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

[RejZoR]

Well, then good for you. For a lot of us iPhones are attractive for the very reason what they are. We don't want another faux competition by having "stuff" shoehorned into it by people who hate it and don't want to use it. As for EU commission, as much as I'd want them to do good as I live in the EU, they are just a bunch of clowns that say a lot of things but ultimately have zero power over anything. Pointless. I mean, how is that USB-C thing going? People will still screech over Apple's Lightning and willfully ignore all the shit phones still being actively sold with microUSB with excuses that they are "budget devices" and USB-C just costs "too much". How much does the USB-C port really cost manufacturer when they use it on 100.000 devices compared to microUSB? It's literally cents. Yet there they are. But no one really gives a shot because their company name isn't Apple...

[Avocado Diaboli]

9 hours ago, HRD said:

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/

Alright, so I took a look at that report. The sample size of 5000 is certainly good enough. And the reason of privacy for switching is certainly higher than all other reasons. But the danger of looking at stats like these is that it doesn't really tell you anything about the reasons for people sticking with iOS being related to privacy. I mean, if you look at the answers of current iPhone users who don't want to switch, those aren't really all that meaningful, they all basically boil down to personal taste. Not one states "I want to stay with iOS because it offers the best privacy protection".

 

 

That, along with the responses given to all the other question, points at the fact that this was a question with pre-defined answers. And if you know how to write a survey, you can steer your subjects into giving you the answers you want to hear. That's not to say that I don't understand that for many iOS users, privacy is a meaningful part of their decision.

 

Still, side-loading does nothing to impede that goal, because once again, if you don't engage in side-loading, your privacy will not be meaningfully impacted. So in essence, the notion that people switch to iOS for privacy reasons is at best tangentially related to side-loading. And I don't see why your feelings about potential security risks I subject myself to should trump my desire to do with my device whatever I want.

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, HRD said:

Apple gets to set what it wants to sell and what business model it wants. And we as users can vote with our money and decide whether or not we support it. 

Facebook can either not offer apps to us or follow the privacy rules and every rule of the store to join. 

 

More than a billion users are supporting apple’s model and they are giving apple the power to enforce the AppStore.

That sounds like the "Their platform their rules" argument. And I agree with @leadeater that isn't a good customer relationship at all, you're voting to have no choice on your device at all. And a billion users also vote with their wallet for apple's anti-repair policies, I doubt people would support apple policies if they knew they could have more freedom to do what they like with the phone or tablet they paid for.

5 hours ago, HRD said:

We already have that way. Developers can side-load their apps to their phones to test them while making it impractical for big companies to utilize that method. 
 

I don’t want that gate to be open with an easier way to side-load because the companies that are calling for it are never going to be satisfied without a complete removal of all restrictions. For example, Part of epic lawsuit against Google is that there are warnings before side-loading.

Also, when apple made the case that developers can communicate through email epic responded that there is an extra step to get the email which is taking consent from the user the judge obviously sided with apple on that one and said it’s privacy preservation for the user. 

I wouldn't really count having to pay a $100 fee to test apps as sideloading, and you wouldn't have to give up anything if you didn't enable the optional sideloading. Also i'm not surprised the judge is siding with apple, its a US court case, apple has enough money and power to buy their way out of losing a court case.

[Blademaster91]

57 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Well, then good for you. For a lot of us iPhones are attractive for the very reason what they are. We don't want another faux competition by having "stuff" shoehorned into it by people who hate it and don't want to use it. As for EU commission, as much as I'd want them to do good as I live in the EU, they are just a bunch of clowns that say a lot of things but ultimately have zero power over anything. Pointless. I mean, how is that USB-C thing going? People will still screech over Apple's Lightning and willfully ignore all the shit phones still being actively sold with microUSB with excuses that they are "budget devices" and USB-C just costs "too much". How much does the USB-C port really cost manufacturer when they use it on 100.000 devices compared to microUSB? It's literally cents. Yet there they are. But no one really gives a shot because their company name isn't Apple...

Well if you had the option to sideload you wouldn't have to use it and you could still enjoy the walled garden. And people want actual competition which is why sideloading is an argument now, because a lot of people use a phone as their only computer, when apple says nope you can't run an app or game the platform becomes alot less appealing IMO. Also $100 phones not having USB-C, it's a $100 phone when a company is probably making cents off of those devices I couldn't expect it to have everything, meanwhile apple is selling phones for $400 which still interface to a PC over USB 2.0, and they expect you to buy $200 earbuds with it because a headphone jack doesn't look good lol.

