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

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

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?

We already do talk about this, don't pretend or act like people do not do this. There can be many conversations about many different things, different conversations don't make the other ones not exist.

 

If it's ultimately inconsequential then why fight against it? Why would Apple fight against it? If you have to go in to a sub menu of a menu, enable side-loading, accept security prompt then what is it to you, 99% of other iPhone users or Apple that you can do this? What's the actual issue? You just said there isn't one so then what is the justification to prevent it? It requires more effort from Apple to prevent it than it does to allow it.

 

Something cannot be inconsequential if there is a consequence of allowing it, pick only one stance on this. You can't have it both ways.

 

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Well, you wave away ANY legal issues and problems if your official stance is "not supported at all".

Point to any legal president set in any jurisdiction where Microsoft has ever been liable to malware or viruses...

 

These made up things are very silly, problems like this don't exist because one says they could or do. Microsoft would be dead and buried if this were real, which it isn't.

[Elijah Kamski]

7 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

 

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. 

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. 

Not pirate, it's free, but Samsung (not Sony), have put a ton of ads on it like there is no tomorrow.

What is being done is LP is removing the ad sections etc in the app, simply modifying it.

In terms of YT Vanced, it's simply installing an adblocker and the ability for us to remove things we don't want, such as the crate button, also adding SponsorBlocker, all of these things are not piracy really as it's not stealing.

This goes into the whole Linus adblock piracy debate though as you would probably know.

[Elijah Kamski]

6 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Literally when I asked about the reasoning behind sideloading, almost every response was piracy

Removing the create button on the YT app because it's dumb, adding SponsorBlocker on the YT app and also having a AdBlock on the YT app via the use of YT Vanced is not piracy.

None of the things that I had said were piracy at all, like downloading some paid apps for free.

Both of these apps are free, we are simply modding them so we can remove certain features we don't like, like ads and the create button, and adding things we want, such as a adblocker, being able to play 4K videos on my phone by default when on wifi, and also adding a automatic segment skipper.

None of my examples were piracy, unless you consider people not watching ads or skipping sponsor segments piracy for some weird reason.

[Elijah Kamski]

5 hours ago, Dracarris said:

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.

This is pre-installed.

Even the Samsung health app contains ads.

However, I needed a new phone a couple of years ago because my iPhone 5S finally died.

[Elijah Kamski]

6 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

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.

I think they did that with W10S?

But even then, why would anyone use the Microsoft Store app?

It's full of junk, and every single developer there simply turns a app that is free on the internet and put a paywall behind it, without it even being their own creation most of the time as well.

[Elijah Kamski]

6 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

I am still unsure why you are using my example as "piracy" when you know that YT itself is free, YT Vanced is also free, and the only thing that makes money is ads, but we are just removing ads and skipping segments, so the ads are not even going to the user's device at all, simply blocking them.

Unless of course again, you consider people not watching ads for a creator they like being an act of piracy.

[Elijah Kamski]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Yeah, this is me when I develop my own apps.

Build them, then move it over to my phone to test them.

[Brooksie359]

39 minutes ago, Elijah Kamski said:

I am still unsure why you are using my example as "piracy" when you know that YT itself is free, YT Vanced is also free, and the only thing that makes money is ads, but we are just removing ads and skipping segments, so the ads are not even going to the user's device at all, simply blocking them.

Unless of course again, you consider people not watching ads for a creator they like being an act of piracy.

I mean that is effectively the same thing as piracy. You are watching the content while completely circumventing the things that are supposed to pay for that content. Personally I don't care but to try and say that it isn't like piracy is simply incorrect. I mean what difference does it make if what you are doing is technically not considered piracy when what you are doing is breaking the agreement between you and the content creator on what you are supposed to do to watch their content. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

agreement between you and the content creator on what you are supposed to do to watch their content

You mean you and the platform, ain't no agreement between anyone and the creator except between the creator and the platform. Nobody is under an obligation to watch ads because it's not even in the ToS of YouTube to do so. I'll watch a relevant integrated and well produced ad that is part of the video, sure no problem. YouTube ads can go jump off a cliff.

 

Something one hopes and wishes you to do, and you rely on to make revenue isn't an obligation. You sign up and put content on a free access platform that doesn't even have in it's ToS a requirement to do the thing that generates the money is the risk of the one doing it, nothing to do with those watching the content. Sitting through ads is literally at the good will of the watcher and nothing more, unless it's a paid platform.

