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

[DANK_AS_gay]

So, this is a pretty hot debate, and the way I see it, there are valid arguments for both sides. 

There is A. the need for the user's ownership of a device to allow them to use their device however they want

B. The need for the rights of said user to not interfere with the rights of the other users

 

The best solution, as far as I can tell, is not to allow sideloading, because the drawbacks far outweigh the benefit (the argument for number of users who use such a feature goes both ways, so the point is moot), but to greatly reduce their cut on the App Store, and to make the developer fee based on how much money said developer makes on their games per quarter. So small developers with indie games that do ok at best have to pay $20 at most, but large developers with giant games like COD Mobile have to pay $1000. This way, there isn't as much of a risk of malware, but there is more freedom as to what apps end up on the App Store. 

 

I get that sideloading can actually be a good thing, you have given great examples of that. And yes, what Samsung is doing with their weather and health apps is ridiculous, but the possibilities of malware being created are massive if sideloading is allowed. Right now, any app you make and run is completely blocked from the internet, Apple services, etc. until you send it to Apple for verification. this means that installing/creating malware is extremely time consuming, and difficult to get past Apple. If you open it up for everyone, then people with more nefarious intentions have a much easier time making said malware. And the claim that "If you don't want malware, then don't install it" is ignoring the literal definition of malware: "software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system." (emphasis added). 

You keep saying, "Android has it, and look how great it has turned out for them!"

3 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

As pointed out before, my choice to use side-loading doesn't actively put you at any greater risk than you would reasonably already be given the nature of your private information floating around with people who are well beyond your reach and control. So privacy isn't the matter and if you don't engage with it yourself, you won't get malware on your system either way. 

 

"As of March 2020, the total number of new Android malware samples amounted to 482,579 per month. According to AV-Test, trojans were the most common type of malware affecting Android devices." -Statistica

 

I am trying to find statistics on iPhone malware, but all I get are dated reports (as in 2013 reports, that say .7% of malware attacks are aimed at iOS, which would not be fair to use), and reports of "there were 14 vulnerabilities once, but they were patched within a day in 12.1.3" or "there was one vulnerability that no one knew about, but it only affected 300 apps at the most, and they were all removed". So I cannot for certain say what the true vulnerabilities are on iOS. But reports from Kaspersky say, "Fortunately for Apple fans, iPhone viruses are extremely rare, but not unheard of.While generally secure, one of the ways iPhones may become vulnerable to viruses is when they are ‘jailbroken’." So obviously the "walled garden" is working. To what degree? I cannot know for certain, but it is clear that it is statistically significant.

 

This is the negative effect. Or we could allow sideloading for a tiny fraction of the user base. I know where my vote lies.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I wasn't referring to malware, I was referring to piracy. Currently, piracy on iPhones is basically non existent and you're assured that all that you sell on App Store will be a sale, high Apple cuts or not (which aren't that high compared to everyone else to begin with). Good luck with that once sideloading is a thing. So, you're going to take high cuts and allow sideloading? People will pirate, especially countries like India where people are notorious for pirating everything possible and it's why they love Android so much. I don't care about any of it and iOS has been excellent tool to work with even in its current "limited" form. Which really isn't that limiting unless you want piracy and flashing fuck tons of really bad custom ROM's. I've left that far behind me and don't miss any of it when company supports devices for 3x longer than any Android phone brand anyway...

 

And then also malware. When did you last seen one on an iPhone? And it build a reputation around that and it's not a made up one.

None of this makes Apple potentially liable for anything though, as is not Microsoft.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

So, this is a pretty hot debate, and the way I see it, there are valid arguments for both sides. 

There is A. the need for the user's ownership of a device to allow them to use their device however they want

B. The need for the rights of said user to not interfere with the rights of the other users

 

The best solution, as far as I can tell, is not to allow sideloading, because the drawbacks far outweigh the benefit (the argument for number of users who use such a feature goes both ways, so the point is moot), but to greatly reduce their cut on the App Store, and to make the developer fee based on how much money said developer makes on their games per quarter. So small developers with indie games that do ok at best have to pay $20 at most, but large developers with giant games like COD Mobile have to pay $1000. This way, there isn't as much of a risk of malware, but there is more freedom as to what apps end up on the App Store. 

