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

[Elijah Kamski]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

You'll have to prove that side loading is the main reason for malware/viruses on Android

*beings to immediately download virus apps and sideload them*

I've never once had an issue with side loading apps being the attack vector XD

[Elijah Kamski]

9 hours ago, jaypro said:

So essentially you just bought Apple hardware for android software.

Not at all really, Apple hardware for Apple software with Android functionality.

I mean, the apps for Apple are most likely much more polished as they tend to be, so the only thing you're getting is the Android functionality.

[Elijah Kamski]

7 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

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.

I have a hate love relationship with this statement right now.

Sure, it could be good to have a computer to reset everything in case required, however, it would also limit the amount of people that will want to do it because it's an extra step, look scary complex for those that are not tech savvy and really just want an app that is not on the app store anymore, and also making it only available to those that have computers.

I think a update to iOS to allow easier iPhone resets would be a better way, I mean, you already have the passcode and iCloud thing right, why the extra hardware?

[jaypro]

14 minutes ago, Elijah Kamski said:

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.

But that's my entire argument.

 

That companies WILL try and it will negatively impact the paying customer.

 

Things like Denuvo DRM will make their way onto mobile.

 

Sure, pirates and torrenters and sideloaders can figure out and download cracked DRM free versions..

 

But normal people would suffer with extra DRMs.

 

 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

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

Did you not read the literal optional? Side loading is an option you can turn on so long as you have the choice, iOS is a Pizza shop without Pineapple as a choice. Some don't like Pineapple so don't care that its not a choice, however some do like it so do care. 

 

The analogy is only as bad as how you think about it, iOS having the option is in no way as having to pick off Pineapple, that's just ridiculously dumb and I don't even know why I should have to address that...

  

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

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.

How little you seem to care about these users is exactly how little I or we care about your objections to allowing it to be a thing. We equally do not care about each others arguments, however you've yet to actually give a single justifiable reason to oppose it so I'm still at a loss as to why you would. Side loading will change nothing about iOS for you, at all.

 

Maybe a company like Facebook will go off the deep-end and force you through some not App Store way of getting their App but that is their choice to kill their platform if they did that and they have yet to do it on Android either. I don't see any real evidence to support Facebook actually doing such a thing, and if they did it's every Facebook users choice to go along with it and do that or to not and then Facebook would have to cede and go back to the App Store or no longer exist.

 

People are inherently lazy, or more correctly choose the easiest path, not being on the App Store isn't that path so few will use anything but that no matter what any company tries to do. Pushing water up hill with a fork on that one. 

[Elijah Kamski]

The issue is getting really big, 6 pages big.

I just think at the end of it all, really reading everything that's been said by both sides, Apple should allow the ability for people to side-load if they would like, however also inform them of the potential risk associated with side-loading to whatever length Apple want, from saying that they can steal your info to hack your game, anything they want. Telling them the risks associated will stop most people, but for those that do want to explore the world of side-loading, will help them somewhat understand the dangers of side-loading, and be educated to ensure that they won't install a free Robux app (should require passcode and iCloud password to prevent kids from doing side-loading) or maybe a free Tinder app.

Consumers should be informed of the risks, but given the opportunity to choose for themselves.

Remember, not everybody has the choice to pick an Android or an iPhone, it may be a gift from someone special etc, where they had no saying in the matter.

[Elijah Kamski]

2 minutes ago, jaypro said:

That companies WILL try and it will negatively impact the paying customer.

You are making an argument that will always be an argument because pirating will always exist.

You are making an argument that literally exists for every other field as well.

Everything can be impacted by piracy. Everything will eventually be impacted by piracy.

There is no way around this truth, it's just gonna have to be something that you're going to have to live with.

However, just like how new viruses will always be developed and found, new security measures will also be developed to combat those viruses.

Essentially, new technology and methodology will be developed to combat an issue, and then it'll be a repeating cycle.

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, HRD said:

It is Facebook’s platform and they can choose to remove their app from the store. If you want them you have to use a browser.

