iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[Samplasion]

Of course many people will benefit from Apple’s model, even if they don’t know that they are benefitting.

That completely misses the point of the argument. We were discussing the number of people who actually go out of their way to buy a device which doesn't allow external sources.

The real test will be how much additional harm will happen

Considering the other examples of sideloading, I suspect none.

(not that it really matters since we won’t be able to go back to having nicer things)

That's your personal opinion and that's fine, but 1) it's still unclear how Apple will go about implementing sideload functionality (if it's a "turn this on and sideloading is enabled" kinda deal you have nothing to lose sleep about); and 2) whether it's nice or not is frankly not that relevant.

 

[jlc1978]

And, assuming that's true, what's the percentage against all iPhone users? 0.001%? 0.01%? Still, the overwhelming majority doesn't know or care that their iPhone is supposedly more secure because they can't install apps from external sources. Don't believe me? Go ask your mother about the security improvements of the walled garden model. And be sure to report back on her response.

I would wager a significant number of users have no idea about security in general; it's a phone and they aren't aware of even simple things to do to make it secure. How many have passwords that are 0000 or 1111 or 4 corners, for example? Use teh same password for all apps that require one because it's easy to remember?

I suspect a large part of this is the way the iPhone model evolved:

1. It was a walled garden from day 1, so that is what people are used to
2. Many users are not necessarily computer literate beyond using apps and so have never thought about security and how much private and or valuable info is on their phone

I also suspect a significant percentage will never side load, and as a result 3rd party app stores and non-Apple Store apps will struggle beyond the tech community.

 

[dk001]

Evidence for these claims? Many of us made the choice of the Apple ecosystem precisely because it is more secure.

If any government wants to regulate something about Apple, it should be to require Apple to provide a warranty about the quality and security of App Store apps. Make Apple earn its fees by doing a better review of submitted apps.

Show me the converse.
Take a marketing course or two and you’ll find this is typical human buying behavior. “Walled Garden” was never a buying point until Apple promoted it as an attempt to lock in users. Similar to iMessage.

For your second comment I fully agree.

 

[dk001]

…

I also suspect a significant percentage will never side load, and as a result 3rd party app stores and non-Apple Store apps will struggle beyond the tech community.

I suspect that will come down to design. In my Android side I also buy from the OnePlus Store, the Samsung Store, Moto, depending on what device, and side load from devs or places like F-Droid.

It will be interesting to see what Apple really does.

 

[Abazigal]

[citation needed]

And, assuming that's true, what's the percentage against all iPhone users? 0.001%? 0.01%? Still, the overwhelming majority doesn't know or care that their iPhone is supposedly more secure because they can't install apps from external sources. Don't believe me? Go ask your mother about the security improvements of the walled garden model. And be sure to report back on her response.

It seems like here every week, someone gets scammed of their life savings because they got tricked into downloading some fake app from Facebook. And it’s all happening on android phones.

It’s gotten so bad that one of my banks has designed their android banking app such that it will not load if it detects the presence of sideloaded apps on one’s device.

OCBC’s new anti-scam measure upsets some users; bank clarifies only apps with risky permission settings flagged

The bank's new security feature prevents users from logging onto their Internet banking and OCBC Digital app on their phone if it detects potentially risky apps downloaded from unofficial portals.

www.channelnewsasia.com

It will be funny if this too comes to iOS in the future, and basically stops the appetite for sideloading right there and then.

That’s the thing when the more tech savvy users talk about how they are smart enough to not get scammed and such. It’s not always about them, and I wish more of them would acknowledge this.

 

[jlc1978]

It seems like here every week, someone gets scammed of their life savings because they got tricked into downloading some fake app from Facebook. And it’s all happening on android phones.

It’s gotten so bad that one of my banks has designed their android banking app such that it will not load if it detects the presence of sideloaded apps on one’s device.

Interesting approach. Apple could build such an option in the OS but would no doubt get pilloried for so doing. At least have an API that detects, and can be used to see, if side load apps are installed.

It will be funny if this too comes to iOS in the future, and basically stops the appetite for sideloading right there and then.

That’s the thing when the more tech savvy users talk about how they are smart enough to not get scammed and such. It’s not always about them, and I wish more of them would acknowledge this.

Sometimes the easiest people to scam are those who think they are to smart to be scammed; just as the easiest people to beat in poker are those who think they are the best player at the table.

I do agree, however, that side loading will make iOS users more susceptible to scam apps was well as those designed to gather intelligence or track targets.

 

[dk001]

It seems like here every week, someone gets scammed of their life savings because they got tricked into downloading some fake app from Facebook. And it’s all happening on android phones.

It’s gotten so bad that one of my banks has designed their android banking app such that it will not load if it detects the presence of sideloaded apps on one’s device.

