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

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

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.

So you would rather Apple have to support complete idiots bricking their phone because they decided to install a 30GB third party game such as fortnite that runs the flash out of space, so the OS then fails to update because it also runs out of space? Turn it off, install the thing, turn it back on when done. End of story. Honestly, let's go one step further and have the sideloading automatically turn back off in the same way the low-battery warning nags you. "Are you done with sideloading?" every time the device is unlocked.

 

I don't know what you're thinking of. Are are you the kind of person who drives around with their gas cap open?

 

[DANK_AS_gay]

7 hours ago, erebea said:

so? Why does this mean that they shouldn't have the ability to?

Because in this situation it has far more negative effects than positive.

[Avocado Diaboli]

24 minutes ago, HRD said:

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.

You quoted from the ruling that those were internal surveys. So no publicly available data and no insight into the methodology. That's not evidence.

 

24 minutes ago, HRD said:

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.

I'll grant you that the impact of piracy as well as apps willingly dodging the app store Apple tax will hurt Apple's bottom line. But a trillion dollar company whose app revenue has been steadily climbing over the past decade isn't suddenly going to abandon their commitment of supporting their devices because that's actually one of the things that would materially impact their users. Unlike side-loading in and of itself. And again, we're not here to argue on behalf of Apple, we're here to argue on behalf of ourselves. I don't care if Apple's bottom line gets a bit smaller. I want more freedom for myself. Do you have a good reason why you're arguing against your personal interests?

[DANK_AS_gay]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Fair enough, you are right about the first half, but what about the second, you know, the whole reason I got sources in the first place?

To make it as clear as possible so you cannot possibly hope to misrepresent what I say for the 6th-9th time in this thread: If the definition of sideloading is : "install (software, especially an app) obtained from a third-party source rather than an official retailer.", then that means all applications not from the App Store are sideloaded. You cannot currently install an application that isn't in the App Store, without jumping through some hoops made for developers, or jailbreaking. And if the definition of trojan is :" a type of malware that is downloaded onto a computer disguised as a legitimate program." And sideloading, or "install (software, especially an app) obtained from a third-party source rather than an official retailer." is allowed, trojans will become far easier to successfully pull off, and therefore there is more incentive to make them. Already we have shown through the sources that I have, well, sourced, that the majority (93.73%) of malware on Android per month is comprised of trojans. So, by definition, the ability to install 3rd party apps (sideloading) is a massive security risk for android. Apps are posing as popular games, security updates, Adobe Flash Player, and because the user now thinks they are installing something harmless, clearly the warning message doesn't apply to them. And they install it. 

"Distribution is the issue for iOS, not ability to create," -leadeater

If the malicious person decides that they want to develop malware (most likely a trojan), they can. But they can't get it installed on anyone's devices that aren't already jailbroken (definition: modify (a smartphone or other electronic device) to remove restrictions imposed by the manufacturer or operator, e.g. to allow the installation of unauthorized software.). End of story. You are saying that the right to ownership (while a good thing) justifies opening up an OS to new vulnerabilities, that will be exploited. That is false. If you really want to, you can jailbreak it, in which case you are clearly in violation of the warranty, and, depending on who you ask, the law.

 

To clarify: I am adding the definition to make my point clear, not to insult your intelligence

[Avocado Diaboli]

8 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

If the definition of sideloading is : "install (software, especially an app) obtained from a third-party source rather than an official retailer.", then that means all applications not from the App Store are sideloaded.

Well in that case side-loading on iOS is already a thing: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204460

 

I have a couple of enterprise apps on my company iPhone that aren't hosted on the App Store. Case closed, iOS has side-loading and it's not caused the apocalypse.

[DANK_AS_gay]

3 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Well in that case side-loading on iOS is already a thing: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204460

 

I have a couple of enterprise apps on my company iPhone that aren't hosted on the App Store. Case closed, iOS has side-loading and it's not caused the apocalypse.

First line: "Your organization can use the Apple Developer Enterprise Program to create and distribute proprietary enterprise iOS apps for internal use. You must establish trust for these apps before you can open them." YOU MUST ESTABLISH TRUST BEFORE YOU OPEN THEM.

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, DANK_AS_gay said:

First line: "Your organization can use the Apple Developer Enterprise Program to create and distribute proprietary enterprise iOS apps for internal use. You must establish trust for these apps before you can open them." YOU MUST ESTABLISH TRUST BEFORE YOU OPEN THEM.

And? You also have to trust every other developer that their app does what they tell you it does. What is your argument? Simply quoting a sentence does not constitute an argument, I can't read your mind.

