According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
Don't you think it is as much or more about doing what they can to restrict iPhone buyers to spending money only using Apple services? Locking stuff down so you don't stray is a beneficial (or not, depending) side-product IMO. I don't personally think the initial goal was to keep people safe from themselves: It was about profit and how best to ensure it.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
But it’s the exact same concept. Either way, digital or physical, developers pay a platform fee for the privilege of accessing Nintendos reknow loyal customer base. This is true for digital sales as well as physical.
It's not the exact same concept. As a customer, you are not forced to purchase digital games in their store. You can go to many retailers and purchase games in physical media. Apple force every customer to purchase apps only in digital form from their app store. That's the difference I pointed out.
“Nintendo has hardware and software preventing unauthorized games/apps from playing. “
Every console has a mechanism to prevent unauthorized games. I don't see any issues with that.
The reason why game console users can purchase games (for their game consoles) on a physical media from third party retail stores, is because their game consoles have a physical media drive. Apple iOS devices have no such physical media drive from which the users can load apps. So it's hardly logical to claim that somehow Apple is being anti-competitive because one can't buy apps for iOS at any third party retail store, like one can buy games (on a physical media) for a game console. That's comparing apple to oranges.
The question should be can one download any games for their game console, from a third party app store? Can game console owners download a game at a Walmart retail store, like they can buy the physical media of that game? Why not? You seem to think that it makes no difference because both are "digital". Games consoles only have one app store from which the user can purchase downloaded games to play on their console. The same as Apple for their iOS devices.
Newer game consoles can be bought without a disc drive, thus forcing users to download their games from the single app store on their console. But many gamers still buy the console with the disc drive because they have an older library of games on disc. Plus many gamers would rather buy the game on a disc because they can sell it after they no longer want to play the game. And also buy used game discs at a discount. Thus cutting down on the cost of playing games with their consoles.
So the real comparison should be between an iOS device and a game console without a physical media drive. And in both cases, the user is forced to download their apps from the device maker's own app store. While game console makers are obligated to make game consoles with a physical media drive to appease their users, Apple (and most mobile device makers), see no need to have a physical media drive built into their device. And I would say that nearly all mobile device users do not want or need one. Why would any mobile device owner want to drive to a retail store, to buy apps on a physical media, for their mobile devices? Because they want to be able to buy apps from other parties ..... get real.
It's evident that a digital console and iOS devices are similar in that customers are forced to use the digital app store. But as you said, console still give customers the option for acquire games in physical media. And I was just pointing that out, nothing more.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
I agree that blocking sideloading increase a system security. But at the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, you can have a secure environment, even with "sideloading". And from what I'm reading, you would be one in the 85% of users that won't sideload apps or use 3rd party stores (btw, can you explain where that number came from?). So you can be sure your device will be safe. And for me, I don't think I would sideload or user 3rd party app stores, unless someone do something better than Apple. I posted before that one case could be if Microsoft decide to move ahead with the rumored gaming app store. I won't have any issues trusting them. That could even improve the experience in my iOS / iPadOS devices, since Apple is terrible at gaming.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
I agree that blocking sideloading increase a system security. But at the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, you can have a secure environment, even with "sideloading". And from what I'm reading, you would be one in the 85% of users that won't sideload apps or use 3rd party stores (btw, can you explain where that number came from?). So you can be sure your device will be safe. And for me, I don't think I would sideload or user 3rd party app stores, unless someone do something better than Apple. I posted before that one case could be if Microsoft decide to move ahead with the rumored gaming app store. I won't have any issues trusting them. That could even improve the experience in my iOS / iPadOS devices, since Apple is terrible at gaming.
it is a know fact, that even Google have admit, that allowing sideloading and third party app stores leads to less security and privacy, no matter how careful the user is. Not sideloading or purchasing from third party app stores, makes the OS any safer for those users.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
A Nintendo games "disc"?
Jfc, tell me you know nothing about what you're talking about without... etc.
Once again, Apple should make iOS as safe as possible for all users. Not just the ones that don't want to sideload, purchase from a third party app store and won't fall for a phishing scam.
Plus you can not say the the users don't have to purchase
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
A Nintendo games "disc"?
Jfc, tell me you know nothing about what you're talking about without... etc.