OCBC’s new anti-scam measure upsets some users; bank clarifies only apps with risky permission settings flagged

The bank's new security feature prevents users from logging onto their Internet banking and OCBC Digital app on their phone if it detects potentially risky apps downloaded from unofficial portals.

www.channelnewsasia.com

It will be funny if this too comes to iOS in the future, and basically stops the appetite for sideloading right there and then.

That’s the thing when the more tech savvy users talk about how they are smart enough to not get scammed and such. It’s not always about them, and I wish more of them would acknowledge this.

If they want to fix anything, how about stopping this in text and email? Fix it in the browser. Get FB to fix it.
I have a service that scan both my Android and iOS and it catches multiples of emails and texts that are scams every week. Some of them look pretty damn realistic.
It is a pervasive item and to claim “OMG it could happen if …” is disingenuous. Avenues will always be discovered.

 

[Abazigal]

If they want to fix anything, how about stopping this in text and email? Fix it in the browser. Get FB to fix it.
I have a service that scan both my Android and iOS and it catches multiples of emails and texts that are scams every week. Some of them look pretty damn realistic.
It is a pervasive item and to claim “OMG it could happen if …” is disingenuous. Avenues will always be discovered.

My point is to show just how disingenuous the whole “you don’t have to sideload if you don’t want to” argument is. I don’t think any of these people chose to be scammed, and yet they were. I believe that the walled nature of the iOS App Store is what allows for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

I have argued that legislations like this are made specifically to benefit smaller businesses, because the EU doesn’t have any huge tech giants the way the US does (in part because of their political and business environment). It’s not about protecting or empowering consumers.

Let’s hope more people recognise this sooner than later.

 

[webkit]

Just make the regulations apply to mobile operating systems only, not in-car operating systems.

But that's not how laws and regulations are typically supposed to work. If you make a law about one industry/market, it should apply similarly to other industries/markets under comparable conditions.

Google already makes those apps and services available on other platforms, they just wouldn’t be able to deliberately exclude Android forks. Of course they could just choose to not make cross-platform apps but I’m not sure Google would want to make that decision given their business model depends upon it.

Broadly speaking, if you want to be use a horizontal business model to achieve scale, you shouldn’t be able to discriminate again any underlying platform. If you want to use a vertical business model, you do so knowing you will never achieve the same scale.

I don’t think any company should be permitted to have horizontal scale and vertical control. They should have to pick one or the other.

Yes, by choice not by obligation. For example, Apple could choose to make its App Store, Safari, Pages, etc. available on various operating systems but aren't obligated to.

 

[VulchR]

Show me the converse [that security is important too many buying the iPhone].

See link (a 2022 poll of people in the UK by YouGov).

The article states: 'Drilling deeper, our data shows that the preference for certain features can make consumers more or less likely than the general population to own certain cell phone brands. For instance, 50% of those who rate security features as important considerations own an iPhone as compared to 40% of the overall population.' Security isn't the only factor influencing buying decisions, and it is mentioned by a modest proportions of people as a reason for buying their phone*. Still, 25% of those polled in the UK did cite security as a reason why they bought their particular phone, albeit this was not broken down by the brand of phone purchased.

So, my claim that 'many' (not all, not a majority, but many) of us buy the iPhone for security is likely true. Moreover, security has real-world consequences. I was at a hotel this weekend and the charge was above the single contactless transaction limit for my physical credit card. However, the contactless transaction limit on the very same card was higher in the Apple Pay Wallet of my iPhone, and I was able to pay with that. Thus, you can quantify the value people put on iPhone security by difference between the physical card transaction limit and the Apple Pay transaction limit. My prediction is that in the EU the Apple Pay limit will begin to drop toward the physical card limit after the EU institutes this sideloading fiasco. We'll see. Also, I wonder if the equivalent of Apple Pay in the side-loading Wild West of Android-land has an equivalent increase in the transaction limit in comparison to the physical card. I genuinely don't know.

*Interestingly, in this poll battery life was chosen by the highest proportion of people as a consideration for purchasing a phone and yet Apple continues to wilfully ignore this. It is the one thing that has made me hesitate about buying the new iPhone.

 

[Ethosik]

Show me the converse.
Take a marketing course or two and you’ll find this is typical human buying behavior. “Walled Garden” was never a buying point until Apple promoted it as an attempt to lock in users. Similar to iMessage.

For your second comment I fully agree.

I’m one of them. Other than that, Android is far far FAR superior in every single way. Apple has been playing catchup to Android software and hardware features for years now. It’s the locked down environment why I chose iPhone. It’s the locked down environment why I got a Windows 10 S device for my grandparents.