 

I get that sideloading can actually be a good thing, you have given great examples of that. And yes, what Samsung is doing with their weather and health apps is ridiculous, but the possibilities of malware being created are massive if sideloading is allowed. Right now, any app you make and run is completely blocked from the internet, Apple services, etc. until you send it to Apple for verification. this means that installing/creating malware is extremely time consuming, and difficult to get past Apple. If you open it up for everyone, then people with more nefarious intentions have a much easier time making said malware. And the claim that "If you don't want malware, then don't install it" is ignoring the literal definition of malware: "software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system." (emphasis added). 

You keep saying, "Android has it, and look how great it has turned out for them!"

 

"As of March 2020, the total number of new Android malware samples amounted to 482,579 per month. According to AV-Test, trojans were the most common type of malware affecting Android devices." -Statistica

 

I am trying to find statistics on iPhone malware, but all I get are dated reports (as in 2013 reports, that say .7% of malware attacks are aimed at iOS, which would not be fair to use), and reports of "there were 14 vulnerabilities once, but they were patched within a day in 12.1.3" or "there was one vulnerability that no one knew about, but it only affected 300 apps at the most, and they were all removed". So I cannot for certain say what the true vulnerabilities are on iOS. But reports from Kaspersky say, "Fortunately for Apple fans, iPhone viruses are extremely rare, but not unheard of.While generally secure, one of the ways iPhones may become vulnerable to viruses is when they are ‘jailbroken’." So obviously the "walled garden" is working. To what degree? I cannot know for certain, but it is clear that it is statistically significant.

 

This is the negative effect. Or we could allow sideloading for a tiny fraction of the user base. I know where my vote lies.

The majority of Android infections are not the root cause nor the entry point of side loading, most are from the fact that Android historically get very short security update periods and there are a lot of known vulnerabilities that are applicable to devices in use. Lots of people are running older Android devices with old Android versions with critical vulnerabilities. 

 

You'll have to prove that side loading is the main reason for malware/viruses on Android for you argument to hold any relevance here, which hasn't been done yet.

[Avocado Diaboli]

@DANK_AS_gayI never really argued against the fact that opening up the OS would invariably lead to a greater number of malware. I agree with @leadeater that I too have yet to see evidence of the number of Android malware infections that can be traced back to side-loading specifically versus all the other attack vectors.

 

But then again, even that greater threat potential was never the main core of my argument. I'm aware of the consequences that relaxing the requirements on what software is allowed to run on iOS would bring with them, which is why I already pointed out that if iOS were to implement side-loading, it should definitely come with an appropriate warning and be suitably hidden and require the user's iCloud password, lest someone enable it on accident.

 

What I'm questioning is this insistence that Apple should be the ones enforcing it in the first place and disallow the practice altogether. Because again, if we want to do this song and dance again, I'm going to continue pointing towards Windows and how it would benefit exactly the same way of Microsoft dictating how you get to use your machine. But as we've seen, plenty of people wouldn't like that and I still haven't really gotten a reasonable argument why this dichotomy should exist. I mean, Microsoft made a huge mess with Windows 11 when they made it harder to switch to Chrome, or any other browser really. They could've argued that by forcing you to use their Edge browser, they were making their system safer for their user, since they can exert greater control over that browser and protect you from threats more effectively. And yet you've seen the fervor that broke out when people couldn't switch to their preferred browser with a single click. Rightfully so, I might add, but again, what's the motivation between defending the walled garden in Apple's case but getting riled up when Microsoft has a "their platform, their rules" moment?

[jaypro]

Theres a clear difference between Microsoft’s and Apples case.

 

Microsoft tried to make edge a more “stickier” default browser.  Enough people hated Microsoft’s ways, that Microsoft found it necessary to backtrack on it and make it easier again to change browser.  They chose to backtrack due to negative consumer sentiment.

 

In Apple’s case, they should only have to open up their walled garden if it makes financial sense for them I.e. enough consumers leave the platform because they prefer a more open ecosystem.

 

Rather than government intervention and regulations forcing them to.

