Tim Cook: Users Who Want To Sideload Apps Can Use Android (macrumors.com) 271
Amid a heightened amount of scrutiny and tension surrounding the App Store and how users download and install apps on the iPhone, Apple CEO Tim Cook said today that customers who wish to sideload apps should consider purchasing an Android device as the experience offered by the iPhone maximizes their security and privacy. From a report: Speaking at The New York Times "DealBook" summit, Cook said that customers currently already have a choice between wanting a secure and protected platform or an ecosystem that allows for sideloading. "I think that people have that choice today, Andrew. If you want to sideload, you can buy an Android phone." Cook drew the comparison of sideloading to a carmaker selling a car without airbags or seatbelt, saying it would be "too risky." "I think that people have that choice today, Andrew, if you want to sideload, you can buy an Android phone. That choice exists when you go into the carrier shop. If that is important to you, then you should buy an Android phone. From our point of view, it would be like if I were an automobile manufacturer telling [a customer] not to put airbags and seat belts in the car. He would never think about doing this in today's time. It's just too risky to do that. And so it would not be an iPhone if it didn't maximize security and privacy," he said.
Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
You want a side loading ecosystem where it's easy for the average user to compromise system security, go get Android and knock yourself out.
Leave those of us that want a system we know our elderly relatives cannot easily self-compromise just one system, the iPhone, that we feel can be reasonably secure without having to review what is installed every week.
Why do people feel the need to make every single phone OS on the planet work exactly the same. Let there be differences, so people have real choice.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
so people have real choice.
Choice...like in having a choice of installing your own applications? Yep, Android does have that.
Re: (Score:2)
so people have real choice.
Choice...like in having a choice of installing your own applications? Yep, Android does have that.
Which means you buy an Android! If that is what gives you great pleasure, buy a freaking android, and you can install anything you want to install.
Because the People that hate Apple don't really care about Apple's process, they simply hate Apple with a white hot spittle flaked passion, and want Apple to die and go away.
I remember when guys would get into fistfights because one loved Chevys, and the other Fords. Oh they were just a passionate. The best car was based on who won the fistfight.
And here
Re: Damn Straight (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you can load your own apps if you want to pay $99 for the privilege of using your own code. Or three apps for a period of seven days before having to muddle with it.
Re: Damn Straight (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you're not a developer you don't have the choice on iOS. The vast majority of iOS users aren't developers, so iOS effectively doesn't have that choice.
Why do people always try to argue with outliers or special cases?
Re: Damn Straight (Score:2)
For instance, in order not to pay Apple 30% in protection money on every purchase.
Re: Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-developers can't sideload apps, but almost none of them have any desire to do so.
Side-loading is a means to an end. Nobody wants to side-load for its own sake.
People want cross platform app stores like they exist in the PC world, in competition with each other. Lots of customers want that. How do we get these stores? Side-loading would be a means to that, but it is hardly the only one imaginable.
Likewise, some customers want adult themed apps that apple refuses to host in its app store, these customers just want the apps, they certainly don't necessarily have any specific desire to "side-load them" but they DO want a way to get them.
If people want to live in a walled garden, they should have the freedom to do so.
So let them actively choose whether the garden has walls or not. If you think people want to live in a walled garden, why are you afraid to give them the choice.
People want iphones for a decent variety of reasons. From ease of use to the camera to familiarity, to app lock-in like the fact that the their friends and family use imessage or facetime, or the fact that their car has apple carplay but not android auto support.
SOME people may want to live in a walled garden, but its fallacious to point of absurdity to argue that everyone who buys an iphone wants the walled garden. I'm skeptical it's even something MOST iphone users want.
Perhaps more importantly, side-loading is actually orthogonal to security. For example, it would be entirely possible for apple to require all apps be submitted and vetted for functionality, malware, proper permissions, etc *without* requiring that they be exclusively distributed through the app store.
For example, it would be entirely feasible for apple to allow side-loading, but still require all apps side-loaded be vetted and signed before they could actually be installed and run. This would allow for all the security of the walled garden, while allowing developers to opt in or out of whether to distribute and monetize via the app store. If something malicious or illegal slipped in, apple could still revoke the cert or hash or whatever the means was; maintaining security and platform control.
What would be the point of that?
