Tim Cook rails against """bad privacy regulation & sideloading""" in keynote speech

[darknessblade]

Summary

Apple CEO Tim Cook used his IAPP Global Privacy Summit keynote speech to discuss privacy and trust in the digital economy, including a need to stop regulations from forcing Apple to accept sideloading.

 

Quotes

Quote

Apple CEO Tim Cook used his IAPP Global Privacy Summit keynote speech to discuss privacy and trust in the digital economy, including a need to stop regulations from forcing Apple to accept sideloading.

Kicking off the International Association of Privacy Professionals' annual event, the Global Privacy Summit, Cook took to the stage on Tuesday as part of its keynote address.

His keynote started by calling privacy one of the most essential battles of modern times. Referring to privacy as a mirror of policies and usage, Cook believes there are two disparate realities, with one where it "unlocks humanity's full creative potential," while the other is where "technology is exploited to rob humanity of that which is foundational: our privacy itself."

"A world without privacy is less imaginative, less empathetic, less innovative. Less human," said Cook to the audience, before calling privacy a fundamental human right that Apple is continually fighting for.

 

My thoughts

Disclaimer: Please note: As I am as Anti-apple as it can get. My opinion might be Biased.

---------------

Does Tim Cook not know why ANTI-TRUST regulators exist. they exist to prevent this kind of monopolistic behavior.

That he addresses it specifically, i.e. that Anti-trust regulators, should stop this behavior, proofs that Apple is willingly violating said rules of anti-trust regulators.

 

From what i can see what he is trying to do is nothing other than DAMAGE CONTROL, hoping the Apple sheeps do not realize they should get better consumer protection, but their tech overlord does not allow them to get said protection.

 

Sources

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/04/12/tim-cook-rails-against-bad-privacy-regulation-sideloading-in-keynote-speech

 https://iapp.org/news/a/apples-tim-cook-protecting-privacy-most-essential-battle-of-our-time/

https://9to5mac.com/2022/04/12/tim-cook-privacy-speech-iapp/

https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/tim-cook-says-the-fight-to-protect-privacy-is-a-crucial-one/

 

[Fasterthannothing]

O boy that's a spicy take from Tim! Apple is on the wrong side with this one.

[manikyath]

8 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

Does Tim Cook not know why ANTI-TRUST regulators exist.

he does, that's why he's trying to make sideloading seem like some ridiculous security risk that wil get the elderly killed.

[suicidalfranco]

Sorry Tim, it takes two to dance the tango:

- their platform, their rules

                          Vs.

- their country, their rules

 

Don't like it, then just leave the same way you booted everyone out who didn't agree with you

[GhostRoadieBL]

I don't mind not side loading apps if the device owner is able to 100% control what is shared, but that also means what is shared with the device/os designer.

Apple wants to be seen as the privacy first company but then has a whole department dedicated to targeting ads at their users and selling the data to other companies. Can't have it both ways.

[DANK_AS_gay]

Dunno, I never understood the sideloading thing. What are you sideloading anyways? Apple shouldn't have this locked down, why? I don't know why this is such a big deal. Can someone tell me? 

[Elijah Kamski]

I cannot imagine a life without side loading, thank goodness Android has it, otherwise I'd still have ads on my Samsung weather app on my phone if it were not for Lucky Patcher XD

I would've also never had used YouTube Vanced, the absolute horrors of not having segments skipped automatically and ads removed.

[darknessblade]

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Dunno, I never understood the sideloading thing. What are you sideloading anyways? Apple shouldn't have this locked down, why? I don't know why this is such a big deal. Can someone tell me? 

1 Of the main reasons on Android is, installing Patched apps trough lucky patcher, that do not have any AD protocol build in.

 

So you can use the apps without the Annoying ADS

[Lurick]

49 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Dunno, I never understood the sideloading thing. What are you sideloading anyways? Apple shouldn't have this locked down, why? I don't know why this is such a big deal. Can someone tell me? 

Basically it allows you to load apps that might not be on an app store or in some cases you could sideload apps that are cracked which you'd usually pay for. Beyond that you could load specific versions such as if you didn't want the Samsung version of an app that's preloaded and didn't like the skin or something. Lots of little quality of life things can be brought in as well that might not be available directly to install via the app stores and it's easier to sideload it or just load it in general.

[RejZoR]

People are going to hate on Apple, but realistically, 99% of people who absolutely need sideloading are a) developers b) pirates. And they are both a tiny subset of all users that need sideloading. Because reality is, if an app of any kind is not available on GooglePlay or App Store, it just doesn't exist.

 

Arguing that sideloading is required for custom ROM users without Gapps, fair enough, but those are even smaller subset of users within that space of people who sideload.

