Apple expected to lay iOS 17 sideloading groundwork at WWDC 2023
Apple won't be introducing many features in iOS 17, a report claims, but it will be putting in elements to enable the side-loading of apps.
Sideloading may change how you install apps on your iPhone
June's WWDC will feature Apple's annual updates to its main operating systems, with iOS changes being the most-watched of them all. However, for 2023's developer event, it seems that iOS 17's changes will lean more towards regulatory compliance than brand new features.
According to Mark Gurman in the Bloomberg "Power On" newsletter on Sunday, Apple will introduce iOS 17 alongside iPadOS 17, macOS 14, and a major watchOS 10 update.
In the case of iOS and iPadOS, they "aren't likely to offer major new features." But, they will apparently "satisfy a checklist of user requests with more minor improvements."
Of the changes that will be on the way, Gurman says Apple will be making "more noise beyond WWDC itself" by working to overhaul iOS to enable sideloading.
Apple was previously reported in December as preparing itself for European Union law changes that come into force in 2024. The Digital Markets Act will force Apple to allow third-party app stores to exist on the iPhone and iPad, and Apple is reportedly getting ready to comply with those rules.
Side-loading refers to being able to install apps onto a device by other means than features like the App Store. Instead, apps could be transferred over from a connected computer, downloaded from the Internet and installed separately, or acquired from a third-party app store.
While Apple is seemingly complying, it is also likely that the company will continue to resist the requirement until the last moment. Apple has frequently declared alternative app stores and jailbreaking to be a security threat for users, a view it is unlikely to change from in the meantime.
Of the other operating systems, iPadOS 17 will apparently "lay the groundwork" for inbound iPad Pro models using OLED displays, while watchOS 10's operating system update will be a big focus and possibly reveal minimal hardware updates are on the way. .
Read on AppleInsider
Sideloading may change how you install apps on your iPhone
June's WWDC will feature Apple's annual updates to its main operating systems, with iOS changes being the most-watched of them all. However, for 2023's developer event, it seems that iOS 17's changes will lean more towards regulatory compliance than brand new features.
According to Mark Gurman in the Bloomberg "Power On" newsletter on Sunday, Apple will introduce iOS 17 alongside iPadOS 17, macOS 14, and a major watchOS 10 update.
In the case of iOS and iPadOS, they "aren't likely to offer major new features." But, they will apparently "satisfy a checklist of user requests with more minor improvements."
Of the changes that will be on the way, Gurman says Apple will be making "more noise beyond WWDC itself" by working to overhaul iOS to enable sideloading.
Apple was previously reported in December as preparing itself for European Union law changes that come into force in 2024. The Digital Markets Act will force Apple to allow third-party app stores to exist on the iPhone and iPad, and Apple is reportedly getting ready to comply with those rules.
Side-loading refers to being able to install apps onto a device by other means than features like the App Store. Instead, apps could be transferred over from a connected computer, downloaded from the Internet and installed separately, or acquired from a third-party app store.
While Apple is seemingly complying, it is also likely that the company will continue to resist the requirement until the last moment. Apple has frequently declared alternative app stores and jailbreaking to be a security threat for users, a view it is unlikely to change from in the meantime.
Of the other operating systems, iPadOS 17 will apparently "lay the groundwork" for inbound iPad Pro models using OLED displays, while watchOS 10's operating system update will be a big focus and possibly reveal minimal hardware updates are on the way. .
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Yes, without question.
Will they be forced through?
Yes, without question.
Will Apple be blamed for the resulting system damage, data loss, ransomeware attacks, and other problems?
Yes, without question.
To those countries who are legislating a back door into Apple products, get ready for lawsuits the first time an Apple device is attacked.
Nobody who uses the iPhone wants this. All the whining is coming from people who claim Apple "doesn't allow choice", yet were somehow able to choose a competing platform.
I also guess, given your steadfast dedication to only using OS's that are NOT "unmitigated security disasters" for allowing side-loading, you only use Chrome OS as a desktop OS given you cannot "load" apps on to it ( unless of course you enable Linux ).
PS - I use an iPhone and I definitely want this... just saying.
PPS - Lusers... I can see what you did there... very clever... sort of.... well... actually, no, not at all.
That would be a good thing that is over-due.
Hopefully sideloading will allow developers to address longstanding gaps in iPhone functionality. But of course that'll rely on private frameworks, which Apple will pettily alter with every update in order to disable these apps.
Remember when Apple disabled pretty much all third-party headphone dongles? We'll see if sideloaders can actually make use of the I/O on the iPhone. When Apple finally does replace the POS Lightning port with USB-C (if indeed they do), you know "official" developers will still be denied access to it.
Apple's steadfast refusal to open iOS is NOT about security / safety. Yes, their "safety / security" mantra is worth something in terms of brand value and their ability to sell to the "safety" market... but, let's be fair, it's not a hell of a lot. Their brand is about product and brand appeal and "it just works" ( and they do that very well ) Neither of which have anything really to do with side loading an app. Their refusal is about one thing - them making money from the iOS App store... and any effort to argue that is simply futile.
