Apple Says Revised U.S. Sideloading Bill Would 'Undermine the Privacy and Security Protections' iPhone Users Rely On

[visualseed]

Another guy who can't seem to grasp the forward dynamics of this problem.

Nobody is forcing you to side load today under the circumstances under which side loading does not exist, but the circumstances will be different when it becomes an option for developers. Major apps that thrive on harvesting user data won't offer their apps in the App Store where they can't exploit user data. That's fine until it's a Google app or another must have app that you're required for work or to fit in your social circle.

If you use an Android phone or tablet and buy a new DJI drone you have to side-load the DJI app if you want to use it. You aren't "forced" but you also don't have the choice of not side-loading it if you want to use the drone with your phone. A lot has been said about most developers not forcing side-loading on Android, but they regard iOS as the goose that lays the golden eggs and don't want to poison public opinion on the matter and give Apple even more ammunition before public policy is decided. You can bet companies like Meta will ditch the app stores on both platforms the very moment they are able to just to get out from under Apple's (and Google's) privacy restrictions which they consider detrimental to their business.

 

[Paddle1]

Another guy who can't seem to grasp the forward dynamics of this problem.

Nobody is forcing you to side load today under the circumstances under which side loading does not exist, but the circumstances will be different when it becomes an option for developers. Major apps that thrive on harvesting user data won't offer their apps in the App Store where they can't exploit user data. That's fine until it's a Google app or another must have app that you're required for work or to fit in your social circle.

That's certainly a possibility, but it's not necessarily inevitable. On Windows, macOS and Android there are plenty of programs that are available both on the store and outside of it. Apple would be encouraged to make the App Store more appealing than an alternative. By default it's already the easiest way for more casual users to find apps, and that would discourage developers from pulling out of the store. More accessible = more users.

 

[I7guy]

Exactly, users aren’t morons like Apple thinks.

Indie developers would disappear. Users (except for some vocal MR minority, from my chair, don't really care) This only benefits big companies who make a pile of money on the app store and have successfully out-lobbied Apple.

 

[mzeb]

Sec.3 articles 2 and 4 are likely to be the interesting ones here. Depending on how it is interpreted Apple (and google and Microsoft and all others that operate this way) might lose the ability to have a "Walled Garden" mode depending on whether or not it counts as a material restrictions or impedance to an app being sideloaded. To side load on android you have to specifically allow it in the settings and on Windows 10 disable S mode. Do these qualify as an impedance? I am all for sideloading as long as the walled garden option remains but if the law makes it such that it is not allowed then I have an issue. There is no technical reason we can't have both, let's please make sure the laws are structured so that we don't make having both options available illegal.

 

[I7guy]

Also gives Apple AND users the opportunity to have more types of apps available safely in the App Store.

So now Apple will be known as company who has porn, vape and whatever else on their app store. The very thing they have been avoiding? And if you view this as a good thing, we are definitely on opposite sides of the fence.

 

[atomic.flip]

Well if you sideload a very bad app, come to my house, get on my network because we are friends, get my systems hacked, you just forced my systems to sideload. The sad part you likely will not know why we are not friends anymore. This all about me attitude today is getting tiring. My rights, my world, my everything.

Yeah and the really sad thing is everyone is acting like “their personal rights” are the only ones that should matter. Even people that makes statements like the ones you’d made in your own post.

The simple plainly obvious fact of the matter is (and I know this since I literally helped architect the very premise of app stores on mobile devices long before the iPhone ever existed) that every one who prevents apps from being sideloaded onto a platform they sell do it solely to CONTROL the market within their so-called ecosystem. But this also creates many challenges that result in a need for micromanagement.

Ultimately it boils down to a compromise of security and trust for a specific entity and freedom and chaos in an unregulated landscape.

I whole heartedly believe people should be strongly advices but not forced to comply with what ever the preferred approach is for each ecosystem.

And those who opt to sideload or take an independent route with their devices should be identifiable and protections put in place to segregate those devices from the controlled device population.

We do this today in many respects with infectious disease and factors in the pandemic. We can’t force people to do everything but we can provide additional safety guarantees for the willing.

A buyer beware warning before enabling side loading would be very reasonable.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Some people are incapable of forward thinking and can't imagine the inevitable path on which side loading goes from a choice to virtually mandatory once apps used by the masses like Instagram, Tik Tok or Google stop making their apps available in the App Store and make their apps only available to install via sideloading.

You can only resist for so long until an app comes around that you need for work or to fit in your social circle. Then the whole privacy and security deck of cards Apple built with the App Store comes crashing down. Why would any major app offer their app in the App Store with privacy and security protections if they have the chance to acquire all of your data?

Why would sideloading reduce security? It just changes where the app comes from, it doesn't negate the platform protections though.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Exactly, users aren’t morons like Apple thinks.