[DANK_AS_gay]

3 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And? You also have to trust every other developer that their app does what they tell you it does. What is your argument? Simply quoting a sentence does not constitute an argument, I can't read your mind.

Yes, but if you continue, it says that a device has to "must reverify the app developer's certificate periodically to maintain trust." And There is this whole thing:

 

"Sideloading is already allowed"

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 minute ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Yes, but if you continue, it says that a device has to "must reverify the app developer's certificate periodically to maintain trust." And There is this whole thing:

That's irrelevant. You said that side-loading on iOS is by definition something that only applies to distribution of apps outside of the App Store. I demonstrated how this is already a thing. The requirements were never in question. iOS has side-loading, that's the long and short of it. It's a different implementation than Android's, but it's side-loading nonetheless, according to your very own definition.

[DANK_AS_gay]

5 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's irrelevant. You said that side-loading on iOS is by definition something that only applies to distribution of apps outside of the App Store. I demonstrated how this is already a thing. The requirements were never in question. iOS has side-loading, that's the long and short of it. It's a different implementation than Android's, but it's side-loading nonetheless, according to your very own definition.

*

But with a massive asterisk (not literally, they actually make their point quite clear, with no asterisk, but you get the gist). At this point you saw my intention to make things as clear as possible, saw that there was nothing wrong with what I said, and now you are weaseling out of a proper response. How the turn tables. 

We all know that this is an outside use-case, with massive restrictions, and with Apple themselves verifying that your app has no way outside of your closed system, after the 4 or 5 other ways to verify that what you are making isn't malware, and that you aren't using sideloading to install malware on customer devices.

[Avocado Diaboli]

8 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

How the turn tables. 

Hardly. Let me remind you that you still haven't answered my question why Windows shouldn't implement the same distribution model even though you promised a proper response. 

 

8 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

We all know that this is an outside use-case, with massive restrictions, and with Apple themselves verifying that your app has no way outside of your closed system, after the 4 or 5 other ways to verify that what you are making isn't malware, and that you aren't using sideloading to install malware on customer devices.

What do you mean by "no way outside of your closed system"? If you think that that means that apps stay within a single corporate environment, then nope. The corporate apps that we run haven't been developed in-house. We bought them. And we know of other customers of those same apps. We get updates directly from the company developing those apps via a sharepoint and distribute them internally through MDM. And again, trust is something you establish with any piece of software you run. I doubt you rely only on open source software and comb through all the code yourself before running it. 

 

Admit it, you just thought you had a watertight "gotcha" and got caught on the wrong foot when it turns out that side-loading on iOS is already a thing and that leads to the implication that just giving the option to enable it to everybody would change very little. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

Just now, Avocado Diaboli said:

Hardly. Let me remind you that you still haven't answered my question why Windows shouldn't implement the same distribution model even though you promised a proper response. 

 

What do you mean by "no way outside of your closed system"? If you think that that means that apps stay within a single corporate environment, then nope. The corporate apps that we run haven't been developed in-house. We bought them. And we know of other customers of those same apps. We get updates directly from the company developing those apps via a sharepoint and distribute them through MDM. And again, trust is something you establish with any piece of software you run. I doubt you rely only on open source software and comb through all the code yourself before running it. 

 

Admit it, you just thought you had a watertight "gotcha" and got caught on the wrong foot when it turns out that side-loading on iOS is already a thing and that leads to the implication that just giving the option to enable it to everybody would change very little. 

That company could not distribute their app if they weren't a real company, and if they didn't go through the process Apple has made to ensure that the vulnerabilities from sideloading. Apple cannot hope to do this for all users. It is unrealistic to negate the downsides of sideloading for the individual in the same way. 

"Admit it, you just thought you had a watertight "gotcha" and got caught on the wrong foot"

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, DANK_AS_gay said:

That company could not distribute their app if they weren't a real company, and if they didn't go through the process Apple has made to ensure that the vulnerabilities from sideloading. Apple cannot hope to do this for all users. It is unrealistic to negate the downsides of sideloading for the individual in the same way. 

Read through your eligibility screenshot again. We are not part of the organization that develops these apps. Apparently Apple doesn't even ensure their own requirements are met.

 

And why would Apple need to verify everything that gets side-loaded? Nobody has argued that this should be the case. You are once again getting hung up on things that aren't relevant, inventing strawmen and falling back into the same old habit of ignoring the relevant points. Simply trying a "NO U" doesn't work on me. And again, you still owe me an answer to the question I've now posed you half a dozen times. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

13 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Let me remind you that you still haven't answered my question why Windows shouldn't implement the same distribution model even though you promised a proper response

So I did, multiple times. You just said it wasn't good enough. I said that windows and iOS have different markets, different demographics, and therefore different requirements for openness. You don't download GitHub repos on your iPhone, and hope to actually do something with them. You can on your Windows computer. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Read through your eligibility screenshot again. We are not part of the organization that develops these apps. Apparently Apple doesn't even ensure their own requirements are met.