 

Oh wait a minute, Facebook is afraid they gonna lose their market dominance as alternative native apps will fill the gap quickly.

 

 

 

Who cares what facebook is afraid of?  The inescapable reality still exists that you cannot apply the "their platform, their rules" argument to selective entities.  Either it applies to facebook as much as it does to apple, MS, google, etc or it applies to no one.  

 

It scares me that people don't realize this line of thinking has no grey,  when you give companies absolute power over their market you take away all power from the consumer.  Especially when that market is something that is as essential as a mobile phone. 

 

I also shouldn't have to point out that end users are NOT apples product. 

[Elijah Kamski]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The analogy is only as bad as how you think about it, iOS having the option is in no way as having to pick off Pineapple, that's just ridiculously dumb and I don't even know why I should have to address that...

Agreed, it would be an opt-in thing, the issue is if iPhone did it opt-out like advertising to 3rd party stuff in every single website.

[Elijah Kamski]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I also shouldn't have to point out that end users are NOT apples product. 

I'm just here waiting for Apple's VR stuff to come out to laugh really XD

[jaypro]

22 minutes ago, Elijah Kamski said:

Not at all really, Apple hardware for Apple software with Android functionality.

I mean, the apps for Apple are most likely much more polished as they tend to be, so the only thing you're getting is the Android functionality.

Oh thats optimistic thinking.

 

I was thinking more like duo boot bootcamp windows on intel macs.

 

Where you actually have to reboot your entire phone everytime you want to change between iOS and Android.

 

So you don't get apple software with android functionality.  You get one or the other.

 

And Apple can be like..see? no problem regulators..you can side load if you want to. iPhone with alternate app store.  Not iOS with alternate app store.

[Elijah Kamski]

1 minute ago, jaypro said:

Oh thats optimistic thinking.

 

I was thinking more like duo boot bootcamp windows on intel macs.

 

Where you actually have to reboot your entire phone everytime you want to change between iOS and Android.

 

So you don't get apple software with android functionality.  You get one or the other.

 

And Apple can be like..see? no problem regulators..you can side load if you want to. iPhone with alternate app store.  Not iOS with alternate app store.

Okay, to be fair, if they did that, I'd say well played and accepted it to be honest XD

Unless of course the regulators were somewhat techy and said for it to be on iOS and not on iPhone, understanding the differences between the physical device and the software etc.

But aye, well played, a win is a win.

That's fair game XD

[Kisai]

1 minute ago, Elijah Kamski said:

The issue is getting really big, 6 pages big.

I just think at the end of it all, really reading everything that's been said by both sides, Apple should allow the ability for people to side-load if they would like, however also inform them of the potential risk associated with side-loading to whatever length Apple want, from saying that they can steal your info to hack your game, anything they want. Telling them the risks associated will stop most people, but for those that do want to explore the world of side-loading, will help them somewhat understand the dangers of side-loading, and be educated to ensure that they won't install a free Robux app (should require passcode and iCloud password to prevent kids from doing side-loading) or maybe a free Tinder app.

Consumers should be informed of the risks, but given the opportunity to choose for themselves.

 

You're assuming that Customers care, or are smart enough/mentally competent enough. This is the same argument used to keep gambling and lootboxes legal. "Customers don't have to", but they will. Either because of some popular thing, or the desire to wreck someone's experience.

 

Sideloading needs to be:

1. Something that has a high enough hurdle to turn on in the first place that it's not something people would just turn on and leave on. It's not good enough to warn people. You have to literately tell them that by turning it on, you forfeit your AppleCare, Warranty and any ability to use Apple Services (Apple Cloud Services) with sideloaded software. If it's found that sideloaded software is installed on the device, Apple will be required to reimage the device before AppleCare/warranty will be honored.