Then Apple could for example, exclude "adult apps" from the app store, while still allowing users who wanted them to get them and install them. Or Epic could submit its app for vetting to demonstrate that it wasn't malware, and take on their own distribution, and transaction processing from there. Steam could likewise launch a multi-platform mobile store, and apple would just need to attest that it played properly with apple devices. Any additional apps steam users bought and installed on their phone... would each likewise need to be vetted... vetted by apple but not distributed by apple. The two need not be bundled.
It would be pretty damned simple to separate apple's app vetting and security from apple application hosting and distribution. And the only thing preventing this happening is apple doesn't want to do it, and nobody else in the market can do it because apple has locked them out.
If you have an app and you want to distribute it without Apple's approval, there is a simple way to do so: Develop it with WASM so that your users can run it in Safari.
I mean sure, Bill, WASM as a platform limits the access to canvas.This means accessibility (screen readers) are not supported and that text inputs won't trigger virtual keyboards. You're also giving up pretty basic functionality like push notifications to users while the screen is locked or safari isn't in the foreground. This is all really basic stuff... WASM has its place, but you've got to be kidding me.
Re: Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Side-loading is a means to an end. Nobody wants to side-load for its own sake.
Side loading is just a soundbite excuse that those who hate Apple and want the company to die use as a "reason" for their righteous outrage.
If it is so important that you side load, then buy an android phone. This will make you really happy. Do not buy a phone that will cause you rage.
Having both Android and Apple, hey - they work. I don't sideload on my Android because trusting anything sideloaded is more trust than I can muster.
Re: (Score:2)
If people want to live in a walled garden, they should have the freedom to do so.
Of course people should have the freedom to. But people should also have the freedom to sideload on their phone if they want to.
Someone sideloading an app on THEIR phone does not infringe on your freedom to not sideload.
Google has a warning when you enable sideloading. Google also has a secret developer mode hidden where you have to go
and tap 7 times on a certain setting to enable it so the average user doesn't accidentally enable it.
Apple could do something similar where there is a big warning and a mult
Re: Damn Straight (Score:5, Interesting)
> If you want to let others install your Apps though, you need to have your apps checked for maliciousness or bad code.
Don't forget political correctness and/or affiliation. Ask InfoWars or Parler.
Basically, if you want to be treated like a child, get an iPhone.
The only issue is that Apple does not disclose that specifically in the user agreement, so they're in violation of the 'reasonable person' standard when they breach their user agreement with that kind of censorship.
If they were up front about it that would be fine. Like scanning your device for Let's Go Brandon memes and reporting them to DoJ. Oh, wait, too soon.
Re: (Score:2)
So wait, rile me up sure as heck isn't gaining my business, now is it. Why would Apple purposely try to rile up a potential customer?
Also, the platform shouldn't be responsible for the user's posts. If a user is inciting violence, the someone should notify the police in the posters district or if they are threatening someone across state lines, possibly the FBI.
At most, the platform should give up all data after they get a warrant and not before.
You know, like how Apple is about working with the FBI on susp
Re: Damn Straight (Score:2)
have your apps checked for maliciousness or bad code. That is what Apple users pay Apple to do.
Apple doesn't actually do that. Their review process pretty much just checks if the app does anything that impacts apple's business model, and they don't even do that all that well.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a developer you can install your own apps on iOS too. If you want to let others install your Apps though, you need to have your apps checked for maliciousness or bad code. That is what Apple users pay Apple to do.
Exactly. I've written a few for my phone. But my main thing is that there is a level of trust I am willing to pay for with Apple. It seems silly that if a person doesn't like Apple, they can just go buy an Android, and all of their problems with phones will disappear. Right? Right?
Re: Key words (Score:2)
So who elseâ(TM)s is clamoring for apps that arenâ(TM)t available in the App Store? They are power users (android) or developers. Donâ(TM)t try to argue outliers, vast majority of iPhone users appreciate the walled garden approach, and pay for that experience.