 

And why would Apple need to verify everything that gets side-loaded? Nobody has argued that this should be the case. You are once again getting hung up on things that aren't relevant, inventing strawmen and falling back into the same old habit of ignoring the relevant points. Simply trying a "NO U" doesn't work on me. And again, you still owe me an answer to the question I've now posed you half a dozen times. 

I am not getting hung up, I am showing the ridiculousness of your statement.

1. Apple verifies the developer, not your organization. If only there was one place where users could go to get verified applications from verified developers, that would make things so much more convenient for everyone. /s ( in case you are like me, I am being sarcastic, there is such a place, it's called the App Store)

2. When you are questioning why sideloading is a thing for enterprises, and then I tell you that there are strict requirements, in a thread about sideloading for normal people, and you also literally said, "

20 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

when it turns out that side-loading on iOS is already a thing and that leads to the implication that just giving the option to enable it to everybody would change very little. 

Huh, wonder where I got that crazy notion, must be a strawman made to attack you personally, instead of your points.

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

42 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

So I did, multiple times. You just said it wasn't good enough. I said that windows and iOD have different markets, different demographics, and therefore different requirements for openness. You don't download GitHub repos on your iPhone, and hope to actually do something with them. You can on your Windows computer. 

That's not an answer to my question. My question was that if the App Store model is good for privacy and combating malware and piracy, the same model would undoubtedly improve privacy and security and curb software piracy on Windows as well, so why would you object to that? The requirements of openness are an arbitrary invention you came up with derived out of thin air, not an objective fact and you're putting these aspects in the wrong logical order. There is no universal law that states that PCs have to be open but mobile phones don't. But that's what you're trying to invoke here.

 

Your GitHub example is an illustration of that: You are treating the fact that I can't download it onto an iPhone and do something with it as a justification for the status quo without questioning why I can't download GitHub repos onto my iPhone. Put simply:

 

42 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

 You don't download GitHub repos on your iPhone, and hope to actually do something with them. 

True, because Apple won't allow it.

 

42 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

You can on your Windows computer. 

Why should Microsoft allow it? It's a security risk and it could lead to a leak of private data.

 

 

34 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

1. Apple verifies the developer, not your organization.

They clearly don't. Their eligibility requirements state:

 

Internal use to distribute the apps only to employees within the organization means don't sell them to customers. We are a customer.

 

34 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

2. When you are questioning why sideloading is a thing for enterprises, and then I tell you that there are strict requirements, in a thread about sideloading for normal people, and you also literally said, "

Huh, wonder where I got that crazy notion, must be a strawman made to attack you personally, instead of your points.

That doesn't really answer the relevant point I raised about why Apple would even need to vet side-loaded apps to begin with. Again, you're making up something out of thin air that you then assert is a fundamental aspect of this problematic when it isn't. 

[DANK_AS_gay]

3 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

My question was that if the App Store model is good for privacy and combating malware, the same model would undoubtedly improve privacy and security on Windows as well.

Sure. That's fair (the security part, unsure on privacy). I am opposed to it, because the benefits far "underweigh" the drawbacks. Windows is notorious for viruses, which isn't entirely their fault, I'm not blaming them. I am saying that there is an entire market for anti-virus software on Windows for a reason, not to mention the web safety videos. The added security would be miniscule from this approach for Windows, and therefore would not be worth locking down the system. Locking down Windows, (and MacOS for that matter) is problematic because of the market they are for, and because of availability of important programs on the App Store/Microsoft store. You don't use your phone for such tasks, android fanboy or not. Try to do CAD on your android, pretty please. The people who get PCs, ultimately have different goals. A smartphone is for entertainment (realistically), a PC is for work. I would never want to use any of the programs not available in the Microsoft Store, or the App store, on my phone. Having the "right" to sideload apps helps no-one if it actively negatively affects the user base. And when you use your phone for (the deplorable ones that start with Ts, Twitter and TikTok), texting, calling, Snapping(?), filming, and various other forms of entertainment primarily, not having to worry about as many things as possible and having the best user experience possible is all you care about.

 

To sum up, Windows doing this would help their security, no doubt about it, but the drawback of not being able to fulfill their customers needs far outweighs the benefit here. This is a different situation, as iOS is already there, and Windows likely will never be. They are fulfilling their customers needs, each in their unique way. That's the whole point of competitors, even though they do not directly compete.

