Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
ios was designed in a world that is very different, where computers
(and other devices) are always connected. malware is far more
prevalent and getting worse, and on all devices. security is
critical.
ios was designed in a world that is very different, where computers
(and other devices) are always connected. malware is far more
prevalent and getting worse, and on all devices. security is
critical.
But MacOS has had many iterations since the old days
and yet they have
continued to allow sideloading.
They even switched from Motorola
processors to Intel architecture and could have used that excuse to
cease support for sideloading.
Are iPhone users less capable than Mac
users when it comes to protecting their devices?
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
as i said, in the old days, malware was more of an annoyance. it
didn't hold your device hostage for ransom, for a device that has all
sorts of highly personal data.
consider a world where people's phones were hit by ransomware. that
would be bad.
Otherwise known as sideloading, the change would allow customers to
download apps without needing to use the App Store, which would mean developers wouldn't need to pay Apple's 15 to 30 percent fees.
The DMA will have a big impact on Apple's platforms, and it could
result in Apple making major changes to the App Store, Messages, FaceTime, Siri, and more.
How does Android work
around this danger and prevent malware from holding their users hostage?
Am 18.04.23 um 15:10 schrieb badgolferman:
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
Money, money, money!
Money, money, money!
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
nospam wrote:
ios was designed in a world that is very different, where computers
(and other devices) are always connected. malware is far more
prevalent and getting worse, and on all devices. security is
critical.
But MacOS has had many iterations since the old days and yet they have continued to allow sideloading. They even switched from Motorola
processors to Intel architecture and could have used that excuse to
cease support for sideloading. Are iPhone users less capable than Mac
users when it comes to protecting their devices?
On 2023-04-18 11:57, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Money, money, money!
Not the whole story.
The Mac evolved in a different era.
Apple did not want to repeat that as it increased risks to malware on
iOS for what is basically an appliance. The user experience would be
harmed by a less controlled app sourcing model.
Such could harm Apple's reputation and interests: Why be like a MS
Windows breeding ground for malware? That harms MS' image.
Better to be better and not repeat the MS Viral Breeding Ground
experience. (If you don't learn from the mistakes of others you're
just not paying attention).
If developers don't want to pay the 30% (or less) fee - then they can
abstain from a market with about 1.3B users. Their choice.
On 2023-04-18, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-18 11:57, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Money, money, money!
Not the whole story.
The Mac evolved in a different era.
Apple did not want to repeat that as it increased risks to malware on
iOS for what is basically an appliance. The user experience would be
harmed by a less controlled app sourcing model.
Such could harm Apple's reputation and interests: Why be like a MS
Windows breeding ground for malware? That harms MS' image.
Better to be better and not repeat the MS Viral Breeding Ground
experience. (If you don't learn from the mistakes of others you're
just not paying attention).
If developers don't want to pay the 30% (or less) fee - then they can
abstain from a market with about 1.3B users. Their choice.
The trolls in this thread are projecting their own silliness onto
everyone else here and fully expect everyone else to be gullible
simpletons who are supposedly blissfully unaware of the historical differences between the two platforms and why a tech company might chose
to lock a mobile platform down more than the other. We're also supposed
to ignore that Android, which is less locked down, has a much bigger
malware problem than Apple's mobile devices. And for their next trick, they'll play the "victim" card, claiming it is everyone else who are the
real trolls. It's an utterly juvenile and lazy game they play.
The Mac start long before app stores were even possible.
When the iPhone came along, a huge part of its allure was the added
security the App Store provided: apps that had already been vetted.
And yes: by and large, there are far, FAR more non-savvy users of
iPhones than users of Macs.
not just iphones, but also android phones.
And the reason for this is obvious. 30 years ago, the only people who had computers at home were computer geeks who knew what they were doing.
That
is still very true today.
However, EVERYONE has a phone today. The vast majority of these people
are not computer geeks, dont want to be computer geeks and never will be computer geeks. Thus, they like the simplicity and security of phones.
