Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by jerojero » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

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…

You shouldn't protect people through forbidding them access. Make it relatively complex? Sure. Explain the risks? Sure. Forbid it? I don't think that's the best solution.

I mean, from a parenting perspective which is kind of the role that Apple seems to be claiming over its user, it's super diminishing. Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom". How is that an appropriate argument? We let people vote for a reason, freedom is not something that can be taken away just like that.

This issue to me is much more than just "oh, it's privacy" it's an issue on our fundamental rights of ownership and freedom to do with our devices what we want. The reality here is that Apple has captured the mobile market in the most lucrative country on earth (the USA) and they're ruling over people like a lord on its serf.

And to follow up on what you've said, you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention? People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know. More freedom is a good thing, these devices cost hundreds of dollars; they're computing devices why not treat them just like computers. Do you see people saying macbooks are "insecure garbage" because I don't? And you can install all kinds of apps on it, even from "untrusted" developers.

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

#32

Post by randomperson_24 » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

Reading Sheeple talks are always fun.

It's about choice. Even on android, there are many horrible popups that android warns the user before installing any app outside Play Store. (The Epic lawsuit also complained about this) If the user wants to do then give them the choice. Giving Choice is the problematic part.

The security thing is just a joke. The walled garden isn't safe (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...)

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

#33

Post by hallway_monitor » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:18 AM UTC

throwzaway20102 wrote: post #8

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Meh. Allowing me to have more control over the apps loaded / running on my phone is absolutely in my best interest. This stuff is exactly why I totally reject everything Apple and their "walled garden" ecosystem. I'll make my own decisions, thank you.

Why don’t you use an android phone?

I'm sure he does. It would be hard to reject everything about Apple but still use their phone. Even though their privacy angle is strong, I'll never use one of the devices either for similar reasons.

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

#34

Post by justinplouffe » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

I think Apple is clearly overplaying the role that their app store policies like the "nutrition label", reviews and app tracking transparency have in the iOS security model. To me, the security features that matter are from the operating system, its implementation of encryption and the sandboxing model that's enforced by it.

The app store reviews are done by booting up the app for a few seconds and most of the rest is self-reported by the developers which almost qualifies as security theater. They probably also run a static analyzer on the apps but nothing would prevent Apple from offering that on-demand to users opening side-loaded software and letting them choose to run or not after seeing the result.

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

#35

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by ksec » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:43 AM UTC

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…

>The only reason this is happening is because Epic and the like want to keep 100% of revenue.

NO. Business owners dont want to be beholden to Apple. Some are even fine with 30% cut ( which is a ridiculous amount depending on sector ). But why should Business Owner beg for Apple's mercy just to be on the App Store?

None of these would have happen had Apple been a good guardian of the App store and their power.

I am a happy Apple customer, half happy shareholder, unhappy business owner.

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

#37

Post by ksec » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

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…

>But I can’t help but view this as double-speak for: “we at Apple enjoy our App Store profits and don’t want to see those reduced, user-be-damned.”

I miss the days of Steve Jobs Apple.

Yes. The thing I dont understand is why they didn't break out Gaming into Game Store. And let App Store operate on 10% commission. Where the App Store only operate on automated security checks.( I dont even know how they curate gaming. When most of the freemium Games are 2 min Game play with 1 min Ads)

The vast majority ( 80%+ ) of App Store revenue are Gaming. That one single step would have protected Apple's bottom line.

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

#38

Post by NoPicklez » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

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…

I 100% agree with this.

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

#39

Post by tracedddd » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:07 AM UTC

jerojero wrote: post #31

jrnichols wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You shouldn't protect people through forbidding them access. Make it relatively complex? Sure. Explain the risks? Sure. Forbid it? I don't think that's the best solution. I mean, from a parenting perspective which is kind of the role that Apple seems to be claiming over its user, it's super diminishing. Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom". How is that an appropriate argument? We…

I don’t think forbidding access is a great solution, but I do think overall the cumulative choices Apple has made do indeed make a more secure device. I wouldn’t call Samsung “garbage” but I wouldn’t choose to use one either.

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

#40

Post by aeternum » Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 5:08 AM UTC

throwzaway20102 wrote: post #10

I fully support Apple and the rules they have to protect the ecosystem they have created. They got shat on over and over again for their decisions while they got the iPhone/iPad/App store off the ground (not supporting flash, etc) and they stuck to their guns. Their reward was an extremely profitable App Store and device lineup. They deserve the success they have and they have every right to protect the walled garden…

While this comment may have a little too much dramatic flare, it is one of the few contrarian comments that provides concrete reasons for the position.