 

I've been flashing custom ROM's since Galaxy S2 and whole thing is just excessively overhyped. Flashing custom ROM's today is just pointless because of how many apps are bitching about unlocked bootloader and sorry, I just don't have the time to dick around with Magisk to obfuscate that fact from annoying apps. Also in best case scenario using one of most widely used custom ROM's, LineageOS, I was stuck on nightly builds for my phone, so daily unstable updates. Other option are one off forks of literally everything on XDA which are mostly broken and come with literally no support at all. I like to fiddle with things, but basically everything around custom Android ROM's is just idiotic (with exception if you code and compile it all yourself which is a requirement for like 1 in a million users).

 

Just get a phone that has best long term software support. Apple is like light years ahead of everyone, then there is Samsung and partially Google (though they are terrifyingly incompetent with OS they developed themselves) and then it's the rest of phone makers that 99% of all consist of Chinese phone makers that don't give two f**ks about you the moment you carry your phone out of the store and always prefer to sell you a new one over actually supporting it in any meaningful way. Things started changing a bit literally because of how long Apple offers software support, but it's still a LOOOONG way there for Chinese phone makers who mostly base level of support on cost of the phone. If you buy a 150€ smartphone, you basically get no support at all. If phone is 1000€, you'll get 3+1 at best. And even that is usually limited from year they announced it, which was mostly 2021/2022. So, good luck if you bought it before...

 

At the end of the day, no one forces anyone to buy or use an iPhone and everyone knows there is no custom ROM's or sideloading on iPhones. And when you get that out of the way, I see no problem with it. 3+ years on iOS after being Android user for some 10 years. Just for reference...

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

 What are you sideloading anyways?

Apps that aren't available on the app store. I've got a bunch of legacy apps side-loaded both on my phone and my tablet that aren't officially available anymore from the Google Play store. In one particular case the developers went AWOL and it's no longer available to download from Google themselves, but it's still the most convenient app for its purpose to me. Couldn't do that on iOS.

 

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Apple shouldn't have this locked down, why?

Because they shouldn't be able to tell me how I get to use a device I bought and own. If I want to run apps that they haven't approved, I should be able to. Locking down this stuff only puts me at the mercy of them. And I don't want to be at the mercy of a company for devices that are legally mine.

[GhostRoadieBL]

45 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Dunno, I never understood the sideloading thing. What are you sideloading anyways? Apple shouldn't have this locked down, why? I don't know why this is such a big deal. Can someone tell me? 

I've sideloaded the playstore onto Amazon firetabs, couple of smart tv's which don't want you having all the apps etc.

 

After reading the full keynote (way to skim and paste OP) Cook has some correct information with opening up side loading and other app stores it would prevent Apple from curating the apps available.

This (Cook wouldn't come out and say) would erode a huge portion of Apple's app and ad revenues which does end up reducing Apple's monopoly on their app store and most developers would quickly leave for more profits elsewhere. Less apps on Apple's app store means less curated apps which means potentially (absolutely) less security and privacy for the general public of troglodytes.

 

At the end of the day it comes down to "do you trust the user to educate themselves and be aware of the consequences of not learning"

or do you fence off the playground and let the kids play within the fence, and who gets to say there needs to be a fence?

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

This (Cook wouldn't come out and say) would erode a huge portion of Apple's app and ad revenues which does end up reducing Apple's monopoly on their app store and most developers would quickly leave for more profits elsewhere. Less apps on Apple's app store means less curated apps which means potentially (absolutely) less security and privacy for the general public of troglodytes.

I don't think that it will have a great impact on ad revenue.  IAP maybe, because it would allow major companies like Epic to side-step them (instead of doing the 30% payment).  In essence I think you would have maybe a few big players potentially pull out their app and go for side-loading, but for most developers they would likely stick with Apple.  Like it or not access to the IAP and just being on the App store is a major factor (they don't have to worry about a bunch of stuff).

 

The big worry as well is whether people will start using it and run into issues with Apps and blame Apple for it, and also the eroded security of the system....I do find it laughable though that Tim Cook is using the "privacy" aspect as though all major companies will do pure side-loading

 

It's ironic talking about privacy when they had the police issue recently as well.  This is also the company that talks about privacy, yet released the air-tags without the concept of privacy (and made everyone's iPhone a tracker for it effectively)

[GhostRoadieBL]

39 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I don't think that it will have a great impact on ad revenue.  IAP maybe, because it would allow major companies like Epic to side-step them (instead of doing the 30% payment).  In essence I think you would have maybe a few big players potentially pull out their app and go for side-loading, but for most developers they would likely stick with Apple.  Like it or not access to the IAP and just being on the App store is a major factor (they don't have to worry about a bunch of stuff).

https://www.emarketer.com/content/apple-ad-revenues-skyrocket-amid-its-privacy-changes

 

This was the link which sparked my thought process, following Apple's app tracking transparency move it forced advertisers to use Apple's sources rather than the apps themselves. Giving that power back to other app sources takes that away.