The "argument" that users will "blame Apple" and therefore somehow diminsh the brand to a point they "lose" money is extremely tenuous.........it just does not happen... think of all the people you know that have had their computers hacked or been scammed? How many blame the platform? Not one that I know of has blamed windows, Mac OS or Android for being scammed ( or gmail or outlook or Adobe or Samsung or Lenovo or HP etc etc )
Question - If their platform was so secure and that is why they are protecting it, why would they allow / need Norton, Avast et al to have security "apps" on the iOS store? If the platform was so safe and thus needed to be protected, shouldn't these types of apps be pointless? And maybe they actually are? But if they are, why would they have allow them on there and allow people to subscribe to them? Why? Because they make money out of that subscription, that's why. So either they are allowing people to spend money on something they don't need and taking some of that money for themselves OR their system is already insecure enough that a security app is of benefit to customers, so the argument about preventing sideloading apps is already moot... either way, it's kinda damning from Apple's perspective.
Am I against Apple making money? Absolutely not... and they make money very well.... and they make beautiful products and market them extremely well......but this is not about the customer's safety / security. It's about money. It is as simple as that. Any argument that Apple's driver is customer safety is misguided or naive.
Ultimately, they held out for as long as they could ( understandably so ) but the EU has called them out and deemed they need to offer a more open experience if they want to trade in that market. ( likewise removal of lightning )
Heck, it won't even noticeably affect Apple revenue from their App Store in case you're worried that Apple won't continue to get ever richer.
So much handwringing over the nothing pie.
b) It will take some time with a lot of bugs to transition over to a system that will work with other app stores and be easy for users to do so. This is not trivial. APIs and core code needs to be changed. Programmers, documents, marketing, and lawyers will be involved, not to delay it, but to figure out how to do it, do it legally, security ramifications, and to try to do this without many bugs. This is only work that can be done with major version changes and probably more than one major version change.
The main problem with the App Store is app discovery. The app discovery problem is largely due to the massive number of apps that are available in the App Store. Apple used to tout the massive app numbers like it was a badge of honor. In reality, once the numbers grew beyond what you’d see in a large grocery store, which is between 25,000 - 45,000 unique items, which is still very daunting for many shoppers, Apple needed to come up with organizational, categorization, and intelligent query models to help users find what they are looking for. That’s assuming users actually showed up with somewhat of a “shopping list.”
Apple did no such thing but instead focused on promoting a tiny few apps that somehow bubbled up to the top. The many millions of apps that didn’t get promoted to the top or somehow got singled out through other means simply languish deep down in what is essentially the worlds largest compost heap of decaying software. Without some additional and logical structure, like an App Mall, allowing any ISV or developer to establish their own “store” or side loading model would simply turn the App Store into the internet with everyone having their own web site for their own app or apps. This does not help solve the discovery model one bit for the vast majority of developers. The larger ISVs will do a little better, but I don’t see Apple putting any effort into helping shoppers find their way into those stores. If Apple was the mall owner they would at the very least provide a directory and help shoppers locate what they are looking for, or simply browse for stores rather than browsing across millions of individual app. The ISVs get more visibility and Apple retains some control. Of course the sticking point would be defining what a “lease” entails and what it costs. Like physical malls it could be proportional to footprint, with big ISVs like Adobe paying more and small developers paying very little for a “kiosk.”
I've always associated side-loading as the practice of individually installing an app instead of allowing the store to install it.
This way, they can also show how easy it gets hacked with back door exploits
People trust share A LOT via the walled garden Apple ecosystem. Mail, Messages, Contacts, File shared documents, Photos etc. - not-infrequently containing personal or sensitive information - because there is a high level of trust in the over security of the ecosystem.
A - If side-loaded apps on other people's devices are permitted access to data such as the above, that impacts me even if I didn't side load any apps myself.
B - If side-loaded apps on other people's devices are not permitted access to data such as the above, this is much better, but likely negates the benefit of external app sources (if a side-loaded camera app can't save in the Photos library, what benefit?)
C - If B is true, can access into the ecosystem still be engineer/exploited? Who wants to find out?
D - Why invite potential back doors into an ecosystem that is highly trusted with an extensive amount of personal information entrusted?
This is trying to knock a leg out from under Apple for reasons that are not beneficial to Apple or consumers, but perhaps to ineffective competitors, governments or nefarious actors.
And at the core of it, the App Store is a feature of the products Apple sells - a HW/SW/Services ecosystem they invested untold hundreds of billions in engineering efforts for decades. Why should someone now be allowed to suddenly set up their own table in that shop, sell their own goods, and run their own cash register (and with no investment or renumeration to the shop owner)? It's illogical and unethical are various level, and further so if applied to businesses in other industry.
Despite the efforts to paint it as such, Apple is not a monopoly - they are very successful because of what they do (and what is trying to be dismantled to a degree) but competitors are free to develop and sell their own solution, and sell them anywhere that Apple does.
In this case, the world is quite symmetric …and fair. If you don’t like a particular toy or playground then go play with something/somewhere else. This holds true both for Apple in Europe and for all parties that put demands on Apple.
In here, 99% of us want to protect what’s good in iOS and macOS. But out there, other people want to protect what’s best in their field of interest. And for governments, that probably includes national interests far outweighing any single business’.
I think it’s good we keep discussing the pros and cons of side-loading in here. If we’re happy, one or two architects at Apple or politicians in the EU will read it. But that’s it.
Your point of view is from the very narrow perspective of relatively sophisticated computer users. Not all iPhone users are at your level. A less selfish view would consider the millions of people who picked iPhone because they know they can rely on Apple to keep it secure and will now be facing a much greater risk of getting victimized.
As a developer I can think of numerous ways to compromise a users privacy if I don’t have to follow Apple Guidelines on their App Store. I can also think of ways to easily compromise privacy of users who never side load Apps and stick only to The App Store.