Apple explains why getting iPhone apps outside the App Store is a bad idea

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 138
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,946member
    Apple could easily allay the concerns of antitrust authorities by allowing users to completely replace iOS with Android. Then users could get all the side loading they want. Apple would not warranty the hardware or operating system if users switched to Android. The T2 chip, which Android would not use, could track whether or not Android was ever installed.

    I'm just guessing that less than 1% would install Android, and that means Apple will have proved its point - consumers want protection.
    This would mirror the model used on desktop boxes, where you can generally replace the native operating system with another one, with one notable exception. But even then, people have found ways to hackintosh macOS on to non-Apple computers. With Intel Macs you can generally install Windows, Linux, and possibly other operating systems on the Intel Mac. 

    I do agree that Apple would absolutely have to disable all proprietary security and trust features on their machine’s hardware if the operating system is changed to anything other than an Apple controlled OS.

    So is the solution to the pettiness on the side hoping to upend Apple to regress to computing models that were established in the early 1980s? I prefer living in a house to living in a cave. Decimating all of the improvements that Apple has delivered to its customers would be like going back to the cave.

    The real problem here is that we are not dealing with reasonable people who think in logical ways or even understand basic arithmetic. Apple’s whole approach to building products is to provide a totally integrated turnkey solution where they deliver everything in one package. They are not building components that get integrated into bigger systems by others, e.g., Windows OS or Dell PCs. Neither the Mac nor the iPhone even has market share leadership, 

    None of that matters to those who are fixated on the money that Apple pulls in because Apple got to a beautiful integrated solution that too many people (from a mindshare and profitability perspective of the losers) absolutely love. Whether it’s laziness or petty jealousy, once the eyes of those who failed to do what Apple has achieved get fixated on Apple’s loyal customer base and profitably, and their own lack of same, their loser brain descends from their skulls down into their bowel region and they change their own game plan from trying to Earn to trying to Steal. This is a base human emotion that is prevalent in Followers, and a failing that is rarely seen in Leaders. 

    Maybe Steve was right and Apple should have never opened up iOS to third party apps. But Apple thought beyond their own self interests, looked at the big picture, and opened themselves up to those who would like to also benefit and profit from Apple’s game changing innovation. Unfortunately, in doing so, they also opened themselves up to those who cannot tolerate Apple’s success or the profit sharing arrangement that Apple put in place for those they thought were shared partners but who turned out to be hand biting cave dwellers. 
    Fidonet127watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    THANK YOU APPLE - For Finally Laying that Out!

    The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way.   So again, Thank You Apple.

    Some might argue:  Well give the user the Choice!   But that's another bullshit argument.
    Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.

    While some might scream:  "Don't take away my free choice!"
    I say:   "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
    If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?  

    BTW, you forgot to add macOS in the list of "unreliable and insecure",
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/19/craig-federighi-blasts-mac-security-to-prop-up-ios-app-store
    elijahg
  • Reply 23 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    Rayz2016 said:
    How about this:

    As soon as you side load then your warranty is voided and you lose access to Apple Services?
    As today, Apple don't void the warranty or block access to their services when customers download applications outside of the macOS App Store. Why they would do that in iOS?
    elijahgcropr
  • Reply 24 of 138
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
    Although I agree with your sentiment and I agree a change is needed here, technically speaking you already don't own your phone.
    All hardware in your phone is patented, and iOS is a closed-source operating system that is not sold to you, plus the boot-loader that runs when you turn on the phone, etc.

    You are right with 'owning' as in: Apple not being able to retain ownership or controlling your iPhone device. You can do whatever you please with the hardware.

    Where the dilemma is is that Apple does not:
    • Support the right to repair. Which should be the case because you DID purchase the device.
    • Support the user installing a custom operating system on the phone. Same reason; the user DID purchase the device.
    • Allow you to choose a different software vendor for applications installed through the operating system forced on the consumer by Apple. I do have problems with the fact that the operating system has been intertwined with where/how I acquire content.
    These three in my opinion are anti-competitive practices that need to be addressed by governments and through court-cases.
    Apple can solve all three. If their App Store is so great and competitive, I will keep using it as my primary source of content.

