21–30 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feature will be tied to your apple id, obviously.
Oh that would suck. I've had an iPhone since the week they were first released, but never associated an Apple ID with one. My whole beef with the App Store is it requires telling Apple who I am. If you have to associate your phone with an Apple ID to get sideloading then this is hardly progress for me.
That’s dissapointing. Can I get the european firmware installed on my device then?
Even if this is small progress the headlines and framing of the story are still doublespeak. Installing applications on your computer is the normal state of things. Walled gardens and not having control of your computer is the new weird thing. The word "sideloading" is a feudal concept and it's unquestioned use is dangerous for society. Properly stated this story title is, "Installing applications on iOS 17 might be…
Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project). If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server…
The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.
"It's for your safety and security" Words that should send a chill down every spine. It's obviously just a monopoly. They could easily have an 'allow sideloading' option in the OS, and those that are happy with Apple's curation can leave it off, and everyone else can turn it on.
"It's for your safety and security" Words that should send a chill down every spine. It's obviously just a monopoly. They could easily have an 'allow sideloading' option in the OS, and those that are happy with Apple's curation can leave it off, and everyone else can turn it on.
Monopoly? How about digital feudalism. "We've put ourselves in charge of protecting you, so we're going to help ourselves to a portion of everyone's gold, and make sure none of the serfs are up to anything we don't approve of."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even on Windows if I send an EXE or MSI of my software to someone they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The only guaranteed way around that is to be a big company (or a big open-source project). If security really mattered, every OS would run applications in a proper sandbox, but why bother with that when you can just point your Web browser at a program running on someone else's server…
they get a scary security warning that prevents them from running it. The huge difference is that's only a warning, and not a cryptographically locked-down system unlike Apple's.
Hasn't Apple always said the reason they don't allow sideloading was that it'd be impossible without compromising security? So are they claiming their European iDevices won't be secure anymore, or are they admitting they were lying before and that the real reason was nothing but greed?
iPhones been hacked for ages already.
IMO, https://zerodium.com/program.html is a good indication of "what would it cost to hack me using a never-before-seen exploit".
"It's for your safety and security" Words that should send a chill down every spine. It's obviously just a monopoly. They could easily have an 'allow sideloading' option in the OS, and those that are happy with Apple's curation can leave it off, and everyone else can turn it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It kind of makes sense. Both are closed systems that place rules what is good or bad for their members. If we cannot trust a person to choose whether a certain salary is good or bad for them, why would we trust them to decide what apps are good or bad for them?