 

People have this situation all screwed up for who knows what reason, because they like the channels they watch I guess? Doesn't actually change what you are obligated to do.

 

Why is it you think most advertisers go with ads at the length or shorter than maximum YouTube allows that cannot be skipped? Because longer ones can be skipped and if skipped you don't get ad revenue payout. Once YouTube sees that you might be an idle watcher does the likelihood of being served longer ads increase.

 

Watching YouTube on my PS4 without ad block ability has a direct impact on what I am actually willing to watch, if I cannot skip the ad and it's video I'm not really interested in then I hit back or close YouTube, which results in no ad revenue payout may I add. That video could have gotten a view, I might have really liked it, I may have even give it a like, I might have watched more of the channel's content, but I didn't because ads. That's just how the dice roll on that one.

 

A creator might say at the beginning of their video that you must watch it upside down on your head, doesn't mean I have to or will do it, give me a reason to, don't just expect me to. Does me not doing this break some "agreement"? 

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If the walled garden was anywhere nearly as bad as you say it is then Apple wouldn't be so successful. 

Why is success a metric by which we judge if something is ok or not? What does that have to do with literally anything? The walled garden is bad because any means of preventing users form doing what they want with their legal property is bad in principle. And I've yet to hear a compelling argument against that notion.

 

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

If few people care about it, it's not a valid security or privacy concern. Just flipping a switch to enable the few users who care to install and run what they want is not automatically putting all users at risk. You are not more likely to suffer negative consequences from me being able to side-load apps on my Android phone. You can still elect to only install apps from the Google Play store which, if we're going to assume that these app stores all have a 100% perfect track record of vetting their apps where nothing malicious is getting through, has no bearing on your risk of getting malware on your phone. Why would that suddenly change for iOS?

 

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

Then I pose you the same question as I posed earlier: Would you also be in favor of Windows and Linux distros pivoting to a proprietary, curated store that's the only means of installing software on your PC? If yes, why? And if no, where do you draw the line that distinguishes the devices in a meaningful way that justifies this incongruence?

[Kisai]

16 hours ago, manikyath said:

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

You jest, but that's exactly what will happen with any device that has a battery and software has unfettered access to the hardware.

 

Do I believe that there will be exploding iphones because someone's grandchild sideloaded a pirate copy of something? No. The problem is when that same device "is trusted" and then it controls something like the HVAC, or worse, medical devices.

 

We already see this kind of problem happening frequently with Android devices, where malware loaded at sales, or by third parties are stealing crypto wallets, bank account credentials, and 2FA tokens.

 

As per usual, the right compromise is something that already exists, developer keys. Pay for a developer key, unlock the side-loading of the device, everything sideloaded is jailed/virtualized from accessing the OS or anything installed by the stores.

 

[jaypro]

I don't think ad blocking or sponsor skipping is a great argument for sideloading.

 

The only reason these modified apps that can remove and skip ads are semi-available is because sideloading is not mainstream.

 

If the hurdle to side loading no longer exists, and its super simple to download a zero ads alternative Youtube app, do you really think Google will admit defeat and let it happen? 

 

So if the hurdle to side loading disappears, companies would just spend more resources on how to prevent ad blocking.

 

[manikyath]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You jest, but that's exactly what will happen with any device that has a battery and software has unfettered access to the hardware.

 

Do I believe that there will be exploding iphones because someone's grandchild sideloaded a pirate copy of something? No. The problem is when that same device "is trusted" and then it controls something like the HVAC, or worse, medical devices.

 

We already see this kind of problem happening frequently with Android devices, where malware loaded at sales, or by third parties are stealing crypto wallets, bank account credentials, and 2FA tokens.

 

As per usual, the right compromise is something that already exists, developer keys. Pay for a developer key, unlock the side-loading of the device, everything sideloaded is jailed/virtualized from accessing the OS or anything installed by the stores.

 

but sideloading apps has nothing to do with this problem. Every device will be vulnerable at some point, the debate here is the right to make your own solution if you so desire, or if the manufacturer refuses to.

