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

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 138
    JlongJlong Posts: 8member
    Jlong said:
    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 PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF ITS USERS.





    Fixed that for you!
    What happened?   You forgot to read the article before posting?

    You can call it what you want but the fact remains there is no choice. I'm not debating whether having choice is good or not, that's a whole different thing.
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 82 of 138
    JlongJlong Posts: 8member
    nicholfd said:
    Jlong said:
    Jlong said:
    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 chose to use the console model for software distribution for iOS. The console model is not a violation of antitrust laws. For example, Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the U.S. where the judge ruled that Nintendo's total control of software on the platform did not constitute an antitrust violation. Apple also won a major lawsuit against Psystar in the U.S. where part of the ruling said that Apple's computer hardware could not be considered a monopoly in and of itself. The judge cited Apple's extensive use of advertising for its hardware products as proof that it was part of a competitive market. 
    This is not about platform or hardware, this is about selling/getting products. I can go to best buy, game stop, amazon, Walmart, target, and etc and buy a Nintendo game. That's 5 places off the top of my head where a game can be purchased (outside of the official Nintendo store). Can i walk into any of  those stores for an IOS game? No. There difference between Nintendo and Apple is that, Nintendo gave consumers other venues to purchase their goods.
    Do you understand that even there, Nintendo still gets their 30%, approves the game, etc.?  Not so different, huh?
    Yes, I do understand but again, regardless if it's the same or not, the problem of "one" source remains. And that will be a sticking point.
    williamlondonelijahg
  • Reply 83 of 138
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,220member
    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!"
    This is the biggest point. Folks want to side load and do things, but if they brick the device or lose data.... Even worse if they have their credit or bank info stolen they will want/expect Apple to be responsible. Outside of this forum there are a LOT of folks that want to do what they want and not be responsible for the consequences. This is coming from someone who jail broke his phones for years, not to steal apps but to customize ( I still miss no slow animations and Barrel installed on my home screen ). Eventually Apple gave me most of what I wanted in IOS and I realized how much more advanced hackers and thieves had become, so I stopped jail breaking and stuck with stock IOS.

    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 84 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,175member
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    edited June 23 muthuk_vanalingamelijahg
  • Reply 85 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 664member
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 86 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,233member
    AppleZulu said:
    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.

    True -- But also, why would a large developer stick around the App Store and continue paying out 30% ?

    The App store obviously benefits Apple users far more than developers -- particularly large developers who do their own marketing. 
    That's not really correct. Apple delivers a stable, secure platform that attracts customers who are more likely to spend money on apps than Android's customers. Apple also created the modern online app store paradigm, with apps required to have a consistent UI, and online delivery of stable, secure, free and inexpensive applications that can make developers money on volume. Prior to that, computer applications typically were expected to come with extensive instructions and physical installation media. They are typically expensive, and it was common to have compatibility issues, both for devices and issues caused by other apps on the device. There were no average consumers who bought 50 or 100 apps. People didn't buy and install apps on a whim, just to see if they liked them. All that came from the Apple App Store.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 87 of 138
    bleabbleab Posts: 23member
    I look at it this way. For flagship Android devices that have prices similar to an iPhone i.e. Samsung Galaxy S and Note as well as Google Pixel devices, then the ability to use third party app stores like Amazon and Samsung and sideload apps from APKMirror, F-Droid and itch.io is a major platform advantage and differentiator for power users. (Before you say "what about Android viruses and security!" suffice to say that people who actually use Android have a very different view of that platform's actual security situation than do people that are far more likely to bash Android than actually use it: https://www.androidcentral.com/why-android-security-fearmongering-bs ). But force iOS to be just like Android in this way and that is one less major reason to buy a Galaxy S21 FE instead of an iPhone 12 Mini (they cost about the same) or a Samsung Galaxy Tab instead of an iPad Air (again, about the same cost). 

    So ... I would say that Samsung, Google, OnePlus, Xiaomi and the rest should root for Apple here. Android does better when it is different from iOS - be it price or features - and not the same. Samsung realized this, and by focusing on features that iPhones don't (yet) have became #1 in smartphone sales. Meanwhile Google is now 5 years into their "iPhone except running Android!" (who only Samsung haters like ... iPhone fans obviously have no use for them and actual Android types don't like them either) strategy and is actually selling fewer devices than they did in the Nexus era (because the Nexus differentiated from the iPhone also). 
    GeorgeBMacAppleZuluIreneW
  • Reply 88 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,175member
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.
    edited June 23
  • Reply 89 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 664member
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.
    I never claimed all had "bad practices".  I claimed you don't know!. That is extremely important. You know Apple.

