Some Mac users choose to not install apps from outside the Mac App Store. A similar choice would still be available to users on the iPhone and iPad even if the reskinned versions of macOS that we call iOS and iPadOS allowed installing applications from outside their respective App Stores. As stated repeatedly, I just want to install DosBox etc. on my iPad!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's hypocrisy with app "sideloading"
- Thread starter DeanL
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- There's nothing to like about the iPad's lack of sideloading. If users want to stick to Apple's App Store, of course they can (and likely will for the most part). But if you want to install an app that Apple doesn't want in their store, how could having the option be a disadvantage?
- There would be no need to hack your tablet / phone if iOS supported multiple app sources (I assume you're talking about jailbreaking).
- Why would you sideload untrusted apps onto any device? That's just dumb. We're not talking about pirate software here. It's more like installing Fortnite from Epic's app store. And if iOS is as secure and sandboxed as Apple says it is, they shouldn't be so concerned about apps running amok anyway.
MacOS
Sailfish
Symbian
Windows
Unix
Linux
Ubuntu (+every other fork)
DOS
Amiga OS
Android
ChromeOS
Harmony
Long is the list of stable OSes that are fully open to external application installs that many people, including lots on these very forums use every single day without issue. iOS would be no different.
There is also what I call the Macrumors Irony, that the very same users who protest about the EU telling Apple what they can and cannot do with their devices also allow Apple to tell them what they can and cannot do with their devices.
In both cases there is one word that sums it all up: hypocracy.
Sailfish
Symbian
Windows
Unix
Linux
Ubuntu (+every other fork)
DOS
Amiga OS
Android
ChromeOS
Harmony
Long is the list of stable OSes that are fully open to external application installs that many people, including lots on these very forums use every single day without issue. iOS would be no different.
There is also what I call the Macrumors Irony, that the very same users who protest about the EU telling Apple what they can and cannot do with their devices also allow Apple to tell them what they can and cannot do with their devices.
In both cases there is one word that sums it all up: hypocracy.
Not really ironic, more that fanboys're gonna fanboy. Apple can do no wrong.
Usually the ones with 'Mac' in their forum name somewhere.
There are literally hundreds of phone manufacturers and I’m guessing most of them have an App Store.
Pay attention. He said operating systems, not phone manufacturers.
Pay attention I said phone manufacturers; for a reason.
NB: My original post was before we'd all got the news on what Apple is actually doing in the EU - that's being discussed in other threads & let's keep it there. This thread was about actual "sideloading" (i.e. diretly installing Apps without a Store) and/or truly independent app stores that aren't regulated by Apple.
Which suits some Mac users and not others.
Macs are not iPads, Macs are not iPhones and iPhones are not iPads.
Mac has a 40 year history, and for most of that time there was no word for "sideloading" because that was the only way of installing software. The Mac App Store is a fairly recent addition and certainly doesn't cover everything I want to do on my Mac - which includes a certain amount of small-scale development, tinkering and using Mac OS as Unix, and maybe even re-purposing my current Mac as a Linux box when I come to upgrade. That's been the deal with Mac all along, and if/when Apple goes too far towards locking down the Mac, I'm out.
The iPad has never promised anything other than the App Store. It's always been an "appliance" for running approved software.
The iPhone originally had no way of installing third-party software at all - the word of Jobs was that you could use online web apps. Had mobile broadband coverage been better back then, that might have been the end of it... When the App Store arrived it was the only way there had ever been of installing third party software. Also, the mobile phone is rapidly becoming the go-to device for security and ID verification (...often providing the second factor in 2FA even when you're using a Mac) so keeping it locked down makes more sense. There's now more potential for chaos from a pwned phone than a pwned laptop/desktop.
Offering options has wider consequences: so far, anybody who wants to distribute iOS software has had to use the Apple store. If alternative app stores appear, or sideloading beomes popular, then, inevitably, some Apps will move there, either because the developers think they can make more money or because they are easier to develop for. Using alternative stores/sideloading could rapidly become "optional" in the sense of "running the software you want/need is optional".
The authorities have a role when consumer choice is under threat, but there's plenty of consumer choice in the mobile device market. A bigger worry is keeping an eye on Google/Meta/Amazon/Microsoft et. al. who are closer to having dominant platforms in their markets and lots of opportunities for "leverage" - e.g. Google's role in search, mobile OS and advertising. The War on Apple seems a bit like a distraction.
C.f. Apple wanting to sell its own services on its own hardware platform with Google's history of forcing its apps & search on mobile networks and manufacturers making phones using the supposedly open-source Android OS. Not arguing that "two wrongs make a right" here, but which sounds like the bigger threat to user choice? Also, the EU was able to go after Google for that under existing anti-trust laws, it didn't have to write a new directive. One of the tests of EU policy will be to see how well it deals with other big tech players.
Which suits some Mac users and not others.
Macs are not iPads, Macs are not iPhones and iPhones are not iPads.
Mac has a 40 year history, and for most of that time there was no word for "sideloading" because that was the only way of installing software. The Mac App Store is a fairly recent addition and certainly doesn't cover everything I want to do on my Mac - which includes a certain amount of small-scale development, tinkering and using Mac OS as Unix, and maybe even re-purposing my current Mac as a Linux box when I come to upgrade. That's been the deal with Mac all along, and if/when Apple goes too far towards locking down the Mac, I'm out.