Re: (Score:3)
There are several side-loaded apps popular with non-developers. This include 3rd party play stores apps, KODI apps, and apps that wouldn't otherwise be approved by Apple like vnc servers, porn apps, etc... as well as apps for specific niche industries or niche populations that might need weird permissions like screen readers, connections to scientific instruments, etc.... You can look at the apps commonly sideloaded on android to get an idea of the reasons people need to sideload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What about subjects related to pornography? It seems that Apple is a bit behind the times in this regard and should either update it's policies or allow people to sideload those types of apps. They shouldn't be dictating morality.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Cook's example falls flat. Car manufacturers install air bag because they are required by law, not because it's good optics. Apple doesn't want to give the ability to sideload apps, not because of safety or any other bullshit excuse. It's 100% vendor lock in, nothing else, not even remotely anything else.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's 100% vendor lock in, nothing else, not even remotely anything else.
Obviously. But like any good cult leader, Cook know how to lie convincingly to his disciples.
Just jailbreak them (Score:2)
Apple doesn't want to give the ability to sideload apps, not because of safety or any other bullshit excuse. It's 100% vendor lock in, nothing else, not even remotely anything else.
Not to mention all but the newest iPhones can be jailbroken to run any apps the user desires. If iPhones were so incredibly secure, jailbreaking would not even be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not to mention all but the newest iPhones can be jailbroken to run any apps the user desires. If iPhones were so incredibly secure, jailbreaking would not even be possible."
Nobody cares about jailbraking as long as they can't read any original data.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention all but the newest iPhones can be jailbroken to run any apps the user desires.
Sure, but that also voids the warranty. So if the unapproved app bricks your phone, that's your problem. Apple doesn't have to spend money to fix your screwup.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be more like making it impossible for anyone but the dealer to access the oil to do an oil change, just in case the user or a third-party garage might possible mess up the oil change. Coincidentally, the dealers must pay 20% per oil change to the manufacturer for the privilege of changing the oil.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should it be law you can sideload apps?
Apple has stated from the beginning that they will need to review every app, and the position hasn't changed. Google has made it clear they aren't doing
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on Android and I don't have any need to side-load, but it sure is nice to know the option is available. That alone is reason enough to avoid Apple, as if I didn't already have 30 years of reasons not to.
Me too (Score:2)
I sincerely don't want yo side load apps on the device I need to absolutely trust . ( as my you as you can actually trust anything ).
And I don't want there to be some chinks in this Armor. If app makers get uppity and refuse to go via the App Store then I get into a quadratic when there's some app I want but it's not available on the App Store only via side load . I don't want that to be an option. Everybody needs to come in through the same airlock and no special treatment because an app maker wants to
Re: (Score:3)
It absolutely would be 'well don't use an app like that'. The way you talk you'd think Google Play Store would barely have any apps because sideloading exists. On the contrary, despite the option developers tend to avoid that requirement. Because there is a rather reasonably scary warning about sideloading. The exception are apps that can't get into either store (e.g. the youtube app that skips ads) and personally developed applications. If something does go awry on your Android device and you never went
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of "well don't use an app like that" if it becomes some app that's too significant to ignore.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Everybody claims that Apple should be able to do what they want, because Android exists. However, iOS has a marketshare that is *far* too significant for a developer to ignore.
As for any important app deciding to not go through the App store, the only time it's going to happen is when Apple's policies are too draconian. Not in the 'we don't allow malware', or 'We don't allow you to get private info', but 'We don't allow porn', 'We're going to charge you an unreasonable cut'
Re: (Score:2)
However, iOS has a marketshare that is *far* too significant for a developer to ignore.
26%. [statista.com]
Which isn't all that different than the 15% MacOS [statcounter.com] share. So clearly, every Windows application has been ported to MacOS, right?
'We're going to charge you an unreasonable cut
On the XBox store, the Sony Playstation store, Google Play store (until last month), and all the other significant stores, it's 30%.
"unreasonable" is a very odd way of spelling "typical".
This is proven out by the Play Store, which has pretty much exactly the same policies as Apple's, and everything the vast majority would want is on there.
Great, so what's the problem? Just like Tim Cook says, people can buy an Android if they don't like what Apple is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
More people use Android than iPhone.
FTFY (Score:2)
Leave you to a system for people too stupid to not load dodgy apps. Apple is screwed in Europe anyway. It's anticompetitive business actions are going to be deconstructed bit by bit. But seriously, glad for you that you have more dollars than sense. I guess that balances across America who love corporations over people, all the way to China, where Apple will suck a dick to get in, and screw the idea of not working with autocrats who will supply them with slave labour. Keep up with the Apple righteousness.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You want a side loading ecosystem where it's easy for the average user to compromise system security, go get Android and knock yourself out.