    BS - how many "users" know/trust a 3rd party store/game developer/service, outside of just knowing Apple?  Close to zero.  They know & trust Apple.  Their "friend" is going to recommend something, and they are just going to go get it.  Game over.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 90 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,175member
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.
    I never claimed all had "bad practices".  I claimed you don't know!. That is extremely important. You know Apple.

    BS - how many "users" know/trust a 3rd party store/game developer/service, outside of just knowing Apple?  Close to zero.  They know & trust Apple.  Their "friend" is going to recommend something, and they are just going to go get it.  Game over.
    Yes, I don't know, neither you or Apple.  Remember that Apple rejected the because, among many reasons, they couldn't check the privacy of each game.  As today, I haven't seen any privacy issues with the games in Game Pass, so Apple may have blocked an app / service which is trustworthy.  Again, side loading the app would have benefit Game Pass customers, considering they have no issues trusting MS or the service.

    They trust Apple, but they also trust MS, specially when you consider there are +90M Xbox Live users, and 20M of them have Game Pass.  One more time, this is an example when app was rejected event though it looks like it has no security or privacy issues.  And side loading an app would have improved the gaming experience in Game Pass.
  • Reply 91 of 138
    nicholfdnicholfd Posts: 664member
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.
    I never claimed all had "bad practices".  I claimed you don't know!. That is extremely important. You know Apple.

    BS - how many "users" know/trust a 3rd party store/game developer/service, outside of just knowing Apple?  Close to zero.  They know & trust Apple.  Their "friend" is going to recommend something, and they are just going to go get it.  Game over.
    Yes, I don't know, neither you or Apple.  Remember that Apple rejected the because, among many reasons, they couldn't check the privacy of each game.  As today, I haven't seen any privacy issues with the games in Game Pass, so Apple may have blocked an app / service which is trustworthy.  Again, side loading the app would have benefit Game Pass customers, considering they have no issues trusting MS or the service.

    They trust Apple, but they also trust MS, specially when you consider there are +90M Xbox Live users, and 20M of them have Game Pass.  One more time, this is an example when app was rejected event though it looks like it has no security or privacy issues.  And side loading an app would have improved the gaming experience in Game Pass.
    This is my last reply on this topic.

    do know & trust Apple.  What's Microsoft's privacy policy/data sharing/tracking/protection?  Just because you haven't seen any issues, doesn't mean they don't exist, and you don't know how/what Microsoft enforces.  Side loading the Game Pass service would not provide Apple customers any of Apple's protections.

    Who says they trust MS?  Most probably don't even think about it.  I already explained above why the app was rejected - Apple couldn't vet the games/privacy/tracking within Game Pass.  You don't know if there are any "Apple privacy/tracking violations" - Microsoft refused to submit each game.  Either you get it or you don't.

    Apple doesn't give a shit about Microsoft's Game Pass gaming experience.  Apple cares about Apple's customer's privacy.
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 92 of 138
    bleabbleab Posts: 23member
    nicholfd said:
    This is my last reply on this topic.

    do know & trust Apple.  What's Microsoft's privacy policy/data sharing/tracking/protection?  Just because you haven't seen any issues, doesn't mean they don't exist, and you don't know how/what Microsoft enforces.  Side loading the Game Pass service would not provide Apple customers any of Apple's protections.

    Who says they trust MS?  Most probably don't even think about it.  I already explained above why the app was rejected - Apple couldn't vet the games/privacy/tracking within Game Pass.  You don't know if there are any "Apple privacy/tracking violations" - Microsoft refused to submit each game.  Either you get it or you don't.

    Apple doesn't give a **** about Microsoft's Game Pass gaming experience.  Apple cares about Apple's customer's privacy.
    You shouldn't trust any company, really. They exist primarily to make money and even when they have secondary goals those may not align with your interests. And even if their primary or secondary interests and goals align with your own right now - likely due to even stopped clocks being right twice a day - they almost certainly won't in the future. That being said, people who do not wish to adhere to Apple's policies have alternatives. In this case you would hopefully get the best Microsoft Game Pass gaming experience on the Microsoft Duo device, and if not the Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets that Microsoft has been using to promote their apps and services on for years. If Microsoft is unable to deliver a good Game Pass experience with either their first party device or their primary mobile hardware partner then the problem may well be with Game Pass itself. In any event, the Game Pass experience isn't a problem for Apple to solve and iPhone/iPad/Apple TV users have a host of other very legitimate reasons for desiring that these products remain as is. Indeed, even Apple being a private business that you would rather not see governments - especially foreign governments who have an interest in promoting their own competing tech companies - push around is a good enough reason in my book. 
  • Reply 93 of 138
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,567member
    danvm 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.”
    Again, you could keep your device safe, with the same locked environment Apple have today by using the App Store, while other customer could device to take security risks and side load apps.  