[Brooksie359]

15 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

@DANK_AS_gayI never really argued against the fact that opening up the OS would invariably lead to a greater number of malware. I agree with @leadeater that I too have yet to see evidence of the number of Android malware infections that can be traced back to side-loading specifically versus all the other attack vectors.

 

But then again, even that greater threat potential was never the main core of my argument. I'm aware of the consequences that relaxing the requirements on what software is allowed to run on iOS would bring with them, which is why I already pointed out that if iOS were to implement side-loading, it should definitely come with an appropriate warning and be suitably hidden and require the user's iCloud password, lest someone enable it on accident.

 

What I'm questioning is this insistence that Apple should be the ones enforcing it in the first place and disallow the practice altogether. Because again, if we want to do this song and dance again, I'm going to continue pointing towards Windows and how it would benefit exactly the same way of Microsoft dictating how you get to use your machine. But as we've seen, plenty of people wouldn't like that and I still haven't really gotten a reasonable argument why this dichotomy should exist. I mean, Microsoft made a huge mess with Windows 11 when they made it harder to switch to Chrome, or any other browser really. They could've argued that by forcing you to use their Edge browser, they were making their system safer for their user, since they can exert greater control over that browser and protect you from threats more effectively. And yet you've seen the fervor that broke out when people couldn't switch to their preferred browser with a single click. Rightfully so, I might add, but again, what's the motivation between defending the walled garden in Apple's case but getting riled up when Microsoft has a "their platform, their rules" moment?

You are conflating two different things. Windows is successful because it is open and it's current target audience likes them for that. If they suddenly changed that obviously you would have people be upset. I mean it's like a pizza place randomly changing to a Chinese restaurant. Yeah while Chinese food is good you are going to make people upset who came to you to get pizza and now no longer can get their pizza fix. Compare that to apple where they are expected to have a locked down platform and that is one of their defining factors it seems stupid to make the comparison. 

[Brooksie359]

7 minutes ago, jaypro said:

Theres a clear difference between Microsoft’s and Apples case.

 

Microsoft tried to make edge a more “stickier” default browser.  Enough people hated Microsoft’s ways, that Microsoft found it necessary to backtrack on it and make it easier again to change browser.  They chose to backtrack due to negative consumer sentiment.

 

In Apple’s case, they should only have to open up their walled garden if it makes financial sense for them I.e. enough consumers leave the platform because they prefer a more open ecosystem.

 

Rather than government intervention and regulations forcing them to.

Exactly this. Apple has been successful for a very long time with their closed off platform and I don't think it is a coincidence. If people really wanted an open platform then you would see way more Android users than Apple users but you don't. I mean Steve Job's original image for the iPhone was they would create a unified user experience and that would have little in the way of customization compared to more open platforms but the user experience would be so refined that people would like it. Apple didn't get to where they are today by opening up their platform as that sorta goes against their design philosophy. I don't think it's fair to change a platform to be more open for the few people who want it that way vs the many that like the way ios is now. It's seems selfish to me tbh. 

[jaypro]

I don’t want to have to go price comparison shopping for different apps like on Windows.

 

Oh Epic Games charges $X for game while Steam charges $Y.  I just want it to be convenient and consistent.

 

Of course, I think apple takes too fat of a cut of the revenue.  A single app developer isn’t big enough to make a big enough noise to change this.  But together, they could have an impact.  But, then, most  of the biggest devs wouldn’t want this to be regulated…since they also take advantage of this.

 

Meta, with their new Metaverse revenue sharing and all their popular iPhone apps.

Google, play store, and all the google and youtube apps.

 

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You are conflating two different things. Windows is successful because it is open and it's current target audience likes them for that. If they suddenly changed that obviously you would have people be upset.

Yes. Can you say the opposite about iOS users? If not, my comparison still stands.

 

10 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If people really wanted an open platform then you would see way more Android users than Apple users but you don't.

Really?

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/

 

Listen, if you want to make bullshit claims that are easily refuted and pretend like you've made a valid point or insinuate that you can peer into the minds of consumers (which you've done repeatedly and with zero evidence), I'm gonna leave this conversation and no longer respond to you in particular, because you clearly aren't arguing in good faith.

