thrang

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.

99.9% of the public would look at this render - and without being told the specifics -  not see a difference with the current 14... 

<<yawn...>>

This feature is really quite good, no question about that.

I wish Apple can figure out how to block out ambient/background noise for phone calls for the remote participant. That's a problem, when I'm trying to have a conversation with someone walking on a busy street or other noisy environment - their voice struggles to be made out quite often.

If Russia's legislature passes a law that says criticizing Putin publicly is cause for arrest due to suspicion of treason, insurrection, inciting unrest, or whatever, then sure, Russia has the "right" to apply that law, and the people will have to change their behavior or risk jail, or worse. But that does not make the law right, justified, sensible, fair or logical in the larger context of free will and free speech.

There are countries that already have "laws" that suppress free speech. Yet they are condemned by the rest of world.

So the discussion is not about whether the EU or whatever country can pass whatever law or regulation they wish, but of course, if such law or regulation is right or justified.

There is little basis for forcing any private enterprise to make arbitrary changes to their product or service just to help the competition, unless there was some clear and overwhelming harm to the public (there isn't), supported by substantial public outcry (there is none), or there is demonstrable and clear evidence of market coercion to harm competitors (there isn't). And to ignore the fact the companies invest substantially to stand out from competitors, to engineer superior solutions, with (in cases such as technology) a critical focus on security and interoperability, is just plain ignorant.

Beating your competition because you're really good, smart, and win the hearts and minds of the marketplace is not a crime that needs to be regulated.

I think the USB-C ruling is quite dumb actually. Everyone gets all green about the environmental reasoning, but really, do you want regulators clamping on innovation? What if Apple or Samsung or someone else devises a new connector that offers substantially superior functionality over USB-C? For the benefit of its customers and itself. Does it ever see the light of day? Hell, Lightning was created all those years ago as a superior solution to micro-usb connections of the time, and that was great. If these laws existed then, what would have happened to Lightning?