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

https://www.emarketer.com/content/apple-ad-revenues-skyrocket-amid-its-privacy-changes

 

This was the link which sparked my thought process, following Apple's app tracking transparency move it forced advertisers to use Apple's sources rather than the apps themselves. Giving that power back to other app sources takes that away.

Sideloading, depending how they implement it, will not I think be a common thing (in terms of constantly sideloading apps).  Even on Android, I'm betting the amount of Apps people use that were installed via sideloading is pretty minuscule.  Which then Apple can still very much use the my house my rules approach on those apps still distributed through the store.

 

Which brings me back to my point, it likely won't affect ad revenue as much simply because the majority of apps will likely still be utilizing the App store.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

I'l just say that "sideloading" is a made up word for "installing" an application. Whenever I read "sideloading", I replace it with "installing" in my head, and the discourse suddenly makes a lot less sense.

[DANK_AS_gay]

2 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

I'd still have ads on my Samsung weather app on my phone if it were not for Lucky Patcher XD

I would've also never had used YouTube Vanced, the absolute horrors of not having segments skipped automatically and ads removed.

 

2 hours ago, Lurick said:

in some cases you could sideload apps that are cracked which you'd usually pay for.

So far it sounds like you guys are complaining because you can't pirate (the sony weather app thing is awful, wth?), and you want to be able to on iPhones as well as on Android. I would love to have free apps, but I also don't want to screw over the developers of many of the apps I'm actually interested in. 

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Because they shouldn't be able to tell me how I get to use a device I bought and own. If I want to run apps that they haven't approved, I should be able to. Locking down this stuff only puts me at the mercy of them. And I don't want to be at the mercy of a company for devices that are legally mine.

Fair enough, but they really aren't. They are telling you "Hey, we aren't allowing this service because of security concerns, and because most people use it for illegal reasons anyways."

I get the "give an inch, they take it a mile" thing, and I don't want to give Apple any more control over what I can and cannot do to my device, but this is one of the few things where the drawbacks of allowing this feature outweigh the drawbacks of the other option. 

Viruses on iPhone are extremely rare, and a big part of that is having the phone locked down to only let you get things from the App Store, where they can verify that it is safe. I get that they get money from that, and the percentage in sales is too much (IMO) but the solution isn't to open it up completely. This also allows Apple to support their devices for 8-10 years after release. You don't get that from any other brand. Not even Google, who owns Android. This isn't some grand conspiracy to make you pay a subscription for using the device after you already bought it, it's keeping the platform secure for its users. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

11 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Fair enough, but they really aren't. They are telling you "Hey, we aren't allowing this service because of security concerns, and because most people use it for illegal reasons anyways."

I get the "give an inch, they take it a mile" thing, and I don't want to give Apple any more control over what I can and cannot do to my device, but this is one of the few things where the drawbacks of allowing this feature outweigh the drawbacks of the other option. 

Viruses on iPhone are extremely rare, and a big part of that is having the phone locked down to only let you get things from the App Store, where they can verify that it is safe. I get that they get money from that, and the percentage in sales is too much (IMO) but the solution isn't to open it up completely. This also allows Apple to support their devices for 8-10 years after release. You don't get that from any other brand. Not even Google, who owns Android. This isn't some grand conspiracy to make you pay a subscription for using the device after you already bought it, it's keeping the platform secure for its users. 

I don't mind guardrails out of security concerns. By default, Android also doesn't allow installing from "untrusted" sources. That's why most people don't side-load apps to begin with. But I still like having the ability of unlocking developer tools and side-loading if I want to. Maybe I want to get my apps from F-Droid, some of which aren't available on the Google Play Store.

 

Think of it this way: What if Microsoft disallows you to install apps that aren't in the Microsoft store? Would you support that move if they argue that it's for security? No more Steam, because that's a way to circumvent installations through the Microsoft store, you can only get your games through that. No more downloading tools and utilities through Github or other repository hosts directly. And you have to pay Microsoft a developer license to write programs to even be able to test them on your devices. I doubt you'd embrace that and defend Microsoft. So why make an arbitrary distinction between that and what happens on your phone?