Once the door is opened to sideloading the App Store and it’s protections (security, transparency and privacy) are dead.

Developers will flee the Store to keep the fee they pay to apple and to avoid having to comply with apples security and transparency rules.

Consumers will suffer while devs increase their margin (reduced fees and income from selling customer data) and reduce their costs of compliance (more profit.)

 

[H2SO4]

Some people are incapable of forward thinking and can't imagine the inevitable path on which side loading goes from a choice to virtually mandatory once apps used by the masses like Instagram, Tik Tok or Google stop making their apps available in the App Store and make their apps only available to install via sideloading.

You can only resist for so long until an app comes around that you need for work or to fit in your social circle. Then the whole privacy and security deck of cards Apple built with the App Store comes crashing down. Why would any major app offer their app in the App Store with privacy and security protections if they have the chance to acquire all of your data?

Not sure I buy this. If that was the case, anything you REALLY needed for work would be made available by your employer and they'd likely go to Apple to get it signed.
You make a reasonable point though.

 

[mikethemartian]

Unless Apple decides to pull the apps

After China Objects, Apple Removes App Used By Hong Kong Protesters

HKmap.live has been used by pro-democracy activists to keep track of protests and police activity. Apple says it was removed from the App Store because it was being used to "endanger law enforcement."

www.npr.org

Apple says it is removing VPN services from China App Store

Apple Inc <AAPL.O> says it is removing virtual private network (VPN) services from its app store in China, drawing criticism from VPN service providers, who accuse the U.S. tech giant of bowing to pressure from Beijing cyber regulators.

www.reuters.com

Apple takes down several religious apps in China

Islam has faced a particularly hostile environment.

www.protocol.com

I find it funny that Apple at the behest of the Chinese government purposely misrepresents the size of the Diaoyutai Islands. Something that is completely objective.

 

[Orange Bat]

If the mechanism exists at all, it is a crack into which a crowbar can be inserted, whether you enable the option or not.

No. The mechanism can keep some one such as yourself from enabling the ability at all to side load. This could block all side loading at all, even of a malicious sort. What you seem to want is a foolproof system, which there is no such thing. Heck, perhaps Apple could sell an ”Apple Ecosystem” version of the iPhone for those who want the highest security possible. A phone that only allows the App Store and no side loading or anything else.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Yeah and the really sad thing is everyone is acting like “their personal rights” are the only ones that should matter. Even people that makes statements like the ones you’d made in your own post.

The simple plainly obvious fact of the matter is (and I know this since I literally helped architect the very premise of app stores on mobile devices long before the iPhone ever existed) that every one who prevents apps from being sideloaded onto a platform they sell do it solely to CONTROL the market within their so-called ecosystem. But this also creates many challenges that result in a need for micromanagement.

Ultimately it boils down to a compromise of security and trust for a specific entity and freedom and chaos in an unregulated landscape.

I whole heartedly believe people should be strongly advices but not forced to comply with what ever the preferred approach is for each ecosystem.

And those who opt to sideload or take an independent route with their devices should be identifiable and protections put in place to segregate those devices from the controlled device population.

We do this today in many respects with infectious disease and factors in the pandemic. We can’t force people to do everything but we can provide additional safety guarantees for the willing.

A buyer beware warning before enabling side loading would be very reasonable.

“Warning, sideloading this app could subject your device to viruses, and your personal use, activity, and location being sold to 3rd party data brokers. We regret that no companion app is available the App Store because the developer hasn’t provided one. Sideload this app at your own risk.”

This is the reality of an “optional” App Store us it won’t exist.

Consumers will have to accept lost functionality with security or functionality at the expense of security and privacy.

Crappy choice Sen Klobuchar.

 

[Wildkraut]

Once the door is opened to sideloading the App Store and it’s protections (security, transparency and privacy) are dead.

Developers will flee the Store to keep the fee they pay to apple and to avoid having to comply with apples security and transparency rules.

Consumers will suffer while devs increase their margin (reduced fees and income from selling customer data) and reduce their costs of compliance (more profit.)

These are fairy tales that Apple keeps preaching to brainwash non-tech affine users with fears, with the sole purpose to protect their profits. It works on the Mac and this is the biggest issue they have, because it proves that it works great.

 

[Robert.Walter]

Just do like the Mac and warn before side loading an app. You could even double secure it with a switch in settings to disallow side loaded apps at all. So you’d have to disable the switch, then you also get a warning when side loading. This puts it 100% into the consumer’s hands and takes Apple out of the picture. Apple could also disable certain APIs fro side loaded apps to keep it secure. Disallow a side loaded app from accessing Messages or Music or Contacts. That allows side loading while still maintaining a level of security. Could someone find a way to bypass that security? Sure. But that’s on the user, not Apple.

