6 ms·

Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user”

38 points by crackercrews 5y ago

throwzaway20102 5y ago
I agree with Tim Cook.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Are there any number of hoops that users could be required to jump through that would make you comfortable with this?
  - barkingmax222 5y ago
    Yes, have a developer program and sdk and review every app to make sure there’s no back doors or malware. Oh wait.
- perfopt 5y ago
  Could you say why? I am all for the Apple privacy and security features but disallowing side loading is merely taking away choice from users
  - throwzaway20102 5y ago
    The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue. These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this. Most if not all apple/iOS users are happy with the closed garden approach apple has setup. Aside from a handful of nerds who don’t want to pay a an apple premium to put their crappy home brewed app on their iPhone at the risk of making the entire system vulnerable for everyone else.
    - jwalton 5y ago
      > These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this. To give you a specific example, if I wanted to install a gameboy emulator on my iPhone, I wouldn’t be able to through the App Store as emulators are generally disallowed, but if I could side load then I could install an open source one. This would benefit me, and wouldn’t benefit any corporations.
      - throwzaway20102 5y ago
        You are like 0.0000000001% of the usecase. You might benefit from playing retro Pokémon but Epic will benefit at least $10b more than you. Also, you have the most innovative APIs available that you can use to make apps that can change lives or change the world and you want to make a fucking game boy emulator? Android this way ———>
        mthoms 5y ago
        Society and the environment would benefit enormously by being able to repurpose old iPhones and iPads. Side loading would make these devices significantly less likely to end up in landfill. That benefits everyone except corporations.
        throwmedaddy19 5y ago
        Yea like how it’s happening for cheap android devices and PCs? Oh … wait.
        throwmedaddy19 5y ago
        You wanna help society and the environment? Go. Fucking. Vegan. Asking our corporate overlords to help save the earth is the most idiotic thing I’ve read her. Almost as dumb as looking at Hollywood to teach morals or accurate history
        barkingmax222 5y ago
        Go vegan if you want to save society and the environment.
        5y ago
    - dmz73 5y ago
      Apple has already made money by selling you the iPhone/iPad hardware. If different app stores are allowed then Apple's app store does not host or review the app so they do not suffer any loss there. So this just means that Apple wants the extra money from App store and they don't care what users want. Now people say that Apple has the right to control their devices and that would be true...if they were leasing them but they are not, they are selling them and once sold the phones are not Apple's devices anymore. So when I ask Apple to allow me to use MY device any way I want they should not have the right to say no.
    - ksec 5y ago
      >The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue. NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store? None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power. I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.
mindcrime 5y ago
Meh. Allowing me to have more control over the apps loaded / running on my phone is absolutely in my best interest. This stuff is exactly why I totally reject everything Apple and their "walled garden" ecosystem. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.
- throwzaway20102 5y ago
  Why don’t you use an android phone?
  - hndamien 5y ago
    Or Librem?
    - mindcrime 5y ago
      That's definitely of interest. I recently bought a PinePhone to evaluate, but I could see getting a Librem down the road somewhere.
  - hallway_monitor 5y ago
    I'm sure he does. It would be hard to reject everything about Apple but still use their phone. Even though their privacy angle is strong, I'll never use one of the devices either for similar reasons.
  - mindcrime 5y ago
    I do. And I just got a PinePhone as well.
dlivingston 5y ago
> That would destroy the security of the iPhone and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store, where we have privacy nutrition labels and App Tracking Transparency... these things would not exist anymore. Trying to give “Tim Apple” the benefit of the doubt, I seriously cannot see how his comments jive with reality. If you give me the option to side load apps (and hell, make it as obscure as running an app on macOS from an “unidentified developer”) then: - The App Store is still as safe as ever - The vast majority of people won’t sideload as getting an app on the App Store is the lowest-friction method - iOS’ “sandbox” model and OS-level security settings still (approximately) guarantee some level of safety w.r.t. tracking, unauthorized file/camera/mic access, etc. - This would finally allow the iPad to enter true “pro” territory. I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security. But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”
- throwmedaddy19 5y ago
  > we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned. ………… literally so what? Welcome to capitalism. They built it. They reap the rewards, while paying devs who play by the rules $643 billion in 2020.
- danmur 5y ago
  I highly doubt any issues with security of the Android ecosystem in general have anything to do with side loading.
- ink404 5y ago
  The app has to declare permissions before it's launched their 'nutrition' label could be shown based on that. The only, debatably, valid part of this argument is those apps can't be vetted by apple for user safety before installation the same way apps on the app store are.
- ksec 5y ago
  >But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.” I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple. Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads) The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.
throwzaway20102 5y ago
I fully support Apple and the rules they have to protect the ecosystem they have created. They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns. Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup. They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden they have built. The entitlement that some of these companies think they have that they just show up with a crappy game and loot boxes and think they get to dictate the rules. Sit down young’n.
- aeternum 5y ago
  While this comment may have a little too much dramatic flare, it is one of the few contrarian comments that provides concrete reasons for the position.
  - ericwooley 5y ago
    Does it though? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful. It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Not forever, they can only rent seek as long as they provide a compelling device to users. Too much rent seeking = fewer app developers = fewer compelled users.
    - barkingmax222 5y ago
      > It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android. Yes, and?
ashneo76 5y ago
Sideloading isn't in the best interests of apple. Anything apple says is an attempt to keep it's shady business of a gold mine I am still running windows phone and that is thanks to side loading and replaceable batteries. Tim Cook can go to hell with his lies
perryizgr8 5y ago
Sideloading is not in the best interests of the user. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength
moistly 5y ago
When I need a device I can completely control, I buy a device that I completely control. It’s not like there’s a shortage of options. I would like to continue to be able to purchase a device that is well locked-down. If only for the benefit of my parents, who aren’t to be trusted to judge the privacy and security limitations for any given software. Though, to be honest, I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.
- throwmedaddy19 5y ago
  This. People want to enjoy the benefits of iPhone that were a result of apples locked down approach, while wishing it was more like Android. This is definition of having your cake and eating it too.
- swiley 5y ago
  Pretty much the only phone you have real control over and can buy with any moderate reliabilty is the pinephone. There absolutely is a shortage. Oh sure you can put a hacked rom on an Android but you can do the same with the iPhone. Even then you don't have control because the closed drivers are coupled to the userspace and there's a bunch of crap you can't get rid of combined with Google play and you effectively don't have much control at all. > I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over. I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.
uniqueid 5y ago
Tim Cook's argument doesn't hold up in the most likely scenario: if users get a choice to install third party apps, the risk to a user who exclusively chooses Apple's app store remains nearly as low as today. And choice is what Cook does support when it comes to iOS privacy controls (except there the change to Apple is a leg up over Facebook and Google). What's best for the user, Apple's profits aside, is to provide a choice in both scenarios.
- throwmedaddy19 5y ago
  Apples to oranges This is fundamentally different as it’s asking to pic internal vs external whereas the Facebook choice is about controls that both parties have access to within iOS
randomperson_24 5y ago
Reading Sheeple talks are always fun. It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part. The security thing is just a joke. The walled garden isn't safe (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...)
- peytn 5y ago
  I mean, if the app I want is on a single store, do I have a choice? Are users really itching to install the Epic store so they can have more choices? The Epic store will be shoved down their throats. As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.
justinplouffe 5y ago
I think Apple is clearly overplaying the role that their app store policies like the "nutrition label", reviews and app tracking transparency have in the iOS security model. To me, the security features that matter are from the operating system, its implementation of encryption and the sandboxing model that's enforced by it. The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bob1029 5y ago
Sucks that html is out of the bag already, doesn't it Tim? To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari. Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.