 

also, if you'd ask me, a critical medical device should have nothing to do with a device that has the potential to:

- be vulnerable to attacks (complicated internet-connected device with hundreds of pieces of software)

- die in the middle of the night(because y'know, battery life is a thing)

- crash (as reliable as they are, shit happens, and there's no automatic failover option)

 

at risk of going a bit off topic.. here's a funny story:

i've had the pleasure of helping an older man with two of those fancy bluetooth connected hearing aids.. except.. if his phone's bluetooth bunged up, because y'know, it bluetooths to the car too... he's suddenly unable to hear conversation until someone tells him loud enough to turn the hearing aids off and back on again.

[jaypro]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

If it's ultimately inconsequential then why fight against it?

 

Here is an example why you would fight against it even if you were not planning on ever side-loading.

 

Side load allowed.  Someone makes a modified Candy Crush app with unlimited lives.  Impacts their bottom line, since some people will stop paying micro transaction for extra lives.  Their solution? Lives are now stored server side, and Candy Crush is now an always-online game.

If side-loading becomes mainstream, I can see many games with shift towards always-online DRM methods to combat this.  You can see all the DRM on desktop.

 

This now impacts people who never intended on side loading anything.

 

Sideload blocking is kind of a universal DRM in that way.

 

Note that, I am still overall indecisive on my overall stance on this, just thought I'd add a non-security related example.

[Avocado Diaboli]

52 minutes ago, jaypro said:

If the hurdle to side loading no longer exists, and its super simple to download a zero ads alternative Youtube app, do you really think Google will admit defeat and let it happen? 

The hurdle already doesn't exist on Android, so that argument flies out of the window entirely.

 

On the note of medical devices, here's my anecdote: My brother is diabetic and a few years ago he switched from manual blood sugar measurements to a device that he can read out remotely where the needle is permanently stuck in his arm and hooked up to a wireless device*. They also offer an app for that, but for some reason the app only works on very specific devices (I think it was a couple of Samsung phones) and literally nothing else. You couldn't even download the app from the Google Play store to your device to test if it'd work either way, they outright prohibited it. So even though he owns a modern smartphone, he still had to rely on a little device that he had to pay on a continual basis to read out his blood sugar. I don't care if this is considered piracy but I searched online for a way to make the app work on his phone, found a cracked version that doesn't check the device ID and installed it on his phone. It obviously works flawlessly. If you think it's ok to lock off stuff like this behind arbitrary gates and want to take the position that people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their devices vis-à-vis greedy profit motives, then take a long hard look in the mirror.

 

*that device, incidentally, consists of a plastic housing that you can't remove the button cell battery from, so you have to chuck the entire device in the bin when the battery runs out and buy a new one. I'm still working on cracking one of those open and replacing it with a rechargeable battery without breaking it, because fuck that noise.

[jaypro]

The hurdle does exist on Android.  Yes its not as big of a hurdle as having to jailbreak your iPhone, but the phone doesn't come out the box with side loading enabled.

 

Once something becomes mainstream enough, then companies will go after it since it hurts their bottom line.

 

And my argument isn't even theoretically.  Vanced started to become big enough, so Google shut it down.

 

As for the medical device, its a similar problem.

 

Companies won't develop products that lose them money.  Probably they were subsidized by Samsung to only release on their devices.  And they would also obviously like the re-occurring revenue from having to buy replacements when the battery dies.

 

So, by using your knowledge to work around it, such as a cracked version or replaceable battery mod, you can save some money.  But if this workaround becomes easy enough that anybody can do it, the company obviously won't sit around and do nothing about it.

 

They'll either make it harder...or raise the price of their product.  

 

So I think anyone that wants to benefit from the economical advantages of sideloading, should want side-loading to stay where it is.. Niche, but not impossible.  So that if you really want to, you can do it, but its not stupid-easy where now its popular and companies work against it.

 

 

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

25 minutes ago, jaypro said:

The hurdle does exist on Android.  Yes its not as big of a hurdle as having to jailbreak your iPhone, but the phone doesn't come out the box with side loading enabled.

Nobody argued it should be enabled out of the box. In fact, most who agree that side-loading should be available, including myself, say it should be handle the same way it is on Android: A function hidden somewhere in the settings where you have to enable it and agree that you understand the risks you're taking. Insisting that this is about out of the box enabled side-loading is a strawman argument.

 

25 minutes ago, jaypro said:

Once something becomes mainstream enough, then companies will go after it since it hurts their bottom line.

And why should I care as a customer if companies get to screw me over with their greedy and immoral methods? I know that the corporation-customer relationship is inherently adversarial, that's why I'm so vocal about this in the first place. They're not my friends and they certainly don't do what they do to give us nice things.

