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

51–56 of 56 posts

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

#51

Post by thu2111 »

ksec wrote: post #37
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.…

But this stuff is a direction continuation of his policies. Tim Cook was clearly picked to be a safe pair of hands - Jobs would have been making the exact same arguments in the exact same way.

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

#52

Post by mindcrime »

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 do. And I just got a PinePhone as well.

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

#53

Post by mindcrime »

hndamien wrote: post #15
throwzaway20102 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t you use an android phone?

Or Librem?

That's definitely of interest. I recently bought a PinePhone to evaluate, but I could see getting a Librem down the road somewhere.

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

#54

Post by jrnichols »

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…

> Your whole argument is basically "users are too dumb to deal with freedom"

No, it's not.

> you can already side load apps on Android and you don't really see any of that which you mention?

Yes, actually, you do see this! Most of the Android malware is from sideloaded apps, although some of it comes from Google Play itself.

> People aren't saying Samsungs are "insecure garbage" as far as I know.

No, they're saying Android is insecure garbage instead. Just like they'll say iOS and Apple is garbage.

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

#55

Post by swiley »

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…

Pretty much the only phone you have real control over and can buy with any moderate reliabilty is the pinephone. There absolutely is a shortage. Oh sure you can put a hacked rom on an Android but you can do the same with the iPhone. Even then you don't have control because the closed drivers are coupled to the userspace and there's a bunch of crap you can't get rid of combined with Google play and you effectively don't have much control at all.

> I quite enjoy having next to no concerns about my iPhone and whether some malicious software is going to screw me over.

I feel the same way on my pinephone and also know I'm not getting screwed over by Apple.

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

#56

Post by ksec »

thu2111 wrote: post #51
ksec wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

But this stuff is a direction continuation of his policies. Tim Cook was clearly picked to be a safe pair of hands - Jobs would have been making the exact same arguments in the exact same way.

It was certainly the right policy in Steve Jobs era. But is it the right policy now? As a matter of fact Jobs fought internally for side loading. Even Phil Schiller argued they should run it a lower commission once they reach critical mass. And Tim Cook is looking at it as a lost of revenue only. This was also apparent when Tim Cook decide to start a whole 5+ years operation to undermine Qualcomm ( and later IMG and Dialog), something that Steve Jobs thought was worth it.

Jobs would have listened and rethink. Jobs is great for changing his mind. Tim Cook is taking a few of Steve Jobs last policy as gospel and counting pennies. ( Which is a good thing as a COO, not so much as an CEO ) In many ways Tim Cook feels more like John Sculley.

Post reply on HN