Sideloading on my Android phones is the most useful when I want to go back use a slightly older version of an app. I can do that easily.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Delivers Speech Emphasizing Apple's Opposition to Sideloading
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. As owners of their platform in my opinion apple has fully discharged its duties. Which is why additional legislation is being proposed. To remove control of the App Store and “give it to the people.”
No. The devices are already of the people that bought them. There is nothing Apple can give … just to comply with the notion of property that companies like Apple claim for themselves. For security and privacy sake of billions.
Considering SJ history, I believe that he was alive and he was in the other side of the fence, would argue for the same things as I am. He understood the garage … something that stock investors and new found Apple appreciators have no clue. He disliked Microsoft practices back when it fell into regulation observation.
We’ll since you brought up the ghost of SJ I dont think he would agree with you. But we can waste hundreds of posts on the ghost of SJ. The iPhone is is the property of the owners and they can do what they want with it. Apple is under no obligation to help consumers do what the software isn’t meant to do.
Of course. No one is questioning that. But it looks like you are challenging the power of the law out of some imaginary self proclaimed justice system.
To stay in the market Apple has the obligation of producing products compliant with the law, old and new. What the software was originally meant to do by its creator is irrelevant in that respect. It's the same everywhere for everyone.
Will see what comes from regulator in the EU, Australia, Canada ... even the US. Whatever it comes, Apple and businesses alike, will comply like any lawful company. If the law says that App Store centric ecosystems need to provide simple ways so that users can still opt for installing apps outside the scope of the store in order to be commercialised ... that is what Apple will need to do to keep playing in those markets. If the law is mute still ... its needs to do nothing to keep playing ... its already in compliance. These kind of regulation changes are common with in many industries, telco, pharma, auto, ... and many more.
Nothing irregular here unless you are advocating that Apple should break the state of law because is not convenient to its goals. For that kind of posture maybe they should focus than or operating in weaker democracies, countries and societies with less money, more corrupt systems, more prone to corporate pressure and foreign interference.
Last edited:
That’s what the supreme court is for, to make sure there isn’t congressional overreach. Whether telling a company is has to allow sideloading is yet to be made into law and to be challenged.
Laws can get challenged in court and as a result there can be changes to the law. And again, apple can pull out, as it threatened to do with the UK .
Well in EU countries is different. The parleament legislates, the courts interpret and apply the law. Laws are always validated against the constitution before passing … is not a Supreme Court matter.
In the EU, Supreme courts aren’t to deal with contesting laws but contesting lower court decisions. In other words, contesting a specific application of the law.
So no, in the EU laws aren’t challenged, specific interpretations and application of the law done by lower courts can be challenged.
It seams that in the US the courts also make law. Which is weird because aren’t elected by citizens.
Don’t think Apple pulling out threats are really effective in the EU. Is not much of an employement company, is not much of a local tax contributor as it uses EU loopholes to pay 1% in Ireland … In other words a company with huge profits, deep pockets yet with very low local social or economic value … unlike say Microsoft … that did not threat back than by the way.
So yes, if that is the attitude towards it can leave the second largest economy in the world at will. It is totally replaceable and the economic impact is nowhere felt. Yes will be felt by customers like myself, news and all, their engineering will be missed … yet any comeback would be next to impossible within a decade … as customers could hardly trust the company management anymore. I wonder how actual investors would feel about that.
PS: UK is not in the EU.
Last edited:
Just ‘because’ a law is passed, it doesn’t mean it’s a good law that everyone must agree with. It certainly doesn’t mean it’s a just law. And in my opinion this law is as such. It’s coming under the guise of ‘helping consumers’ but it’s intent is to open up apples closed system for the nitty gritty uses of facilitating governmental access.
I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this seems so obvious it’s blinding.
Absolutely.
There are many laws I disagree but still comply to live in society. There are many companies practices I disagree with but still use their products or services because it facilitates certain things.
We don’t need to agree with everything to get along and build profitable relationships and do amazing things.
As you said … it’s just the law.
Compliance with a law is not preconditioned by agreeing with it. There are always pros and cons.
Finally laws do not target companies or people … but practices.
Last edited:
You're combining two different issues. Bypassing the App Store does not affect Apple's ability to curate the App Store. It affects their ability to curate what apps are available on iOS. Just as I said.
What you want to say is that installing Apps is no longer limited to the App Store.
Of course! The all point of side loading is to remove such limitation … for reasons being debated.
When it comes to curation what you may argue is that removing such limitation it might affect the App Store ability to gather certain Apps and Digital Services for it to sell. This considering it may need to compete with developers self provisioning abilities to get some of them in. Hey, but that is what competition is about isn't it?
That is all.
PS: I believe side-loading could have been avoided ... maybe still is.
