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

41–50 of 56 posts

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

#41

Post by ericwooley »

aeternum wrote: post #40
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.

Does it though?

It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful.

It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.

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

#42

Post by climbhigher »

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 iPad will never be a true “pro” device until any arbitrary code can be run on it without paying $99 per year to Apple for the privilege (Apple Developer Program).

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

#43

Post by peytn »

randomperson_24 wrote: post #32

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/2021/4/21/2238…

I mean, if the app I want is on a single store, do I have a choice? Are users really itching to install the Epic store so they can have more choices? The Epic store will be shoved down their throats.

As a user I’m pretty okay with devs not being able to choose how I’m getting their app.

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

#44

Post by aeternum »

ericwooley wrote: post #41
aeternum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it though? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful. It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.

Not forever, they can only rent seek as long as they provide a compelling device to users. Too much rent seeking = fewer app developers = fewer compelled users.

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

#45

Post by bob1029 »

Sucks that html is out of the bag already, doesn't it Tim?

To me the best path for "side-loading" is still the web browser. I don't know of any messaging apps that will fail to open a properly-formed URL in Safari.

Granted, Apple have gone out of their way to make this as miserable as possible if you need native device capabilities. Even so, you can still build a lot of super valuable things as a simple website.

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

#46

Post by bzzzt »

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 Store profits and user privacy are two different issues. It's not all doublespeak:

Since an i-device is restricted to Apple's app store it's Apple who can make the call what kind of app behaviour is permitted. They communicate this very clearly and sell devices where the user can expect apps don't try to deceive them. (yes, this is fallible, but the App store is curated and offenders can be and are removed).

Allowing sideloaded apps will make it very easy to break these promises since users don't read the small print and will install whatever social app their friends are using. Already Facebook has expressed disagreement about the new app privacy labels, so I fully expect them to jump to sideloading as soon as Apple allows this (or is forced to allow this).

Consequence is users have no choice then to install Facebook apps from a non-privacy respecting source since there will be no messaging apps with privacy guarantees on the app store. At the least Facebook will have more leverage to press for less user protection. I see this as a loss for users (like myself). I like having at least a bit of privacy protection and until there are other ways to guarantee this I will accept the App store model as the lesser evil.

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

#47

Post by boredprograming »

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…

Sideloading is always panned under the guise of security. It's all bs.

* If the devices were secure enough, we could run untrusted code with no consequences. Like practically every website on the planet

* If side loading was so dangerous every windows and Linux machine would be filled with viruses.

* Apple and Google claim their app stores are "safe" from malicious apps. This is clearly not the case.

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

#49

Post by CodeGlitch »

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’m not familiar with side loading on Android, so I don’t know how much that has affected its ecosystem and security. I installed F-Driod yesterday on a new Nokia Android Phone. It requires you to confirm that you are happy to run the untrusted app, and away you go.

I guess a non-technical person could be tricked into performing the steps over the phone by a scam-artist...which is always the danger with these things.

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

#50

Post by barkingmax222 »

ericwooley wrote: post #41
aeternum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does it though? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful, or insightful. It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.

> It's just the same tired argument about how apple did something right so they should be able to rent seek forever, and if you don't like it, you should use Android.

Yes, and?

Post reply on HN