2. Not something the user can be tricked into turning on. 

3. Not something that can be turned on to let other applications to be installed/launched

4. Not something that can reach outside the application sandbox. The application can only see files it owns.

5. Must be turned off back before Store applications and operating system will be updated.

 

Having the developer key solves all of those problems by making people who actually need sideloading can have it. 

 

And to address the kids/parental controls side. You can't have it both ways. A kid/teen is more likely to fall for a scam and enable sideloading. That's why you can't simply get away with "a warning will suffice". It has to be not be available in the first place by default.

[Elijah Kamski]

Just now, Kisai said:

This is the same argument used to keep gambling and lootboxes legal. "Customers don't have to", but they will.

Unlike surprise mechanic machines (Obviously they are not lootboxes or anything, just surprised mechanics of course XD), side-loading would mostly not be an advertised, shoved in your face functionality with bright RGB colors used to attract young kids.

 

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Sideloading needs to be:

1. Something that has a high enough hurdle to turn on in the first place that it's not something people would just turn on and leave on. It's not good enough to warn people. You have to literately tell them that by turning it on, you forfeit your AppleCare, Warranty and any ability to use Apple Services (Apple Cloud Services) with sideloaded software. If it's found that sideloaded software is installed on the device, Apple will be required to reimage the device before AppleCare/warranty will be honored.

2. Not something the user can be tricked into turning on. 

3. Not something that can be turned on to let other applications to be installed/launched

4. Not something that can reach outside the application sandbox. The application can only see files it owns.

Fair and agreed

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

. Must be turned off back before Store applications and operating system will be updated.

Yeah no, check out what Google Play already does, updates everything that it downloaded from the store itself, leaves side-loaded apps alone and your phone will also still update. There is no reason this should be a thing as you would be exposing users to old vulnerabilities, and side-loading could simply be turned on again after each update, making this entirely worthless.

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

A kid/teen is more likely to fall for a scam and enable sideloading.

This wouldn't be an issue if parents were more involved with their kids and did not give them their own Apple ID or something where they have complete control, this is just something that will always be an issue from an account creation perspective. However, if the account was the parent, then the kids would have to bypass the passcode and the password, maybe 2FA on a parent's main device will help in the prevention of side-loading happening due to a leaked password or your kid just knowing that you use the same password everywhere, something. Password issues will always occur and is something that will always be a problem sadly, best to teach people to use new passwords each time and make it complex.

 

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

That's why you can't simply get away with "a warning will suffice".

Agreed, hence the password stuff, because lets be honest, kids will fall for tik tok influencers always saying there is a way to get this item for free or something.

 

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

It has to be not be available in the first place by default.

Not sure if I said it in the comment you replied too, but I did say it in other places replying to other people's comment, but yes, the pineapple on pizza thing. It should of course be opt-in. If you meant more like Android's developer mode, then yeah, we can also do that to prevent curious people from accidentally activating something that could be potentially dangerous and all.

[WhitetailAni]

1 hour ago, Elijah Kamski said:

I 

have a hate love relationship with this statement right now.

Sure, it could be good to have a computer to reset everything in case required, however, it would also limit the amount of people that will want to do it because it's an extra step, look scary complex for those that are not tech savvy and really just want an app that is not on the app store anymore, and also making it only available to those that have computers.

Yes, that’s the idea. Sideloading needs to be the exception, not the norm.

 

Currently sideloading works in a limited fashion by using an Apple ID to sign apps. Apple IDs that have not paid their $99/year Apple tax are limited to 3 apps per device, and apps need to be resideloaded every week, whether via Sideloadly or AltStore (ugh). If you pay the $99/year Apple tax, you have unlimited apps, and they stay signed for every year you pay your Apple tax.

What Apple will probably do is simply give every Apple ID unlimited apps per device and lift the signature expiration date, since it’s not too hard.

However, this process requires a computer (without a jailbreak, but at that point you have AppSync to allow fake, broken, or no signatures). Which is good. It will limit the scams that say “Sideload x app for free Genshin primogems!!!!!!!”.

