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

[DANK_AS_gay]

On 4/15/2022 at 7:53 PM, leadeater said:

My work phone is a smart phone.. How do you think an MFA App would work on a 90's Nokia brick phone? If you work in IT then you have a phone and you use MFA, or your company is inept and highly insecure, or you have no access to anything important.

Which is why I said that. I said the only thing that you would have to use a smartphone for of the things you said was MFA. Try reading next time.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Which is why I said that. I said the only thing that you would have to use a smartphone for of the things you said was MFA. Try reading next time.

I did and that's not actually how your phrased it. You were trying to imply that everything I said did not need to be a "smartphone" while also ignoring half the Apps on the phone I use like Teams which cannot work on anything but a smartphone. What were you trying to achieve with your post? Trying to prove to me that I do not actually need a smartphone for work? Who are you to tell me what I do or do not need when I would know better about my own needs...

 

Me: "A phone is quite critical to my work"

You: "Which is why I said smartphone, some of what you said can be fulfilled by a flip phone from a gas station"

 

So please better explain this counterpoint then? Because far as it comes across you were specifically trying to down play that a "smartphone" is critical to my work, while only covering a tiny fraction of my needs with a "gas station phone". When is the last time you accepted a 2% complete solution to your needs? Never?

 

Do not tell me to read next time when you yourself didn't in the first place. Why is it almost everyone in here trying to defend Apple or paint sideloading as the death of iPhone/iOS are the ones that refuse to read and yet are the first to throw out "learn to read". Not everyone of course, there is a least one person with an opposing viewpoint to my own that is doing a great job at explaining their points of view and making points that I also agree with, so it's 100% possible to have differing opinions and not act like you have been.

 

On 4/16/2022 at 12:11 AM, leadeater said:

Additionally I also use it for communication be it emails, Teams or phone calls and I do use it to access documents to read or to take photos to use later for documentation purposes or to send during real time support, like asset ID of switch and ports plugged in etc.

Just this quick statement of mine I originally made has 4 use cases that can only be satisfied with a "smartphone". And it's not like I went to great lengths to think of a large list, that was things I actually did that day.

 

"Smartphones" are no longer just entertainment devices and are extremely widely used in business, commerce and trade for many different things. I have used them in the past for inventory tracking using barcodes and QR code scanning directly in to Excel and also web forms. I have RDP App on my phone so I can remote in to work if I get a critical alert and need to investigate and I'm not near a computer. I have monitoring applications for industrial control units so I can investigate any issues with datacenter cooling or power. I even have emergency medical App that tells me where the nearest emergency defibrillator is and how to use it.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

The banks are technically separate but at the same time not really. At least in the US they aren't. Also you have alot of choices for insurance companies but they are all awful with how much they know about you and how they use so much personal data to determine rates. And again I have heard way more people say they use Apple or Samsung because they really like the phones they make. I can't say the last time I heard someone say they loved their insurance company or bank as they do a really good job. Also didn't a Chinese phone maker create its own os? Also I think for the most part what keeps Apple and Samsung honest is the other phone makers. 

And we still only have two choices, dictated to by apple or dictated to by google.     I don't care if people say they are happy with the phone they bought, they ultimately had no choice so it's not like anyone can argue that of the multitudes of smart phone operating systems and brand offerings out there they specifically chose the best, they literally had a choice between android and ios.   

 

Trying to claim one is better due to market share when you only have two options is a classic argument ad populum.  Should we argue that because windows has 80% of the market and we know consumers who are happy with windows that it must be good and nothing needs to change?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And we still only have two choices, dictated to by apple or dictated to by google.     I don't care if people say they are happy with the phone they bought, they ultimately had no choice so it's not like anyone can argue that of the multitudes of smart phone operating systems and brand offerings out there they specifically chose the best, they literally had a choice between android and ios.   

 

Trying to claim one is better due to market share when you only have two options is a classic argument ad populum.  Should we argue that because windows has 80% of the market and we know consumers who are happy with windows that it must be good and nothing needs to change?  