[jaypro]

I was just thinking…if Apple is forced to allow side-loading…they would probably do it in the most contrived and crap way they could get away with.

Like..bootcamp Android for iOS 

 

So essentially you just bought Apple hardware for android software.

 

No mixing of gardens, just let you leave…but then you never would have bought the iPhone in the first place.

[DANK_AS_gay]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You'll have to prove that side loading is the main reason for malware/viruses on Android for you argument to hold any relevance here, which hasn't been done yet.

My point is to say that right now it is really easy for someone who wants to make malware on an Android device to make it. They can test it on their own device, with full access to the internet, the OS, etc. 

I'm saying that having a locked down system makes it harder to make malware. Plus, the key words here are:

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

trojans were the most common type of malware affecting Android devices." -Statistica

If you click on the link, it brings you to another statistica page that shows that "majority" is an understatement. 93.73% of the malware was trojan (this sounds weird, what is the correct past tense of "is" here?). You guys keep saying, "A function hidden somewhere in the settings where you have to enable it and agree that you understand the risks you're taking. " @Avocado Diaboli, page 3. Clearly, for 93% of malware to be trojans, there either A. isn't an option you have to turn on on most versions (unlikely, if not mostly false, with an outlier potentially), or B. most people either do not know or do not care. They are installing Flash Player, so obviously they don't have to worry about any sort of malware (cannot tell you how many times I have downloaded something only for it to say "install Adobe Flash Player", even after the EoL). They are giving the trojan permission, not realising that that is what it is, a trojan. It's just a cracked version of Candy Crush, or an old mobile game that they played in 2014 that they miss dearly. So there is your proof I guess.

[darknessblade]

29 minutes ago, jaypro said:

I was just thinking…if Apple is forced to allow side-loading…they would probably do it in the most contrived and crap way they could get away with.

Like..bootcamp Android for iOS 

 

So essentially you just bought Apple hardware for android software.

 

No mixing of gardens, just let you leave…but then you never would have bought the iPhone in the first place.

If they allow "sideloading" trough a bootcamp method. claiming you can sideload android apps. that is still not in accordance with "new" EU laws. as that is not considered sideloading of IOS apps.

[WhitetailAni]

20 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

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.

Building on this, it should require a computer. Windows or macOS or Linux shouldn't matter, but this will help keep people who just have an iPhone from installing random crap.

1 hour ago, jaypro said:

Like..bootcamp Android for iOS 

LOL no they'll never do that.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Yes. Can you say the opposite about iOS users? If not, my comparison still stands.

 

Really?

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/

 

Listen, if you want to make bullshit claims that are easily refuted and pretend like you've made a valid point or insinuate that you can peer into the minds of consumers (which you've done repeatedly and with zero evidence), I'm gonna leave this conversation and no longer respond to you in particular, because you clearly aren't arguing in good faith.

You realize that this regulation came to be because Apple has such a big piece of the market especially when considering sales. Also the biggest reason why Apple isn't a bigger piece of the global market is because most of the poorer countries with large populations can't afford Apple phones and thus the huge popularity for cheap Android phones. Look up ios market share in countries with higher incomes and you will see that Apple has a much larger market share there. Regardless even at the smaller number that is still a massive amount of people so my point still stands. Also I would imagine that if Apple got rid of the walled garden approach you would see alot of customers upset about it. 

[darknessblade]

1 minute ago, Brooksie359 said:

You realize that this regulation came to be because Apple has such a big piece of the market especially when considering sales. Also the biggest reason why Apple isn't a bigger piece of the global market is because most of the poorer countries with large populations can't afford Apple phones and thus the huge popularity for cheap Android phones. Look up ios market share in countries with higher incomes and you will see that Apple has a much larger market share there. Regardless even at the smaller number that is still a massive amount of people so my point still stands. Also I would imagine that if Apple got rid of the walled garden approach you would see alot of customers upset about it. 

And that is the Exact point I made in various topics I posted regarding apple.

 

People are always keen on using the global stats for IOS users. but refuse to Acknowledge the Stats for said country.

 

Claiming Apple does not have a Monopoly on Global sales, but when you say they do have a Monopoly in said country. they pretend like those stats/comments do not exist

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, darknessblade said:

And that is the Exact point I made in various topics I posted regarding apple.

