Apple expected to lay iOS 17 sideloading groundwork at WWDC 2023

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,362member
    thrang said:
    gatorguy said:
    DAalseth said:
    Are they a significant threat to security? 
    Yes, without question.
    Will they be forced through?
    Yes, without question.
    Will Apple be blamed for the resulting system damage, data loss, ransomeware attacks, and other problems?
    Yes, without question.
    Why would side-loading negatively affect the security of your personal iPhone if you don't enable it? I've never had malware on any Android phone in 15 years of using them, just like I've had no malware on my iPhone in 5 years of using one. 

    Heck, it won't even noticeably affect Apple revenue from their App Store in case you're worried that Apple won't continue to get ever richer. 

    So much handwringing over the nothing pie. 
    Given the utter paucity of commentary in an internet world where people post picture of meatballs or dental surgery, just about no one in the iOS/iPadOS user community is asking or demanding this - this is purely externally motivated, and the focus is not for the benefit if the end user.

    People trust share A LOT via the walled garden Apple ecosystem. Mail, Messages, Contacts, File shared documents, Photos etc. - not-infrequently containing personal or sensitive information - because there is a high level of trust in the over security of the ecosystem.

    A -  If side-loaded apps on other people's devices are permitted access to data such as the above, that impacts me even if I didn't side load any apps myself.
    B -  If side-loaded apps on other people's devices are not permitted access to data such as the above, this is much better, but likely negates the benefit of external app sources (if a side-loaded camera app can't save in the Photos library, what benefit?)
    C - If B is true, can access into the ecosystem still be engineer/exploited? Who wants to find out?
    D - Why invite potential back doors into an ecosystem that is highly trusted with an extensive amount of personal information entrusted?

    This is trying to knock a leg out from under Apple for reasons that are not beneficial to Apple or consumers, but perhaps to ineffective competitors, governments or nefarious actors. 

    And at the core of it, the App Store is a feature of the products Apple sells - a HW/SW/Services ecosystem they invested untold hundreds of billions in engineering efforts for decades. Why should someone now be allowed to suddenly set up their own table in that shop, sell their own goods, and run their own cash register (and with no investment or renumeration to the shop owner)? It's illogical and unethical are various level, and further so if applied to businesses in other industry.

    Despite the efforts to paint it as such, Apple is not a monopoly - they are very successful because of what they do (and what is trying to be dismantled to a degree) but competitors are free to develop and sell their own solution, and sell them anywhere that Apple does.


    I could not agree more. The primary instigators behind the move to force Apple to break its ecosystem are not customers. They are mostly developers and businesses who want to force Apple to give then a selling channel that benefits their business. The needs of customers is never brought into the conversation. 

    While I’m 100% in Apple’s corner I still think their current App Store model is badly broken from the perspective of how difficult it is to shop the store for what you need. It’s simply way too large, too flat, and too monolithic. But from a security, privacy, and integrity standpoint Apple is doing a very good job. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. 

    Of course all of the shortcomings of the current App Store impact sellers just as badly as they do customers. But if Apple is going to make big changes, whether by choice or not, the solution has to be first and foremost customer focused. 

    Sorry developers and regulators, if you think screwing Apple or forcing Apple to comply with your seller driven needs is going to result in happier customers, you are dead wrong. Things need to be fixed, but fixed in a way that makes the whole shopping experience for customers much easier, more satisfying, and even more secure. There is no room for providing less than everything customers demand, unless you’re happy being another layer to the compost pile of dead apps. 
    gilly33radarthekat
  • Reply 22 of 41
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,016member
    JP234 said:
    There's an old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
    Sounds like there's going to be an app store designed by a committee of retarded government monkeys.
    What could go wrong? What couldn't?
    "Retarded government monkeys."    :D
  • Reply 23 of 41
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,667member
    tundraboy said:
    lu99ke said:
    This is going to be an unmitigated security disaster brought to you by hand-wringing do-nothing self-important politicians egged on by useless "regulate Apple because they don't do things the way I think the should" Android lusers.

