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
I think he's right. iOS users want privacy and security, even if they don't fully understand what that means on a technical level. Apple wants to give that privacy and security to users, and the way they've done that is great so far.
I've asked a few people who are more tech-oriented about sideloading on iOS, and no one can tell me a single app they want to see that the App Store can't provide. It's like people want "control" without knowing what they'll actually control when given the choice.
I've asked a few people who are more tech-oriented about sideloading on iOS, and no one can tell me a single app they want to see that the App Store can't provide. It's like people want "control" without knowing what they'll actually control when given the choice.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Apple is greedy, thats the biggest issue here
Apple needs to side load a new CEO; he's egregiously overstepped his boundaries and so clearly wants to be a politician.
The Apple brand is one of the company's greatest strengths, hard earned over decades. Steve Jobs helped launch the company, eventually found himself banished from it thanks to what was merely standard business practice at the time, and then returned as the prodigal son when the business experts in the boardroom had failed to turn things around. Apple nearly went out of business, probably more than once during those Jobs years. It used to be a minnow in the great tech pond. It was really up against it.
We all know (don't we?) how things moved on and upwards for Apple, on a global scale so awesome that the Apple brand has since become a benchmark signifier culturally. Not a bad result for those guys in the garage and all us Apple customers who 'got it' – those customers buying their Apple IIs, Lisas, and on down through the years before Apple became as much a fashion to many as it was tech company. These days, thanks to the Internet, everyone's an expert but of course not everyone can see the bigger picture (or even the detail) – because their vested interests obscure the view.
So for Apple to have achieved all that progress and commensurate success, and then for others – well-meaning consumers and, less so, politicians and competitors – to expect the company to allow a profound dilution of those very strengths that makes Apple what it is, by initiating third-party interference and the inevitable undermining of the brand and user experience (and that's what will begin to happen were sideloading to be imposed), makes little sense, certainly not to Apple, and not to this consumer either. I buy Apple because it's Apple. I know what I'm getting and it suits me very well. I'm willing to pay a premium to get it and it's worth it. There are lots of other choices that I could have made. I've made mine because Apple's is a compelling case and gives me what I want and rely on.
For those Apple customers who don't know nearly enough about their devices in the way that seasoned Apple purchasers and 'fanboys' do, they've simply hit lucky with their (less-informed) choice of Apple computer, phone, etc and will benefit regardless of how aware they are of the merits of their choices and what provides the technical basis for these merits. A diluted version of Apple will not be helpful to these people either.
Apple does not have a monopoly. It is a competitor with its own unique attributes, long developed, well worked and in many ways superior. Thus it has established itself as the global company it is now. Unfortunately, everyone wants to take a shot at the champ. It's human nature and it's probably always been like that. It's not always appropriate though, and so called experts might do well by reminding themselves of the bigger picture. Take away a bit of what makes Apple great and ultimately we might not be left with any of what we actually value about Apple.
We all know (don't we?) how things moved on and upwards for Apple, on a global scale so awesome that the Apple brand has since become a benchmark signifier culturally. Not a bad result for those guys in the garage and all us Apple customers who 'got it' – those customers buying their Apple IIs, Lisas, and on down through the years before Apple became as much a fashion to many as it was tech company. These days, thanks to the Internet, everyone's an expert but of course not everyone can see the bigger picture (or even the detail) – because their vested interests obscure the view.
So for Apple to have achieved all that progress and commensurate success, and then for others – well-meaning consumers and, less so, politicians and competitors – to expect the company to allow a profound dilution of those very strengths that makes Apple what it is, by initiating third-party interference and the inevitable undermining of the brand and user experience (and that's what will begin to happen were sideloading to be imposed), makes little sense, certainly not to Apple, and not to this consumer either. I buy Apple because it's Apple. I know what I'm getting and it suits me very well. I'm willing to pay a premium to get it and it's worth it. There are lots of other choices that I could have made. I've made mine because Apple's is a compelling case and gives me what I want and rely on.
For those Apple customers who don't know nearly enough about their devices in the way that seasoned Apple purchasers and 'fanboys' do, they've simply hit lucky with their (less-informed) choice of Apple computer, phone, etc and will benefit regardless of how aware they are of the merits of their choices and what provides the technical basis for these merits. A diluted version of Apple will not be helpful to these people either.