[RejZoR]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Well if you had the option to sideload you wouldn't have to use it and you could still enjoy the walled garden. And people want actual competition which is why sideloading is an argument now, because a lot of people use a phone as their only computer, when apple says nope you can't run an app or game the platform becomes alot less appealing IMO. Also $100 phones not having USB-C, it's a $100 phone when a company is probably making cents off of those devices I couldn't expect it to have everything, meanwhile apple is selling phones for $400 which still interface to a PC over USB 2.0, and they expect you to buy $200 earbuds with it because a headphone jack doesn't look good lol.

You're arguing with sideloading like it only affects that device and that user. Working with security for over 15 years and I know for a fact it's not that simple. Allowing sideloading will create a global problem for the platform. But you all just look at it from rainbow unicorn perspective and can't look at any further than that.

[Avocado Diaboli]

21 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You're arguing with sideloading like it only affects that device and that user. Working with security for over 15 years and I know for a fact it's not that simple. Allowing sideloading will create a global problem for the platform. But you all just look at it from rainbow unicorn perspective and can't look at any further than that.

If everybody advocating for it is myopic, please elaborate.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

You're arguing with sideloading like it only affects that device and that user. Working with security for over 15 years and I know for a fact it's not that simple. Allowing sideloading will create a global problem for the platform. But you all just look at it from rainbow unicorn perspective and can't look at any further than that.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of if you don't want to sideload you don't have to, and it won't affect you if you don't, which seems like a more realistic approach than sideloading is bad and scary because apple tells you its bad.

You're going to have to explain further why no one should be advocating to even have the option for sideloading.

 

[RejZoR]

I'm not saying it's bad and scary because Apple told me so. I know it's bad and scary because casual people are dumb and they always do dumb things when they have too much control and power to do things. That's just the reality of it. Jesus, you're all acting like you haven't been using Windows for what, 30 years now? Only difference is that Windows has an absolute garbage ass of an apps library, making such approach literally impossible no matter how desperately Microsoft is trying to do the same Apple is doing. App Store on the other hand does and it does it incredibly well. Being used by hundreds of millions of users and only having sporadic incidents with rogue apps is something everyone else just desperately want to have but can't because they fucked up the ecosystem from the get go and they can' change it so late in the process.

 

Also if you want sideloading so badly, why don't you just use frigging Android then? It has all these wonderful things you all demand so much under premise of "choice" on iPhones. Well, you have a choice not to use an iPhone and to use countless Android phones instead. How about that? Is it really that hard? When I was sick and tired of Google's bullshit, I wasn't screeching around how they should change with dumb demands that I know they'd never do. So I willingly went with iOS. And I'm much happier now. How about you all stop trying to f**k this up too? Go back to Android dumpsterfire that's apparently so much better and use that. Eh? I just don't understand you people. Like, at all. You already have an OS that apparently ticks all your checkboxes, but you're instead trying to demand changes to an OS and ecosystem you're not even using and apparently also never want to. Some stupid sideloading certainly wont' suddenly change that and you'll just demand more. Wouldn't be the first time...

[Avocado Diaboli]

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I know it's bad and scary because casual people are dumb and they always do dumb things when they have too much control and power to do things. That's just the reality of it.

Really? That's your best shot at this? "It's bad because people are inexperienced or can be dumb sometimes" is your argument? I was expecting more here after your endless tirades and almost apocalyptic sermon about the doom that would be unleashed by allowing me to side-load apps on iOS. Never mind that this issue has already been discussed multiple times already and everybody advocating for side-loading is well aware of this fact already. I'm disappointed.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Alright, so I took a look at that report. The sample size of 5000 is certainly good enough. And the reason of privacy for switching is certainly higher than all other reasons. But the danger of looking at stats like these is that it doesn't really tell you anything about the reasons for people sticking with iOS being related to privacy. I mean, if you look at the answers of current iPhone users who don't want to switch, those aren't really all that meaningful, they all basically boil down to personal taste. Not one states "I want to stay with iOS because it offers the best privacy protection".

 

 

That, along with the responses given to all the other question, points at the fact that this was a question with pre-defined answers. And if you know how to write a survey, you can steer your subjects into giving you the answers you want to hear. That's not to say that I don't understand that for many iOS users, privacy is a meaningful part of their decision.