    Nobody who uses the iPhone wants this. All the whining is coming from people who claim Apple "doesn't allow choice", yet were somehow able to choose a competing platform.
    So I guess you believe that Mac OS is an "unmitigated security disaster?" 

    I also guess, given your steadfast dedication to only using OS's that are NOT "unmitigated security disasters" for allowing side-loading, you only use Chrome OS as a desktop OS given you cannot "load" apps on to it ( unless of course you enable Linux ). 

    PS - I use an iPhone and I definitely want this... just saying. 

    PPS - Lusers... I can see what you did there... very clever... sort of.... well... actually, no, not at all.  


    Phone scammers steal from seniors by instructing them to download and install apps on their computers that give the scammers access to the victim's funds.  They could not do this on the iPhone because the exclusivity of the iOS App Store assures that all apps are vetted by Apple.  With side loading, scammers can now run the same scam on iPhone owners.

    Your point of view is from the very narrow perspective of relatively sophisticated computer users.  Not all iPhone users are at your level.  A less selfish view would consider the millions of people who picked iPhone because they know they can rely on Apple to keep it secure and will now be facing a much greater risk of getting victimized.


    App vetting is in no way a guarantee that malware or such like will not get through. 

    How do you stop zero day/click exploits?

    Nefarious web pages, SMS or even vetted App Store apps that carry potential payloads (Messages, WhatsApp, Telegram? 

    What if an alternative app store had even better protections in place than the App Store? 
    edited April 2023
  • Reply 24 of 41
    Forgot to add.

    I doubt Apple would talk about sideloading at WWDC. WWDC is an event for developers to learn about new frameworks to help improve their Apps and add new features. Why would Apple waste valuable time on something that will have a detrimental affect on users?

    if Apple eventually allows sideloading they’ll probably have a separate event (or more likely some videos) to explain how it works. Nothing more, nothing less. They’ll do the bare minimum to comply with the EU.
    williamlondonradarthekat
  • Reply 25 of 41
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 604member
    What a crock of from Mark Guessman. “sideloading” will require nothing more than signing an app with a different type of certificate and then a means of distribution.

    There is already more than one iOS app store, there is the public one, then there is the BTB one for volume purchasing (VPP) and then there are many many enterprise iOS app stores.

    Some but not all of the enterprise app-stores use MDM solutions but enterprise apps can actually be delivered by a simple web-site - this has been the case for years.

    So effectively all Apple need to do is create another type of certificate and then charge for the privilege of using it and state the rules and conditions attached with doing so. Apple could even decide that installing an app from a 3rd party app store will prevent subsequent installs from the public app store until the security risk app is deleted. 
    ctt_zh
  • Reply 26 of 41
    jgreg728jgreg728 Posts: 100member
    This will render Apple's "walled garden" philosophy useless and will turn iOS into a lesser Android, which is currently a lesser iOS in terms of user experience. Prepare to see big names drop out of the App Store in single file fashion as the trend grows. Prepare to see other BS applications like Adobe Creative Cloud and Epic's game store become more prevalent. Prepare to see less initiated users fall prey to scam after scam (especially older folk) and blaming Apple for it. Prepare to see the iOS App Store turn into the macOS App Store. All this won't happen overnight, no, but it WILL happen. People won't have any more choice than they do now. If anything they'll have LESS choice. A walled garden OS was an OPTION for people to use if they didn't want what came with Android. And now, they have two options that will be same s**t, different toilet. A major loss for the consumer end of the day. You want side loading? Go get an Android.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 27 of 41
    lu99kelu99ke Posts: 3member
    rob53 said:
    Need to get lawyers ready for the first attacks on iOS once side-loading is a feature. Instead of going after the perpetrator they need to go after the countries who demanded side-loading. Those countries are the actual perps. In addition, side-loading must be defaulted to being turned off without any possible way of hacking that setting. There also needs to be constant monitoring of the setting, shutting off all external access until the user can determine what's going on. In addition, Apple needs to include its own monitoring software spyware to log and report every user who has side-loading turned on and the apps that are installed. This needs to be fed to a global database owned by Apple so they have all the information on where attacks come from so Apple can countersue any country and individual who loads malware onto an iOS device and triggers it. 

