danvm

Rayz2016 said:

danvm said:

Rayz2016 said:

How about this:

As soon as you side load then your warranty is voided and you lose access to Apple Services?

As today, Apple don't void the warranty or block access to their services when customers download applications outside of the macOS App Store. Why they would do that in iOS?

Because the average MacOS computer user who doesn’t stick to the App Store is a lot more savvy than your average iOS user. And if Apple found that some piece of software you were running had damaged the machine … not sure they would cover it. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bitcoin+mining+software+invalidates+warranty

GeorgeBMac said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac said:

THANK YOU APPLE - For Finally Laying that Out!

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

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

Some might argue:  Well give the user the Choice!   But that's another bullshit argument.

Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.

While some might scream:  "Don't take away my free choice!"

I say:   "Don't take away my reliability and security!"

If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?  

BTW, you forgot to add macOS in the list of "unreliable and insecure",
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/19/craig-federighi-blasts-mac-security-to-prop-up-ios-app-store

No I don't think that -- and never said or implied that the App Store was good for developers.   Obviously you had no rebuttal -- so you change what I said and then rebutted that!   (Shakes head...)

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

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

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

GeorgeBMac 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.

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.”

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.