 

People are always keen on using the global stats for IOS users. but refuse to Acknowledge the Stats for said country.

 

Claiming Apple does not have a Monopoly on Global sales, but when you say they do have a Monopoly in said country. they pretend like those stats/comments do not exist

I think the problem is that monopoly is a weird term for this imo as obviously there is another alternative which is creating apps for Android. Yeah you miss out on a significant portion of the market but monopolies are usually much more nefarious as there is no alternative. I guess if you only know how to make apps for Apple products then it would be monopolistic maybe?

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

You realize that this regulation came to be because Apple has such a big piece of the market especially when considering sales. Also the biggest reason why Apple isn't a bigger piece of the global market is because most of the poorer countries with large populations can't afford Apple phones and thus the huge popularity for cheap Android phones. Look up ios market share in countries with higher incomes and you will see that Apple has a much larger market share there. Regardless even at the smaller number that is still a massive amount of people so my point still stands. Also I would imagine that if Apple got rid of the walled garden approach you would see alot of customers upset about it. 

I'm just pointing out that you incorrectly assumed a majority of people had iPhones and tried to spin it as "clearly they are using iOS because they don't have value side-loading apps", a false conclusion if I ever heard one. If I argued like you, my rebuttal would've been "clearly world-wide people are using Android because they do value side-loading". It's not, because I don't have to rely on crutches and bad assumptions to make a point. You tried to make it look as if you have any insight into the purchase and usage habits of a majority of people to inflate the importance of your arguments. That's no way to discuss things in good faith.

 

Sure, there are a lot of rich countries where Apple has a lead. But not because they don't allow side-loading, so you can trash that line of thinking outright. Also, let me cherry pick my data, from my own source. Here's all 11 countries from the worlds top 20 richest countries according to GDP form 2021 where Android has a majority:

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/luxembourg

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/ireland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/singapore

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/qatar

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-arab-emirates

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/san-marino

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/netherlands

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/austria

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/iceland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/germany

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/belgium

 

So even among the top 20 of the richest countries a slim majority still prefer Android. And before you complain "You cherry picked the top 20 because blablabla" of the next 10 countries on the list:

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/bahrain

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/finland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/france

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/saudi-arabia

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/south-korea

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/malta

 

Another 6 out of 10, so again a majority. Any way you spin it, you're just touting nonsense here and feebly try to bolster your dumb arguments. All this time you have done nothing but make appeals to vague wants and needs and not a single time have you backed up any of your claims with evidence or even sound reasoning, always evading the pertinent points and you have ultimately failed to make a compelling argument why Apple's ecosystem should remain closed when countered with even the most basic examples of other open systems that work just fine and that you'd not want to end up getting closed. Because if you'd want that, you'd have actually given me a reply to my repeated questions why Windows shouldn't do the same, but you didn't. I consider this the end of the discussion. Anyone who has been arguing for the status quo has no convincing arguments at best and fabricates entirely baseless reasons out of whole cloth at worst. And the worst part is that you attempt to dodge responsibility for your dumb arguments by continuously moving the goal posts so you don't have to admit that you were just wrong and didn't think this topic through.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

My point is to say that right now it is really easy for someone who wants to make malware on an Android device to make it. They can test it on their own device, with full access to the internet, the OS, etc. 

You can do that on iOS anyway, no difference at all. Just use the iOS dev tools and then if you must test on a real device you can load it on without issue. Distribution is the issue for iOS, not ability to create, and side loading doesn't make that any easier if it's a feature not enabled by default. Android devices are not getting infected on mass because side loading is possible.

 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, your links do not support what you are thinking or trying to say.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You are conflating two different things. Windows is successful because it is open and it's current target audience likes them for that. If they suddenly changed that obviously you would have people be upset. I mean it's like a pizza place randomly changing to a Chinese restaurant. Yeah while Chinese food is good you are going to make people upset who came to you to get pizza and now no longer can get their pizza fix. Compare that to apple where they are expected to have a locked down platform and that is one of their defining factors it seems stupid to make the comparison. 

But would you stop going to a Pizza place that started to offer Pineapple on Pizza as an option?