This does not address why half of the smartphone users in the US should be denied the opportunity to install software from sources other than Apple.
Leave those of us that want a system we know our elderly relatives cannot easily self-compromise just one system, the iPhone, that we feel can be reasonably secure without having to review what is installed every week.
So your justification for denying half of the smartphone users in the US the ability to install software from sources other than Apple is you don't know how to administratively disable installing software from external sources?
Why do people feel the need to make every single phone OS on the planet work exactly the same. Let there be differences, so people have real choice.
What does the ability to install software have to do with unique features of an operating system?
There is substantial evidence that both
Re: (Score:2)
you don't know how to administratively disable installing software from external sources?
It's even worse than that. It would be being afraid of somehow accidentally allowing sideloading and then subsequently allowing the installation of each apk by mistake. Sideloading is allowed sure but it makes every effort to scare you along the way to make sure you know what you are getting into.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Do your elderly relatives go into security settings and explicitly enable installation of apks from uknown sources? No? Then it's not an issue for their security and they'll be more likely to get owned by something "curated" by the app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on avoiding being conscripted into family tech support.
If you actually had, you'd know that those same elderly relatives will absolutely refuse to let you turn on parental controls because of the word "parental".
Re: (Score:2)
My relatives aren't that fucking stupid and most of them are past 65.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:5, Informative)
How often has iCloud been hacked vs Google cloud?
Apple's app store often has malware that passes their checks. It's no better than Google's as far as I can see.
Apple's security isn't particularly good. If this is about security at all then it's a crutch, not an advantage.
Re:Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't easy to accidentally side load apps on an Android. You have to purposely go to an alternate source of apps (e.g. alternate app store or a website offering apk) and then agree to the warning about side loading such apps. If your elderly relatives are able to do this on a weekly basis maybe they are smarter than you give them credit for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually harder than that. You have to enable side loading, and then you need to give whatever app you used to download the APK permission to install other apps. If you use Chrome to download the APK you also have to confirm you want to do it too.
Re: (Score:2)
They are plenty qualified to totally fuck themselves over. Which is why it's nice when the OS won't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave those of us that want a system we know our elderly relatives cannot easily self-compromise just one system, the iPhone
I'm not sure if you're ignorant of security, ignorant of the iPhone, or both. But I do know one thing: Ignorance is clearly bliss, and you seem to be quite blissfully happy with your iToy.
Also why would your elderly relatives suddenly self-compromise bypassing multiple warnings and jumping through several hoops because they have something? Are their train tracks where they live? Do they feel an obsessive compulsion to lay down on them just because they are there? What is wrong with them that would suddenly
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they need more help than just Tim Cook's curation.
That problem has already been solved and is used extensively by parents to limit their childrens' iPhones, it's called Parental Controls. It seems these people just want Apple to be their parents (or the guardians of their elderly parents).
Re: (Score:2)
You want a side loading ecosystem where it's easy for the average user to compromise system security, go get Android and knock yourself out.
Leave those of us that want a system we know our elderly relatives cannot easily self-compromise just one system, the iPhone, that we feel can be reasonably secure without having to review what is installed every week.
How about a compromise? Make sideloading an inconvenient, multi-step process with plenty of dire warnings. This would prevent technopeasants from accidentally loading malware, and would scare off all but the most stalwart and/or geekiest users. The majority of iPhone users would experience no difference whatsoever. The few who know what they're doing and/or want to take a chance can still do so.
Why do people feel the need to make every single phone OS on the planet work exactly the same. Let there be diffe
If you're elderly relatives are side loading (Score:2)
If you're relatives are being tricked into all that then they've also given up their SSN, Mom's Maiden and Bank details.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not strictly about security, it's about maintaining the integrity of the walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sideloading is just part of the broader issue of being allowed to control your own devices.