 

Still, side-loading does nothing to impede that goal, because once again, if you don't engage in side-loading, your privacy will not be meaningfully impacted. So in essence, the notion that people switch to iOS for privacy reasons is at best tangentially related to side-loading. And I don't see why your feelings about potential security risks I subject myself to should trump my desire to do with my device whatever I want.

Do you even use apple phones? Why should you wanting to be able to sideload be more important to the vast majority of Apple users that like the way things are right now. I would bet that more people who use Apple phones would be against sideloading than those that want to allow sideloading. I would even wager that most don't even know what sideloading is. Tbh it's not users that want sideloading that is pushing this through the court system. It's greedy companies that want to have more profit so personally I don't support that. Also I can't think of a single reason why sideloading would be useful to me personally and allowing sideloading is making iphones less idiot proof which is one of the reasons why alot of people I know have iphones. They aren't tech savvy and it's much easier to mess things up on android than it is on iPhone especially because of sideloading. 

[RejZoR]

21 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Really? That's your best shot at this? "It's bad because people are inexperienced or can be dumb sometimes" is your argument? I was expecting more here after your endless tirades and almost apocalyptic sermon about the doom that would be unleashed by allowing me to side-load apps on iOS. Never mind that this issue has already been discussed multiple times already and everybody advocating for side-loading is well aware of this fact already. I'm disappointed.

Aaaaaand this is where I'll stop. You've all made your point you don't give a shit what i say, you just want it your way no matter what on platform you don't even like or use. Got it. Bye.

[Blademaster91]

22 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I know it's bad and scary because casual people are dumb and they always do dumb things when they have too much control and power to do things.

So your reasoning is because people can make a mistake so they shouldn't have the option at all? That isn't good reasoning at all considering someone can do dumb things on Mac and Windows, and Mac is marketed towards people that also buy iphones.

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Only difference is that Windows has an absolute garbage ass of an apps library, making such approach literally impossible no matter how desperately Microsoft is trying to do the same Apple is doing

I think Windows is copying Linux and their app store more than Apple, and the Windows store is a lot more open than the app store.

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Being used by hundreds of millions of users and only having sporadic incidents with rogue apps is something everyone else just desperately want to have but can't because they fucked up the ecosystem from the get go and they can' change it so late in the process

I find it interesting you say that, people always praise the app store for being the perfect malware free store, but it's not considering there have been plenty of fake or malware apps on the store, despite how much control apple has over their users.

23 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Also if you want sideloading so badly, why don't you just use frigging Android then?

It really isn't a choice if you only have the option of using Android if you want any more usability out of a phone.

[Brooksie359]

20 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Really? That's your best shot at this? "It's bad because people are inexperienced or can be dumb sometimes" is your argument? I was expecting more here after your endless tirades and almost apocalyptic sermon about the doom that would be unleashed by allowing me to side-load apps on iOS. Never mind that this issue has already been discussed multiple times already and everybody advocating for side-loading is well aware of this fact already. I'm disappointed.

It's enough of a reason tbh. I know alot of people who messed up their phone because they sideloaded and didn't have the faintest clue what they were doing and ended up with melware. Apple is very good at making their stuff idiot proof and forcing your sodeloading on Apple products when there is already a perfectly good alternative that allows that is selfish tbh. Now those who want an idiot proof phone os no longer have that choice because a few people want to be able to sideload. Its legitimately limiting options by doing this. 

[Brooksie359]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

So your reasoning is because people can make a mistake so they shouldn't have the option at all? That isn't good reasoning at all considering someone can do dumb things on Mac and Windows, and Mac is marketed towards people that also buy iphones.

I think Windows is copying Linux and their app store more than Apple, and the Windows store is a lot more open than the app store.

I find it interesting you say that, people always praise the app store for being the perfect malware free store, but it's not considering there have been plenty of fake or malware apps on the store, despite how much control apple has over their users.

It really isn't a choice if you only have the option of using Android if you want any more usability out of a phone.

Well if you allow sideloading then you are getting rid of the option to get a phone for your less tech savvy family members and friends that is essentially idiot proof. Also yes getting rid of avenues where the user could potentially get melware and other issues is imo a good thing as an option. Obviously having the option to do whatever you want with your phone is also a good option to have and we do have that with andriod. I think what we currently have is fairly good in terms of options. There are a ton of products out there that have safety measures built in to stop people from doing something stupid that could either wreck the product or get them hurt. So it makes sense that Apple might want to do that as well with its os. I think it's kinda selfish that everyone is trying to make Apple phones more open when there are legitimate reasons why some would want it more closed off. If you want an open platform they exist and you can go with those platforms but to expect all other platform to be forced to be more open is getting rid of options overall as now you can't get a closed platform. 

