Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 56 posts

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

#21

Post by throwmedaddy19 »

moistly wrote: post #19

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…

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.

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

#22

Post by uniqueid »

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.

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

#23

Post by jrnichols »

jerojero123 wrote: post #14
throwzaway20102 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ———>

This is a very bad argument. The benefit of others, in this case, has nothing to do with your own benefit. Its true, epic might profit for several millions, so what? How does that affect me or other users? Apple keeps acting like the user is somehow this baby that needs to be protected, we're not. We're adults that can make our own decisions. Android and iOS are completely different operating systems, iOS is better f…

> iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy.

YOU could do that, but as others have said, the problem is that other people are not going to do that. For the average user, it's a huge attack vector, or let's be honest, it'll be used to pirate apps. The average user doesn't even know what open source is, and when they Goa head and side load some new game because their "neighbors son really knows computers" and their iPhone gets taken over by adware, who do you think they're going to blame? Do you really think they'll go "oh well, that was the risk I took by side loading." or something? Nope. They'll go "Wow, that was terrible. Apple sucks. The iPhone is insecure garbage!" That's exactly what would happen and we all know this.

If anything, perhaps Apple could make an "iPhone 12 - Developer Edition" and only allow side loading in that version... and offer no warranty other than hardware. Keep it out of the hands of Average User but the ones that think they're such power users can buy it.

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

#24

Post by dmz73 »

throwzaway20102 wrote: post #7
perfopt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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.

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

#25

Post by throwmedaddy19 »

uniqueid wrote: post #22

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…

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

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

#26

Post by danmur »

dlivingston wrote: post #6

> 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…

I highly doubt any issues with security of the Android ecosystem in general have anything to do with side loading.

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

#27

Post by barkingmax222 »

jrnichols wrote: post #23
jerojero123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very bad argument. The benefit of others, in this case, has nothing to do with your own benefit. Its true, epic might profit for several millions, so what? How does that affect me or other users? Apple keeps acting like the user is somehow this baby that needs to be protected, we're not. We're adults that can make our own decisions. Android and iOS are completely different operating systems, iOS is better f…

> iOS is better for privacy but for example if something like fdroid existed on iOS I could compliment the apps on the appstore with free software one that I know also guarantee my privacy. YOU could do that, but as others have said, the problem is that other people are not going to do that. For the average user, it's a huge attack vector, or let's be honest, it'll be used to pirate apps. The average user doesn't eve…

Bang on mate.

Especially the point about piracy.

This change would actually fuck over the small independent developers the most who would see their apps being listed on forums availanle as .apks or whatever, the you download from a shady hosting website, from which some random guy will make ad dollars while infecting your device with malware.

The people who support this really just want a way to not pay for shit and we all know it. Epic and co don’t want to pay apple, and the rest don’t want to pay 1Password, etc

The “I’m a nerd and I just wanna put my cool apps on my phone and share with friends” is literally like 5 people.

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

#28

Post by ink404 »

dlivingston wrote: post #6

> 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…

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.

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

#29

Post by barkingmax222 »

mthoms wrote: post #13
throwzaway20102 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ———>

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.

Go vegan if you want to save society and the environment.

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

#30

Post by barkingmax222 »

crackercrews wrote: post #3
throwzaway20102 wrote: post #2

I agree with Tim Cook.

Are there any number of hoops that users could be required to jump through that would make you comfortable with this?

Yes, have a developer program and sdk and review every app to make sure there’s no back doors or malware. Oh wait.
Post reply on HN