Make no mistake - you have just been manipulated to go against right to repair.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave those of us that want a system we know our elderly relatives cannot easily self-compromise just one system
One of the biggest scams targeting vulnerable people is phone scams, an option to limit calls to only known numbers and/or a secure and traceable VOIP system(s) like FaceTime and iMessage but for voice (is there already a FaceTime voice?) which would be a huge help to mitigate these scams. That setting, along with App Store settings (for installation from third party stores) could be alongside all the existing restrictions in the Parental Controls.
You can dumb the whole platform down to cater to the dumbest
Re: Damn Straight (Score:3)
Most android "malware" comes from the Play store, not from sideloading. So the "safety" from iOS is not from denying "end users" from sideloading. Being able to side load means apple missing out on the 30% cut. Or you can believe the what tim apple is saying.
Who said easy? Let's talk "real choice" then. (Score:3)
I acknowledge that your use case is important and you should have access to devices that let you do that. I don't think it needs to come at the
We do. (Score:3)
Thanks, Tim.
Re:We do. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, he just said "you're holding it wrong" to all those who want to load apps outside their lockdown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, he just said "you're holding it wrong" to all those who want to load apps outside their lockdown.
Nah he's said "you're holding the wrong one" and followed it up by supporting a feature of his competitors which the iPhone doesn't offer.
Clarification needed (Score:2)
So in other words, if you have an iPhone and get into a car accident you'll be ok?
Well what about Macs then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Then why do you allow people to sideload apps on Macs?
Because PCs evolved before App Stores, so it's expected.
What's the difference between a Mac and an iPad
The operating system, the interface, the form factor, the interface, and the fact that it evolved after the creation of App Stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you allow people to sideload apps on Macs? What's the difference between a Mac and an iPad (which you literally advertise as a general purpose computer equivalent)?
Don't give them any ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well what about Macs then? (Score:4, Informative)
There are several reasons, but not least of which is that phones are an order of magnitude more popular and available to people than desktop computers have ever been. Almost everyone has a smartphone now. If a person only has one computer, it's likely to be a smartphone.
A smartphone is a limited device. In Apple's conception, it's supposed to be the most reliable, least dangerous computer you have. You buy it and it works reliably to do some number of small tasks.
Desktop computers, as I'm sure you already know, are much more powerful and are used for many more things than phones are, or even can be. iPads are a step up from phones, but Apple still only releases XCode for Macs. You know what you're getting into if you buy a Mac.
It may be that in Apple's idealized future, the Mac is locked down as well, but I think they know that the ability to create software and do research and any number of other similar things are only possible in a mostly unfettered environment.
tl;dr phones and macs aren't the same and you know it; well, so does Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you allow people to sideload apps on Macs?
Because Apple's customers expect to be able to use a Mac as a general-purpose computing device.
Apple's customers expect an iPhone to be a reasonably secure communication device.
They aren't used for the same purposes.
In both cases, Apple is giving its customers what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do you allow people to sideload apps on Macs?
Legacy which takes a while to overcome. Just look at the history of Macs and specifically the Mac Gatekeeper.
Many Years ago: Install whatever the fuck you want.
Years ago: Install whatever you want, but you get a message if it's not co-signed.
Recently: Install whatever you want, but Gatekeeper will prevent you from doing so automatically, you first need enable Allow Apps from "Anywhere" in your security settings.
Very recently: Install apps from App store and identified developers only. If you want to do anyt
Re: (Score:2)
âoe Very recently: Install apps from App store and identified developers only. If you want to do anything else you need to manually add an exception. No longer can you set Macs to by default allow executing unsigned code.â
Not strictly true, right click on the newly installed app and you can still open it even when it isnâ(TM)t signed and it gets added as an exception.
Malware (Score:3, Insightful)
Plain and simple. If an entity other than the owner of the device has more control than the owner, then it is malware. Both Apple and Android phones have preloaded malware from the day you get it. You shouldn't be forced to fight your operating system to adblock or run firewalls or override the security of an app or do local backups if you don't want your shit in the cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
If an entity other than the owner of the device has more control than the owner, then it is malware.
Which makes every computer running a piece of software with an update mechanism malware, including Linux. Sorry but your definition of malware is now so broad as to be completely pointless.
And developers should? (Score:2)
Oddly, I agree with this. (Score:3)
I'm a guy who likes running their own software, writing their own software, making changes, etc. on my computer. I moved off of Windows back in the XP days because it became clear that I was going to lose more and more control over my OS. (Those forced Windows Updates drove me over the edge...)
