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

[descendency]

6 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

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.

You've misunderstood what was said. Apple doesn't want an app manufacturer, regardless of medium, to have a method to use their platform to cut out Apple out of the installation (and therefore payment) process. I don't mean a link that launches the App Store. I mean one that straight bypasses it. 

 

Edit: This is sideloading. It's the scary part of sideloading for Apple. 

[Supreme Calamitas]

For a collage graduate Tim is either politically retarded or just selfish (Apple is a part of his ego of course)

 

He can cry all he wants, a $3 trillion company has no right to complain about anything

 

Nobody should pity him

 

Privacy is really important to us, but money is even more important to us, therefore mac os is closed source.

[Blademaster91]

This has nothing to do with security, its apple wanting to control every aspect of what you can install because otherwise it affects their app store profit margin and getting a 30% cut on every app, and charging developers $100 a year to submit their apps to the store.

And it has nothing to do with the hardware or security vulnerabilities, spectre flaws affected x86 and ARM.

[DANK_AS_gay]

Just now, Avocado Diaboli said:

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.

Not really, I was saying that your comparison of Windows to iOS is comparing Apples to oranges (lol), and gave some examples of why even if Windows decided to lock things down, they couldn't claim the reason of security because they cannot lock down the OS effectively. Apple can actually lock things down and provide that security, because they have greater control over the hardware as well as the software, resulting in tighter integration. I took issue with you comparison because it is a poor one. 

 

I am saying that:

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

People are going to hate on Apple, but realistically, 99% of people who absolutely need sideloading are a) developers b) pirates.

 

3 hours ago, Lurick said:

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

 

4 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

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

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy. Saying "Apple bad because no let me steal" is stupid at best, even with a larger vocabulary. We all know that most people use sideloading for piracy, and pretending like it isn't is dishonest at best. This is very similar to torrentings legality, "The act of torrenting itself is not illegal. However, downloading and sharing unsanctioned copyrighted material is very much illegal, and there is always a chance of getting caught by the authorities.". Yeah, because so many people use torrenting for things that aren't copyrighted material. The claim that the situation is otherwise, is again, dishonest at best

[DANK_AS_gay]

6 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

security vulnerabilities, spectre flaws affected x86 and ARM.

They affected Cortex processors, there is a list of ARM processors it effected, and Apple's weren't on there. Just because it is ARm does not mean it is the exact same as every other ARM processor.

https://developer.arm.com/Arm Security Center/Spectre-BHB

[DANK_AS_gay]

11 minutes ago, descendency said:

Edit: This is sideloading. It's the scary part of sideloading for Apple. 

Epic's situation is not a sideloading issue, but I agree with the statement that Apple is mostly scared of the loss in revenue as a result of this.

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Not really, I was saying that your comparison of Windows to iOS is comparing Apples to oranges (lol), and gave some examples of why even if Windows decided to lock things down, they couldn't claim the reason of security because they cannot lock down the OS effectively. Apple can actually lock things down and provide that security, because they have greater control over the hardware as well as the software, resulting in tighter integration. I took issue with you comparison because it is a poor one. 

Just because it's not exactly as effective doesn't mean it's completely ineffective. So no, you haven't actually pointed out why my comparison was flawed, because it isn't. If the purpose of a locked down system is security, any measure to increase the difficulty of running unvetted code means it's an increase in security. So again, why would you not support Microsoft doing so and only allowing you to install software on Windows through their store?

 

4 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy. Saying "Apple bad because no let me steal" is stupid at best, even with a larger vocabulary. We all know that most people use sideloading for piracy, and pretending like it isn't is dishonest at best. This is very similar to torrentings legality, "The act of torrenting itself is not illegal. However, downloading and sharing unsanctioned copyrighted material is very much illegal, and there is always a chance of getting caught by the authorities.". Yeah, because so many people use torrenting for things that aren't copyrighted material. The claim that the situation is otherwise, is again, dishonest at best

And? A hammer can be used to put a nail into a piece of wood or to smash in someone's skull. Just because something can be used for nefareous purposes does it mean you should ban it if it has a legitimate and perfectly harmless use case? I mean, if piracy is your sticking point then you again should be in favor of Microsoft cracking down on software piracy by only allowing software to be installed through its store with its DRM. I reiterate my question: Why aren't you in favor of that? Be intellecutally consistent.