What just exactly what would you call the physical media the Nintendo Wii game console uses? And yes, you could had downloaded games on to a Wii game console until 2019. Several years after they discontinue the Wii game console.
Even though the Wii been discontinue for years and no newer games been made available for it. One can still purchase new older game disc from retailers like Walmart and Target. Though the purchase might have to be done on their online store. (Not sure if these are old stock or some popular titles are still being made.) Plus used Wii disc are available from GameStop and Amazon.
The Nintendo Switch policies on how and where games are available, are no different than that of their Wii. But unlike Microsoft Xbox and Sony PlayStation, which can still play games from their older consoles, Nintendo Switch can not play games made for the Wii, whether on disc or downloaded. Even if the same game is available for the Switch.
Though the Switch have a respectable World market share of 25%, most here in the US probably never seen one being used in real life, other than being sold in a retail store.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
I agree that blocking sideloading increase a system security. But at the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, you can have a secure environment, even with "sideloading". And from what I'm reading, you would be one in the 85% of users that won't sideload apps or use 3rd party stores (btw, can you explain where that number came from?). So you can be sure your device will be safe. And for me, I don't think I would sideload or user 3rd party app stores, unless someone do something better than Apple. I posted before that one case could be if Microsoft decide to move ahead with the rumored gaming app store. I won't have any issues trusting them. That could even improve the experience in my iOS / iPadOS devices, since Apple is terrible at gaming.
it is a know fact, that even Google have admit, that allowing sideloading and third party app stores leads to less security and privacy, no matter how careful the user is. Not sideloading or purchasing from third party app stores, makes the OS any safer for those users.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
A Nintendo games "disc"?
Jfc, tell me you know nothing about what you're talking about without... etc.
Once again, Apple should make iOS as safe as possible for all users. Not just the ones that don't want to sideload, purchase from a third party app store and won't fall for a phishing scam.
Plus you can not say the the users don't have to purchase
Should we remove Messages and Mail App since you could receive malicious messages? Or what about removing the Apple App Store, since there have been cases of malicious apps in the store? This would help make iOS / iPadOS more secure. Is that your point?
If at the end Apple is forced to open iOS / iPadOS for 3rd party stores, they'll have two options,
1. Open iOS / iPadOS without any check, so anyone can create a 3rd party store. This will be risky and may impact Apple devices reputation.
2. Force 3rd party stores to follow a set of strict security rules, and customers will have a safe experience and a secure device. I could see companies like Microsoft, Adobe and other large developers following those rules, resulting in a secure 3rd party app store.
We'll have to wait to see what happens.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
I agree that blocking sideloading increase a system security. But at the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, you can have a secure environment, even with "sideloading". And from what I'm reading, you would be one in the 85% of users that won't sideload apps or use 3rd party stores (btw, can you explain where that number came from?). So you can be sure your device will be safe. And for me, I don't think I would sideload or user 3rd party app stores, unless someone do something better than Apple. I posted before that one case could be if Microsoft decide to move ahead with the rumored gaming app store. I won't have any issues trusting them. That could even improve the experience in my iOS / iPadOS devices, since Apple is terrible at gaming.
Here are a couple of interesting read on the topic of security, sideloading and third party app stores.
So will the app that you want/need to use and is now available in the Apple App Store, still have to provide you with Apple ATT and ask you for permission, before they can track you, when it can only be sideloaded from their website or downloaded from a third party app store?
Right now, in the over 15 years of Android, Google never made Android as safe as iOS. Not even close. Even with all the advance malware detection software they install on to Android, to constantly scan for malware downloaded from all sources. And Google (IMO) is much better at software, than Apple. If Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores, how long do you think it will take Apple to catch up with Google, in terms of protecting its users from the malware downloaded from third party app stores or from sideloading? How many years might iOS be less safe than Android?
And notice that in order for Google to offer the best protection from malware for its users, they have to scan nearly all your data on your Android device. (How convenient for Google. )
So you can't say that if Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores, that will be the same as using iOS as before, if the user never sideload or download from a third party store. Apple would still need to implement more malware detection software into iOS, just as Google is doing now, in order to make iOS as safe as possible (after allowing sideloading and third party app stores). Software that takes up CPU resources and battery life. And that software would need to scan more of your data, regardless that you never sideload or download from third party app stores. Unlike Google, Apple have no real need to scan so much of its users data, if they don't have to. It goes against their protecting users privacy policies.