However, I like having a phone that stays phone-like and is locked down. I'd like to be able to play FLAC files on my iPhone, but I can live without that. I can live with just using Safari as a browser. I consider my phone to be tertiary to my computing lifestyle, so if I want to do specific things on my phone, I just don't do it. It's worth it to me to not worry about that.
I hope this makes sense- honestly, until I read the summary, I hadn't thought much about how I care A LOT about what I can do with my computer and very little about what I can do on my phone!
Re: (Score:2)
However, I like having a phone that stays phone-like and is locked down.
Allowing side-loading doesn't prevent the phone from being locked-down for people who want it locked down.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing a mechanism to unlock sideloading means those of us who have been conscripted into family tech support will have a lot more shit to clean up.
I'd understand the ranting if there was no alternative, but as he points out, there is an alternative for people who want that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing a mechanism to unlock sideloading means those of us who have been conscripted into family tech support will have a lot more shit to clean up.
Has this been a problem for you with Android? If not, then you're full of shit.
Re:Oddly, I agree with this. (Score:4, Informative)
I hope this makes sense- honestly, until I read the summary, I hadn't thought much about how I care A LOT about what I can do with my computer and very little about what I can do on my phone!
I get what you're saying but no it doesn't make sense because you can't sideload apps by default on Android either, you need to explicitly enable that in the settings. If you want your phone to remain a walled garden, you literally don't need to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who have been conscripted into family tech support know just how often our "users" fuck everything up. You give them a dangerous switch, and they're going to flip it.
Second, the availability of side-loading means someone will publish Super Candy Crush or whatever, it will only be available via side-loading, and come complete with embedded malware. There will also be detailed instructions on how to enable side-loading and install their "game", which have been dumbed-down enough so that it gets
Terrible analogy (Score:5, Informative)
"Choice" (Score:2)
This sort of arrogance reminds me of the reason Jobs gave as to why they had to approve every app, and what type they'd allow/reject: "Freedom from porn!", he said at the time.
To me it sounded more like "Freedom from choice!"
Re: (Score:2)
Then buy an Android.
I find it fascinating that people who obviously don't own iOS devices are so concerned about what other people can do with their iOS devices. If sideloading was important to them, they would have bought an Android too.
Re: (Score:2)
Then buy an Android.
I find it fascinating that people who obviously don't own iOS devices are so concerned about what other people can do with their iOS devices. If sideloading was important to them, they would have bought an Android too.
I do have Android.
And what I find facinating is how people are buying up Apple's excuses labelled as "choice" unquestioned, and if anyone does question them, its fanboys go into full-on attack mode (no, not necessarily you, but some of the comments on here... oh boy!).
Re: (Score:2)
I do have Android.
And just like every other Android owner on slashdot, I eagerly await your edict on the only proper way to use a phone/tablet. While also being utterly dismissive of other people's choices, and not giving a shit about their reasons, instead assuming that they can't possibly have thought this through.
And what I find facinating is how people are buying up Apple's excuses labelled as "choice" unquestioned
There it is. Now we just need the massive victimhood complex...
its fanboys go into full-on attack mode
And now the post is complete.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. I have both (Score:2)
Yeah, I do have both Android and iOS devices (mainly macOS/iOS developer day job), so your attempts to paint me as ignorant about either falls pretty flat on its face.
(P.S.S. And no, I don't have to explain myself to you or anyone else, just as I don't expect any from you.)
Re: (Score:3)
When given the choice, a majority of people make poor choices. For an example, consider the last 25+ years of Windows. Where users would install any old garbage they download, from new cursors to desktop mates. And then we wonder how the computer is stuffed with viruses, malware, search bar "plugins", and other trash. We live in a world where people are washing and reselling latex gloves. There almost has to be a big brother out there to keep the predators from ripping us all off. (OTOH, you have to be nuts
Re: (Score:2)
"When given the choice, a majority of people make poor choices."
That's absolutely the case. But is this our problem? The issue I have with the iphone and apple products in general is that they tend to frustrate the knowledgeable power user. That it allows people to make mistakes, well, shrug.
