Tim Cook Delivers Speech Emphasizing Apple's Opposition to Sideloading

[ilikewhey]

I've not listened to the speech but can someone fill me in on how its different to "sideloading" on a mac instead of downloading from the Mac App Store?

you get the little not apple approved message.

 

[cateye]

Mr. Cook, if you are so committed to privacy, why does Apple's advertising system for Apple News/Apple News+ now allow non-anonymized individual user tracking, including the use of tracking pixels and beacons? Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.

Profit-obsessed hypocrites. Cook, Sweeney, every last one who so passionately claims to carry the flag for end users. Lies paraded around as it suits them.

 

[IG88]

I've not listened to the speech but can someone fill me in on how its different to "sideloading" on a mac instead of downloading from the Mac App Store?

It isn't different. Tim has been gaslighting over this the entire time.

Apple's own marketing drivel on Mac OS insists that side loading on Mac is safe.

"Now apps from both the App Store and the internet can be installed worry-free."

macOS - Security

macOS is designed with powerful, advanced technologies that work together to keep your Mac and built-in apps more private and more secure.

www.apple.com

 

[dguisinger]

I am only getting my apps from the App Store. Don't ever want to chance messing up my world, because
people are jealous of Apple making money by providing a service.

Its not just jealousy.... why can't I have my Xbox streaming app? I don't want it via a website. Neither Apple nor a government like China should have say over what I use my handheld computer for.

 

[MrGimper]

Nope.

Cool, that's how choices work, right?

 

[Fuzzi]

It's kind of funny, they are basically saying macOS is dangerous and not secure.

 

[cdarlington1]

They're just digging their heels in, instead of facing the fact that the monopoly they've had over app distribution is coming to an end.

It's all about the benjamins, nothing else.

Apple is still free to operate the App Store, charge the fees they charge for the developers that are happy with the agreement. And people are free to still only use the App store if they want to maintain the highest level of security and privacy.

The rest just want a simple choice. Apple can still be a part of making that choice safer.

There’s no monopoly. Lots of other digital stores and platforms for people to choose from.

 

[falkon-engine]

Tim wants to maintain the privacy of Apple profits from digital in-App purchases. Curiously, macOS users can get apps from anywhere, yet iPhone users who use an OS with a kernel that Steve Jobs triumphantly claimed is based on macOS, cannot. Hmmmm….

 

[WWPD]

Tim's "serious" pics are always funny. It's like he's trying to do his best Steve Jobs impression and failing miserably.

 

[needsomecoffee]

"Privacy" for Tim also means Apple solely owning the direct customer relationship. I initially got some Affinity apps via the Mac App Store. Then when Affinity released later apps with the download option I went direct with Affinity. They do a great job responding directly to support inquiries knowing who I am. They also frequently offer me very relevant and desirable additions (brushes etc.) because they have my email. Overall a great experience that substantially enhances their product. If I had stayed App Store only... none of this great value add could exist.

People act like sideloading is only going to expose iOS customers to nefarious apps from dastardly devs. That need not be the case, and this ongoing monopolization by Apple is robbing consumers and good devs of some great opportunities. Thanks Tim.

 

[SpotOnT]

"By checking this box, I confirm that I understand that sideloading apps will reduce the privacy and security of my data, and Apple will not be responsible for any privacy leakage"

Sorted

It sure would be nice if the US gov cared as much about protecting consumer privacy from big business as they are about forcing Apple to allow side loading.

I mean if there were consumer protections, the whole Apple argument over user privacy melts away.

Maybe they should focus on passing that bill first.

 

[gsurf123]

"By checking this box, I confirm that I understand that sideloading apps will reduce the privacy and security of my data, and Apple will not be responsible for any privacy leakage"

These type of "agreements" are meaningless as most end users have no idea of the scope of reduction in risk they are subjecting themselves too. Most people believe they are anonymous when they post, email is secure, and no one cares what they are doing on the Internet.

 

[brofkand]

Just give web apps more features. For one, why can’t web apps push notifications on iOS like they can the Mac?

 

[DelayedGratificationGene]

"By checking this box, I confirm that I understand that sideloading apps will reduce the privacy and security of my data, and Apple will not be responsible for any privacy leakage"

Sorted

Awesome. Simple awesome and will be extremely effective. Great post!

 

[MrGimper]

Tim's "serious" pics are always funny. It's like he's trying to do his best Steve Jobs impression and failing miserably.