    If side-loading would cause the entire industry to come up with their own 'stores' and 'payment options', that would not always benefit the ease of use, but Apple can still compete by offering better terms and a more fluid installation experience for creator content. 
    muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 25 of 138
    fred1fred1 Posts: 851member
    byronl said:
    i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 
    Yes, but there are many people who would do just this and then sue Apple when they have problems because of it. 
    One of the fundamental reasons for rules and laws (speed limits, for example) is to protect people from themselves. 
    The solution in this case is to buy a phone from a less “restrictive” manufacturer. You are still free to buy from someone other than Apple. 
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 26 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,179member
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  
    elijahg
  • Reply 27 of 138
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,642member
    bulk001 said:
    If Apple wants to prevent side loading they have to make radical changes:
    1. Allow all API’s to be used by developers and not limit some to just themselves. 
    2. Allow different payment systems so users don’t have to pay the 30% Apple tax. If a developer wants to pass that 30% savings on to customers instead of adding to Apple’s 2 trillion wealth they should be allowed to do so. 
    3. Approve all apps that don’t violate a very basic, very minimal set of rules like no data harvesting, piracy or apps that violate the law. Cloud game apps for instance should all be approved. 

    Apple’s arrogance displayed in the Epic suit is similar to the NCAA’s greed and arrogance at exploiting student athletes and the price their pay will be the same. 

    1. Apple develops the API. They can do whatever the hell they want with them. They don’t need the government who knows nothing about tech or some random dude online running the company.

    2. There is no “Apple Tax”. Do you walk into stores and complain about all markups being a “tax”? Do you complain that movies, music, books are asking for a “tax”?

    I hate how only a Apple gets these stupid buzzwords when they’re no different from every business in the world.

    3. No. And again Apple can do what they want with their products. With a 15%+ marketshare of App Store products, I don’t think they’re doing bad and the customers are fine with how things are now.
    Fidonet127pscooter63williamlondonwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 28 of 138
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,642member
    byronl said:
    i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 

    I don’t get this. Then why not get an Android? They’re knockoff iPhones with multitouch, iPhone rectangular design, front and back facing cameras and giant screens. And since they’re clones, you can get the same apps like Facebook, and Gmail with the same interfaces.

    Why should Apple remove privacy and security when those devices already exist?
    pscooter63GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonjony0
  • Reply 29 of 138
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,636member
    byronl said:
    i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 
    Fine, and when you get pwned and blame Apple they can sue you for slander and libel. 
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonBeatsjony0
  • Reply 30 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  
    Respond without reading, much? 

    Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
    GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonBeatsjony0Detnator
  • Reply 31 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    danvm said:
    THANK YOU APPLE - For Finally Laying that Out!

    The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way.   So again, Thank You Apple.

    Some might argue:  Well give the user the Choice!   But that's another bullshit argument.
    Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.

    While some might scream:  "Don't take away my free choice!"
    I say:   "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
    If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?  

    BTW, you forgot to add macOS in the list of "unreliable and insecure",
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/19/craig-federighi-blasts-mac-security-to-prop-up-ios-app-store
    Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.

    If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could. 

    So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices. 

    So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
    edited June 23 GeorgeBMacwilliamlondonFidonet127jony0
  • Reply 32 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    fred1 said:
    byronl said:
    i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 
    Yes, but there are many people who would do just this and then sue Apple when they have problems because of it. 
    One of the fundamental reasons for rules and laws (speed limits, for example) is to protect people from themselves. 
    The solution in this case is to buy a phone from a less “restrictive” manufacturer. You are still free to buy from someone other than Apple. 
    If Apple is forced to adopt the Android model, the next thing will be sudden media and legislative shock - shock, I tell you - that consumers' privacy and security are unprotected from nefarious app developers, big and small, with no options for consumers to avoid the data scraping and malware. Then they'll pass new laws meant to curtail the developers' shenanigans by telling them not to do it, while Apple remains knee-capped in their ability to do the one thing that is actually effective at preventing the developers from carrying out the shenanigans.
    williamlondonFidonet127Beats
  • Reply 33 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,715member
    danvm said:
    THANK YOU APPLE - For Finally Laying that Out!