They dont NEED to be savvy to deal with a phone. Thats the very reason why phones are so popular.
In my own case, I deal with Windows and Linux and Oracle and databases all day long. Creating/maintaining/swatting bugs in SQL code. The last
thing I want to do at the end of the work day is continue to deal with Windows.
Which is why I have iPads and iPhones. I get paid to deal with Windows and Linux and Oracle and databases. I want to unwind at the end of the day.
In article <u1mkcv$3k5oc$2@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
And yes: by and large, there are far, FAR more non-savvy users of
iPhones than users of Macs.
not just iphones, but also android phones.
Apple in iOS 17 will for the first time allow iPhone users to download
apps hosted outside of its official App Store, according to Bloomberg's
Mark Gurman.
Otherwise known as sideloading, the change would allow customers to
download apps without needing to use the App Store, which would mean developers wouldn't need to pay Apple's 15 to 30 percent fees.
In article <u1mkb7$3k5oc$1@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
The Mac start long before app stores were even possible.
there were app stores back then, they were just physical brick&mortar
stores, including comp usa, egghead, computerland, mac connection & pc connection, etc., all of which chose which apps they would put on
their respective shelves or in their catalogs, as did the distributors
who served them.
getting something into the channel and on the shelves back then was
*far* more difficult than it is today, plus developers were lucky to
get 10-15% of the retail price (versus 70% today). btdt.
When the iPhone came along, a huge part of its allure was the added
security the App Store provided: apps that had already been vetted.
yep. it also made it *much* easier for developers to create apps and
get them to users.
before the iphone and the app store, it went through the cellular
carriers. who were *far* more restrictive on what was allowed, and
also took a much bigger cut of revenue. apps were locked to specific
devices and could not be copied to another device, even ones the user
owned (e.g., other family members). that meant paying multiple times
for the same app, and they weren't cheap either. $30-50 *per* *app*
was not uncommon.
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones?
Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
It's not just the fees that are annoying. Being able to more easily
deploy apps to IOT systems customers without having to go through the
app store.
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
Am 18.04.23 um 15:10 schrieb badgolferman:
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to
be safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security" concerns?
Money, money, money!
Careful! You’re bound to be attacked as a troll by Jolly Roger for besmirching his god.
trolls
silliness
gullible simpletons
real trolls
juvenile
lazy
Jolly Roger wrote:
trolls
silliness
gullible simpletons
real trolls
juvenile
lazy
Sigh...
Am 18.04.23 um 18:26 schrieb badgolferman:
Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
Am 18.04.23 um 15:10 schrieb badgolferman:
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and
security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to be
safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App
Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security"
concerns?
Money, money, money!
Careful! You’re bound to be attacked as a troll by Jolly Roger for
besmirching his god.
WTF is JR?
On 2023-04-18, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
Am 18.04.23 um 18:26 schrieb badgolferman:
Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
Am 18.04.23 um 15:10 schrieb badgolferman:
badgolferman wrote:
Apple has claimed that sideloading will "undermine the privacy and >>>>>> security protections" that iPhone users rely on, leaving people
vulnerable to malware, scams, data tracking, and other issues.
Apple has a verification system on Mac that allows users to be
safe while giving them access to apps outside of the Mac App
Store.
Why has Apple allowed sideloading on Macs all this time but not
iPhones? Are Macs not susceptible to "privacy and security"
concerns?
Money, money, money!
Careful! You’re bound to be attacked as a troll by Jolly Roger for
besmirching his god.
WTF is JR?
Apparently badgolferman thinks about me a *lot*...
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps the
phone come with,
plus perhaps (according to taste) games, navigation,
productivity apps, comms apps (Signal, etc), etc. that are well
ensconced on the Google (or device vendor) stores.
Indeed, I'd bet that covers at least 90% of Android phone users - and
I'm being pretty conservative with that number.