    Regarding developers, based from what I have seen in Android, I haven't seen any major developer, apart from Epic, leaving the app store, even though you can side load apps.  Why would be different with iOS devices? 

    Or he can click a download link that bypasses the App Store and installs spyware or ransomware. Or he can buy a used iPhone not knowing it’s infested with malware, adware, viruses and other spyware.

    Or Apple can run their own damn business like they’re responsible for doing.
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 94 of 138
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,658member
    Malware and middlemen. That's what they believe will improve things for consumers. Malware and middlemen. 
    Yes anyone smart enough to avoid these has options already. So yep only conclusion is they want to enable grifters ... 
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 95 of 138
    Man, I see a lot of blocked posters at it (via quotes). Proves I was right to block those idiots/trolls in the first place.

    To the people who claim that iPhone users who stick to The App Store will remain safe while others who sideload can take the risk themselves if they wish to. To this I say:

    Are you fucking stupid?

    What if my family use a calendar App to schedule our lives, and one of them has their iPhone hacked and someone gains access to all our scheduled events? How protected are we then? So a crook knows when we’re on vacation (to rob our house) or that my younger daughter has a late night shift and gets off at 2:00am? Or personal information like who our doctors are or if anyone is in therapy?

    This is just one example of a common type of application where users who stick to The App Store can have their privacy invaded by malware downloaded by a third party.

    Seriously, did any of you think this through?
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacthtwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 96 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,175member
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.
    I never claimed all had "bad practices".  I claimed you don't know!. That is extremely important. You know Apple.

    BS - how many "users" know/trust a 3rd party store/game developer/service, outside of just knowing Apple?  Close to zero.  They know & trust Apple.  Their "friend" is going to recommend something, and they are just going to go get it.  Game over.
    Yes, I don't know, neither you or Apple.  Remember that Apple rejected the because, among many reasons, they couldn't check the privacy of each game.  As today, I haven't seen any privacy issues with the games in Game Pass, so Apple may have blocked an app / service which is trustworthy.  Again, side loading the app would have benefit Game Pass customers, considering they have no issues trusting MS or the service.

    They trust Apple, but they also trust MS, specially when you consider there are +90M Xbox Live users, and 20M of them have Game Pass.  One more time, this is an example when app was rejected event though it looks like it has no security or privacy issues.  And side loading an app would have improved the gaming experience in Game Pass.
    This is my last reply on this topic.

    do know & trust Apple.  What's Microsoft's privacy policy/data sharing/tracking/protection?  Just because you haven't seen any issues, doesn't mean they don't exist, and you don't know how/what Microsoft enforces.  Side loading the Game Pass service would not provide Apple customers any of Apple's protections.

    Who says they trust MS?  Most probably don't even think about it.  I already explained above why the app was rejected - Apple couldn't vet the games/privacy/tracking within Game Pass.  You don't know if there are any "Apple privacy/tracking violations" - Microsoft refused to submit each game.  Either you get it or you don't.

    Apple doesn't give a shit about Microsoft's Game Pass gaming experience.  Apple cares about Apple's customer's privacy.
    If you want to know about MS privacy policy, Google it.  It took me seconds to find it.  Personally I'm very cautions of every app I download in my devices, even from the Apple App Store, considering the list of fakes apps that have been discovered. 
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/06/apple-app-store-scams-fraud/
    https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou
    At the same time, I'll have no issues side loading the Game Pass app if it was possible.  True, doesn't means that issues could exist.  But until something is found, MS / Game Pass have proved very secure.  Every company may have something hidden, including Apple.  Remember when they were caught recording Siri requests?  

    Regarding trust, my point was about customers trusting the Game Pass / Xbox Live services, not about Apple.  If you read my comment, you would noticed that I already knew why Apple rejected the App.  True, me and neither your or Apple knew if there were any privacy violations.  There is a possibility that the games didn't violate the policies.  But at the end, maybe we will never know.  And MS didn't refuse to submit each game, they just have a service that didn't work with individual games.  