[Blademaster91]

15 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

They affected Cortex processors, there is a list of ARM processors it effected, and Apple's weren't on there. Just because it is ARm does not mean it is the exact same as every other ARM processor.

https://developer.arm.com/Arm Security Center/Spectre-BHB

Ok so hardware security isn't really any excuse here to not allow sideloading then.

16 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy. Saying "Apple bad because no let me steal" is stupid at best, even with a larger vocabulary. We all know that most people use sideloading for piracy, and pretending like it isn't is dishonest at best. This is very similar to torrentings legality, "The act of torrenting itself is not illegal. However, downloading and sharing unsanctioned copyrighted material is very much illegal, and there is always a chance of getting caught by the authorities.". Yeah, because so many people use torrenting for things that aren't copyrighted material. The claim that the situation is otherwise, is again, dishonest at best

If someone wants to use the phone they paid for to pirate software then IMO they should be able to do what they want with it. There are legit reasons to allow sideloading, and because some people might torrent things isn't a reason to completely lock down the store and block sideloading.

There was an immense amount of backlash over the S version of windows that only allows apps through the windows store, yet its somehow fine when apple locks everyone down to their store.

[DANK_AS_gay]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

A hammer can be used to put a nail into a piece of wood or to smash in someone's skull. Just because something can be used for nefareous purposes does it mean you should ban it if it has a legitimate and perfectly harmless use case?

The amount of nails hammered in vs the amount of skulls hammered in is literally millions to one (192,000,000:1 for example, is an arbitrary number, and probably an under-estimation). The number of people who use this "tool" legally is extremely small, given that it is a subset of a subset. Again, torrenting is very similar in this regard. A better comparison would be an automatic gun of some sort. Can you use it for firing range shooting, self defense, and potentially hunting only? Sure! Are the people with automatic weapons going to use them like that? Obviously not. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, DANK_AS_gay said:

The amount of nails hammered in vs the amount of skulls hammered in is literally millions to one (192,000,000:1 for example, is an arbitrary number, and probably an under-estimation). The number of people who use this "tool" legally is extremely small, given that it is a subset of a subset. Again, torrenting is very similar in this regard. A better comparison would be an automatic gun of some sort. Can you use it for firing range shooting, self defense, and potentially hunting only? Sure! Are the people with automatic weapons going to use them like that? Obviously not. 

Again, you're making up an arbitrary distinction to deflect from the topic. Answer my question. If you are in favor of increased security and anti-piracy measures, why wouldn't you want Microsoft to take away your ability to run unvetted code in favor of forcing you to use their store? I've posed this question multiple times already and you continuously try to dodge it.

[DANK_AS_gay]

6 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

yet its somehow fine when apple locks everyone down to their store.

It isn't entirely fine, the percentages they charge are ridiculous. The lawsuit over Epic was stupid, that I agree on. I'm saying that sideloading apps isn't used for legal reasons, and allowing external apps would open up vulnerabilities. They may not exist now, but that's the point. They don't exist. Why? Because Apple has their OS locked down. Saying, it isn't affected by spectre, so obviously it is virus-proof, is again, dim.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

No, this is different to some degree though. Windows has a much larger audience

iPhone user base is MASSIVE!

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

I'm saying that sideloading apps isn't used for legal reasons

But it is, it's also used for not. But don't go around here saying it's ONLY used for things that are not legal when that is not a true statement. Sideloading is used even when developing your own app, usually a small dev or just a person tinkering, and the easiest way to get it on to your phone or someone else's phone is sideloading. There are more "proper" ways for development but maybe someone doesn't want or need to go to that extent or you know, potentially pay a developer fee.

 

14 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

and allowing external apps would open up vulnerabilities

Of course it does but it's not like you leave that open and allowed by default, like Android. If you have to go in to a menu, change it to allowed, accept security warning, then it's on the individual literally accepting the risk doing that, not Apple.

 

Also I'd like to see your answer to @Avocado Diaboli, that I feel is going to be real interesting..

[DANK_AS_gay]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

If you are in favor of increased security and anti-piracy measures, why wouldn't you want Microsoft to take away your ability to run unvetted code in favor of forcing you to use their store? I've posed this question multiple times already and you continuously try to dodge it.