BTW- the numbers, (as accurately as I remember them) came from some statistical survey concerning the Google Play Store and it's market share, maybe 4 or 5 years ago. It pointed out that Google Play had over 90% market share (among apps stores on Android) and that over 80% of Android users only downloaded from there because of the fear of getting malware from sideloading or from third party app stores. Many Apple supporters were saying that this would be the same on iOS, if Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores. Even the resent Epic vs Google trial seems to support this as Sweeney claimed that one of the reasons why he was forced to put Fortnight in the Google Play store was because Google was abusing their 92% Google Play app store market share monopoly by placing warnings about the danger of accidentally installing malware and virus, all along the way when attempting to sideload or getting apps from third party app stores. His claim was that Google was purposely scaring Android users into only downloading apps from the Google Play Store and that's why they have a 92% market share over all third party app stores on Android.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
Don't you think it is as much or more about doing what they can to restrict iPhone buyers to spending money only using Apple services? Locking stuff down so you don't stray is a beneficial (or not, depending) side-product IMO. I don't personally think the initial goal was to keep people safe from themselves: It was about profit and how best to ensure it.
Would you also think that Google have no real intention of making sideioading and installing apps from third party app stores (on Android) completely safe because the fear of accidentally installing malware in the process, drives Android users to only download their apps from the Google Play Store? Which Google have always heavy promoted as the safest way to download apps on Android. It's about profit and how best to ensure it.
This was Epic lawyers claim in their lawsuit against Google. And we all know how that trial ended.
>Technically, it is possible to download apps from outside of Google’s
Play Store, but Epic argued that for most people this is too cumbersome,
requiring as many as 16 steps, for instance, to download Fortnite. And
for those who try, Google sends “dire warnings that scare most consumers
into abandoning the lengthy process.”<
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
I agree that blocking sideloading increase a system security. But at the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, you can have a secure environment, even with "sideloading". And from what I'm reading, you would be one in the 85% of users that won't sideload apps or use 3rd party stores (btw, can you explain where that number came from?). So you can be sure your device will be safe. And for me, I don't think I would sideload or user 3rd party app stores, unless someone do something better than Apple. I posted before that one case could be if Microsoft decide to move ahead with the rumored gaming app store. I won't have any issues trusting them. That could even improve the experience in my iOS / iPadOS devices, since Apple is terrible at gaming.
Here are a couple of interesting read on the topic of security, sideloading and third party app stores.
So will the app that you want/need to use and is now available in the Apple App Store, still have to provide you with Apple ATT and ask you for permission, before they can track you, when it can only be sideloaded from their website or downloaded from a third party app store?
Right now, in the over 15 years of Android, Google never made Android as safe as iOS. Not even close. Even with all the advance malware detection software they install on to Android, to constantly scan for malware downloaded from all sources. And Google (IMO) is much better at software, than Apple. If Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores, how long do you think it will take Apple to catch up with Google, in terms of protecting its users from the malware downloaded from third party app stores or from sideloading? How many years might iOS be less safe than Android?
And notice that in order for Google to offer the best protection from malware for its users, they have to scan nearly all your data on your Android device. (How convenient for Google. )
So you can't say that if Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores, that will be the same as using iOS as before, if the user never sideload or download from a third party store. Apple would still need to implement more malware detection software into iOS, just as Google is doing now, in order to make iOS as safe as possible (after allowing sideloading and third party app stores). Software that takes up CPU resources and battery life. And that software would need to scan more of your data, regardless that you never sideload or download from third party app stores. Unlike Google, Apple have no real need to scan so much of its users data, if they don't have to. It goes against their protecting users privacy policies.
BTW- the numbers, (as accurately as I remember them) came from some statistical survey concerning the Google Play Store and it's market share, maybe 4 or 5 years ago. It pointed out that Google Play had over 90% market share (among apps stores on Android) and that over 80% of Android users only downloaded from there because of the fear of getting malware from sideloading or from third party app stores. Many Apple supporters were saying that this would be the same on iOS, if Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores. Even the resent Epic vs Google trial seems to support this as Sweeney claimed that one of the reasons why he was forced to put Fortnight in the Google Play store was because Google was abusing their 92% Google Play app store market share monopoly by placing warnings about the danger of accidentally installing malware and virus, all along the way when attempting to sideload or getting apps from third party app stores. His claim was that Google was purposely scaring Android users into only downloading apps from the Google Play Store and that's why they have a 92% market share over all third party app stores on Android.