On 4/18/2023 11:39 AM, nospam wrote:
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the
google play store,
In article <%RR%L.1418129$MVg8.890146@fx12.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on
the google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps the
phone come with,
they don't.
plus perhaps (according to taste) games, navigation, productivity
apps, comms apps (Signal, etc), etc. that are well ensconced on the
Google (or device vendor) stores.
Indeed, I'd bet that covers at least 90% of Android phone users - and
I'm being pretty conservative with that number.
a very conservative number.
epic games, with their very popular game fortnite, tried to get around android's 30% take with their own store and it was a huge failure.
they went back to the play store.
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the
google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps
On 4/20/2023 1:17 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the
google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps
Even if you are correct that nobody wants it and nobody needs it,
that doesn't answer the question I asked.
How is the "difference is negligible" for an average iPhone owner to
perform that same task of visiting a developer's site to install the app?
Yes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the
google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps
Even if you are correct that nobody wants it and nobody needs it,
that doesn't answer the question I asked.
How is the "difference is negligible" for an average iPhone owner to
perform that same task of visiting a developer's site to install the app?
The point is that it's possible to install apps not meant for wide distribution w/i the iOS model. Is it less hassle with Android? Sure.
Is the Android approach safer? Hardly.
What isn't possible in iOS is to bypass the basic restrictions which are there to prevent malware from getting onboard iOS devices. Whether
private "corporate" apps or hobbyist apps, basic iOS app policies must
be met and the App Store is the means to enforce those policies.
This is a quality policy that Apple rightly enforce. To an extreme it
is Apple protecting the Apple brand. They don't want to repeat the
brand damaging proneness of malware suffered by, eg, Microsoft.
If Apple do permit 3rd party loading of apps (iOS 17 rumours), it will interesting to see what happens malware wise ...
Indeed, I would not be surprised if iOS 17 itself has strong built in
tools to detect apps that have vulnerabilities or features that resemble malware.
Taken a step further, if someone loads an app from another source, I
would not be surprised if that iPhone would not upload the app (or a
slice of it) to Apple for analysis. 1000 slices to make the "whole",
for example.
On 4/20/2023 7:36 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
The point is that it's possible to install apps not meant for wideYes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the >>>>> google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps
Even if you are correct that nobody wants it and nobody needs it,
that doesn't answer the question I asked.
How is the "difference is negligible" for an average iPhone owner to
perform that same task of visiting a developer's site to install the app? >>
distribution w/i the iOS model. Is it less hassle with Android? Sure.
Is the Android approach safer? Hardly.
What isn't possible in iOS is to bypass the basic restrictions which are
there to prevent malware from getting onboard iOS devices. Whether
private "corporate" apps or hobbyist apps, basic iOS app policies must
be met and the App Store is the means to enforce those policies.
This is a quality policy that Apple rightly enforce. To an extreme it
is Apple protecting the Apple brand. They don't want to repeat the
brand damaging proneness of malware suffered by, eg, Microsoft.
If Apple do permit 3rd party loading of apps (iOS 17 rumours), it will
interesting to see what happens malware wise ...
Indeed, I would not be surprised if iOS 17 itself has strong built in
tools to detect apps that have vulnerabilities or features that resemble
malware.
Taken a step further, if someone loads an app from another source, I
would not be surprised if that iPhone would not upload the app (or a
slice of it) to Apple for analysis. 1000 slices to make the "whole",
for example.
You don't need to keep repeating that nobody wants it & nobody needs it.
One person said it was possible but difficult, the other person said that
it was not only possible but the difference in difficulty was negligible.
Explain that please.
On 4/20/2023 7:36 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
The point is that it's possible to install apps not meant for wideYes, it's possible now, but it's a hassle with iOS but not
with Android.
the difference is negligible.
If an average Android owner wants to install an app that isn't on the >>>>> google play store,
I doubt the average Android owner wants more than the basic apps
Even if you are correct that nobody wants it and nobody needs it,
that doesn't answer the question I asked.
