it’s the same fee on apps that other Vendors have. The difference is it’s a bigger percentage of revenue. Apple eschewed big data collection already which is Google’s primary source of income. Them doing that is a primary reason I went apple.  Google data collection scares the heck out of me.  I find it orders of magnitude creepier than the walled garden thing. The google store and the apple store likely have similar numbers of sales.

There was a recent article on ad companies revenue, and it actually turns out that apples revenue on targeted ads went up. I don't like google's data collection either, but now apple is hoarding data and still profiting off of user data. The walled garden doesn't seem any better to me, and I would rather not give apple my money, I don't want companies profiting from my data either, but there isn't any other choice out there.

I think theres a difference even though app store fees are similar, developers and users can choose to avoid those fees or having to pay more for apps.

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: scare tactics

your statement reads a lot into apple statements.  “Have control over their smartphones” is perhaps more about things other than the App Store.   Android has been reducing the ability of users to change settings.  As has Microsoft.  
re: the “only criminals” thing

One of the things about malware is a perpetrator doesn’t have to be knowing.  I’m recalling that takedown of that electrical thing recently which the US called an infrastructure security threat or something.  That one happened because some malware walked in with somebody inside their machine.

Yes I meant more than just the app store, I was referring to the device and actually owning it in terms of the hardware, the scare tactics of "security" are used for that as well.

Microsoft has taken away a lot of choice with settings with Windows 11, making anything older than Intel 8th gen e-waste, and there has been a ton of backlash for it.

As for malware attacks, the infrastructure should be fixed, also reminds me of retail stores that get hacked and its barely a slap on the hand for them, while the consumer gets their identity stolen. The end user shouldn't be punished with less choice over their device when there are ways to allow the more tech inclined people to sideload, while keeping people that aren't comfortable with it in the app store.

[saltycaramel]

2 minutes ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

Android is open source, google services are not. There's no pretending here. You can have android and do whatever you want with it, but you can't use google services if you do not abide by Google's rules.

Some shady practices emerged pertaining the relationship of Google with Android OEMs. (and some big antitrust fines will need to be paid for that)

[RedRound2]

Don't forget the fact that it is a pretty common occurrence that executables from some website or server can also sometimes get compromised and you might end up downloading a malware instead of an app that you thought it was.

 

So instead of downloading fortnite, you ended up downloading a malware and gave ti permissions that you should never have given it.

 

I support Apple's argument here. People are cheap and stupid. If it means people can save a buck by sideloading apps, most general consumers will need up having it turned on (or fly through various prompts and warnings like playing a keyboard) without understanding the real implications of it.

 

If you desperately need something that iOS doesn't offer, I dont see what's stopping these people from getting an Android phone. A lot of people using iOS uses iOS because of its better security and the fact that you cant do this sort of shit