38 points by crackercrews 5y ago

throwzaway20102 5y ago

I agree with Tim Cook.

crackercrews 5y ago
Are there any number of hoops that users could be required to jump through that would make you comfortable with this?
- barkingmax222 5y ago
  Yes, have a developer program and sdk and review every app to make sure there’s no back doors or malware. Oh wait.
perfopt 5y ago
Could you say why? I am all for the Apple privacy and security features but disallowing side loading is merely taking away choice from users
- throwzaway20102 5y ago
  The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue. These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this. Most if not all apple/iOS users are happy with the closed garden approach apple has setup. Aside from a handful of nerds who don’t want to pay a an apple premium to put their crappy home brewed app on their iPhone at the risk of making the entire system vulnerable for everyone else.
  - jwalton 5y ago
    > These corporations are the only ones to benefit from this. To give you a specific example, if I wanted to install a gameboy emulator on my iPhone, I wouldn’t be able to through the App Store as emulators are generally disallowed, but if I could side load then I could install an open source one. This would benefit me, and wouldn’t benefit any corporations.
    - throwzaway20102 5y ago
      You are like 0.0000000001% of the usecase. You might benefit from playing retro Pokémon but Epic will benefit at least $10b more than you. Also, you have the most innovative APIs available that you can use to make apps that can change lives or change the world and you want to make a fucking game boy emulator? Android this way ———>
      - mthoms 5y ago
        Society and the environment would benefit enormously by being able to repurpose old iPhones and iPads. Side loading would make these devices significantly less likely to end up in landfill. That benefits everyone except corporations.
        throwmedaddy19 5y ago
        Yea like how it’s happening for cheap android devices and PCs? Oh … wait.
        throwmedaddy19 5y ago
        You wanna help society and the environment? Go. Fucking. Vegan. Asking our corporate overlords to help save the earth is the most idiotic thing I’ve read her. Almost as dumb as looking at Hollywood to teach morals or accurate history
        barkingmax222 5y ago
        Go vegan if you want to save society and the environment.
      - 5y ago
  - dmz73 5y ago
    Apple has already made money by selling you the iPhone/iPad hardware. If different app stores are allowed then Apple's app store does not host or review the app so they do not suffer any loss there. So this just means that Apple wants the extra money from App store and they don't care what users want. Now people say that Apple has the right to control their devices and that would be true...if they were leasing them but they are not, they are selling them and once sold the phones are not Apple's devices anymore. So when I ask Apple to allow me to use MY device any way I want they should not have the right to say no.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue. NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store? None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power. I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.