[Brooksie359]

23 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

 I'm just pointing out that you incorrectly assumed a marjority of people had iPhones and tried to spin it as "clearly they are using iOS because they don't have value side-loading apps", a false conclusion if I ever heard one. If I argued like you, my rebuttal would've been "clearly world-wide people are using Android because they do value side-loading". It's not, because I don't have to rely on crutches and bad assumptions to make a point. You tried to make it look as if you have any insight into the purchase and usage habits of a majority of people to inflate the importance of your arguments. That's no way to discuss things in good faith.

 

Sure, there are a lot of rich countries where Apple has a lead. But not because they don't allow side-loading, so you can trash that line of thinking outright. Also, let me cherry pick my data, from my own source. Here's all 11 countries from the worlds top 20 richest countries according to GDP form 2021 where Android has a majority:

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/luxembourg

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/ireland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/singapore

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/qatar

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-arab-emirates

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/san-marino

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/netherlands

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/austria

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/iceland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/germany

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/belgium

 

So even among the top 20 of the richest countries a slim majority still prefer Android. And before you complain "You cherry picked the top 20 because blablabla" of the next 10 countries on the list:

 

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/bahrain

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/finland

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/france

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/saudi-arabia

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/south-korea

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/malta

 

Another 6 out of 10, so again a majority. Any way you spin it, you're just touting nonsense here and feebly try to bolster your dumb arguments. All this time you have done nothing but make appeals to vague wants and needs and not a single time have you backed up any of your claims with evidence or even sound reasoning, always evading the pertinent points and you have ultimately failed to make a compelling argument why Apple's ecosystem should remain closed when countered with even the most basic examples of other open systems that work just fine and that you'd not want to end up getting closed. Because if you'd want that, you'd have actually given me a reply to my repeated questions why Windows shouldn't do the same, but you didn't. I consider this the end of the discussion. Anyone who has been arguing for the status quo has no convincing arguments at best and fabricates entirely baseless reasons out of whole cloth at worst. And the worst part is that you attempt to dodge responsibility for your dumb arguments by continuously moving the goal posts so you don't have to admit that you were just wrong and didn't think this topic through.

I guess I should state my opinion clearly as I think you misunderstood where I stand. I believe that companies should be able to have an open or closed platform as having options is always a good thing like consoles and gaming PCs both have their place in the market and having both is superior to only having one as an option imo. Apple and ios is a closed platform and to force them to be an open platform by the government is wrong imo. If Apple having a closed platform is so bad then the market can regulate itself and people will stop buying Apple products. That was basically what I meant when I said that sideloading must not be a big deal if Apple still has such a large market share. Also I say large and not majority as these are not the same thing. And just to be clear I mean that there are a significant amount of people who don't care about sideloading. That is not to say that there aren't people who do care as I know quite a few people who use Android for that reason. Its a good thing that they do have the option to choose from an open or more closed platform as again having options is a good thing. Anways I think if sideloading was such an important thing then the customers would be asking for it and not the ceo of epic that is clearly just but hurt about fortnite getting banned off of ios for a clear breach in tos.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

But would you stop going to a Pizza place that started to offer Pineapple on Pizza as an option?

I certainly know some people who would lol. Pineapple on pizza is a very controversial topic. Personally I am not a huge pizza person to begin with. Also I think most people wouldn't care if they sold iphones that allowed sideloading and ones that don't as then it would be an true option to have a phone that is closed to sideloading. 

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I certainly know some people who would lol. Pineapple on pizza is a very controversial topic. Personally I am not a huge pizza person to begin with. Also I think most people wouldn't care if they sold iphones that allowed sideloading and ones that don't as then it would be an true option to have a phone that is closed to sideloading. 

True most wouldn't care, or shouldn't, but they do but they can't articulate why properly and it boils down to fear of change. There isn't any real substance to the objections other than unfounded fears of "things" and "stuff". iOS isn't Android and Android isn't iOS, comparisons are vastly more complicated than people want it to be. iOS is simply a higher quality product than Android and that shows in almost every single way, side loading will not degrade that quality.