Last edited:
None of that is true. IP law is obviously relevant to software. In fact, the SLA is what gives you rights under IP law to use and modify Apple's software. Furthermore, you agree to the SLA every time that you update iOS.
What a mess … SLA has nothing to do with Software IP rights.
Software IP is protected under copyright laws and patents. The second are harder to get but it can be done.
The user cannot modify the software under copyright law without the permission of the copyright owner. The user may be allowed by the copyright owner to fix bugs but that is itself a permission granted by the copyright owner. Copyright owners aren’t forced to provide such permission.
Software IP is protected under copyright laws and patents. The second are harder to get but it can be done.
The user cannot modify the software under copyright law without the permission of the copyright owner. The user may be allowed by the copyright owner to fix bugs but that is itself a permission granted by the copyright owner. Copyright owners aren’t forced to provide such permission.
Last edited:
The developer has exclusive rights to copy, distribute, modify, and create derivative works from their IP. The SLA is the agreement that they use to both give the consumer rights to use the software and impose limits on that use.
Correct.
It is not there to give consumers rights but to remove them as a measure of further protection of the copyright owner or product supplier. So that no litigation may come from the software use by the consumer.
If you read carefully the consumers ends up practically with no rights to litigate on the basis of the software malfunctioning and consequential harm.
But inspite of these consumers win certain cases. The SLA is not the end of it in case of litigation … it’s a starting point.
Last edited:
It does both. It grants the user rights to create copies and modify the software as necessary for it's use. It also provides limits of that use and often protects the developer from litigation.
For example, see section 2.
"...you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time."
That is a good example of what I just explained.
Without it would be an illegal SLA. Would be like licensing the use of something that you cannot use.
It just there to be in compliance with the general law regarding software licenses. Consumers by law in EU can create copies of the software they own the licenses for.
I remember years ago the debate if copies in this context should be assured by law as some devs were prohibiting it. So it was put in law that any SLA needs to comply.
There is now a new reality which are web app, or so called cloud apps … In which case is not governed by a Software License Agreement but a Service Level Agreement. GDPR was created to assure users rights in these cases … it’s not just about privacy.
Without it would be an illegal SLA. Would be like licensing the use of something that you cannot use.
It just there to be in compliance with the general law regarding software licenses. Consumers by law in EU can create copies of the software they own the licenses for.
I remember years ago the debate if copies in this context should be assured by law as some devs were prohibiting it. So it was put in law that any SLA needs to comply.
There is now a new reality which are web app, or so called cloud apps … In which case is not governed by a Software License Agreement but a Service Level Agreement. GDPR was created to assure users rights in these cases … it’s not just about privacy.
Last edited:
Nope. Using the software involves creating copies. For example, in RAM. It also involves modifying the software (creating derivative works).
If you say so ... cheers ...
PS: RAM copies ... the scope of the word copy is copies in RAM ... hehehe ... funny.
EDIT: but first check section 117 of the Copyright Act. As I've said, the quote you have taken as an example grants nothing but what is granted by law. SLA exist to protect the supplier from liability over the use of its software nothing else. Apple or any other software vendor is not granting anything that is not already granted by law as far as the use of a software program goes. In fact if it was not by law … even less would be granted.
Last edited:
Do you not realise they're sharing the same DNA in many of the native apps now? The macOS versions are far inferior to the iOS versions and they're just a bad UX as standalone apps full-stop. The way Apple are pushing everything into an AppStore-only style environment and making it harder and less open for people to roll the way they want to.
If you used Macs 10 years ago and still today, it's chalk and cheese.
Not even sure what we are discussing, but feel like adding. To be fair anyone can break the law, it is more a question of weighing out the pros and cons. If big corporation feels the lost reputation, legal costs and fines are manageable enough so that they still end up ahead, then yes they could in fact "just break the law" knowingly.
I dont like it either, technically you could do the same too.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. The SLA isn’t giving me any rights I’m already owed.
It’s exhaustion of copyright that happens at the point of sail. The moment apple sells me x( it can be hardware or software) they lose all claim of ownership and control of any IP of that exclusive copy.
I can modify or sell it to whoever I wish
IP law has already been ruled on multiple times in EU and granted the customers more rights than the original owner.
Unless they rent it to me, or provide a limited timed licensing agreement known as leasing it will be a lifetime transfer of ownership. And time purchasing an apple, an iPhone and IT’s software are legally indistinguishable
Developers do not have an exclusive right.
Consumers by law have the right to, modify, create derivatives AND to distribute their copy to whoever they want. And in some jurisdictions( where I live) I have the right to make multiple private copies for private use
The entire snippet is legally meaningless. Users already have this right. As well that you can’t remove the legal right to a litigation, in fact larg parts of apples standard contract clauses are ether already granted in EU or just not enforceable as they break the law.
It’s all about the iOS consumers. Spotify are forbidden by contract to conclude or point to anything not related to the AppStore