[WhitetailAni]

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

If everyone just wants to turn iOS into same dumpsterfire as Android is, then thanks for that I guess.

Enabling sideloading does not automatically turn iOS into Android.

[Avocado Diaboli]

37 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would even wager that most don't even know what sideloading is. Tbh it's not users that want sideloading that is pushing this through the court system.

There you go again, trying to bolster your argument with unfounded claims about what "the people" or "a majority" want without backing it up. You should really work on that, it's not good form and the least convincing of all arguments.

 

37 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's greedy companies that want to have more profit so personally I don't support that.

So greed is ok if Apple does it but not when others do it. Well, given your dualistic nature of praising the walled garden on iOS but not wanting it on Windows, I'm not surprised by that credo. But let it be known that I don't support side-loading because I think companies should be able to monetize their stuff how they want to. I just care about it because it grants me more freedom to do what I want with my property. You know, a few pages back someone had a really good comparison between side-loading and right to repair. You could replace the former with the latter term in this entire discussion and you'd end up looking like you support proprietary bullshit like that. "Apple shouldn't make their phones easy to fix because that incentivizes people to attempt it themselves which could potentially break it even more." 

 

37 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also I can't think of a single reason why sideloading would be useful to me personally and allowing sideloading is making iphones less idiot proof which is one of the reasons why alot of people I know have iphones.

Just because it wouldn't be useful to you personally doesn't mean it'd be useful for others. You keep arguing with what others want all the time, but refuse to do so when it's time to empathize with the people who are arguing for side-loading. Funny how that works.

 

37 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They aren't tech savvy and it's much easier to mess things up on android than it is on iPhone especially because of sideloading. 

And yet you don't support closing down Windows, despite those very same people not being tech savvy and Windows being incredibly easy to mess up if you squint at it funny. My, my, we're just tripping over inconsistencies today.

 

32 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Aaaaaand this is where I'll stop. You've all made your point you don't give a shit what i say, you just want it your way no matter what on platform you don't even like or use. Got it. Bye.

Pot meet kettle. You also don't care what others have to say, you've just been sounding off on how terrible your Android experience has been and how great iOS is without a single valid argument why side-loading would change anything about literally anything if you don't personally engage with it. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Note… i already knew about the play store thing… its also not an isolated occurrence afaik, but this is *not* sideloading …

 

And Im also aware that sideloading  is a potential risk - I said as much, but the way you framed your answers and arguments that all this comes from sideloading just isnt a good basis for a discussion about exactly that topic without some reliable sources as there are obviously other attack vectors (such as emails, etc, if i had to guess…)

Emails, specially crafted txts, specially crafted wireless SSIDs, specially crafted images, website/browser client attacks and vulnerabilities, fake apps etc. The list is near endless for actually used real world attack vectors, both Android and iOS for that matter.

 

If I had to pull a statement out of my ass then I'd say fake Apps on Play Store is exponentially higher cause of infections than sideloading. Why do I think this? Simple, accessibility and people actually needing to, willing to try or do sideloading is exponentially lower than people using the Play Store. So sure I freely admit to not bothering to lookup the data to support my position on that but I'm quite happy to bet money on it.

 

Edit:

Ok so I bothered to look it up in the below post, seems my logical thought process was spot on.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

trojans, which by definition are sideloaded

No not at all, this is not a correct statement. I get the feeling you wish it to be true but it's not. Look iOS has had many vulnerabilities and malware been able to be installed and how that happens isn't described as sideloading or related in any way to it. Being victim of a privledge escalation vulnerability that allows malware to be installed has nothing to do with sideloading and will happen with or without it, that is what a privledge escalation vulnerability is.

 

This is a false equivalency, in the hopes to make a point but it doesn't because it lack fundamental understanding of cybersecurity and basic understanding of how operating systems work and function.

 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distribution-vector-for-most-android-malware/

 

Quote

The official Google Play Store has been identified as the primary source of malware installs on Android devices in a recent academic study — considered the largest one of its kind carried out to date.

 

Quote

The results showed that around 67% of the malicious app installs researchers identified came from the Google Play Store.