Thing is, at least when it comes to DMA and the sideloading conundrum, it's not about iOS vs Android it's about those platforms themselves and the control over the market they themselves have. Android isn't a competing marketplace option to Apple App Store for iOS/Apple users and businesses.

 

If you operate a business and have a need to have an App available to iOS users then you have a single choice of marketplace, you have no alternative. If you are an iOS user then you similarly only have a single choice. There isn't another way to install Apps, realistically, nor can other competitor App Stores come in to existence that might offer something unique like guaranteed human assessment of all Apps and a better working relationship with developers and for consumers a promise of a truly 100% vetted App Store, maybe also with a promise of actually zero data collection.

 

Android does actually have competing marketplaces and @Brooksie359has a point, they are barely used. Maybe they will grow, maybe they won't, they have existed for quite a while now. So if iOS opens up a little maybe nothing will change, which then comes back to the issue of why oppose it.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Thing is, at least when it comes to DMA and the sideloading conundrum, it's not about iOS vs Android it's about those platforms themselves and the control over the market they themselves have. Android isn't a competing marketplace option to Apple App Store for iOS/Apple users and businesses.

 

If you operate a business and have a need to have an App available to iOS users then you have a single choice of marketplace, you have no alternative. If you are an iOS user then you similarly only have a single choice. There isn't another way to install Apps, realistically, nor can other competitor App Stores come in to existence that might offer something unique like guaranteed human assessment of all Apps and a better working relationship with developers and for consumers a promise of a truly 100% vetted App Store, maybe also with a promise of actually zero data collection.

 

Android does actually have competing marketplaces and @Brooksie359has a point, they are barely used. Maybe they will grow, maybe they won't, they have existed for quite a while now. So if iOS opens up a little maybe nothing will change, which then comes back to the issue of why oppose it.

I know, the problem is after many many threads on the topic there are still users who either don't understand that or simply refuse to accept it (for god knows what reason).   I have now taken to pointing out the folly of taking such a position rather than try to explain the basics all over again.

[rikitikitavi]

TLDR, here's 2 extra cents about potential security problem.

 

Sideloading + sandboxing is not foolproof and can potentially harm not just the user, but also other people.

 

Let's say a messenger has to be sideloaded from a questionable or potentially compromised source. User usually shares contacts with the app for functionality reasons, might also share extra data/docs/whatever. As little as a list of contacts with full names, phone numbers, birthdays, addresses and emails might get compromised. So other people who are conscious and careful about their digital security would get screwed simply 'by affiliation'.

 

There were enough examples of people compromising the security for convenience - like sensitive info getting emailed without any encryption is a common thing.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean that info can't be leaked with the approved app ('safe' distribution), but sideloading gives more room to bad actors.

[leadeater]

42 minutes ago, rikitikitavi said:

Let's say a messenger has to be sideloaded from a questionable or potentially compromised source. User usually shares contacts with the app for functionality reasons, might also share extra data/docs/whatever.

This is why I proposed not allowing sideloaded Apps to have contacts shared with it. Of course this doesn't stop manual entry of contact information in to the App itself, or any number of other information before figuring out the App is malicious in nature.

 

@hishnashpoint about modern Web Apps mostly being able to do everything now days is a good one too. Few Apps really need to be installed, ones that come to mind are ones that need better hardware access to things like GPU where performance really does matter, but then there are also tons of really great browser based games so.... emulators? 

[RejZoR]

56 minutes ago, rikitikitavi said:

TLDR, here's 2 extra cents about potential security problem.

 

Sideloading + sandboxing is not foolproof and can potentially harm not just the user, but also other people.

 

Let's say a messenger has to be sideloaded from a questionable or potentially compromised source. User usually shares contacts with the app for functionality reasons, might also share extra data/docs/whatever. As little as a list of contacts with full names, phone numbers, birthdays, addresses and emails might get compromised. So other people who are conscious and careful about their digital security would get screwed simply 'by affiliation'.

 

There were enough examples of people compromising the security for convenience - like sensitive info getting emailed without any encryption is a common thing.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean that info can't be leaked with the approved app ('safe' distribution), but sideloading gives more room to bad actors.

