skippingrock

crowley said:

skippingrock said:

rcfa said:

StrangeDays said:

The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 

In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.

I don’t want side loading allowed for this one reason. Because of the way it is right now, I’m in complete control of what apps that are available get installed on my iPhone. Apps that I know have been vetted as secure and not doing anything that is contrary to what I want my device used for. 

If side loading is ever allowed, this is what will happen. Governments with less than an exemplary track record for rights will get the back door that they want for iOS. 

You visit their country and they could force you to installing tracking or spyware onto your device and there is nothing that you nor Apple could do to stop it. 

Basically fighting to be able to install some worthless game on your phone would open up Pandora’s box to being forced to install other things. Things that can report on you when you use other apps that are banned in your country like Twitter or Telegram or track your whereabouts. They could say all they want that they don’t but you’d have no way to validate if they are speaking the truth. Apple’s curation process stops all that. 

Why do you think allowing side loading means removing user control of app installation?  They're pretty different things.

rcfa said:

StrangeDays said:

The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 

In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.

ArchStanton said:

skippingrock said:

I still don’t see 14.7.1 in my updates. 

You have to do what you have to do but it's very important to install patches (this is not an Apple thing, this a general rule for OS and app SW). I will let a day go by to make sure no immediate major bug is present, then push patches manually.
Company's most often do these updates exclusively to fix highly specific scenario bugs (often not applicable to the average user) and the very important closing of newly identified security vulnerabilities. These updates will rarely change menus or features - the average user will likely not even notice an X.X.# update. It's the vulnerabilities that users should patch as soon as they're able to. Waiting doesn't provide a benefit while it leaves you open to a vulnerability that has an unknown propagation level -- not good.

It’s updating now, but could only do it from my Mac by connecting the cable.