 

25 minutes ago, jaypro said:

So I think anyone that wants to benefit from the economical advantages of sideloading, should want side-loading to stay where it is.. Niche, but not impossible.  So that if you really want to, you can do it, but its not stupid-easy where now its popular and companies work against it.

That's a very egotistical view on the matter. I don't want the ability of side-loading just because I profit off if it by having access to niche products and services that fly under the radar because their questionable legality or lack thereof don't have a large enough impact to attract attention. I want the ability to run anything I like on any device I own for everybody because that's how it should be for everybody.

[Kisai]

6 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Nobody argued it should be enabled out of the box. In fact, most who agree that side-loading should be available, including myself, say it should be handle the same way it is on Android: A function hidden somewhere in the settings where you have to enable it and agree that you understand the risks you're taking. Insisting that this is about out of the box enabled side-loading is a strawman argument.

No, no, you don't get it. If you allow the user to toggle it, at all, then you will get apps, especially cracked apps telling you to expressly turn the sideloading feature on, and then there is nothing stopping that app from downloading malware. It has to be the other way around, where you toggle developer mode, download the binary intended to be run, and then the device prompts you for an authorization "developer" key. No key, no run. This keeps these programs from doing anything the user can't see. That key self-signs the binary, and only that binary.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And why should I care as a customer if companies get to screw me over with their greedy and immoral methods? I know that the corporation-customer relationship is inherently adversarial, that's why I'm so vocal about this in the first place. They're not my friends and they certainly don't do what they do to give us nice things.

Because the same argument for sideloading is the same argument for homebrew on consoles, 100% of it is for piracy reasons. There's never been any "homebrew" program for any console that anyone bought a console "just to jailbreak" for.

 

That's the cold hard truth, and no matter how much people deny it, they aren't fooling anyone. Even the aftermarket consoles (eg FPGA and Emulator) consoles go out of their way to only release those devices in a "plays only original media" mode, but aftermarket firmware unlocks the ability to play the games off flash storage. It's done this way because they don't want the selling point being to play pirate media like the GPD devices.

 

6 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's a very egotistical view on the matter. I don't want the ability of side-loading just because I profit off if it by having access to niche products and services that fly under the radar because their questionable legality or lack thereof don't have a large enough impact to attract attention. I want the ability to run anything I like on any device I own for everybody because that's how it should be for everybody.

 

The golden compromise has to always balance the needs of the software/hardware developer, third party developers, and the user. Sure, yes you can do whatever you want to your hardware, including erasing the installed software/operating system. But in doing so, the device should not be permitted to connect to install anything provided by the hardware vendor either. Balkanize the potentially poison hardware from being able to communicate with unmodified hardware. And other vendors like Sony and Nintendo have indeed done this. Modify the device or the OS, and it gets banned from the manufacturers store and any ability to play with anyone on their services. That's to keep people from playing with hacked devices to cheat.

 

 

[darknessblade]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Quote

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

You jest, but that's exactly what will happen with any device that has a battery and software has unfettered access to the hardware.

 

Do I believe that there will be exploding iphones because someone's grandchild sideloaded a pirate copy of something? No. The problem is when that same device "is trusted" and then it controls something like the HVAC, or worse, medical devices.

 

We already see this kind of problem happening frequently with Android devices, where malware loaded at sales, or by third parties are stealing crypto wallets, bank account credentials, and 2FA tokens.

 

As per usual, the right compromise is something that already exists, developer keys. Pay for a developer key, unlock the side-loading of the device, everything sideloaded is jailed/virtualized from accessing the OS or anything installed by the stores.

 

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's the cold hard truth, and no matter how much people deny it, they aren't fooling anyone. Even the aftermarket consoles (eg FPGA and Emulator) consoles go out of their way to only release those devices in a "plays only original media" mode, but aftermarket firmware unlocks the ability to play the games off flash storage. It's done this way because they don't want the selling point being to play pirate media like the GPD devices.

 

 

And yet that is still a limited method, which does not allow you to run any app you want like on Android.

 

Also talking about Consoles "And even PHONES, or other devices"

 

UUHM have you heard of the Nintendo DS and "R4 cards"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4_cartridge

They did not need any software mod at all. it was just a card that worked like any game card, It was Plug and PLAY nothing more, nothing less.