Don't bother talking sense in this 12 pages long pile of nonsense. People here don't want to or just don't understand any of it. Like leadeater who's still convinced sideloaded apps are magically protected by this unicorn sandbox somehow even when app requests access to user contacts and user allows it (yet he insists he does understand how Android works lol, clearly he never heard of this hack tool called "allow access to contacts/photos/storage"). He just entirely ignores the HUMAN factor in between that just entirely negates most of safety features, where I also explained that people just click allow on everything just so it stops bothering them. But he's a "security expert" because he does something with networks or whatever... That's not how reality works. He's so self absorbed into being advanced user he has no understanding how normal users behave. For casual users all the questions and dialogs are not safeguards, they are annoyances. Annoyances which they in most cases don't even understand and click away just so they are gone and they stop bothering them. I may not have certifications or work in "security" field as full time job, but I've been dealing with security issues of casual users for over 20 years and I understand well how people behave.

 

I've seen so many examples of people asking me "what does this even mean" when maps app asked them if they want to allow location access and they genuinely didn't know what to select between deny, allow and allow only while in use. And when they were asked for numerous other things like access to photos and contacts they just tapped ALLOW the moment popup appeared. But clearly I can't provide any "eViDenCe" so all my comments and warnings are invalid because I'm clearly an Apple shill and a fanboy and I must hate Android. Heh.

[suicidalfranco]

On 4/16/2022 at 12:20 AM, Brooksie359 said:

Do you even use apple phones? Why should you wanting to be able to sideload be more important to the vast majority of Apple users that like the way things are right now

Then I wouldn't need to wait for the new ios to be jailbroken in order to keep the apps that are only available if jb when that new os gets out.

Oh right Rai bow an unicorns says jailbreak ING isn't a thing and everything is available in the app store anyway, even youtube reborn

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Like leadeater who's still convinced sideloaded apps are magically protected by this unicorn sandbox somehow even when app requests access to user contacts and user allows it

May I repeat again, in iOS block this outright from being allowed for any sideloaded Apps, problem solved. No user could ever allow this if it's not allowed at all by Apple and iOS. I would ask you do a better effort at reading things like this because I've had to repeat this I think 4 times now. A sideloaded App cannot be granted access to contact lists if Apple explicitly disallowed it outright, no sideloaded App could ever prompt to ask for this.

 

No person could ever click yes to a permission grant dialogue that is impossible to see and be prompted with.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

yet he insists he does understand how Android works lol, clearly he never heard of this hack tool called "allow access to contacts/photos/storage")

I have not actually talked about Android at all, other than to say Apple will not be doing it the Android way.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

He just entirely ignores the HUMAN factor in between that just entirely negates most of safety features

No I didn't, I specifically addressed your concern. Top section of this post and the last unknown times you've required me to repeat it.

 

You are giving a great example of your own complaint that people won't read anything on screen and just click yes to things. You aren't doing your duty of care to converse and attempt to understand different point of view and ideas. Every time you talk about sideloaded Apps being allowed access to contact lists etc by the user is another example of you not doing this.

 

If only you would accept that Apple/iOS could block sideloaded Apps from being granted certain permissions by users, which is possible and capable right now in iOS, then you'd immediately understand what I said, why I said it and why it addresses this very point you keep bringing up as if it's not been addressed.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

But clearly I can't provide any "eViDenCe" so all my comments and warnings are invalid because

Not at all, your opinions are your opinions. It's your justifications that are the problem and unwillingness to converse properly and respectfully that is the issue. You could say I don't agree with sideloading and I will never support it, that's fine there is nothing to debate there. However if you offer up a justification as to why then that can be debated and discussed. You raised the human factor concern, I raised a solution to it, you won't acknowledge or address it so where can the conversation ever go under those conditions?

 

You wouldn't need to keep posting angry comments, yelling all over the place, if you'd actually settle down a little and then be more capable of evaluating things other people have been saying. That doesn't mean you have to agree or change your opinion. Even I don't think Apple will actually do sideloading the specific way I have suggested but the possibility is there. It's not like I think Apple will ever see my suggestions either, whatever they do they will come up with on their own.