I agree with you that sideloading and some 3rd party stores may reduce the security at some degree. At the same time, and based in what I have seen with macOS, Windows and Linux, I don't think sideloading or 3rd party stores will create a catastrophic security issue. Considering that iOS / iPadOS has the same security mechanisms as macOS, there is a possibility it should have no issues at all. And as you said, most users will keep using the Apple App Store for downloads. And if 3rd party app stores are from reliable developers, I don't see them impacting negatively the devices security.
We'll have to wait and see if Apple is forced to allow sideloading and 3rd party stores, and how they manage devices security in both cases.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices. But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said? I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more. For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data? Both devices should be secure, don't you think? Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads. I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple. For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store. I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security. At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.
Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?
Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.
The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better.
Don't you think it is as much or more about doing what they can to restrict iPhone buyers to spending money only using Apple services? Locking stuff down so you don't stray is a beneficial (or not, depending) side-product IMO. I don't personally think the initial goal was to keep people safe from themselves: It was about profit and how best to ensure it.
Would you also think that Google have no real intention of making sideioading and installing apps from third party app stores (on Android) completely safe because the fear of accidentally installing malware in the process, drives Android users to only download their apps from the Google Play Store? Which Google have always heavy promoted as the safest way to download apps on Android. It's about profit and how best to ensure it.
This was Epic lawyers claim in their lawsuit against Google. And we all know how that trial ended.
>Technically, it is possible to download apps from outside of Google’s
Play Store, but Epic argued that for most people this is too cumbersome,
requiring as many as 16 steps, for instance, to download Fortnite. And
for those who try, Google sends “dire warnings that scare most consumers
into abandoning the lengthy process.”<
Well, pivoting to the outcome of Google's Epic trial is hardly answering the question I put to you.
Except for Google attempting to protect users even side-loading apps, why would they offer Google Play Protect at all? Of course they want to encourage Android phone owners to use Google Play for reasons of profit, but chasing money is not keeping Google from attempting to protect side-loaders too. Appel could do the same if they wish.
By the way, scanning sideloaded apps doesn't mean Google is rifling through your phone for corporate gain and espionage. Read up on it to see what it does and when instead of being a bit fuddish about the feature. You could find these things yourself in a 10-second search on your favorite browser. https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en
But the vast majority of users don't, because the question is not something that would ever occur to them in the first place unless they actually run into an issue caused by it. And even then, they might not even recognise it as a result of this situation.
(Non-iOS Example: Apple is trying to establish iPad as a music production platform. Third-party plugins almost all have their own store/management platforms on Windows/Mac. How many iPad purchasers are clear on the fact that these industry-standard plugins are probably never going to be available on iPadOS unless they can be distributed through an iPad port their own store platform? How many will even know or care to ask the right questions?)
The vast majority of consumers buying an iPhone are buying at least their second iPhone. This is mentioned in nearly every quarterly earning report from Apple. Over 80% of iPhone sales were to buyers that are already using an iPhone. About 10% of sales are to buyers that are switching from Android, though not necessarily using iOS for the first time. And about 8% are buying their first iPhone. So even if all 10% of switchers and all 8% of first time iPhone buyers, didn't know about iOS limitations, that's hardly the ...vast majority .... as you seem to claim.
You missed the entire point of my post: Yes, the vast majority have NO IDEA about the iOS limitations, because it's simply not something that occurs to them. They use what's available, and as long as everything they need or want is available, that's that.
The point about stifling competition is that they have no idea what they might be missing because the single App Store makes development unfeasible — such as does for third-party audio plugins on iPad, presumably.
The discussion is about whether consumers knew about iOS only having one app store from with the user can download apps from, either purchased or for free. Not some limitation that might only affect .001% of iOS users.
So does not having some third party standard plug-in for music production available for the iPad, make it any less of a device for music production, that Apple claim the iPad to be?
Yes. Absolutely. There is ZERO chance of iPad replacing a Mac in a serious production environment until Waves, UAD, Native Instruments, and at least a handful of the usable third-party orchestral plugins are available. (Yes, you can make do with internal plug-ins, but production is about using the best tools for the job, and as long as the best tools are only available for Windows and Mac, that is what gets used.)