    And I agree that Apple don't care about Game Pass, or even gaming at all.  Just look at Apple Arcade.  
  • Reply 97 of 138
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,175member
    Beats said:
    danvm 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.”
    Again, you could keep your device safe, with the same locked environment Apple have today by using the App Store, while other customer could device to take security risks and side load apps.  

    Regarding developers, based from what I have seen in Android, I haven't seen any major developer, apart from Epic, leaving the app store, even though you can side load apps.  Why would be different with iOS devices? 

    Or he can click a download link that bypasses the App Store and installs spyware or ransomware. Or he can buy a used iPhone not knowing it’s infested with malware, adware, viruses and other spyware.

    Or Apple can run their own damn business like they’re responsible for doing.
    A user that decides to keep using the App Store would not have spyware / ransomware issues, different from the one who decides to open his / her device that it's as risk from the issues you mentioned.  And a user who sells or acquire a used iPhone has to make sure it's reset with factory defaults.  
  • Reply 98 of 138
    Man, I see a lot of blocked posters at it (via quotes). Proves I was right to block those idiots/trolls in the first place.
    Yep, same here, same culprits over and over spewing lies and FUD and shilling for all the others, just wish others would stop engaging tho damn trolls.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 99 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    AppleZulu said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.

    True -- But also, why would a large developer stick around the App Store and continue paying out 30% ?

    The App store obviously benefits Apple users far more than developers -- particularly large developers who do their own marketing. 
    That's not really correct. Apple delivers a stable, secure platform that attracts customers who are more likely to spend money on apps than Android's customers. Apple also created the modern online app store paradigm, with apps required to have a consistent UI, and online delivery of stable, secure, free and inexpensive applications that can make developers money on volume. Prior to that, computer applications typically were expected to come with extensive instructions and physical installation media. They are typically expensive, and it was common to have compatibility issues, both for devices and issues caused by other apps on the device. There were no average consumers who bought 50 or 100 apps. People didn't buy and install apps on a whim, just to see if they liked them. All that came from the Apple App Store.

    No argument!
    The difference may be simply in how we value certain things:  I probably value user security and stability higher than I do the value of the app store to developers.

    But yes, both benefit.  I just think the benefit to the users is more valuable (although its harder to quantify).

    But, this proposed move would screw both of them.
  • Reply 100 of 138
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,494member
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    nicholfd said:
    danvm said:
    AppleZulu said:
    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.
    Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store.  If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?  ;)
    Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
    Agree.  That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.  

    At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security.  One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming.  Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services.  I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  
    You can't know that.  What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)?  What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
    An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers.  How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer?  They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy.  Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?

    Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming.  It's not always about privacy and security.  And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible.  Completely different from a company like Facebook.  
    But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data.  What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
    Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?  

    Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps.  But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all.  When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy.  If there was a  possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app. 
    Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out.  Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.  Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this.  Microsoft declined.
    Schiller recently explained why cloud gaming wasn't allowed in iOS devices, Apple wants to assign an age rating, parental controls, app designation, privacy policies and other attributes on a per-app basis.  I find interesting that Apple don't requires that from movie and music services, and I suppose it's because they are already rated by MPAA.  But the same can be said of Game Pass games that already rated by  ESRB / PEGI.  Also Game Pass have parental controls.  

    Like you said, privacy was an issue, and not necessarily because Game Pass was not safe or violated Apple privacy policies (at least Apple didn't made any comment about that).  So Apple decided to block cloud gaming.  This is an example of an app being rejected, even though is from a reliable developer (in this case MS), where customer trust their data and privacy data.  Don't you think that would be nice for those customer to side load the Game Pass app?  I think so.  Maybe this could be the case for other apps too.
    Developer reliability is completely unrelated to this decision (there are plenty of sketchy developers).

    Nope - what about the privacy, sharing & tracking for each game?  They are not all made by Microsoft.  Some even require EA/Epic/Origin/etc. logins, with their own "bad" practices...
    Developer reliability maybe is unrelated, but that doesn't mean a reliable developer / app was block because Apple privacy policies.  

    True, not all are made by Microsoft.  But that doesn't means that the publisher have "bad practices" as you said.  Is just that Apple cannot check on them.  Again, this is an example where customer, who trust the developer with a reliable app / service, will benefit from side loading apps.

    Do you lock your car doors when you leave it?

    Seems like you do not much value security and stability and favor "live free" and "What? me worry?"
Sign In or Register to comment.