 

P.S. Yes I do user support, have done for years, still do as an engineer. I'm not sure how you think I have not done user support when I work in IT and have only ever worked in IT which means my first job in IT was... directly user support related (Desktop Support Technician).

[Mark Kaine]

On 4/16/2022 at 12:51 PM, leadeater said:

iOS already has rather good Sandboxing and Apps should never be able to access other Apps or system information without first being asked and then granted so if chosen. Sideloaded Apps could simply have restrictions on what is allowed, unlike App Store Apps so things like contact lists simply are not accessible to sideloaded Apps no matter what.

 

Background running could be not allowed at all ever, limited network functions and persistent connections automatically closed and if tried to be re-established continually then Gatekeeper outright blocks the App and reports this activity. Then if necessary the Developer ID/Publisher ID globally blocked due to multiple report submissions and the App removed from all iOS devices automatically.

 

To even install a sideloaded App creating your own Developer ID and signing the App for your phone could be part of that requirement, if nothing more than to make it that bit more inconvenient so only those that actually really want to do it will.

 

Also have as part of the ToS of sideloading limits on distribution so if an App becomes popular enough it's no longer eligible for being sideloaded and must be distributed via Appt store, again monitored and enforced by Gatekeeper.

 

These are all things Apple already has the capability to do or is already doing so it's not requiring any extra effort from Apple at all. Simply put, sideloading on iOS doesn't have to be an exact copy of how it works on Android and I don't think it would anyway.

well, they could do all that… but i dont  think the EU would allow it - thats just "anti competitive" (yet again)

 

i mean my bilibili app even has a "overseas" connection thing (whatever that does) - and of course it runs in the background - thats the whole point that its less shitty than youtube lol.

 

what i think they can do is make it really "cumbersome" to install apps… like you need to confirm 5 times and a password or something… they can actually claim "security" for this.

 

 

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

that Apple/iOS could block sideloaded Apps from being granted certain permissions by users

Tldr: so i cant have an alternative "phone dialer" like i can on android? Im not making the law - and i even think they probably didnt think of all the nitty gritty details but i think ultimately this is really "anti competitive" and exactly one of the things this law tries to counter.

 

i know you just wanted to make an argument how sideloading  could be more secure probably but i dont  think thats how its going to work out.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Tldr: so i cant have an alternative "phone dialer" like i can on android? Im not making the law - and i even think they probably didnt think of all the nitty gritty details but i think ultimately this is really "anti competitive" and exactly one of the things this law tries to counter.

Certainly agree it would be seen like that, I'm just not sure the proposed law would actually disallow it. Not that I've actually read it in great detail. But operating systems and laws are both really complicated so no matter what Apple is forced to do they will do exactly only as required and make it as annoying and painful as possible, probably getting dragged in to court in the process.

 

8 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

i know you just wanted to make an argument how sideloading  could be more secure probably but i dont  think thats how its going to work out.

Yep don't worry, Apple's team of people knows more about this situation than I do, and ever care to know. I'm quite happy to not have to go fill my head with a bunch of information I will never use again and promptly forget important details of anyway. 

 

The one thing I am sure of is that sideloaded Apps will not be like they are on Android.

[Mark Kaine]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm just not sure the proposed law would actually disallow it. Not that I've actually read it in great detail. But operating systems and laws are both really complicated

Yup I tried to read the wikipedia article, its very extensive… and things like this (the "details") arent even mentioned in great detail… but i didnt read it fully either, i expect the actual law to be even more confusing !

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

no matter what Apple is forced to do they will do exactly only as required and make it as annoying and painful as possible, probably getting dragged in to court in the process.

That seems likely , especially the last part…

 

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The one thing I am sure of is that sideloaded Apps will not be like they are on Android.

We'll see… i actually thought it should be really similar to android, but maybe you're right.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

We'll see… i actually thought it should be really similar to android, but maybe you're right.

Maybe, but I hear Apple in the background "You'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands" lol

[hishnash]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

hardware access to things like GPU where performance really does matter, but then there are also tons of really great browser based games so.... emulators?