    To those countries who are legislating a back door into Apple products, get ready for lawsuits the first time an Apple device is attacked. 
    It's all good... all this is already in place... you know...because Mac OS allows side-loads and it is obviously an exploit / spyware riddled piece of garbage given it allows people that are not apple to actually do stuff with it. Apple has been suing and countries for decades for allowing apps to be installed on Mac OS... how do you think they have made so much money?

    Oh wait... what's that? Mac OS ISN"T a dumpster fire of a security nightmare?? And it DOES allow apps installed outside of the Apps Store?? REALLY?

    Hmmm...
    Calamandermuthuk_vanalingamArianneFeldry
  • Reply 28 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    Valdhor said:
    I don’t know what the actual wording of this order is (Is it to allow side loading on iPhone or IOS?). If it’s for iPhone , if I was Apple, I would create a minimal OS that would replace the full IOS if someone wanted to side load anything or use 3rd party App Store. BIG warning message that there would now be no security provided by Apple, all Apple applications would be removed and whatever else Apple provides. The user would then be required to use 3rd party app stores, sideloading etc. Call the minimal OS iPhoneOS. It can have all the libraries developers need, just no security layers, or any security calls would just return null. There are many other things. Just my 2c.
    Yes, anyone who loads an app that was not supplied by Apple must be punished. /s
    Calamandermuthuk_vanalingamArianneFeldry
  • Reply 29 of 41
    Maybe Apple should create a separate sandbox on iOS for all sideloaded apps with default no access to any services. Create a separate ecosystem that can’t screw up everything else. Also would Apple be forced to provide all the programming libraries snd support to sideloaded apps? I would give them zero support and no access to the latest iOS programming libraries. 
    edited April 2023 radarthekatCalamander
  • Reply 30 of 41
    If Apple is smart they'll stop the whining and hand-wringing and go all in on it. 

    There is literally a huge amount of apps that are waiting to be deployed on iOS but can't be deployed because of the little Apple prison which decided you can't watch p0rn or buy a crypto coin for your own protection. 

    Now I don't watch p0rn because I think it's actually detrimental to health, it's a dark force. 

    But I am in crypto and you have no idea how many people I meet who don't make apps, cripple their apps, or make lame PWAs just because of app store rules. 

    I can guarantee you the first 3rd party app store focused on crypto apps will make a killing. I would do it if I wasn't so busy with my actual work...

    From a security perspective and as an app developer myself, with several published apps in the app store, I can say that Apple's iOS security is not strong enough to handle this right now. So from a tech perspective, they need to seriously fortify iOS. 

    Apps live in little boxes and their interactions with the system at large are limited to certain things - but because this was only developed over time, and isn't really well thought out or implemented, there are endless loopholes and hacks to get around it. So fixing this is the biggest engineering challenge. 

    But the opportunity this presents is massive and if Apple plays it right they will increase sales of their hardware, simply because more and more interesting software is now available. 
    edited April 2023 ctt_zhArianneFeldry
  • Reply 31 of 41
    Maybe Apple should create a separate sandbox on iOS for all sideloaded apps with default no access to any services. Create a separate ecosystem that can’t screw up everything else. Also would Apple be forced to provide all the programming libraries snd support to sideloaded apps? I would give them zero support and no access to the latest iOS programming libraries. 
    That's what they do anyway - all apps live in sandboxes. Each app has their own file system and can't access the rest of the file system, and so on. 

    The problem is that iOS has many APIs that are buggy and allow hackers to get around that sandbox. 

    So sure they could build another sandbox around the sandbox, but why would that be safer? They need to fix the existing sandbox, which is supposed to do exactly what you said, but for all apps. 

    Thanks to the App store Apple was able to prevent many hacky apps from being deployed, since they check the code, and if the code uses unauthorized APIs, it is rejected. Some still got through. But most got caught. Without this check - we will see how leaky that sandbox really is. 