Just recently I turned in my Macbook at work for a Dell. Not because I love windows. I hate Windows. I absolutely hate Windows. To be clear, I absolutely, positively, hate Windows.
But I was just tired of trying
If you want flexibility, then I don't want you... (Score:2, Informative)
That is the message Tim Cook is proclaiming, It is troubling to hear that from a CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be the thing to say these days. Like writers saying "if you don't like my politics, don't buy my stuff." Ok, then. Problem solved.
I'm reminded of when daughter was in high school, and she and all her friends had phones, and virtually none of them were iphones. The reason, she tells me, being that all iphones look and act exactly the same. Android phones were easier to make distinct.
Um, ok, Tim. (Score:2)
We'll do that.
I'm anti-Apple, and I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
As one of the rabid anti-Apple people around here, I agree with Tim Cook on this.
Apple's not tricking their customers into this arrangement; it's something the customers choose.
Choice is good. Apple should absolutely be allowed to do this, and people who don't like it can buy from the competition.
Install Android on iPhones? (Score:2)
Re: Good job Tim ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. It's just like removing other features, like battery replacement followed by degrading performance in software for older batteries so they could sell more new phones, or removing headphone jack so they could sell expensive bluetooth headphones which still don't have a proper high quality low latency mode so you can game with audio in sync and without having to manually calibrate audio offset for each bluetooth headphones when watching video.
Money talks and after "you're holding it wrong" fiasco,
Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
Users: Maybe You Should Have Bought The Right Tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim Cook is offering a hammer. People that want to sideload are demanding a screwdriver.
Apple doesn't sell screwdrivers, only hammers. If you want a screwdriver, you have to buy some other brand. Stop blaming Apple for not selling screwdrivers. They TOLD YOU that you were getting a hammer.
Why are you demanding that the hammers be used as screwdrivers? What do you even like about hammers so much that you would RATHER buy a hammer and TRY to use it as a screwdriver? Worse, why are you trying to make it so that those of us that buy hammers because we want and like hammers are instead forced to buy a screwdriver. If I wanted a screwdriver--which I don't--I'd buy one, because I know what tools I want.
I will never understand this attitude that a company should make exactly the product you want, and if they don't, you won't just go buy something else, you'll demand that they make the thing that you want. They don't owe that to you. Buy something else.
Re: Users: Maybe You Should Have Bought The Right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
That is why there is a Mac Mini in the stereo cabinet, and the main PC runs Linux.
The Mini lacks enough USB ports, storage, and a DVD drive to be my main machine. Although I could build a stereo cabinet NUC with Linux by the time I'm done it would cost as much as a used mini, and be more complicated to run.
My phone is a old fashioned flip phone. Why? Because in my judgment that is the best option for my use case. I don't need a thousand dollar phone, and the tiny screens are hard to read.
There is no
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Users: Maybe You Should Have Bought The Right T (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more like Tim Cook is offering a hammer, but said hammer will only work with nails purchased by Tim Cook. An then claiming that this is justified because otherwise his indestructible hammer will break.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't buy one.
You are not harmed by other people making another choice. Especially when that other choice only has 26% market share.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assume that? Now you're just arbitrarily modifying the analogy. But fine, I can play ball.
Apple sells Robertson screwdrivers (and it IS Robertson, not 'Robinson') and other manufacturers make multi-tip screwdrivers. Apple has told you that they're not going to make a screwdriver with any other kind of tip, and you're complaining that they don't let you swap tips, even though you own the screwdriver. They're not telling you that you can't do what you want with it, they're telling you that they
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite. Apple's devices are fashion accessories first. And fashion is often specifically designed to be uncomfortable, and not very utilitarian. It's to demonstrate that its user can handle it even with those problems.
This will be taken in the same vein as "you're holding it wrong", "you're not supposed to user replace the battery but buy a new phone" and "you're not supposed to use cheap and ugly wired head phones".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually his argument is exactly the opposite in this case, since the government would mandate that sideloading is illegal. i.e. it's illegal to sell cars without security.
Re: (Score:3)
so I guess by his own argument, he'd welcome sideloading if it was mandated
No. He is saying the opposite. In his analogy, the BAN on sideloading is equivalent to having airbags. So the car analogy equivalent would be for the government to make the "safe" decision for you and ban sideloading on Android as well.