With webGPU on the cusp of being full supported (I would not be surprised if the next iOS moves it out from beta flag to always on) I could see even some 'native' games opting to display a web view to use WebGPU rather than write a native VK and Metal mobile rendering engine. 

With WASM you get very good cpu perf, the main issue is multi threaded lot latency communication but that is improving (the timing attacks that hit cpus a few years ago had a big hit on this to ensure web pages could not exploit forced lag was put in place but these are slowly being removed). 

You not going to get emulators for anything that requires good perf as that will require JIT but on iOS you cant do this through the App Store either. 
 

People who really want side-loading really want it so that they can bypass these restrictions, they do not want to be limited to no JIT and they do not want to be limited to not having access to all the users contacts etc, just look at what Facebook did using a enterprise deployment cert paying teenagers to install an app that using the VPN apis intercepted all network traffic on the users machines (not sure if it installed a root cert but I would not be surprised as that would let them man in the middle all un-pinned ssl traffic).   It is strongly suspected Facebook used this data to figure out what apps (WhatsApp and instagram) to buy, they wanted to know what these users were doing on thier phones when they did not have Facebook open.

 

I expect if apple is forced to have sideloading/alt app stores Facebook (meta) will push very hard to create a Meta AppStore were all apps have Facebook tracking injected.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, hishnash said:

With webGPU on the cusp of being full supported (I would not be surprised if the next iOS moves it out from beta flag to always on) I could see even some 'native' games opting to display a web view to use WebGPU rather than write a native VK and Metal mobile rendering engine. 

Is it possible WebGPU could offer better performance, or hardware access, compared to Vulkan on top of/translated to Metal?

[hishnash]

Personally I think the best move for apple with the legislators coming would be for them to unlock the boot loader like Macs. Then they can tell the legal teams sure if you buy an iPhone you can run anything you like on it but for DRM reasons (so that we can comply with our contracts.... ) if you opt to boot a partition with reduced security (aka modified kernel or android etc) then the phone will not run any apps from the App Store... 

Booting a modified iOS kernel would then require you to find all apps from other sources (thus protecting apps in the App Store ... banking apps on iOS today already put a lot of work to detect active jailbreaks and stop working to protect the banks). 

[hishnash]

Just now, leadeater said:

Is it possible WebGPU could offer better performance, or hardware access, compared to Vulkan on top of/translated to Metal?

Hmm... Yes and no.. The main downside of webGPU is the GPU to CPU connection.  But from a shader perspective a really good VK implementation for android will be better than webGPU but an avg implementation might well be worse (the issue with android is the massive difference in perf characteristics and feature sets of the hardware webGPU devs have already put quite a bit of effort into this for you). 

[hishnash]

31 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

We'll see… i actually thought it should be really similar to android, but maybe you're right.

If apple move to Armv9 or add support for the new sandboxing instruction space in thier armv8+ then I could see them support it but only on the latest chip. 

the new CCA features of ARMv9 mean that they could place the user-code in a 'sandbox' so that even if it loads a system lib it cant just call/jump to random locations within that lib to call private methods or read memory allocated by that lib unless that lib gives it access. Its like a VM but for a sub-section of a running process.  

Having this would also improve perf quite a bit as instead of needing to go through gRPC protocol whenever a system lib needs to do something delicate if the system can be sure user-code runs within a cpu enforced sandbox the security checks can be at the public api call site.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

May I repeat again, in iOS block this outright from being allowed for any sideloaded Apps, problem solved. No user could ever allow this if it's not allowed at all by Apple and iOS. I would ask you do a better effort at reading things like this because I've had to repeat this I think 4 times now. A sideloaded App cannot be granted access to contact lists if Apple explicitly disallowed it outright, no sideloaded App could ever prompt to ask for this.

 

No person could ever click yes to a permission grant dialogue that is impossible to see and be prompted with.

 

I have not actually talked about Android at all, other than to say Apple will not be doing it the Android way.

 

No I didn't, I specifically addressed your concern. Top section of this post and the last unknown times you've required me to repeat it.