Getting distracted happens, especially when there are so many errors to be found, but to answer your question: What do you think signing your app is? Windows is a different situation, with different users, and a different use case. iOS is meant for phones, and Windows is meant for computers. I do not support Windows doing this because a market has already built up around other platforms, a large one at that. On iOS, the added risk is not worth the convenience of having a feature you will never use. Especially since people have little to no other places to get their apps from anyways.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

What do you think signing your app is? Windows is a different situation, with different users, and a different use case

Signed apps is not an enforced requirement, so I think it has zero to do with the question asked.

 

6 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

On iOS, the added risk is not worth the convenience of having a feature you will never use. Especially since people have little to no other places to get their apps from anyways.

Adding sideloading doesn't increase the risk to anyone or in general at all unless Apple is stupid enough to have it enabled by default. Are you saying Apple is?

 

If you will never use it then why fight against it?

[Avocado Diaboli]

12 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Getting distracted happens, especially when there are so many errors to be found, but to answer your question: What do you think signing your app is? 

You can run unsigned apps just fine. Signing apps does nothing to prevent malware or piracy if the user is determined to accept the risk of installing unsigned apps. To combat that you'd need to force everybody to sign their apps and force users to only install and run signed apps.

 

12 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Windows is a different situation, with different users, and a different use case. iOS is meant for phones, and Windows is meant for computers. 

Again, that's an arbitrary distinction. Both are literal computers. The form factor and use case is irrelevant. The principle is what's important. And if you're insisting that the form factor or use case is relevant, you need to define why this relevancy should have an impact on you running unvetted code on one and not the other. Why is the fact that iOS is meant for phones a point in favor of restricting its users? You just put that out there as if it was a self-evident axiom that is true no matter what. It isn't. 

 

12 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

I do not support Windows doing this because a market has already built up around other platforms, a large one at that.

The market was only allowed to grow because the opportunity was there to begin with. Which it never was on iOS. This is putting the cart before the horse.

 

12 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

On iOS, the added risk is not worth the convenience of having a feature you will never use.

Funny thing about that: If nobody uses the feature of side-loading then all the security and piracy implications can be immediately dismissed. If it's only a niche that uses it, a majority of people by definition will never come into contact with malware through side-loaded apps or abuse it for piracy purposes. So it doesn't matter if the ability to side-load is there or not from their perspective. So those concerns are then entirely invalidated.

 

12 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Especially since people have little to no other places to get their apps from anyways.

This ties back into your previous statement about the market already being there: If Apple allows side-loading, such a market could come to exist which then would provide users with alternative means of installing apps. I mentioned F-Droid for Android earlier. You could bet your ass that the FOSS community would immediately jump onto something like this and start distributing open source software for iOS through such a channel.

[Dracarris]

5 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

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

god forbid we buy phones with proper preinstalled apps aka ones that don't have ads - because they are from the evil company. If I'd get an ad on a preinstalled app that phone would be back in the store after 5minutes.

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

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.

 

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.

I mean you go into it knowing that they lock down their platform and for some it's part of the appeal so to force them to allow sideloading is kinda crappy to those that want a fenced garden. I'm sorry but there are alot of dumb people out their and Apple is nice in the fact that I don't have to worry about some of my less tech savvy family members messing up their phone. If you want sideloading you can get any of the many android based phones it's not a monopoly at all. 

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

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.

 

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.

If you don't want to be at their mercy then buy an android lol. This is such a dumb argument as there are many peices of hardware that come with software that is essential locked down like consoles. Oh you don't like consoles being locked down then get a pc. See how that works that there are options out there. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

20 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Why is the fact that iOS is meant for phones a point in favor of restricting its users?

Because it isn't a restriction of the uses an iPhone user has for their phone. If people cared about side loading, why would:

 

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

iPhone user base is MASSIVE!

Those users buy an iPhone if they cared about things like side loading apps? Out of all the things that Apple and various other companies do that actually is a problem, we choose the least important? We could talk about non-upgradeable storage, no charging brick, making repairs impossible, the lack of a headphone jack, improper handling of App Store fees, but we are talking about something that is ultimately inconsequential?