HOWEVER, the point, again, is: The kids and amateurs starting to use Logic on iPad may be completely unaware that these advanced tools and plugins exist — and they may never become aware, because the App Store model means that these developers may never be able to offer their stuff for iPad, at all. That puts these developers at a disadvantage, going forward, AND it hurts consumers by limiting their options — even if they're not aware of it.
I'll note that I make my living using these tools professionally for music (including the iPad) and have been on Logic for 25 years, which is specifically why I chose that example. Logic for iPad is very cool and very well done, but it and Final Cut are the very first baby-steps Apple has made into establishing iPad as a "serious" production platform, and they are nowhere NEAR usable by all those people your link up there lists. (In fact, the very first image in your link shows the UAD Studer A800 tape machine plugin, which is all over my latest album mixes, and which, being officially licensed from Studer, has no equivalent in Logic at all.)
Comments
Once again, Apple should make iOS as safe as possible for all users. Not just the ones that don't want to sideload, purchase from a third party app store and won't fall for a phishing scam.
What just exactly what would you call the physical media the Nintendo Wii game console uses? And yes, you could had downloaded games on to a Wii game console until 2019. Several years after they discontinue the Wii game console.
I am not.
If at the end Apple is forced to open iOS / iPadOS for 3rd party stores, they'll have two options,
1. Open iOS / iPadOS without any check, so anyone can create a 3rd party store. This will be risky and may impact Apple devices reputation.
2. Force 3rd party stores to follow a set of strict security rules, and customers will have a safe experience and a secure device. I could see companies like Microsoft, Adobe and other large developers following those rules, resulting in a secure 3rd party app store. We'll have to wait to see what happens.
BTW- the numbers, (as accurately as I remember them) came from some statistical survey concerning the Google Play Store and it's market share, maybe 4 or 5 years ago. It pointed out that Google Play had over 90% market share (among apps stores on Android) and that over 80% of Android users only downloaded from there because of the fear of getting malware from sideloading or from third party app stores. Many Apple supporters were saying that this would be the same on iOS, if Apple were forced to allow sideloading and third party app stores. Even the resent Epic vs Google trial seems to support this as Sweeney claimed that one of the reasons why he was forced to put Fortnight in the Google Play store was because Google was abusing their 92% Google Play app store market share monopoly by placing warnings about the danger of accidentally installing malware and virus, all along the way when attempting to sideload or getting apps from third party app stores. His claim was that Google was purposely scaring Android users into only downloading apps from the Google Play Store and that's why they have a 92% market share over all third party app stores on Android.
We'll have to wait and see if Apple is forced to allow sideloading and 3rd party stores, and how they manage devices security in both cases.
Well, pivoting to the outcome of Google's Epic trial is hardly answering the question I put to you.
Except for Google attempting to protect users even side-loading apps, why would they offer Google Play Protect at all? Of course they want to encourage Android phone owners to use Google Play for reasons of profit, but chasing money is not keeping Google from attempting to protect side-loaders too. Appel could do the same if they wish.
By the way, scanning sideloaded apps doesn't mean Google is rifling through your phone for corporate gain and espionage. Read up on it to see what it does and when instead of being a bit fuddish about the feature. You could find these things yourself in a 10-second search on your favorite browser.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en
The point about stifling competition is that they have no idea what they might be missing because the single App Store makes development unfeasible — such as does for third-party audio plugins on iPad, presumably.
Yes. Absolutely. There is ZERO chance of iPad replacing a Mac in a serious production environment until Waves, UAD, Native Instruments, and at least a handful of the usable third-party orchestral plugins are available. (Yes, you can make do with internal plug-ins, but production is about using the best tools for the job, and as long as the best tools are only available for Windows and Mac, that is what gets used.)
HOWEVER, the point, again, is: The kids and amateurs starting to use Logic on iPad may be completely unaware that these advanced tools and plugins exist — and they may never become aware, because the App Store model means that these developers may never be able to offer their stuff for iPad, at all. That puts these developers at a disadvantage, going forward, AND it hurts consumers by limiting their options — even if they're not aware of it.
MainStage does not exist for iPad. (I wish it did.)