1 hour ago, Elijah Kamski said:

I think a update to iOS to allow easier iPhone resets would be a better way, I mean, you already have the passcode and iCloud thing right, why the extra hardware?

It’s uh, very easy right now.

Settings -> General -> Transfer or Reset iPhone -> Erase all Contents and Settings.

Done!

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Elijah Kamski said:

 

 

Yeah no, check out what Google Play already does, updates everything that it downloaded from the store itself, leaves side-loaded apps alone and your phone will also still update. There is no reason this should be a thing as you would be exposing users to old vulnerabilities, and side-loading could simply be turned on again after each update, making this entirely worthless.

 

The intent here was that the feature must be turned OFF before updates resume (not removing the sideloaded software), because that's all you need is a device update to break the ability to install or uninstall the sideloaded software.

 

Google's mistake was not having conformity of feature sets for Android devices, thus every manufacturer was free to much around with the internals and subsequently a "universal" image can and does break devices where those features have been changed from how they work in a universal image.

 

It's like on a PC and Windows decides "now" would be a good time to reboot the PC when you're using it, or installing/uninstalling drivers. Because that can, and does happen, and has some rather fatal side effects if the thing you're updating is part of the chipset.

 

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The intent here was that the feature must be turned OFF before updates resume (not removing the sideloaded software), because that's all you need is a device update to break the ability to install or uninstall the sideloaded software.

Turning off the feature will not prevent an OS update from potentially breaking the ability to remove or install sideloaded software so I don't know what you are trying to achieve with this. The reality that will happen is people will not turn it off and the phone never gets updated, the sideloading will be blamed when it was just a stupid implementation choice of not allowing updates for no practical good reason. This is not a good idea.

[HRD]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Who cares what facebook is afraid of?  The inescapable reality still exists that you cannot apply the "their platform, their rules" argument to selective entities.  Either it applies to facebook as much as it does to apple, MS, google, etc or it applies to no one.  

 

It scares me that people don't realize this line of thinking has no grey,  when you give companies absolute power over their market you take away all power from the consumer.  Especially when that market is something that is as essential as a mobile phone. 

 

I also shouldn't have to point out that end users are NOT apples product. 

What you are not getting is that end users bought apple devices because of its business model. If you want side-loading and more customization buy an android phone. We are voting with our money. If most iOS users care about side-loading, they would start to switch to android. Apple would have to respond and change the business model to appeal to the consumers. 
The fact is that iPhones Have the highest loyalty among all phones which shows that users are happy about apple’s model.

Don’t get me wrong there might be some advantages to the android model. Every model has its advantages and we as consumers choose what we want.

[Elijah Kamski]

3 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

It’s uh, very easy right now.

Settings -> General -> Transfer or Reset iPhone -> Erase all Contents and Settings.

I know XD

But we might as well make it at the log on page if people are afraid of security risks or cannot log into their iPhones or whatever because of a sideloaded app somehow XD

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, HRD said:

What you are not getting is that end users bought apple devices because of its business model.

I understand that concept very well, the issue is that it's a moot argument and doesn't justify what apple are doing.   Yes some people buy Iphones because they are locked to the app store,  just like some people buy androids knowing full well that google steal all your data.  However, some doing it for that reason is not justification to prohibit sideloading for ALL users.  

 

If there was no way to make side loading optional without compromising the perceived advantages apple claim exist then that would be a legit argument to be had,  but as it is now that is not the case,  it can be completely optional without compromises. 

 

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 minutes ago, HRD said:

What you are not getting is that end users bought apple devices because of its business model. If you want side-loading and more customization buy an android phone. We are voting with our money. If most iOS users care about side-loading, they would start to switch to android. Apple would have to respond and change the business model to appeal to the consumers. 
The fact is that iPhones Have the highest loyalty among all phones which shows that users are happy about apple’s model.

Don’t get me wrong there might be some advantages to the android model. Every model has its advantages and we as consumers choose what we want.

Do you have any evidence that proves that people buy iPhones specifically because of Apple's business model?