In a distant second, with 10%, came alternative markets, dispelling a pretty common assumption that most Android malware these days comes from third-party app stores.

 

 

So can we please put this to bed. Sideloading is not the primary cause of malware infections on Android and is statically irrelevant. The Play Store is.

 

And while Apple's App Store is better it's certainly not perfect either.

 

Quote

Of the 1,000 highest-grossing apps on the App Store, nearly 2 percent are scams, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. And those apps have bilked consumers out of an estimated $48 million during the time they’ve been on the App Store, according to market research firm Appfigures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/

 

The single most effective tool to keeping you safe is yourself, be educated, aware and attentive. It's not Apple, it's not the App Store and it's not anything else either. "You" are your best defense.

[leadeater]

10 hours ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

Which is why I specified smartphone

My work phone is a smart phone.. How do you think an MFA App would work on a 90's Nokia brick phone? If you work in IT then you have a phone and you use MFA, or your company is inept and highly insecure, or you have no access to anything important.

 

I have access to all the data backups, I am the primary backup infrastructure lead. I have Domain Admin and Enterprise Admin rights to Active Directory. I have Azure and Office 365 Global Admin. I have admin/root access to storage arrays. I have root/admin access to every single ESXi host and root/SSO admin to vCenter.

 

I cannot think of a single system I do not have the highest level of access to at my work, neither are we some small IT shop either. We're a university with 6000+ staff and 30000+ students. We also have critical and high sensitive research going on, medical centers and operating rooms for surgery too.

 

Making sure I can do my job effectively and safely is absolutely critical. As I said there is no single device that replaces the function of what my phone offers.

 

Did I just publicly paint myself as a huge target that people should go after? Yes, but I also have faith in my own competency and our security measures.

 

Also FYI many (1, 2, 4, 5, 8 & 10) of your uses in your data are literally business activities too so yea... not a great assessment.

[leadeater]

15 hours ago, HRD said:

iOS users are happy and you want to break that very thing that make them happy.

You saying it will break it doesn't mean it will. Fear of change isn't proof of outcome. You saying it will holds equal weight to me saying it will not, who's right?

 

15 hours ago, HRD said:

We already have that way. Developers can side-load their apps to their phones to test them while making it impractical for big companies to utilize that method. 
 

I don’t want that gate to be open with an easier way to side-load because the companies that are calling for it are never going to be satisfied without a complete removal of all restrictions. For example, Part of epic lawsuit against Google is that there are warnings before side-loading.

Also, when apple made the case that developers can communicate through email epic responded that there is an extra step to get the email which is taking consent from the user the judge obviously sided with apple on that one and said it’s privacy preservation for the user. 

The people that want it would be happy with being allowed to sideload with unlimited number of Apps without the constant re-signing requirement and not having to pay $100 year. That will not allow Epic nor Facebook to push anyone down the sideloading path and it will have no effect on you or any other iOS user. All Apple needs to do is make it a process that is unappealing to anyone that doesn't really want to do it. If you and others are so happy with the Apple ecosystem then you'll not be able to be pushed in to sideloading at all.

 

Now of course I'm not naïve at all, I fully realize companies will utilize legitimate consumer causes for their own gains but that doesn't mean that the cause itself is bad, nor does it have to be done in the way some large corporation is asking for, court ruling to make a change or otherwise. I cannot see in to the future but I find it extremely unlikely a court is going to rule in such a way with such specific wording that would result in sideloading being always on, no warning and super accessible on iOS, I just do not see that as a realistic outcome. 

 

If it takes a company like Epic to push through a positive consumer change but not actually get what they want, so be it, that's not a bad thing. Plaintiff's don't automatically get everything they want because a court rules in their favor, it's a lot more complicated than that.

[BlackCipher]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well if you allow sideloading then you are getting rid of the option to get a phone for your less tech savvy family members and friends that is essentially idiot proof. Also yes getting rid of avenues where the user could potentially get melware and other issues is imo a good thing as an option. Obviously having the option to do whatever you want with your phone is also a good option to have and we do have that with andriod. I think what we currently have is fairly good in terms of options. There are a ton of products out there that have safety measures built in to stop people from doing something stupid that could either wreck the product or get them hurt. So it makes sense that Apple might want to do that as well with its os. I think it's kinda selfish that everyone is trying to make Apple phones more open when there are legitimate reasons why some would want it more closed off. If you want an open platform they exist and you can go with those platforms but to expect all other platform to be forced to be more open is getting rid of options overall as now you can't get a closed platform. 