mindcrime 5y ago

Meh. Allowing me to have more control over the apps loaded / running on my phone is absolutely in my best interest. This stuff is exactly why I totally reject everything Apple and their "walled garden" ecosystem. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

throwzaway20102 5y ago
Why don’t you use an android phone?
- hndamien 5y ago
  Or Librem?
  - mindcrime 5y ago
    That's definitely of interest. I recently bought a PinePhone to evaluate, but I could see getting a Librem down the road somewhere.
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  I'm sure he does. It would be hard to reject everything about Apple but still use their phone. Even though their privacy angle is strong, I'll never use one of the devices either for similar reasons.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  I do. And I just got a PinePhone as well.

dlivingston 5y ago

> That would destroy the security of the iPhone and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store, where we have privacy nutrition labels and App Tracking Transparency... these things would not exist anymore. Trying to give “Tim Apple” the benefit of the doubt, I seriously cannot see how his comments jive with reality. If you give me the option to side load apps (and hell, make it as obscure as running an app on macOS from an “unidentified developer”) then: - The App Store is still as safe as ever - The vast majority of people won’t sideload as getting an app on the App Store is the lowest-friction method - iOS’ “sandbox” model and OS-level security settings still (approximately) guarantee some level of safety w.r.t. tracking, unauthorized file/camera/mic access, etc. - This would finally allow the iPad to enter true “pro” territory. I’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security. But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”

throwmedaddy19 5y ago
> we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned. ………… literally so what? Welcome to capitalism. They built it. They reap the rewards, while paying devs who play by the rules $643 billion in 2020.
danmur 5y ago
I highly doubt any issues with security of the Android ecosystem in general have anything to do with side loading.
ink404 5y ago
The app has to declare permissions before it's launched their 'nutrition' label could be shown based on that. The only, debatably, valid part of this argument is those apps can't be vetted by apple for user safety before installation the same way apps on the app store are.
ksec 5y ago
>But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.” I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple. Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads) The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.

throwzaway20102 5y ago

I fully support Apple and the rules they have to protect the ecosystem they have created. They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns. Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup. They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden they have built. The entitlement that some of these companies think they have that they just show up with a crappy game and loot boxes and think they get to dictate the rules. Sit down young’n.

aeternum 5y ago
While this comment may have a little too much dramatic flare, it is one of the few contrarian comments that provides concrete reasons for the position.
- ericwooley 5y ago
  Does it though? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful. It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Not forever, they can only rent seek as long as they provide a compelling device to users. Too much rent seeking = fewer app developers = fewer compelled users.
  - barkingmax222 5y ago
    > It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android. Yes, and?

ashneo76 5y ago

Sideloading isn't in the best interests of apple. Anything apple says is an attempt to keep it's shady business of a gold mine I am still running windows phone and that is thanks to side loading and replaceable batteries. Tim Cook can go to hell with his lies

perryizgr8 5y ago

Sideloading is not in the best interests of the user. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength

moistly 5y ago

When I need a device I can completely control, I buy a device that I completely control. It’s not like there’s a shortage of options. I would like to continue to be able to purchase a device that is well locked-down. If only for the benefit of my parents, who aren’t to be trusted to judge the privacy and security limitations for any given software. Though, to be honest, I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.

throwmedaddy19 5y ago
This. People want to enjoy the benefits of iPhone that were a result of apples locked down approach, while wishing it was more like Android. This is definition of having your cake and eating it too.
swiley 5y ago
Pretty much the only phone you have real control over and can buy with any moderate reliabilty is the pinephone. There absolutely is a shortage. Oh sure you can put a hacked rom on an Android but you can do the same with the iPhone. Even then you don't have control because the closed drivers are coupled to the userspace and there's a bunch of crap you can't get rid of combined with Google play and you effectively don't have much control at all. > I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over. I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.

uniqueid 5y ago

Tim Cook's argument doesn't hold up in the most likely scenario: if users get a choice to install third party apps, the risk to a user who exclusively chooses Apple's app store remains nearly as low as today. And choice is what Cook does support when it comes to iOS privacy controls (except there the change to Apple is a leg up over Facebook and Google). What's best for the user, Apple's profits aside, is to provide a choice in both scenarios.

throwmedaddy19 5y ago
Apples to oranges This is fundamentally different as it’s asking to pic internal vs external whereas the Facebook choice is about controls that both parties have access to within iOS

randomperson_24 5y ago

Reading Sheeple talks are always fun. It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part. The security thing is just a joke. The walled garden isn't safe (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-scams-fraud-review-enforcement-top-grossing-kosta-eleftheriou https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...)

peytn 5y ago
I mean, if the app I want is on a single store, do I have a choice? Are users really itching to install the Epic store so they can have more choices? The Epic store will be shoved down their throats. As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.

justinplouffe 5y ago

I think Apple is clearly overplaying the role that their app store policies like the "nutrition label", reviews and app tracking transparency have in the iOS security model. To me, the security features that matter are from the operating system, its implementation of encryption and the sandboxing model that's enforced by it. The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bob1029 5y ago

Sucks that html is out of the bag already, doesn't it Tim? To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari. Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.