Do you have any evidence that proves that enabling side-loading constitutes a large enough shift in Apple's business model that they would suffer any negative consequences of people leaving their platform?

 

See, you and others here are very prone to just making unsubstantiated claims about "people" and their wants, needs, rationales, etc. If you can't prove those, all your arguments are for naught. If you want to argue that Apple's business model is the reason you personally stick with iOS, argue with that, don't try to make your position look more prevalent than it is.

 

And while you're already proving some things, why should any of that be a valid argument against enabling side-loading? You're treating side-loading as a massive shift in business model for Apple. Demonstrate why that would be the case.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And while you're already proving some things, why should any of that be a valid argument against enabling side-loading? You're treating side-loading as a massive shift in business model for Apple. Demonstrate why that would be the case.

The reason it can't be argued and rarely is, is simply because making it optional does not effect anyone who wants to keep using their apple device exactly as apple recommend.  

 

I normally hate analogies because they never work (everyone thinks differently),  however the nearest I can make to this argument seems to be that it's like a car company making it impossible to race your car on a private track because doing so somehow endangers all the other owners.   A completely illogical position when we consider that me side loading on my phone has zero effect on anyone else who doesn't do it on theirs. 

 

 

[HRD]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I understand that concept very well, the issue is that it's a moot argument and doesn't justify what apple are doing.   Yes some people buy Iphones because they are locked to the app store,  just like some people buy androids knowing full well that google steal all your data.  However, some doing it for that reason is not justification to prohibit sideloading for ALL users.  

 

If there was no way to make side loading optional without compromising the perceived advantages apple claim exist then that would be a legit argument to be had,  but as it is now that is not the case,  it can be completely optional without compromises. 

Here is the thing you cannot offer side-loading without compromises. Let me give you an example, epic games launched Fortnite on the AppStore because it was the only way on iOS. So every kid/player just opens the store and downloads it however on android because the option exists, they launched it as apk from their website. Epic games admitted later that millions were affected by malware and decided to put the game on the play store. None of that happened to iOS users.

[HRD]

11 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Do you have any evidence that proves that people buy iPhones specifically because of Apple's business model?

Do you have any evidence that proves that enabling side-loading constitutes a large enough shift in Apple's business model that they would suffer any negative consequences of people leaving their platform?

 

See, you and others here are very prone to just making unsubstantiated claims about "people" and their wants, needs, rationales, etc. If you can't prove those, all your arguments are for naught. If you want to argue that Apple's business model is the reason you personally stick with iOS, argue with that, don't try to make your position look more prevalent than it is.

 

And while you're already proving some things, why should any of that be a valid argument against enabling side-loading? You're treating side-loading as a massive shift in business model for Apple. Demonstrate why that would be the case.

In my previous comments, I mentioned surveys that showed 50-70% of iOS users bought an iPhone because of its better security/privacy. Even epic game’s CEO admitted under oath that he uses an iPhone because it has better security and privacy.

 

another point would be longer support. Apple supports its devices way longer than the competition. A big part of that is because Apple continues to make money from older hardware which incentives it to continue supporting them.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, HRD said:

Here is the thing you cannot offer side-loading without compromises.

The compromises are not worn by the users who do not side load.    The argument you keep making is that side loading will have a negative effect on those who purchased IOS because of ios preventing side loading.  If they do not side load then other people being able to does not effect them.  The risk (be it large small or indifferent) is solely on those who side load and never on those who don't.  That is why the argument that people buy apple for "security" is not a valid reason to prevent everyone from side loading. 

 

12 minutes ago, HRD said:

Let me give you an example, epic games launched Fortnite on the AppStore because it was the only way on iOS. So every kid/player just opens the store and downloads it however on android because the option exists, they launched it as apk from their website. Epic games admitted later that millions were affected by malware and decided to put the game on the play store. None of that happened to iOS users.

And that's a problem for epic and those who decided to side load, not a problem for those who didn't.