[darknessblade]

9 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I don't mind guardrails out of security concerns. By default, Android also doesn't allow installing from "untrusted" sources. That's why most people don't side-load apps to begin with. But I still like having the ability of unlocking developer tools and side-loading if I want to. Maybe I want to get my apps from F-Droid, some of which aren't available on the Google Play Store.

 

Think of it this way: What if Microsoft disallows you to install apps that aren't in the Microsoft store? Would you support that move if they argue that it's for security? No more Steam, because that's a way to circumvent installations through the Microsoft store, you can only get your games through that. No more downloading tools and utilities through Github or other repository hosts directly. And you have to pay Microsoft a developer license to write programs to even be able to test them on your devices. I doubt you'd embrace that and defend Microsoft. So why make an arbitrary distinction between that and what happens on your phone?

I had a time where I played tons of Japanese RPG's/games, of which some where mobile games, that where in the playstore but due region restrictions I could not install them. Sideloading gave a solution to this.

 

Even testing out different region locked apps, Is possible due sideloading.

 

 

[DANK_AS_gay]

14 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

What if Microsoft disallows you to install apps that aren't in the Microsoft store? Would you support that move if they argue that it's for security?

No, this is different to some degree though. Windows has a much larger audience, and also a different one. You don't buy an iPhone if you want to tinker around with it, and most of the customers don't care or even know what "sideloading" is. They (Windows) also do not have the same control over hardware, meaning that some security issues, like Spectre, are not something that they can control. Apple has the ability to actually stop viruses effectively, and they also have the benefit of not having a history of viruses and exploits. So the claim of "security" (by Microsoft) can be seen as bs, as they cannot promise such a thing. Apple realistically can. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

42 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

No, this is different to some degree though. Windows has a much larger audience, and also a different one. You don't buy an iPhone if you want to tinker around with it, and most of the customers don't care or even know what "sideloading" is. They (Windows) also do not have the same control over hardware, meaning that some security issues, like Spectre, are not something that they can control. Apple has the ability to actually stop viruses effectively, and they also have the benefit of not having a history of viruses and exploits. So the claim of "security" (by Microsoft) can be seen as bs, as they cannot promise such a thing. Apple realistically can. 

That's an arbitrary distinction you're trying to make and a bad one at that. Microsoft could very effectively clamp down on a lot of malware by disallowing the installation of any software that didn't get vetted by them directly. If they control what you can install and run, they can effectively achieve the exact same amount of security that the App store itself provides for its users on iOS. So no, it's not "different to some degree", it's exactly the same thing: A computer where the creator of the operating system gets to control what you're allowed to do with it. The hardware here is irrelevant.

[descendency]

I love reading comments about sideloading on tech forums because 50%+ of it is people complaining it makes pirating harder and the other part has a legitimate but incredibly niche reason to allow it. And yet, this has literally zero to do with what Apple is concerned about: 

 

Apple doesn't want someone like Epic to be able to put a link in the Epic Game Store to "Install (fortnite) on my Phone", cutting them out of a significant portion of the revenue. It has nothing to do with security, as this would be a very small market. This has nothing to do with privacy. 

 

Sideloading is important because it stops Apple from abusing its position as the market leader in terms of revenue generated on platform. It's not one specific app or idea. It's what keeps a company like Apple from being the regulatory body in a free market. Company's shouldn't have to grovel to Apple to make money. This is the net neutrality debate, applied to phones.

[DANK_AS_gay]

4 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

The hardware here is irrelevant.

Really? Plus, last I checked, malware installed itself without the permission of the user, or on accident with the permission of the user. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

Just now, descendency said:

Apple doesn't want someone like Epic to be able to put a link in the Epic Game Store to "Install (fortnite) on my Phone", cutting them out of a significant portion of the revenue.

That isn't sideloading an app. Apple doesn't want that, sure, but that is somewhat unrelated in that the payment itself not being in the app store, and in the browser instead. Safari isn't a sideloaded app.

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Really? Plus, last I checked, malware installed itself without the permission of the user, or on accident with the permission of the user. 

Again, I'm not comparing your PC to an iPhone, I'm comparing Windows to iOS. So yes, the hardware is irrelevant because the proposed measure would undoubtedly make Windows a safer operating system, regardless of any existing hardware vulnerabilities. Just like how iOS is safer thanks to Apple disallowing you to install and run anything you want. I'm just forcing you to be intellectually consistent. If you want to argue that Windows should clamp down on your ability to run any code you want, that's fine with me, I'm not gonna argue with you about that, because it's ultimately fruitless. But I knew you'd take issue with my comparison and I want to figure out the reason for that. Because as of right now, you're not being consistent and trying to find ways to weasel your way out of it. And it's not working.