The iPad has never promised anything other than the App Store. It's always been an "appliance" for running approved software.
The iPhone originally had no way of installing third-party software at all - the word of Jobs was that you could use online web apps. Had mobile broadband coverage been better back then, that might have been the end of it... When the App Store arrived it was the only way there had ever been of installing third party software. Also, the mobile phone is rapidly becoming the go-to device for security and ID verification (...often providing the second factor in 2FA even when you're using a Mac) so keeping it locked down makes more sense. There's now more potential for chaos from a pwned phone than a pwned laptop/desktop.
Offering options has wider consequences: so far, anybody who wants to distribute iOS software has had to use the Apple store. If alternative app stores appear, or sideloading beomes popular, then, inevitably, some Apps will move there, either because the developers think they can make more money or because they are easier to develop for. Using alternative stores/sideloading could rapidly become "optional" in the sense of "running the software you want/need is optional".
Because what sideloading is... and, generally, that is how you get alternative app stores onto (say) Android or MacOS (I don't see Steam in the Mac App Store, for example).
...and if we were talking about ways in which Apple were stopping people from running Linux, Android or Windows on their Mac/iPad/iPhone hardware, you might have a point. AFAIK, all that is preventing that is scarcity of user-friendly, well-supported distributions - it's not Apple's job to provide those.
If I want to sideload apps or run alternative app stores I am free to choose Android or some other system. I'm also free to moan about it, or about Apple's RAM prices, the notch, the power connector on the Studio Display or whatever - but that doesn't mean I want the government or the courts to come and make it all better for me (and, remember, its not just the EU, Apple have been fighting lawsuits about this sort of thing in the US, too - its a different means to the same end). "Buy something else then" is a lazy argument when you're trying to debate the merits of something but it is your ultimate recourse.
The authorities have a role when consumer choice is under threat, but there's plenty of consumer choice in the mobile device market. A bigger worry is keeping an eye on Google/Meta/Amazon/Microsoft et. al. who are closer to having dominant platforms in their markets and lots of opportunities for "leverage" - e.g. Google's role in search, mobile OS and advertising. The War on Apple seems a bit like a distraction.
C.f. Apple wanting to sell its own services on its own hardware platform with Google's history of forcing its apps & search on mobile networks and manufacturers making phones using the supposedly open-source Android OS. Not arguing that "two wrongs make a right" here, but which sounds like the bigger threat to user choice? Also, the EU was able to go after Google for that under existing anti-trust laws, it didn't have to write a new directive. One of the tests of EU policy will be to see how well it deals with other big tech players.
Or you’re missing the point that there are literally hundreds of phone manufacturers out there? Choose one if an iPhone isn’t for you.
Your observation is correct. However it does not preclude me and others from pointing out that the value and utility of this "appliance" could be elevated to be closer to a real computer by allowing it to install any application like a real computer.
And just about all of them except Apple make Android phones. Not much choice of operating system.
Each version of android is customized. It’s like saying there is only one version of Linux and not much choice in the Linux workspace as there is only one version.
It boils down to your personal definition of a market.
Well, if Apple can't run a competitive App Store, that's on them really.
The key word though was untrusted. If you install e.g. Epic's store, or GitHub's (if Apple's fee structure didn't make the latter impossible), then you'd do so only because you trust that store enough to install it. If we were talking about a Russian app store full of pirate software, that would be a different matter.
Also, sideloading is a somewhat loaded term, with connotations of jailbreaking and / or piracy. If the mechanism were properly (i.e. willingly) supported by Apple, then installing and using e.g. an Amazon kindle store would be totally mainstream and nothing scary.
There's no point to miss. As much as you'd like to imply that having lots of Android phone manufacturers gives many alternatives to iOS, it's just a weird strawman argument. If someone e.g. doesn't like coffee, the fact there's 400 different varieties doesn't mean they have loads of potential drinks to enjoy.
It’s no different than suggesting there are only two alternatives in the smartphone market. That’s plainly false.
Can any Android app run on any Android phone? Yes. Can an Android app run on an iPhone? No. Can an iOS app run on any Android phone? No.
This stuff is not complicated, unless you're wilfully trying to obfuscate obvious facts.
What's next? Are there's lots of different versions of Windows, because you can buy PCs from Dell, HP, Lenovo etc?
You're just unhappy with the alternatives, and would prefer to just force the most popular and successful one to do your bidding, for no other reason than its popular and successful.
I didn't say that's what the EU law says, and it's irrelevant to the meaning of my comment.
Don't quote ⅓ of my comment without the preceding interactions that let to it. That's misleading.
Android. iOS. Slightly changing the optics or adding some crapware doesn't make a new operating system out of Android.
Whatever, that's got nothing to do with justifying I7's ridiculous statement that there's loads of alternatives to iOS. Unless you split one hair about 20 times.
Except you’re not. The mobile dichotomy means that consumers are either locked into iOS or forced into Google’s tracking nightmare. Either way there isn’t app parity between the two platforms. If I want to run Ulysses for blogging and install a PSP emulator I’m screwed.
Apple and Google won but we all lost.
You can do what you want with your device: throw it out the window, take a hammer to it, jail break it etc. apple doesn’t have to help you.
And this is the part some people are having trouble with - they think Apple should bend over backwards to help the user get whatever they want regardless. It screams "entitlement".