 

1 hour ago, jaypro said:

 

Here is an example why you would fight against it even if you were not planning on ever side-loading.

 

Side load allowed.  Someone makes a modified Candy Crush app with unlimited lives.  Impacts their bottom line, since some people will stop paying micro transaction for extra lives.  Their solution? Lives are now stored server side, and Candy Crush is now an always-online game.

If side-loading becomes mainstream, I can see many games with shift towards always-online DRM methods to combat this.  You can see all the DRM on desktop.

 

This now impacts people who never intended on side loading anything.

 

Sideload blocking is kind of a universal DRM in that way.

 

Note that, I am still overall indecisive on my overall stance on this, just thought I'd add a non-security related example.

Better watch the Southpark episode of "Freemium Isn't FREE"

 

Even if it is a satirical way of explaining it, it is true, Candy crush does not make money of the little guy or ads, they make money of those that are soo addicted that they spend thousands just to buy extra lives.

 

The amount of people Hacking or modifying lives, is Soo low, that it is neglectable to consider preventing it.

If 99% of users where to do it on android then they would change it,

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

30 minutes ago, Kisai said:

No, no, you don't get it. If you allow the user to toggle it, at all, then you will get apps, especially cracked apps telling you to expressly turn the sideloading feature on, and then there is nothing stopping that app from downloading malware. It has to be the other way around, where you toggle developer mode, download the binary intended to be run, and then the device prompts you for an authorization "developer" key. No key, no run. This keeps these programs from doing anything the user can't see. That key self-signs the binary, and only that binary.

That doesn't really change anything. If you allow users to install and run whatever they want there will always be methods by which you can trick a user to grant access to something or install malware. There is no way to prevent this in 100% of cases unless you go for Apple's walled garden approach, and even then the efficacy is debatable. You can always design a smarter sytem, but never a smarter user.

 

30 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Because the same argument for sideloading is the same argument for homebrew on consoles, 100% of it is for piracy reasons. There's never been any "homebrew" program for any console that anyone bought a console "just to jailbreak" for.

 

That's the cold hard truth, and no matter how much people deny it, they aren't fooling anyone. Even the aftermarket consoles (eg FPGA and Emulator) consoles go out of their way to only release those devices in a "plays only original media" mode, but aftermarket firmware unlocks the ability to play the games off flash storage. It's done this way because they don't want the selling point being to play pirate media like the GPD devices.

It doesn't really matter if people only clamor for it just for piracy reasons, because you as an end user shouldn't have to care why you're not allowed to run whatever you want on your device. Your right to run any code you want on your devices should not be predicated on someone's ability to abuse said right to commit piracy. Or do you also abide by that doctrine that innocent people should suffer just because a few perps abused their freedoms in other areas?

 

30 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The golden compromise has to always balance the needs of the software/hardware developer, third party developers, and the user. Sure, yes you can do whatever you want to your hardware, including erasing the installed software/operating system. But in doing so, the device should not be permitted to connect to install anything provided by the hardware vendor either. Balkanize the potentially poison hardware from being able to communicate with unmodified hardware. And other vendors like Sony and Nintendo have indeed done this. Modify the device or the OS, and it gets banned from the manufacturers store and any ability to play with anyone on their services. That's to keep people from playing with hacked devices to cheat.

That's entirely fine by me. I don't care if a device manufacturer cuts off access to their services if I decided I want to enable side-loading on my device. But that is predicated on the fact that I have the ability to enable it in the first place. Which I don't have in many instances. And no, just because there are exploits that enable you to hack a device to run unsigned code doesn't count, this stuff needs to be available by the manufacturer itself. Mind you, not enabled by default, just available. 

[Mark Kaine]

I cant believe  someone is actually pulling the "thats different" card unironically…

And also everything (99%) is "piracy"?

 

So lets check, here are my sideloaded apps:

 

AppGallery

NHK World

BookWalker

bilibili

.

 

… absolutely nothing to do with "piracy" but all with "availability"… 

 

13 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

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.

100% this and exactly what the EU anti-gatekeeper laws are aimed at, precisely because of companies like appple who abuse their market position.

 

The funny thing is there isnt even another solution … "sideloading" is the only option, unless apple wants to drop their appstore, then it becomes simply "loading" = )

 

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

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.

But that argument has been debunked ad nauseum… if you do not wish to sideload no one is forcing you at gun point to do so…!