How is the "difference is negligible" for an average iPhone owner to
perform that same task of visiting a developer's site to install the app? >>
distribution w/i the iOS model. Is it less hassle with Android? Sure.
Is the Android approach safer? Hardly.
What isn't possible in iOS is to bypass the basic restrictions which are
there to prevent malware from getting onboard iOS devices. Whether
private "corporate" apps or hobbyist apps, basic iOS app policies must
be met and the App Store is the means to enforce those policies.
This is a quality policy that Apple rightly enforce. To an extreme it
is Apple protecting the Apple brand. They don't want to repeat the
brand damaging proneness of malware suffered by, eg, Microsoft.
If Apple do permit 3rd party loading of apps (iOS 17 rumours), it will
interesting to see what happens malware wise ...
Indeed, I would not be surprised if iOS 17 itself has strong built in
tools to detect apps that have vulnerabilities or features that resemble
malware.
Taken a step further, if someone loads an app from another source, I
would not be surprised if that iPhone would not upload the app (or a
slice of it) to Apple for analysis. 1000 slices to make the "whole",
for example.
You don't need to keep repeating that nobody wants it & nobody needs it.
nospam wrote:
as i said, in the old days, malware was more of an annoyance. it
didn't hold your device hostage for ransom, for a device that has all
sorts of highly personal data.
consider a world where people's phones were hit by ransomware. that
would be bad.
Let's assume everything you said is correct. How does Android work
around this danger and prevent malware from holding their users hostage?
consider a world where people's phones were hit by ransomware. that
would be bad.
Let's assume everything you said is correct. How does Android work
around this danger and prevent malware from holding their users hostage?
On Apr 18, 2023, badgolferman wrote
(in article<news:xn0o0qoab7bpj1a004@reader443.eternal-september.org>):
consider a world where people's phones were hit by ransomware. that
would be bad.
Let's assume everything you said is correct. How does Android work
around this danger and prevent malware from holding their users
hostage?
It's only iPhone owners. Never Android owners.
Google Play Protect scanner is one of the most intensive ai-driven
effective malware scanners ever written. It scans all Android phones.
You must have friends with android. Ask them if they've ever gotten
malware.
Ron, the dumbest guy in town.
On Apr 18, 2023, badgolferman wrote
(in article<news:xn0o0qoab7bpj1a004@reader443.eternal-september.org>):
consider a world where people's phones were hit by ransomware. that
would be bad.
Let's assume everything you said is correct. How does Android work
around this danger and prevent malware from holding their users hostage?
It's only iPhone owners.
Never Android owners.
Ask your friends.
Google Play Protect scanner is one of the most intensive ai-driven
effective malware scanners ever written. It scans all Android phones.
Google Play Protect scans run on every app installation, even sideloaded.
And Google Play Protect heuristic scans run every day on all Androids.
You must have friends with android.
Ask them if they've ever gotten malware.
They will tell they've never gotten malware.
It's a myth that the google play protect scanner misses malware.
You only hear it from iPhone owners.
Never from Android owners.
Ask your friends.
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
The overwhelming majority of mobile malware is Android malware:
On Apr 20, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:kabs03FhtqnU1@mid.individual.net>):
The overwhelming majority of mobile malware is Android malware:
It's always only iPhone owners who complain about malware.
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
Apple in iOS 17 will for the first time allow iPhone users to download
apps hosted outside of its official App Store, according to Bloomberg's
Mark Gurman.
Speaking of sideloading, my work iPhone downloads apps from the corporate
and Microsoft websites. Does that count as sideloading? If so then it
clearly has had that capability for quite a long time.
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
Apple in iOS 17 will for the first time allow iPhone users to download
apps hosted outside of its official App Store, according to Bloomberg's
Mark Gurman.
Speaking of sideloading, my work iPhone downloads apps from the corporate
and Microsoft websites. Does that count as sideloading? If so then it
clearly has had that capability for quite a long time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:40:44 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,625 |