Sometimes it is a buying point.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

It seems like here every week, someone gets scammed of their life savings because they got tricked into downloading some fake app from Facebook. And it’s all happening on android phones.

It’s gotten so bad that one of my banks has designed their android banking app such that it will not load if it detects the presence of sideloaded apps on one’s device.

OCBC’s new anti-scam measure upsets some users; bank clarifies only apps with risky permission settings flagged

The bank's new security feature prevents users from logging onto their Internet banking and OCBC Digital app on their phone if it detects potentially risky apps downloaded from unofficial portals.

www.channelnewsasia.com

It will be funny if this too comes to iOS in the future, and basically stops the appetite for sideloading right there and then.

That’s the thing when the more tech savvy users talk about how they are smart enough to not get scammed and such. It’s not always about them, and I wish more of them would acknowledge this.

and let's say that some bank blocked access from your PC just for having steam installed?
and the MS game stuff was forcing game censorship that the steam version did not have?
that will lead to big anti trust issues.
---------------------------------
now let's say the MS app store did not have
game censorship
steam like modding / workshop
install to any folder / drive (I think they added that now)

 

[Abazigal]

and let's say that some bank blocked access from your PC just for having steam installed?
and the MS game stuff was forcing game censorship that the steam version did not have?
that will lead to big anti trust issues.
---------------------------------
now let's say the MS app store did not have
game censorship
steam like modding / workshop
install to any folder / drive (I think they added that now)

I am sorry. Your point is...?

Just take it that it's 11 pm over here and I really should be going to bed soon...😛

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I am sorry. Your point is...?

Just take it that it's 11 pm over here and I really should be going to bed soon...😛

apple store is more picky and has odd rules that the google store does not have. so apple needs side loading forced by law and that LAW needs to ban BS lockouts for just having side loading on (and side loading is not ROOT mode)

and if apple did have all of it's rules then the need for side loading is way less.

 

[jlc1978]

apple store is more picky and has odd rules that the google store does not have. so apple needs side loading forced by law and that LAW needs to ban BS lockouts for just having side loading on (and side loading is not ROOT mode)

Really? A company should be free to decide in what environment they want their app to operate; and if tehy decide side loading presents an unacceptable risk then don't let their app run when apps are side loaded. The user has a choice of how they want to configure their devices.

A suspect may organizations will ban side loading on their devices simply to avoid any potential security risks.

 

[adib]

We saved europe, twice, and this is how they repay us.

I don't know how you define "we" – but allowing side-loading sounds like a form of anti-monopoly measures to me. In turn, is in-line with the ideology of free (as in libré) markets.

 

[floral]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but nobody's considering that the sideloading hasn't actually been added yet? Like, where is it?

 

[webkit]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but nobody's considering that the sideloading hasn't actually been added yet? Like, where is it?

Some have been predicting that sideloading won't be added until early next year, just before the EU regulations kick in.

 

[deevey]

Can't phone makers already use a basic/stock version of Android without having to be tied to Google services (i.e. be free from Google "control")?

Yes, but in order to be useful and easy to use for the masses (Play store, Maps etc..) you need to pay up.

 

[webkit]

Yes, but in order to be useful and easy to use for the masses (Play store, Maps etc..) you need to pay up.

Yes, but that's kind of a separate matter. Google should be able to choose how/when to provide its apps and Google Play services just as Apple should be able to choose how/when it provides its App Store, Safari, Pages, etc. on other operating systems.

 

[jimtonic01]

If the reliance on the security of the App Store constitutes the primary defense against malicious applications, then the devices provide virtually no security whatsoever.

I would favor a device that maintains a reasonable degree of security even in the presence of sideloading capabilities and exhibits a greater level of autonomy from its manufacturer.

Why do so many people willingly want to be locked in? The sense of security is deceptive, and ultimately, it's all about squeezing the maximum of money out of the customers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

but serious if I make a Hardware and software its my property and my right to set it's rules. software is not politics

If you're marketing your products in a duopoly market and hundreds or thousands of other businesses are depending on your hardware/software platform, you will be eventually regulated - and restrictions be placed on how you set your rules.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

If you're marketing your products in a duopoly market and hundreds or thousands of other businesses are depending on your hardware/software platform, you will be eventually regulated - and restrictions be placed on how you set your rules.

yes cause goverments try to take ur control of ur own hardware / software from u

 

[floral]

Some have been predicting that sideloading won't be added until early next year, just before the EU regulations kick in.

Oh. Okay, thanks for the answer !

 

[AppliedMicro]

yes cause goverments try to take ur control of ur own hardware / software from u

They try to do that too, to eavesdrop on chats and messenger services.

But that has got nothing to do with sideloading - by mandating sideloading, they're allowing users more control over my software.