 

I will have a better answer soon, but I need a break to chill out and think instead of rushing to get the last word in, it is leading to serious logical errors. I also am busy at the moment, and need to put my nose to the grindstone, so I cannot afford to put in the time required to make a logical argument. You make valid points, and the "Microsoft store only" question is a good one, good questions deserve good answers, and I could not provide one. I'll respond tomorrow afternoon I think.

[Sauron]

I mean it just doesn't follow that allowing optional sideloading would reduce your privacy. This is what in the business we call "a lie".

 

Plus apple gives absolutely no fucks about your privacy and they literally produce a stalking device. Their vetting policies for allowing apps on the App Store are pitifully inadequate and could not realistically prevent anyone from releasing malware or spyware if they wanted to, to the point where convincing the user to sideload a malicious app would be the more difficult option.

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

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.

That's what Windows 10 S is. Nobody uses it for a reason. Apple themselves have a great example of how you can simply have both; MacOS has a curated store but also allows "sideloading", meaning just installing programs as you would expect an operating system to allow. Linux has done this better than either Windows or MacOS for decades, having so much software available for free on curated repositories that you rarely feel the need to install anything from other sources while still allowing it if need be.

 

Android has always allowed sideloading and the vast majority of users never use it or even know it's there. For those who do, however, it's an invaluable option to have.

[WhitetailAni]

In my opinion, sideloading should not be just a toggle in iOS. It'll be a setting in Privacy, and enabling it will require BOTH your passcode, and iCloud password, so Average Joe can't go enable it if he doesn't know what he's doing. Plus a disclaimer "Apple does not provide support for apps installed outside of the app store", etc. etc.

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Their vetting policies for allowing apps on the App Store are pitifully inadequate and could not realistically prevent anyone from releasing malware or spyware if they wanted to

Someone sent in a jailbreak IPA to the app store and it got approved for a day or so.

[Avocado Diaboli]

59 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Because it isn't a restriction of the uses an iPhone user has for their phone. If people cared about side loading, why would:

 

Those users buy an iPhone if they cared about things like side loading apps? 

By all metrics Windows is as massive as iOS. Both reportedly have north of a billion active devices. So if side-loading doesn't matter for the vast majority of iOS users, why should it for the vast majority of Windows users? If Microsoft were to lock down Windows, developers who rely on customers on that platform would switch very quickly and sign up for the Microsoft store. Freeware developers would similarly pivot and offer their stuff there as well, the same way they do on the iOS app store. Every game company on the planet would immediately ditch Steam and go for broke on the Microsoft store.

 

You could easily pivot a majority of software that is currently distributed individually with bespoke installers or third-party launchers and DRM management and just offer a simple one click installation routine and nothing would change for the vast majority of people using Windows. I mean, to paraphrase a rebuttal here: If people care about side-loading so much they can go to Linux. And then I could spin this whole argument in that direction as well: Why should Linux give you the ability to run unvetted code? Why should any distro allow you to do that when they could enforce a package manager that only allows you to install vetted software on that device? And then we're back at square one, arguing why any platform should be locked down in this manner to begin with.

See, the core of my argument doesn't point at any individual platform being locked down in some way in spite of an alternative existing (incidentally, this @Brooksie359, is why your casual dismissal of my argument is silly). My argument is that it's never up to a manufacturer to tell a user how they're supposed to use a device. If I buy a computer (and that includes phones, consoles, thermostats, whatever) I reserve it as my universal and inalienable right to do with it as I please, to reprogram it, to run Doom on it, whatever. And I will always decry any attempt at blocking users from doing whatever they want with their legal property.

 

Why? Because every time that right is denied to someone it's not for privacy or security or any other reason companies pretend to care about. It's always to make more profit off of it. They want to create a local monopoly for themselves so they can sell you a device that on the open market competes with other devices but then locks you into their monopoly where only they get to profit off of you. We've seen it everywhere. Printer companies forcing you to use their ink and hell, recently even their fucking paper and labels. The walled garden is a misnomer, it's not a protective fence around you so you don't get caught by malware or people going after your private information. It's a gilded cage that corporations have convinced you isn't a prison.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Not really, I was saying that your comparison of Windows to iOS is comparing Apples to oranges (lol), and gave some examples of why even if Windows decided to lock things down, they couldn't claim the reason of security because they cannot lock down the OS effectively. Apple can actually lock things down and provide that security, because they have greater control over the hardware as well as the software, resulting in tighter integration. I took issue with you comparison because it is a poor one. 