Apple does not have a monopoly. It is a competitor with its own unique attributes, long developed, well worked and in many ways superior. Thus it has established itself as the global company it is now. Unfortunately, everyone wants to take a shot at the champ. It's human nature and it's probably always been like that. It's not always appropriate though, and so called experts might do well by reminding themselves of the bigger picture. Take away a bit of what makes Apple great and ultimately we might not be left with any of what we actually value about Apple.
Don't piss down our backs and tell us it's raining. You don't lose any security by allowing sideloading. There is negligible gain in security by disallowing sideloading.
If Apple is serious about security, build a proper firewall in to iOS. Data miners will have a harder time collecting my data than an incel would have of getting a girl.
Sideloading? How about we call it what it’s called on the Mac: installing.
Apple has a dominant position with App Store. Privacy is very important but Apple should get ready for side-loading because otherwise it is a monopolistic situation. Apple could say apps sideloading into Apple devices should be regulated for user privacy.
For now, Apples plan is to eventually not allow any tracking, if a user doesn't want it. And that scares companies that need that tracking for profits, so the send out their lobbyists, and now the government cares.
Have there been many lawsuits against Apple for the ability to "sideload" apps on a Mac? What about against Microsoft and people "sideloading" apps on Windows?
Oh. I see. So that's how it works. Just because you don't want or have a use for something, everyone else must also feel the same way.
So, Tim Cook believes privacy is a funamental human right. Maybe he should try explaining that to the citizens of China and Russia who do not have that 'fundamental human right' but yet Tim Cook bent over backwards to comply with Russia and China laws on privacy an security so his company could continue to make millions of $$$$.
Tim Cook does not care one bit about privacy because if he did he would not be dealing with Russia or China. He doesn't care, Apple does'nt care. Money talks, privacy walks and that is clear as day when it comes to Tim Cook and Apple.
It is not, it just means a huge loss of revenue and control for Apple, so they will rehash their tired “privacy” argument over and over. Craig even went as far as to trash MacOS recently to support this idea.
Apple is a greedy company that goes against its core values and stifles innovation on purpose for their own gains. They are still using Lightning port because they can charge a fee for it (MFi stamp) even thought it is just USB 2 technology released 20 years ago… this on the face of much better technology like Thunderbolt and USB C (USB 4.0) which they co-developed.
Last edited:
Obviously, these people do not live in China or Hong Kong or a country with censorship and human rights abuses.
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.
Apple Removes 39,000 Games From China App Store
Apple on Thursday removed nearly 39,000 apps from its Chinese App Store due to the apps lacking an official license from local regulators, reports Reuters. The report, which cites data from research firm Qimai, says that games affected by the cull included Ubisoft title Assassin's Creed...
forums.macrumors.com
Apple purges 46,000 apps from China App Store over lack of licenses | AppleInsider
Apple has continued its China App Store purge, with the company pulling a record-breaking 46,000 apps in one day to fall in line with licensing requirements in the country.
appleinsider.com
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
Editing to also say that it's not just about getting an app that's not available on the App Store. For me personally, if given the opportunity, I'd rather support the developer directly. Let's take Affinity Photo as an example. It's available for the Mac both on Apple's App Store and directly from Seif Labs. For me, I chose to get it directly from Serif Labs because there's no Apple middleman cut.
Last edited:
In the RedLetterMedia review of Roland Emmerich’s latest movie they were talking about all the heavy product placement for Kaspersky software because apparently they helped finance the movie.
Here is the thing about that. Yes, it is sad about the whole censorship, but in the end, there certain laws every company has to abide by in every country. People blast Apple due to doing business in China, but last I checked, almost every American company does business there and they all have to follow those same rules & laws.
If these people need to side load due to censorship, you have Android. Why touch the iPhone?
If it’s such a bad thing, than why am I able to side load on Mac OS?
Just put in a warning and be done with it. Vast majority won’t side load anyway.
Just put in a warning and be done with it. Vast majority won’t side load anyway.
This either ends with them opening up iOS or locking down MacOS. It is hypocritical to keep 2 opposing ideoloigies at the same company.
Greedy company with dumb users gets to the top? Who'd have thought.
The joke is on him regarding how much vetting Apple actually does of his apps.....
Did you miss the Apple memo reporting that Android have the malware market all sewn up? Like 99% of malware heading in that direction.
It isn’t as simple as free vs paid. I mean Amazon mines the sht out of everything you do with them, including your Ring feed, and you pay for all of that. As far as I know, Sony and Microsoft do the same.
Tracking and data mining isn’t limited to Facebook and Google.
Compilation error: "Parenthesis is not closed."