I don’t have an M1 Mac but my experience is that most apps haven’t been available in the Mac App Store and could only be side loaded.

If this bill becomes law the iOS App Store will become a ghost town.

 

[sw1tcher]

Just because the option exists in older versions of the OS we [Apple] messed up and gave Mac users the option to install software from anywhere they want does not mean it should be left in newer/different versions, or we would not have security patches we will make the same mistake again.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Orange Bat]

As soon as developers can offer side loaded iOS apps, they are going to flee the App Store.

I’m a small app developed. I won’t leave the App Store if Apple allows side loading. I may put out a version of my app for side loading, but I imagine that my app will still get a vast majority of its downloads from the App Store. The largest developers may leave the App Store, but smaller developers will stay. The benefit of the App Store is that it allows an easy way for users to discover my app. Without it, my app would probably get zero downloads. Just like the Play Store, the App Store would stay relevant, even with side loading.

 

[wanha]

However you feel about side loading, it seems a foregone conclusion that it is going to happen.

Unfortunately, Apple has no one to blame but themselves for adopting a profit maximizing strategy to the App Store.

I hope the money was worth it.

 

[mannyvel]

Android is the **** show that happens when you allow side loading. In Asia, everyone side loads the pirated apps because it's cheaper. And as a side-effect they're all basically infected with crap.

The only people that really want this are police departments, governments, and their stooges, because it'll make implanting malware so much easier.

 

[wanha]

Exactly, users aren’t morons like Apple thinks.

Some users most definitely are but can we really save everyone from themselves? Probably not, and even if we could, it would likely end up a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[rjohnstone]

Once the door is opened to sideloading the App Store and it’s protections (security, transparency and privacy) are dead.

Developers will flee the Store to keep the fee they pay to apple and to avoid having to comply with apples security and transparency rules.

Consumers will suffer while devs increase their margin (reduced fees and income from selling customer data) and reduce their costs of compliance (more profit.)

They said that about the Google Play Store a long time ago... didn't happen.
If what you say would come to pass, why haven't the big players already moved away from the Play Store?
Meta could have forced users to side load Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Why didn't they?
Because they know they would lose a huge chunk of their audience if it weren't available in a convenient location that anyone can easily use.
Forcing users to side load apps and subsequent updates is a non-starter for the big players. Simplicity is the key.
Sure smaller devs may try that route to avoid fees and other restrictions, but they will lose their largest available method of attracting users.
Having the option to side load has zero impact on security and privacy for anyone who choses to not enable/use this feature.
Apple is worried about another app store showing up and cutting into their revenue stream.
Nothing would prevent another app store from being just as secure (scanning apps for malware, privacy screening, etc) as Apple's.
Apple is worried about their bottom line... period.

 

[ackmondual]

Complete BS. It would hurt their bottom line. That’s the only thing it would undermine.

yeah, much of the time, this is how the "corporate speak" translates to. I still remember Bill Gates going on doom and gloom how "Unless Windows 98 ships, the American economy will be crippled"

 

[Robert.Walter]

That's certainly a possibility, but it's not necessarily inevitable. On Windows, macOS and Android there are plenty of programs that are available both on the store and outside of it. Apple would be encouraged to make the App Store more appealing than an alternative. By default it's already the easiest way for more casual users to find apps, and that would discourage developers from pulling out of the store. More accessible = more users.

Mac App Store has been such a poor relative of the iOS App Store for so long I wrote Time Cook asking Apple to introduce a policy that if an app was going to be allowed in the iOS store its companion Mac app HAD to be offered in the Mac App Store.

This bill will make the iOS App Store as useless as the Mac App Store has traditionally been.

 

[Wildkraut]

I don’t have an M1 Mac but my experience is that most apps haven’t been available in the Mac App Store and could only be side loaded.

If this bill becomes law the iOS App Store will become a ghost town.

I have a M1 and without sideloading it would be a piece of ?

The AppStore will become what its users want it to become. If it become a ghost town, it just proves that it sucks and the majority of its users don’t like it, because they’ll jump to better alternatives. Yeah yeah that’s purpose of having competition. Apple have to compete and make the AppStore more attractive and lower the fees, which will benefit its users.

I say, if Apple don’t f’up and run out of ideas, the AppStore will become even better.

 

[wanha]

It's time for Apple to pull out from USA, and conduct his business somewhere else.

I used to get worked up over these comments that Apple should pull out whatever market it has legislative problems with, but these days I see them as comedy gold (and I hope that's how this was intended).

Keep em coming! ??

 

[wanha]

Apple can't seems to catch a break from all this. A simple approach would be to give users the option to control their privacy and security.

Apple is historically not in the business of giving users options (the way its competitors are).

Rather, Apple has always been about figuring out the single best design and then forcing that on its users.

It's what makes Apple both great and annoying af.