[Avocado Diaboli]

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

The added security would be miniscule from this approach for Windows, and therefore would not be worth locking down the system.

If locking down the ability to install non-vetted apps would only minimally increase security on Windows, then the same must undoubtedly be true for iOS. So the security and malware concern therefore can't be used as a reason to argue that iOS shouldn't allow side-loading.

 

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Locking down Windows, (and MacOS for that matter) is problematic because of the market they are for, and because of availability of important programs on the App Store/Microsoft store.

Nothing about those programs inherently would make them unsuited to be offered through the Microsoft Store. Adobe, Autodesk, Maxon, Steinberg, Avid and all the other industry leading software makers would undoubtedly offer their apps on the Microsoft Store if that were the only means of getting the software onto Windows PCs. Again, you're assuming the status quo is something carved into stone when it isn't.

 

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

You don't use your phone for such tasks, android fanboy or not. Try to do CAD on your android, pretty please.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/autocad/id393149734

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.autodesk.autocadws

 

And since the iPad Pro has been called a proper laptop replacement, that would easily work. Same thing on Samsung's tablets or even phones through DeX, I can hook up a mouse and keyboard and work. Entire music albums have been produced on iPad. Never underestimate how people use their devices. Just because you don't have a use case doesn't mean none exist.

 

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

The people who get PCs, ultimately have different goals. A smartphone is for entertainment (realistically), a PC is for work.

The fact that I pointed you to enterprise apps already proves that phones are also used for work. Again, you are not the rest of the world, your use-case doesn't mirror everybody else's. Never mind that even if that were true, "work = side-loading" and "entertainment != side-loading" is once again a dichotomy you're inventing that is unsubstantiated and doesn't pass the smell test. If anything, a PC used for work should have even stronger requirements to not install random software. Which is why companies typically lock down their PCs so their users don't have the ability to run anything but the approved software. I'm not even sure you're aware in what direction this line of reasoning of yours actually points.

 

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Having the "right" to sideload apps helps no-one if it actively negatively affects the user base.

You have yet to prove that it does.

 

26 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

And when you use your phone for (the deplorable ones that start with Ts, Twitter and TikTok), texting, calling, Snapping(?), filming, and various other forms of entertainment primarily, not having to worry about as many things as possible and having the best user experience possible is all you care about.

Again, nobody is forcing you to use side-loading. I've demonstrated that it already exists and you didn't know about it and nothing about me using a side-loaded app on my company iPhone has any bearing on your experience on your iPhone.

 

So in essence you have no objective measure to prove that locking down Windows in the name of privacy, security and piracy prevention would materially harm its user base while you also have no objective measure to prove that opening up iOS would materially harm its user base. I remain unconvinced and still like to point out that you hold conflicting beliefs based on naught but broad assumptions and unfounded assertions.

[DANK_AS_gay]

Just now, Avocado Diaboli said:

If locking down the ability to install non-vetted apps would only minimally increase security on Windows, then the same must undoubtedly be true for iOS. So the security and malware concern therefore can't be used as a reason to argue that iOS shouldn't allow side-loading.

That cannot be assumed, for many reasons. For one, Windows runs on a massive variety of hardware, while iOS runs on custom made processors that are tailor made for efficiently running iOS. Apple developers can lock down the oS effectively, as there aren't as many variables to control for.

That and they are entirely different OSes, one is Unix based, and one is pretty different to that (I forget the official word).

4 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You have yet to prove that it does.

 

6 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

So in essence you have no objective measure to prove that locking down Windows in the name of privacy, security and piracy prevention would materially harm its user base while you also have no objective measure to prove that opening up iOS would have would materially its user base. I remain unconvinced and still like to point out that you hold conflicting beliefs based on naught but broad assumptions and unfounded assertions.

I would like to point out that this is all we have. iOS isn't opened, and Windows isn't closed (they tried that with Windows S,  and it failed miserably, which is why I keep thinking that it is "set it stone" that programs wouldn't want to move over). We can make educated guesses, and while as far as I can tell it seems to decrease security, while adding no benefit to the majority of iPhone users. If the argument is letting people have the choice, then you have to put it on all devices, if the argument for safety is not putting it on all devices, and you have to opt-in, we are running into an issue here. Also, the Enterprise system is vastly different, requiring even stiffer requirements to pass the permissions needed to be installed with Apple's permission, without the App Store. I also have an objective measure that says that the majority of Android Malware is comprised of trojans, something that, after I polished for you, you ignored and nitpicked over my definition of side-loading. I did my part, where is yours?