1.) The iPhone is not an "idiot proof", has tons of inconvenient features that need to be disabled manually, and has tons of other features that make the phone more complicated/less easy to use because you can't even disable them.

 

2.) If you were for getting rid of avenues where the user could get "melware" you would have to throw away the whole phone because it's still possible and easy either way.

 

3.) Somehow you start talking about "tons of products" having safety features, then use that as an excuse to justify Apple's excuse for not allowing sideloading. Doesn't make sense and doesn't have much correlation, especially when they create problems to make it harder and more complicated to fix.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

There you go again, trying to bolster your argument with unfounded claims about what "the people" or "a majority" want without backing it up. You should really work on that, it's not good form and the least convincing of all arguments.

 

So greed is ok if Apple does it but not when others do it. Well, given your dualistic nature of praising the walled garden on iOS but not wanting it on Windows, I'm not surprised by that credo. But let it be known that I don't support side-loading because I think companies should be able to monetize their stuff how they want to. I just care about it because it grants me more freedom to do what I want with my property. You know, a few pages back someone had a really good comparison between side-loading and right to repair. You could replace the former with the latter term in this entire discussion and you'd end up looking like you support proprietary bullshit like that. "Apple shouldn't make their phones easy to fix because that incentivizes people to attempt it themselves which could potentially break it even more." 

 

Just because it wouldn't be useful to you personally doesn't mean it'd be useful for others. You keep arguing with what others want all the time, but refuse to do so when it's time to empathize with the people who are arguing for side-loading. Funny how that works.

 

And yet you don't support closing down Windows, despite those very same people not being tech savvy and Windows being incredibly easy to mess up if you squint at it funny. My, my, we're just tripping over inconsistencies today.

 

Pot meet kettle. You also don't care what others have to say, you've just been sounding off on how terrible your Android experience has been and how great iOS is without a single valid argument why side-loading would change anything about literally anything if you don't personally engage with it. 

You are absolutely delusional to say that I am being inconsistent because I have never once said an open platform is better than a close platform or vise versa so the whole gotcha about Windows doesn't make sense at all. Also its bad comparison to begin with. A better comparison is if there was an os out there that was more locked down for security reasons and then there is also Windows and now people are trying to force that closed platform os to be more like windows. In that case I would agree that forcing the os to be open is bad as you have windows If you wanted the open platform. Honestly you clearly only care about how this effects you and don't realize that having it locked down is what some people want and to force that to no longer be an option is wrong. You want an open platform then go use andriod. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

34 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

You are absolutely delusional to say that I am being inconsistent because I have never once said an open platform is better than a close platform or vise versa so the whole gotcha about Windows doesn't make sense at all.

I never claimed you said anything about any approach being strictly better. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency since you still think the walled garden approach would be inappropriate for Windows even though you've determined that it was unequivocally good on iOS. 

 

34 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also its bad comparison to begin with. A better comparison is if there was an os out there that was more locked down for security reasons and then there is also Windows and now people are trying to force that closed platform os to be more like windows. Honestly you clearly only care about how this effects you and don't realize that having it locked down is what some people want and to force that to no longer be an option is wrong. You want an open platform then go use andriod. 

I'm not making a like-for-like comparison though. I'm specifically using an opposing example to highlight your hypocrisy. Have you really not caught on what the point of the juxtaposition was until now? My argument also never was that I want an open alternative to a closed one. My argument has always been that every platform should be open and allow users to run unsigned code on their legal property how they see fit. What's so hard to get about this?

 

34 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly you clearly only care about how this effects you and don't realize that having it locked down is what some people want and to force that to no longer be an option is wrong. You want an open platform then go use andriod. 

Wow, after I've stated it multiple times that I care about my abilities to use a platform how I see fit, you finally caught onto that. Good job.

 

In all seriousness though, you are highly inconsistent in a number of ways. Want another example? You and others keep feigning worry about what would happen if iOS were to enable side-loading because less tech-savvy people could potentially end up getting infected by malware. But again, you don't seem to care about that fact on Windows, literally the most dominant platform by a huge margin, where you deem your right to run unsigned code as more important than the security of those non-techies. You have the gall to criticize my selfish view of how I think I should be able to run unsigned code on any device I own with trite "won't somebody think of the children" reasoning and yet you somehow don't realize it's selfish of you to think Windows should keep giving you the ability to run unsigned code.