 

What I do agree with and do consider a reasoned argument is that companies should have the right to design their products how they like and in ways they like, that is a fundamental basis and right. However like almost every other right and freedom of choice that is not unlimited, unrestricted or guided in some way in some or many situations. When you become so successful, so widely used, so relied upon then your situation changes, that is the price of success. It's like power companies, most are private companies so should they not get to do whatever they like in the same way people argue that Apple should? 

 

Either it's fair game and a free for all for every company or it's more complicated than that and there is nuance.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

But would you stop going to a Pizza place that started to offer Pineapple on Pizza as an option?

Not if you have to pick it off after it's cooked because policy is to put pineapple on everything.

 

It's a terrible analogy.

 

The core problem is that a tiny, vocal, stupid subset of users want smartphones to operate like desktop computers so they don't need a desktop computer, and find the lack of sideloading an impediment. Epic wants the feature so it can completely bypass Apple, and all the safeties offered by the Apple store. For all intents if you or anyone else is arguing for sideloading enabled to be the default setting, that's like aruging for cars to not have door and ignition locks. People who live in high-breakin neighborhoods leave their cars unlocked because if they lock them people will break the windows to steal anything left in them. The people asking for sideloading enabled are arguing against the interests of everyone, and know it would lead to larger numbers of thefts from vehicles and thefts of vehicles.

 

Locks only keep people honest. And requiring people to either be developers or have some kind of developer key to sideload is how you keep people honest on a platform used by people who just want their device to work and not have to tinker with things endlessly. Desktop computers you have to tinker with, and often in arcane ways that only people who have been using the OS since inception would understand.

 

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Microsoft has been moving slower than Apple has on making their Desktop OS's as locked down as a mobile device. This is because despite all the safety features, desktop users are often taught to ignore all the warnings. Program doesn't work "Run it as admin". Want to run this unsigned open source program you found on github, you'll be warned once when you download it, warned again when the AV product scans it, and warned a third time when you try to run the unsigned code, and perhaps even a fourth time if it accesses the internet. Basically we're being taught these warnings should be disregarded, always. If there was a "Microsoft Store" that Microsoft vetted all the program executables from, Windows would be safer, but the problem is that Microsoft's business interests fly in the face of how people want to use Windows, so this would never become a thing. Enjoy your 3-4 nag screens every time you download a program from the internet that isn't signed.

 

One of the reasons scripting languages are more popular now is because they bypass the signing of the program. Forget about malware that is written in C that hides in the background, now malware sneaks into python and javascript and runs on a signed python interpreter. Ask me how I know this. I wrote a tool for a client in Python, but to try and send it to the client, microsoft flagged everything using pyinstaller as malware. I could have written the tool in C, but it just wasn't worth the effort, considering they also had a need to run it windows and osx. Would I go through the effort to stick this on a store? No, because it's a script that is only useful for one client. That's the point of sideloading. People routinely fail to see beyond their own needs.

 

If you really want a device that has sideloading enabled by default, an iphone/ipad is not the device you should be using.

 

 

[erebea]

  

40 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The core problem is that a tiny, vocal, stupid subset of users want smartphones to operate like desktop computers so they don't need a desktop computer, and find the lack of sideloading an impediment.

Why insist on condescendingly misrepresenting the other side of the argument? In my opinion, "operate like desktop computers" is just your perception. They're all computers.

43 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And requiring people to either be developers or have some kind of developer key to sideload is how you keep people honest on a platform used by people who just want their device to work and not have to tinker with things endlessly.

This is looking a lot like those arguments people used against right to repair. "Not everyone wants to tinker with their phone" so? Why does this mean that they shouldn't have the ability to?

 

In principle the platform should be free regardless of the security/privacy concerns that in the first place are unsubstantiated. "If you want a free platform buy Android" but then you wouldn't be using an iPhone. I've only ever used jailbroken apple devices, so I don't consider the "walled garden" (read: gilded cage) approach of iOS to be intrinsic in the first place.

[Elijah Kamski]

13 hours ago, jaypro said:

If this becomes too commonplace/mainstream.. They will kill it.  One way or another.  Just like YT Vanced.

They can try, but torrenting movies and games have been a thing for a while now, and it's still not yet entirely killed.

Since there will always be a way, and it will never really die.