[Avocado Diaboli]

33 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

That cannot be assumed, for many reasons. For one, Windows runs on a massive variety of hardware, while iOS runs on custom made processors that are tailor made for efficiently running iOS. Apple developers can lock down the oS effectively, as there aren't as many variables to control for.

That and they are entirely different OSes, one is Unix based, and one is pretty different to that (I forget the official word).

The larger amount of control on Apple's part would mean that the security risk after opening the OS up to non-corporate side-loading would be even lower than on Windows, since they control all the variables. Again, you're not making a compelling case and your line of thinking actually points in exactly the opposite direction of what you think.

 

33 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

We can make educated guesses, and while as far as I can tell it seems to decrease security, while adding no benefit to the majority of iPhone users.

It doesn't decrease security for you if you don't use it. At all. That's like saying "owning a car is dangerous because cars get into traffic accidents, even if you never drive your car and keep it locked in your garage forever". 

 

33 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

If the argument is letting people have the choice, then you have to put it on all devices, if the argument for safety is not putting it on all devices, and you have to opt-in, we are running into an issue here.

What issue? 

 

33 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

I also have an objective measure that says that the majority of Android Malware is comprised of trojans, something that, after I polished for you, you ignored and nitpicked over my definition of side-loading. I did my part, where is yours?

I never argued that allowing side-loading would increase security. Quite the opposite, I repeatedly said that it carries with it many inherent risks and explicitly mentioned that the number of infected devices would undoubtedly increase. I just keep pointing out that all these risks also exist on Windows where you'll gladly accept them even though you know for a fact that a large portion of the population to be not tech savvy enough to deal with all the dangers out there. The point of my argument isn't to tell you that side-loading is perfectly safe and without risk, I have never done that.

 

But I will keep pointing out the discrepancy between fervently being against side-loading on iOS while maintaining that Windows wouldn't benefit from the same restrictions. You still suffer from cognitive dissonance and you simply fail to engage with any of my points in favor of making up random dichotomies that, according to you, explain why phones and PCs are radically different and therefore the issue of running unsigned code should also be treated differently. And I keep yanking your chain here because no, fundamentally, phones and PCs (and consoles, for that matter) are all just computers. And I should be allowed to run any code I want on my computer, regardless of form factor or use case. My argument is ideological and your ideology is clearly fractured and contradictory. 

[Mark Kaine]

19 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

gain unauthorized access to a computer system

What has that to do with sideloading specifically? Do you have any data on that? 

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 4/13/2022 at 10:47 PM, DANK_AS_gay said:

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. 

While I am in general in favour of sideloading, I would see why it can be harmful for many devs. The ipad would be pretty useless if it did not have apps like procreate, flexcil, lumafusion, goodnotes5 etc, all of which are not(though flexcil ships like a really old build for android and the ipad app is superior) on android, which I suspect might have to do with piracy. Maybe lock the app to specific device+apple id, like buying songs on older itunes?

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

That cannot be assumed, for many reasons. For one, Windows runs on a massive variety of hardware, while iOS runs on custom made processors that are tailor made for efficiently running iOS. Apple developers can lock down the oS effectively, as there aren't as many variables to control for.

 

 

The insinuation was that vetting which software can be installed on a device is what underpins higher security, which means the hardware type is irrelevant. 

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

A smartphone is for entertainment (realistically), a PC is for work.

A smartphone can be for work as well, which is why MS office apps are available, IMO its not exactly ideal on a small phone screen but its doable if needed. A phone is a computer that fits in a pocket so I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use Github or be able to download an alternative to youtube with an integrated ad blocker.

1 hour ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Having the "right" to sideload apps helps no-one if it actively negatively affects the user base.

How would it negatively affect the user base if almost no one sideloads? That is the excuse I noticed people making in this thread, and if it were optional hidden in some menus it would only affect the people that would know how to sideload.

[HRD]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You quoted from the ruling that those were internal surveys. So no publicly available data and no insight into the methodology. That's not evidence.

The court rejected many surveys and analysis from both parties during the trial for methodological flaws. These surveys were reviewed and accepted by the court.

 

I just looked up for a survey (that is not internal) and it shows the same.

 

Survey reveals the brand loyalty for Apple is at an all-time high of nearly 92% (up from 90.5% in 2019)

Meanwhile, Samsung loyalty has dropped 11.7% from 85.7% in 2019 to 74% in 2021

 

26% of Samsung users will jump ship to another brand next time they upgrade.

Of the Samsung defectors, a majority (53%) will switch to an iPhone the next time they upgrade, with most (31.5%) indicating privacy concerns as the main reason for the switch

 

Source

https://www.sellcell.com/blog/cell-phone-brand-loyalty-2021/