    I think it will need a lot of work, feeling wise. The attack surface in code is huge. If I were them I'd have a 100 people strong security fix team on standby. They have enough money, they should spend it on that. 
    ctt_zh
  • Reply 32 of 41
    jimh2 said:
    @thrang Excellent points about the rest of us being compromised by the schmuck who lets a side loaded App run sweep up their contacts. I can hardly wait for the unsolicited texts, emails and maybe even snail mail. Nothing like being collateral damage to something you had nothing to do with. For the naysayers think about Tik Tok releasing their app to side load where they can do anything they see fit. If there are complaints about privacy now wait until the side loads start.
    You're using MacOS what's the difference?

    You have friends with Android phones, yes? Do they constantly send you emails? Lol. Give up on your addiction to worry, your life will be better. 

    Normal people will continue using the Apple App store and never even know about this. 

    In fact when Apple loses its monopoly on the app store, they can then make the store rules as restrictive as they want, without running into issues with regulators. Epic doesn't wanna pay? OFF they go! And so on. 

    I've argued for years that Apple's total control - or control freakery if you want to call it that - over the app store is actually to their detriment. 

    Having total control means Apple has to follow the orders of every government anywhere - whatever they want to ban, for whatever reason, Apple has to comply. 

    When they give up control of app stores, censorship will get a lot harder, but for Apple, it's only positive because they're not the ones who have to deal with it anymore. If Apple had no kill switch, governments can't ask it to ban apps. If they have a kill switch, governments will ask Apple to ban apps, and Apple must comply or else lose markets. Apple can't afford to piss off the Chinese government. Or the Indian government. Or the US ... or russia... or any country of any size. 
    muthuk_vanalingamctt_zhArianneFeldry
  • Reply 33 of 41
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 2,006member
    Why does anyone even believe this “rumor?”

    Gurman is actually (according to this article, anyway) claiming that Apple is going to go to WWDC in full ho-hum mode with few notable new iOS features, but will lay the groundwork to surrender on a thing they’re still aggressively fighting against. 

    The first item seems unlikely. The second is patently ridiculous. Seriously, doing a side-loading seminar at WWDC would undermine the work of every high-dollar lawyer and lobbyist on their payroll. Apple is not that dumb. 

    Why are y’all reacting to these things as though they’re true, rather than employing a critical thought, calling bullsh¡t and challenging the premise?
    edited April 2023
  • Reply 34 of 41
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    If it’s discussed at WWDC I can’t wait to hear the dog and pony show about how great it will be and how Apple will do it right, after a decade of claiming it would destroy security for iOS users.

    But I also understand Apple’s hands are tied and they have no choice so why not make the best of it and present it in a positive light.

    In the end, as others have pointed out, side loading types will be a tiny minority just like the jailbreak crowd, loudmouths with an agenda. We’ll have to suffer their arrogance when they post here about some magical app they side loaded that has features never dreamed of in the App Store. The proselytizing from them will be unbearable. 
    edited April 2023
  • Reply 35 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    gatorguy said:
    DAalseth said:
    Are they a significant threat to security? 
    Yes, without question.
    Will they be forced through?
    Yes, without question.
    Will Apple be blamed for the resulting system damage, data loss, ransomeware attacks, and other problems?
    Yes, without question.
    Why would side-loading negatively affect the security of your personal iPhone if you don't enable it? I've never had malware on any Android phone in 15 years of using them, just like I've had no malware on my iPhone in 5 years of using one. 

    Heck, it won't even noticeably affect Apple revenue from their App Store in case you're worried that Apple won't continue to get ever richer. 

    So much handwringing over the nothing pie. 

    Clearly you’re not a developer. And your personal anecdotes of not having malware doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem.

    As a developer I can think of numerous ways to compromise a users privacy if I don’t have to follow Apple Guidelines on their App Store. I can also think of ways to EASILY compromise privacy of users who never side load Apps and stick only to The App Store.
    If so that's where your problem lies. You're convinced iOS can be easily compromised by you?