 

You are giving a great example of your own complaint that people won't read anything on screen and just click yes to things. You aren't doing your duty of care to converse and attempt to understand different point of view and ideas. Every time you talk about sideloaded Apps being allowed access to contact lists etc by the user is another example of you not doing this.

 

If only you would accept that Apple/iOS could block sideloaded Apps from being granted certain permissions by users, which is possible and capable right now in iOS, then you'd immediately understand what I said, why I said it and why it addresses this very point you keep bringing up as if it's not been addressed.

 

Not at all, your opinions are your opinions. It's your justifications that are the problem and unwillingness to converse properly and respectfully that is the issue. You could say I don't agree with sideloading and I will never support it, that's fine there is nothing to debate there. However if you offer up a justification as to why then that can be debated and discussed. You raised the human factor concern, I raised a solution to it, you won't acknowledge or address it so where can the conversation ever go under those conditions?

 

You wouldn't need to keep posting angry comments, yelling all over the place, if you'd actually settle down a little and then be more capable of evaluating things other people have been saying. That doesn't mean you have to agree or change your opinion. Even I don't think Apple will actually do sideloading the specific way I have suggested but the possibility is there. It's not like I think Apple will ever see my suggestions either, whatever they do they will come up with on their own.

 

P.S. Yes I do user support, have done for years, still do as an engineer. I'm not sure how you think I have not done user support when I work in IT and have only ever worked in IT which means my first job in IT was... directly user support related (Desktop Support Technician).

You keep flipflopping between how it is NOW on Android and some fictional hypothetical may be, would be scenarios on iOS. Pick one ffs. If everyone is so god damn great with ideas how iOS should be, then why Android isn't already that way? Eh? But surer, I'm the angry one because I have to read dumb shit like this and then build arguments against dumb shit. HOW!?

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, hishnash said:

With webGPU on the cusp of being full supported (I would not be surprised if the next iOS moves it out from beta flag to always on) I could see even some 'native' games opting to display a web view to use WebGPU rather than write a native VK and Metal mobile rendering engine. 

With WASM you get very good cpu perf, the main issue is multi threaded lot latency communication but that is improving (the timing attacks that hit cpus a few years ago had a big hit on this to ensure web pages could not exploit forced lag was put in place but these are slowly being removed). 

WASM was a mistake and should never be a thing. 90% of it's use was to kill peoples laptops and desktops with cryptominers buried in ads and greedy websites. The web is a whole lot worse for it because it was not restricted to local-application-access only. All it needed was a "save this app to my device" button to enable WASM while still enforcing the web sandbox.

 

To date, most of the garbage released as WASM are things that should be native applications in the first place. As web browsers don't thread anything, the performance will never approach that of native performance. As it is, there's been no uptake of WASM for legitimate "web" applications, and most of the stuff that I've seen that didn't classify as malware has been emulators (Eg DOSBOX) and little else.

 

My prediction is that in, oh 10 years, there will be a push back to native code by porting "WASM" back to native code  applications because chrome-as-a-platform breaks too many things every year, and it's better to have features that work for a long time rather than the 6 months Chrome-based-browsers have consistent behavior.

 

I feel like I'm rehashing the same argument against Java I had a decade ago. Java and Flash are effectively dead, "WASM" is it's replacement, but solves none of the problems Flash and Java have.

 

If you are building a serious game, you will build it upon native Vulkan. If you want to build a cross-platform game with native performance, you will use Unity if you want to support mobile devices, or Unreal if you want to support consoles. Most other "native platform" development is dead entirely because there are no sound/multimedia API's standard on any OS like there is for 3D (Vulkan). Unless you need to do something low level you are better off just using Unity to build a game, or application that's portable to multiple platforms and ignoring WASM entirely.

 

 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You keep flipflopping between how it is NOW on Android

I have not once ever talked at all about Android sideloading, not in anything I have talked about to you and not in any of my suggestions. At most passing references that do not matter or have bearing on any of my suggestions. Not a single thing about Android has influenced any of what I have talked about that Apple could do and could implement or could use existing capabilities in iOS. I have neither talked about how it's done on Android or compared my suggestions to Android. My comments have and will continue to be limited to Apple, iOS, what they could do and reference existing capabilities in iOS.