Sounds like his entire career as CEO

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I've not listened to the speech but can someone fill me in on how its different to "sideloading" on a mac instead of downloading from the Mac App Store?

There is no difference. That's the big flaw in the spin.

The Apple-managed Mac App Store exists and is stocked with many Mac apps. Users motivated to only trust Apple can get most apps they desire from the Mac App Store. However, Mac owners can also buy apps directly from the developers, download and install them, essentially bypassing Apple entirely. And Mac owners can buy a bundle of many Mac apps in various bundle deals for dirt cheap, also bypassing Apple entirely.

Does the flexibility to buy Mac apps from sources other than the Apple Mac App Store result in all Macs everywhere being destroyed by viruses, trojans and all manner of evil doing? No.

Is there SOME instances of sourcing apps from the wrong places resulting in Macs getting compromised? Yes. But that's on the owners of those Macs choosing to acquire the infected app however they choose to acquire it. Anyone worried about such things should acquire from the Mac store and/or directly from trustworthy Apple developers.

Allowing such options means that some people will end up getting some bad software on their iDevices... just as some Macs end up with bad software on Macs. However, it's not any kind of global calamity in which ALL iDevices everywhere would become infected/compromised. Those most passionately in favor of preserving the "as is" could continue to exclusively buy/acquire/download apps only from the Apple App Store. Their devices would continue to work as they do now and their mix of apps could remain as secure as they feel they are now. Assuming they would continue to only acquire iDevice apps from the one source means their passionate arguments are inconsequential to themselves and are mostly about denying what other iDevice owners might want to do in terms of acquiring apps for their iDevices.

Those who choose to acquire apps from other sources take the same kind of risk that Mac owners take when acquiring Mac apps from sources other than the Mac App Store. For those who acquire a nefarious app, they will suffer the consequences, (hopefully) learn from it, and perhaps make better software buying decisions in the future. For many/most, whether buying from the Apple Mac App Store or direct from third parties results in the SAME deliverable and no real consequences.

IMO, this is overwhelmingly about protecting a cash cow. If utter devastation would come from "giving some people what they want," Apple could prove the potential extinction event by opening this door in ONE place. For example, the Netherlands are fining Apple $5M/month. Set it up there and prove how terrible it would be to the rest of the world. Apple could deflect all blame for what follows behind being "forced" by law to comply... that fines made them open up Pandora's box for those people.

If it is as devastating as spun:

1. the Netherlands will have all of their devices compromised beyond salvation,
2. the rest of the world wanting similar will learn by tangible example and back off of the request/demand and
3. Apple can make an unexpected fortune selling replacement devices to the people who survive this utter devastation in the Netherlands.

But we Mac people able to "think different" and already having the flexibility to buy Mac apps from anywhere already know the likely outcome first hand.

 

[scheinderrob]

time to regulate their app stores and start jailing executives who don't comply.

time to play hardball.

 

[sw1tcher]

"Here in Washington and elsewhere, policymakers are taking steps in the name of competition that would force Apple to let apps onto iPhone that circumvent the App Store through a process called sideloading," said Cook. "That means data-hungry companies would be able to avoid our privacy rules and once again track our users against their will. It would also potentially give bad actors a way around the comprehensive security protections we have put in place, putting them in direct contact with our users."

"comprehensive security protections"

? ? ?


Tim Cook meant to say "comprehensive profit protections"

Bitcoin Scam App Approved by Apple Robs iPhone User of $600,000+

A scam bitcoin app that was designed to look like a genuine app was accepted by Apple's App Store review team and ended up costing iPhone user...

www.macrumors.com

Developer Highlights How Fake Apps Scam Users Via Apple's In-App Purchasing System

Apple hosts millions of apps on the App Store, calling the platform a "safe and trusted" place to discover apps. While mainly true, Apple has...

www.macrumors.com

Scam iOS Apps Still Raking in Millions in Revenue on App Store [Updated]

The problem of scam iOS apps has dogged Apple's App Store for some years now, but over last two weeks the developer Kosta Eleftheriou has taken...

www.macrumors.com

Phil Schiller on App Store Knockoffs in 2012: 'Is No One Reviewing These Apps?'

Knockoff apps have long been a problem in the App Store, with scam apps sneaking past reviewers to compete with genuine apps and steal sales, and...

www.macrumors.com

 

[jav6454]

It's interesting that while there was a small push for side loading by Epic and a few other companies, it didn't become a big deal until Apple added the "Ask app not to track". Then the governments started getting involved.