    Being a developer has zilch to do with it AFAICT. Unless the security provided by Apple's iOS is not as good as Google Android has become you have little to worry about Eric/Faux. 

    All this OMG Think of the Children handwringing was seeded by Apple as a means of avoiding challenges to the AppStore. In the real world there's no practical issue when users stick to the official Appstores. When they don't then a bit more backchecking on the part of the user is needed. 
    edited April 2023 ctt_zhArianneFeldryavon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 41
    I sideloaded* almost every program I used on my Mac. Why is this any different? 

    You get a warning on first open that it's not an authorized app. It's still scanned by Gatekeeper or whatever the built in anti-virus MacOS uses. But you think it's any different because it's a an iPhone? On Android, you can sideload* malicious apps and app stores. There are also good apps and app stores. Should we shut down browsers because there are bad websites? Should Microsoft shut down the ability to sideload* because people write bad programs? No, that's a stupid idea, so why do you think it's different because it's a phone? A phone that is likely more powerful than any other computer most people own? 

    *Also known as installing programs outside Mac App Store, Play Store, App Store, and Microsoft Store
  • Reply 37 of 41
    Fred257Fred257 Posts: 237member
    If you look at the iPhones features the only reason you have Control Center is because of developers from the jailbreak community. Most of the features have not changed on the iPhone since their clampdown on Jailbreaks. In the meantime I use my android phone all the time because it is completely customizable. I like my music to immediately start when connected to headphones so, I rarely pick up my iPhone anymore. I only use it for banking apps these days.
  • Reply 38 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    dewme said:
    Things could go very badly if Apple doesn’t do this correctly and loses control of the solution. 
    Apple already lost the opportunity to control the narrative. The writing has been on the wall for over a year, yet Apple instead chose to dig its heels into muddy ground. This was never about "security" as Apple tried to frame it as, even throwing the Mac under the bus trying to do so. It's always about the money.

    By next spring, maybe early summer, when Apple will be forced into doing what they have loudly resisted it will be clear that no AI member's security was compromised because of "OMG, there's sideloading!". 
    edited April 2023 muthuk_vanalingamctt_zh
  • Reply 39 of 41
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,008member

    There is literally a huge amount of apps that are waiting to be deployed on iOS but can't be deployed because of the little Apple prison which decided you can't watch p0rn or buy a crypto coin for your own protection. 


    A huge amount? Waiting to be deployed? Provide a list of 50 just to start if there are "literally" a huge amount. 

    What people do not get is that that vast majority of customers want and appreciate the walled approach, the curated approach. That's why there is LITERALLY no groundswell - or even whimper for that matter -  from the global iOS/iPadOS community that side loading is sorely lacking.

    It seems very few here can see the complexity that will be added, both from a development and support experience (who pay's Apple?), and the degradation of the brand and user experience because of the it. 

    Be careful for what you wish.



  • Reply 40 of 41
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    thrang said:

    There is literally a huge amount of apps that are waiting to be deployed on iOS but can't be deployed because of the little Apple prison which decided you can't watch p0rn or buy a crypto coin for your own protection. 


    A huge amount? Waiting to be deployed? Provide a list of 50 just to start if there are "literally" a huge amount. 

    What people do not get is that that vast majority of customers want and appreciate the walled approach, the curated approach. That's why there is LITERALLY no groundswell - or even whimper for that matter -  from the global iOS/iPadOS community that side loading is sorely lacking.

    It seems very few here can see the complexity that will be added, both from a development and support experience (who pay's Apple?), and the degradation of the brand and user experience because of the it. 

    Be careful for what you wish.



    If Apple is providing no service, processing of payments or app distribution, no one needs to pay Apple, do they? That's the way it works now with 3rd party app stores and installations on an owner's smartphone. The provider of said OS or hardware isn't paid if they provide no service.

    Simply having sold you a device, a car, a home, does not mean the original seller deserves a share of everything you purchase for it from that day forward. 
    edited April 2023
Sign In or Register to comment.