 

See, all you have to do to put this line of reasoning to rest is to agree that Windows would be better off with a iOS-esque walled garden approach. If you adjust your views on that, I'm no longer going to argue with you about it, because even though our ideological differences remain, you're at least ideologically consistent. But since you aren't, I'm gonna keep pointing out that inconsistency. Because your inability to reconcile this cognitive dissonance clearly bothers you.

[Brooksie359]

13 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I never claimed you said anything about any approach being strictly better. I'm just pointing out your inconsistency since you still think the walled garden approach would be inappropriate for Windows even though you've determined that it was unequivocally good on iOS. 

 

I'm not making a like-for-like comparison though. I'm specifically using an opposing example to highlight your hypocrisy. Have you really not caught on what the point of the juxtaposition was until now? My argument also never was that I want an open alternative to a closed one. My argument has always been that every platform should be open and allow users to run unsigned code on their legal property how they see fit. What's so hard to get about this?

 

Wow, after I've stated it multiple times that I care about my abilities to use a platform how I see fit, you finally caught onto that. Good job.

 

In all seriousness though, you are highly inconsistent in a number of ways. Want another example? You and others keep feigning worry about what would happen if iOS were to enable side-loading because less tech-savvy people could potentially end up getting infected by malware. But again, you don't seem to care about that fact on Windows, literally the most dominant platform by a huge margin, where you deem your right to run unsigned code as more important than the security of those non-techies. You have the gall to criticize my selfish view of how I think I should be able to run unsigned code on any device I own with trite "won't somebody think of the children" reasoning and yet you somehow don't realize it's selfish of you to think Windows should keep giving you the ability to run unsigned code.

 

See, all you have to do to put this line of reasoning to rest is to agree that Windows would be better off with a iOS-esque walled garden approach. If you adjust your views on that, I'm no longer going to argue with you about it, because even though our ideological differences remain, you're at least ideologically consistent. But since you aren't, I'm gonna keep pointing out that inconsistency. Because your inability to reconcile this cognitive dissonance clearly bothers you.

Ok i get it you like chocolate and now everyone else has to have chocolate in their snacks because that is what you like best. I mean what a shame it would be if there was snacks that had the option of vanilla. We can't have that we need to add chocolate to it. This is basically what you are doing. You are saying I like open platforms so now all platforms should be open platforms which is kinda ridiculous. Oh but I guess it consistent so there's that I guess. Now compare that to me who likes it when the market allows for different options. Oh wait the two things are different. That inconsistent and now you are going to say I'm being inconsistent again. But seriously I can't wrap my head around what is so hard to get about my position that you somehow think it's inconsistent. I mean in a literal sense wanting to have a variety of different options is inconsistent in sense as variety means they are going to be different aka not consistent. That being said the wanting a variety is consistent in the fact that you want a variety and not just a bunch of the same options. I mean at that point if they are so similar you might as well not have an option. 

[Blademaster91]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well if you allow sideloading then you are getting rid of the option to get a phone for your less tech savvy family members and friends that is essentially idiot proof. Also yes getting rid of avenues where the user could potentially get melware and other issues is imo a good thing as an option. Obviously having the option to do whatever you want with your phone is also a good option to have and we do have that with andriod. I think what we currently have is fairly good in terms of options. There are a ton of products out there that have safety measures built in to stop people from doing something stupid that could either wreck the product or get them hurt. So it makes sense that Apple might want to do that as well with its os. I think it's kinda selfish that everyone is trying to make Apple phones more open when there are legitimate reasons why some would want it more closed off. If you want an open platform they exist and you can go with those platforms but to expect all other platform to be forced to be more open is getting rid of options overall as now you can't get a closed platform. 

I doubt most people even know what sideloading is, so I don't see how it would affect less tech savvy people if they don't sideload anyway.

And the issue with malware on Android is likely due to devices getting less updates, or people downloading fake apps from the play store, which is kind of a downside of not charging everyone $100 to have access to publishing an app.

I disagree, only having 2 choices in the smartphone market isn't enough, its like having Nvidia and AMD with graphics cards, prices have gone up for both and having a duopoly isn't exactly a healthy market.

Plenty of products have safety features but that doesn't stop someone from getting hurt, there is always the chance and you can't fix someone being stupid with their device.

I guess it depends how you closed off you want your phone or tablet to be, but I think a large company telling me what apps I can run is incredibly selfish.