 

And saying people are too technological dumb to read a huge ass warning that their device "might be at risk" is imo pretty disingeneous. 

 

Also news flash: Android has sideloading since forever, its really not a huge deal if done right… windows seems to be a lot more vulnerable*… can see these stories daily about people installing questionable / malicious stuff there.

 

*this is of course because windows inherently is insecure with 30+ years "legacy" garbage, Android is far more modern without  all the ballast.

 

One other reason for that is, ironically, that the "playstore" doesnt completely suck, unlike ms store (i would lump apple store in here, but i dont know how bad it really is - its probably really bad though…), so no huge demand for sideloading when you can get almost everything from a curated and supposedly "safe" store…

[Brooksie359]

4 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Why is success a metric by which we judge if something is ok or not? What does that have to do with literally anything? The walled garden is bad because any means of preventing users form doing what they want with their legal property is bad in principle. And I've yet to hear a compelling argument against that notion.

 

If few people care about it, it's not a valid security or privacy concern. Just flipping a switch to enable the few users who care to install and run what they want is not automatically putting all users at risk. You are not more likely to suffer negative consequences from me being able to side-load apps on my Android phone. You can still elect to only install apps from the Google Play store which, if we're going to assume that these app stores all have a 100% perfect track record of vetting their apps where nothing malicious is getting through, has no bearing on your risk of getting malware on your phone. Why would that suddenly change for iOS?

 

Then I pose you the same question as I posed earlier: Would you also be in favor of Windows and Linux distros pivoting to a proprietary, curated store that's the only means of installing software on your PC? If yes, why? And if no, where do you draw the line that distinguishes the devices in a meaningful way that justifies this incongruence?

The walled garden is bad for those who want to tinker with their phone yes but it isn't for those who just want a phone that works and don't want to worry about accidentally messing up their phone. And yes you are absolutely correct about Apple allowing sideloading would make it as risky as an android phone which I have had family members mess up their phones for this very reason. It's part of the reason why they use Apple now. Also you act like there has never been products that will try and prevent you from messing around with it and modifying it for safety reasons. Also the hypothetical about windows always baffles me as you would he fundamental getting rid of the biggest reason why windows is a success. If they did that then you would likely see an alternative that takes windows place come out as they wouldn't need to be as competitive with windows now that they locked it down in your hypothetical. 

[jaypro]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

But that argument has been debunked ad nauseum… if you do not wish to sideload no one is forcing you at gun point to do so…!

Making side loading easily accessible is going to end with an increase of DRM on mobile.

 

You can clearly see that on PC and Mac.

 

So...there is a clear, objective negative impact to people who have no intention of ever side loading.  

 

I don't think its enough of an impact to outweigh the benefits, but it is a negative that would be arguable.

[Elijah Kamski]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean that is effectively the same thing as piracy. You are watching the content while completely circumventing the things that are supposed to pay for that content. Personally I don't care but to try and say that it isn't like piracy is simply incorrect. I mean what difference does it make if what you are doing is technically not considered piracy when what you are doing is breaking the agreement between you and the content creator on what you are supposed to do to watch their content. 

Presses skip ad button.

Taps 10 times on the right to fast forward.

[Avocado Diaboli]

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also the hypothetical about windows always baffles me as you would he fundamental getting rid of the biggest reason why windows is a success. If they did that then you would likely see an alternative that takes windows place come out as they wouldn't need to be as competitive with windows now that they locked it down in your hypothetical. 

Now that's just a contradiction right there. You pointed to Apple's success as an indicator that the walled garden approach is good. And you and others have said that the reason they point people towards iOS is the walled garden and its better security and smaller possibility of user-induced headaches thanks to the heavy reliance on guardrails that prohibit massive problems due to user error (as the guy in charge of our company iPhones, let me tell you, I still have plenty of headaches thanks to our users, but that's a story for another time).

 

And yet conversely, Windows is somehow successful and great exactly because of the absence of those very same guardrails? You simply can't have it both ways, which is why I'm continuing to ask people about this discrepancy. You can't say Windows is great for giving users a lot of freedom and allowing them to run any code they want and iOS is great for restricting users and not allowing them to run any code they want. Why does pointing out this ideological inconsistency baffle you?

 

7 minutes ago, jaypro said:

Making side loading easily accessible is going to end with an increase of DRM on mobile.

DRM is already at 100% on iOS. Don't pretend the App store isn't DRM, that'd be disingenuous.