Agreed. There have been so many pushes and even a whole community regarding side loading and governments never cared. Only until when the whole "Ask App not to Track" did this can of worms become relevant.

I for one, did side load in the times of Installer (yeah back in the 1.1.x era) and then with Cydia in the 2.x and 3.x eras. I found the experience good in terms of adding flexibility and customizable device. However, overall, I'd rather use the walled-garden as that's the experience I bought into.

I feel governments have sought out Apple as a monopoly, but in the end, customers have choice when it comes to apps and choices. If you want customizable and to side-load, there is Android and the plethora of handset manufacturers like Samsung, Huawei, et al. If you want the closed down version, there is Apple. No one forced you to buy into the Apple eco-system or an iDevice.

That was a conscious decision you and I made and we all knew what that decision brought in. I for one, have used the legal way (hand written letters do wonder) of complaining to my congress representative to not support any regulation towards the App Store. Why? I chose Apple's garden instead of Android. My decision shouldn't have to be affected by some other company looking to make an entrance into a ecosystem I chose to be closed off.

 

[vipergts2207]

There’s no monopoly. Lots of other digital stores and platforms for people to choose from.

Lots? Name some of them.

 

[Taipan]

I've not listened to the speech but can someone fill me in on how its different to "sideloading" on a mac instead of downloading from the Mac App Store?

I think the difference is simply marketshare. Nobody cares about creating malware for the Mac, but every a**hole on the planet is already dripping with saliva at the prospect of potentially infecting many millions of smartphones.

 

[The Phazer]

A quick reminder that without sideloading you have literally no privacy about which applications are installed on your device - Apple gets to know.

Apple's definition of privacy has always excluded them.

 

[boss.king]

It's interesting that while there was a small push for side loading by Epic and a few other companies, it didn't become a big deal until Apple added the "Ask app not to track". Then the governments started getting involved.

I'm pretty sure apps can still track you even if you ask them not to.

 

[SpotOnT]

There is no difference. That's the big flaw in the spin.

The Apple-managed Mac App Store exists and is stocked with many Mac apps. Users motivated to only trust Apple can get most apps they desire from the Mac App Store. However, Mac owners can also buy apps directly from the developers, download and install them, essentially bypassing Apple entirely. And Mac owners can buy a bundle of many Mac apps in various bundle deals for dirt cheap, also bypassing Apple entirely.

Does the flexibility to buy Mac apps from sources other than the Apple Mac App Store result in all Macs everywhere being destroyed by viruses, trojans and all manner of evil doing? No.

Is there SOME instances of sourcing apps from the wrong places resulting in Macs getting compromised? Yes. But in turn, that's on the owners of those Macs choosing to acquire the infected app however they choose to acquire it. Anyone worried about such things should acquire from the Mac store and/or directly from trustworthy Apple developers.

Allowing such options means that some people will end up getting some bad software on their iDevices... just as some Macs end up with bad software on Macs. However, it's not any kind of global calamity in which ALL iDevices everywhere would become infected/compromised. Those most passionately in favor of preserving the "as is" could continue to exclusively buy/acquire/download apps only from the Apple App Store. Their devices would continue to work as they do now and their mix of apps could remain as secure as they feel they are now. Assuming they would continue to only acquire iDevice apps from the one source means their passionate arguments are inconsequential to themselves and are mostly about denying what other iDevice might want to do in terms of how they acquire apps for their iDevices.

Those who choose to acquire apps from other sources take the same kind of risk that Mac owners take when acquiring Mac apps from sources other than the Mac App Store. For those who acquire a nefarious app, they will suffer the consequences, (hopefully) learn from it, and perhaps make better software buying decisions in the future.

For many/most, whether buying from the Apple Mac App Store or direct from third parties results in the SAME deliverable and no real consequences.

The difference I see is control. In macOS I can go into terminal and adjust any gatekeeping settings I want.

In iOS I can’t do anything, and am stuck with whatever “security” settings Apple gives me. Moreover, my phone sure knows a lot more about me, where I go, and what I do than my workstation that lives on my desk.

 

[bviktor]

"By checking this box, I confirm that I understand that sideloading apps will reduce the privacy and security of my data, and Apple will not be responsible for any privacy leakage"

Sorted

It's not sorted at all, it won't prevent all the ignorant people from launching lawsuits against Apple for not protecting them.

And it's also unclear WHY I'd want sideloading on my phone? What for? Do I hate all the vetting Apple does on those apps? NOPE. Why do you think Android has 50 times more malware? App Store works just fine, I don't need anything else, thanks.