 

I am saying that:

 

 

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy. Saying "Apple bad because no let me steal" is stupid at best, even with a larger vocabulary. We all know that most people use sideloading for piracy, and pretending like it isn't is dishonest at best. This is very similar to torrentings legality, "The act of torrenting itself is not illegal. However, downloading and sharing unsanctioned copyrighted material is very much illegal, and there is always a chance of getting caught by the authorities.". Yeah, because so many people use torrenting for things that aren't copyrighted material. The claim that the situation is otherwise, is again, dishonest at best

Well, you wave away ANY legal issues and problems if your official stance is "not supported at all". On device and on app store side. Also, where is most malware lurking? It's unregulated, uncontrolled stuff that's attractive to people who don't know better, they just want the content by any means. And bad actors will willingly deliver it. iPhones basically don't have such issues. There is some web based junk that installs itself to phones, but it's usually easy to purge. Not so much on Android phones.

 

One may say there could be a toggle or whatever, but we all know how that goes. Noobs always find a way to turn it off and f**k up their device and then blame Apple for their very own stupidity. If I had a company that needs to keep a reputation, I'd also block it, because people are generally dumb and that's just a fact. Been too long working with customers and fixing shit people managed to break. Not just with computers, other every day stuff like kitchen appliances and tools, use of chemicals where they shouldn't and what not. People can't break shit if you don't give them means and Apple did this really well on iPhones.

 

It was weird for a week or two coming from Android to iOS, but now I'm 3rd year on it and the fact it's what it is and no more is actually a good thing, not an issue. But Android control freaks obsessed with fiddling of every thing won't understand it anyways.

[Brooksie359]

55 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

By all metrics Windows is as massive as iOS. Both reportedly have north of a billion active devices. So if side-loading doesn't matter for the vast majority of iOS users, why should it for the vast majority of Windows users? If Microsoft were to lock down Windows, developers who rely on customers on that platform would switch very quickly and sign up for the Microsoft store. Freeware developers would similarly pivot and offer their stuff there as well, the same way they do on the iOS app store. Every game company on the planet would immediately ditch Steam and go for broke on the Microsoft store.

 

You could easily pivot a majority of software that is currently distributed individually with bespoke installers or third-party launchers and DRM management and just offer a simple one click installation routine and nothing would change for the vast majority of people using Windows. I mean, to paraphrase a rebuttal here: If people care about side-loading so much they can go to Linux. And then I could spin this whole argument in that direction as well: Why should Linux give you the ability to run unvetted code? Why should any distro allow you to do that when they could enforce a package manager that only allows you to install vetted software on that device? And then we're back at square one, arguing why any platform should be locked down in this manner to begin with.

See, the core of my argument doesn't point at any individual platform being locked down in some way in spite of an alternative existing (incidentally, this @Brooksie359, is why your casual dismissal of my argument is silly). My argument is that it's never up to a manufacturer to tell a user how they're supposed to use a device. If I buy a computer (and that includes phones, consoles, thermostats, whatever) I reserve it as my universal and inalienable right to do with it as I please, to reprogram it, to run Doom on it, whatever. And I will always decry any attempt at blocking users from doing whatever they want with their legal property.

 

Why? Because every time that right is denied to someone it's not for privacy or security or any other reason companies pretend to care about. It's always to make more profit off of it. They want to create a local monopoly for themselves so they can sell you a device that on the open market competes with other devices but then locks you into their monopoly where only they get to profit off of you. We've seen it everywhere. Printer companies forcing you to use their ink and hell, recently even their fucking paper and labels. The walled garden is a misnomer, it's not a protective fence around you so you don't get caught by malware or people going after your private information. It's a gilded cage that corporations have convinced you isn't a prison.

If the walled garden was anywhere nearly as bad as you say it is then Apple wouldn't be so successful. The fact is very few apple users care about side loading and to risk security issues just for the few to be able to sideload doesn't make sense to me. The problem with getting rid of the walled garden is that some people wander outside the garden and yet their phone messed up because they frankly aren't the smartest. One of the beautiful parts of the walled garden is you don't have to worry about. The fact that you care so much about being able to customize things shouldn't mean that all products out their should cater to what you want.