    The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.

    In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way.   So again, Thank You Apple.

    Some might argue:  Well give the user the Choice!   But that's another bullshit argument.
    Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.

    While some might scream:  "Don't take away my free choice!"
    I say:   "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
    If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?  

    BTW, you forgot to add macOS in the list of "unreliable and insecure",
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/19/craig-federighi-blasts-mac-security-to-prop-up-ios-app-store
    No I don't think that -- and never said or implied that the App Store was good for developers.   Obviously you had no rebuttal -- so you change what I said and then rebutted that!   (Shakes head...)

    As I said, and you ignored, once sideloading is allowed, why would a developer go through the hassle and expense of going through the App Store?  We would see a flood of developers out of the App Store and complete loss of the stability and security that the App Store helps assure.

    (And Apple already addressed your concerns about the Mac.  Go read that)

  • Reply 34 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,715member
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
    Although I agree with your sentiment and I agree a change is needed here, technically speaking you already don't own your phone.
    All hardware in your phone is patented, and iOS is a closed-source operating system that is not sold to you, plus the boot-loader that runs when you turn on the phone, etc.

    You are right with 'owning' as in: Apple not being able to retain ownership or controlling your iPhone device. You can do whatever you please with the hardware.

    Where the dilemma is is that Apple does not:
    • Support the right to repair. Which should be the case because you DID purchase the device.
    • Support the user installing a custom operating system on the phone. Same reason; the user DID purchase the device.
    • Allow you to choose a different software vendor for applications installed through the operating system forced on the consumer by Apple. I do have problems with the fact that the operating system has been intertwined with where/how I acquire content.
    These three in my opinion are anti-competitive practices that need to be addressed by governments and through court-cases.
    Apple can solve all three. If their App Store is so great and competitive, I will keep using it as my primary source of content.

    If side-loading would cause the entire industry to come up with their own 'stores' and 'payment options', that would not always benefit the ease of use, but Apple can still compete by offering better terms and a more fluid installation experience for creator content. 

    LOL...   So you completely ignored the consequences of doing what you propose -- which is what the whole article was about:  the loss of stability and security to Apple users that that would create.

    It's so easy to layout a one sided argument and then win the case.

  • Reply 35 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,715member
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  

    Bull
  • Reply 36 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    AppleZulu said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  
    Respond without reading, much? 

    Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
    That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?

    Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.

     If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
    edited June 23 muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 37 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  

    Bull
    So you think any change will force users to side-load outside of the AppStore?
    elijahg
  • Reply 38 of 138
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 348member
    byronl said:
    i still want to have the OPTION to enter UNSAFE environments apps etc 
    I don’t mean to be snarky but you do have that option. It is called Android. Many people use that option. It isn’t an obscure, unused choice.
    GeorgeBMacBeats
  • Reply 39 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    gatorguy said:
    AppleZulu said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device. 

    I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”

    Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems. 
    I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device.  If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store.  You will not be forced to side load apps.  
    Respond without reading, much? 

    Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
    That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?

    Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.

     If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
    Google Play doesn't require apps to disclose their data tracking practices and give consumers the option to decline. The Apple App Store does. I guarantee that Facebook - and many of Google's apps - will head straight out of the App Store the second they have the option to do so. In fact, they'll probably set up a legit-seeming "alternative" app store right away to get consumer-protection-free apps on iPhones as quickly as they can.
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacDetnator
  • Reply 40 of 138
    JlongJlong Posts: 8member
    Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
    • There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
    • There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
    • There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
    Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.




    edited June 23 williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamelijahg
Sign In or Register to comment.