 

Where are you getting this idea I have been talking about or referencing how Android sideloading works? I would greatly love for you to point this out.

 

Maybe after you find that you cannot actually do this then you'll realize you've been reading the wrong end of the stick, upside down and lighting it on fire the whole time 

 

And Android isn't the way I have been suggesting because it's more restrictive, less open, and counter to what the majority of Android users would want. Who and what Apple is as a company plays in to my suggestions, hence they cannot apply to Android.

 

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

If everyone is so god damn great with ideas how iOS should be

You should never

• Be offended by a suggestion
• Get angry at a suggestion
• Be forced to agree with a suggestion

Seriously, they are just suggestions/ideas and not slaps in the face.

[RejZoR]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I have not once ever talked at all about Android sideloading, not in anything I have talked about to you and not in any of my suggestions. At most passing references that do not matter or have bearing on any of my suggestions. Not a single thing about Android has influenced any of what I have talked about that Apple could do and could implement or could use existing capabilities in iOS. I have neither talked about how it's done on Android or compared my suggestions to Android. My comments have and will continue to be limited to Apple, iOS, what they could do and reference existing capabilities in iOS.

 

Where are you getting this idea I have been talking about or referencing how Android sideloading works? I would greatly love for you to point this out.

 

Maybe after you find that you cannot actually do this then you'll realize you've been reading the wrong end of the stick, upside down and lighting it on fire the whole time 

 

And Android isn't the way I have been suggesting because it's more restrictive, less open, and counter to what the majority of Android users would want. Who and what Apple is as a company plays in to my suggestions, hence they cannot apply to Android.

 

You should never

• Be offended by a suggestion
• Get angry at a suggestion
• Be forced to agree with a suggestion

Seriously, they are just suggestions/ideas and not slaps in the face.

Yeah, you kept insisting how app if it's sandboxed cannot have any data leaked. To which I replied that if user literally hands out permission for access to contacts/photos/storage, it literally doesn't matter. So, what were you talking about then? Android, iOS or some hypothetical may happen someday in iOS in distant future?

 

Also your preaching of me being "offended" over ideas or suggestions is funny when you keep shooting down my factual claims that users are the ones who keep f**king things up as soon as you give them power or control. Sideloading is one of such things and if there simply isn't one, they can't possibly f**k it up. At all, even if they wanted to. It's literally a case of "security through obscurity" that literally and actually works. Because no normie will ever go and hack the iPhone bootloader open and root it, just to sideload those 5 available broken apps. They absolutely will be capable enough to enable sideloading option and then know nothing about security or good practices after having it enabled, doing all sorts of dumb things with it. This isn't some hypothetical possibility, it's literally what's happening NOW on Android. I've seen it first hand how bad 3rd party app stores are, their non existent moderation that's like 50 levels below GooglePlay or App Store and how easily it is to get simple guides how to enable sideloading. Hell, last Android I was using simply offered me to install APK for me when I downloaded it in browser. Sure it asked me if I want to allow browser to have the rights to be the downloader for APK's and I had to confirm it, but when has that stopped normies when they don't know what location permissions for maps even means, eh?

 

If you want sideloading so desperately, then just use Android. There is no need to screw up iOS's way of operation because of obsessed power users.

[Imbadatnames]

I have an iPhone because it doesn’t have things such as side loading and because apps have to abide by the App Store standards. If apple doesn’t want to allow software on its platform it shouldn’t be forced to. Otherwise I should be allowed to side load my steam library onto a Xbox or load up a PS5 game on my PC

[Commodus]

Honestly, if Apple wants to appease regulators it should probably just allow sideloading with a requirement for the Developer ID app signatures that are optional on the Mac. You could get your alternative browser or media app while still giving Apple an easy way to revoke apps that go rogue (say, piracy apps or games with hidden malware). Not ideal in Apple's mind, but it'd be tidier than the anything-goes Android world.