Tim Cook says Apple 'deeply concerned' about sideloading and privacy

[iMore.com]

Apple CEO Tim Cook says that the company is "deeply concerned" about laws that could force sideloading on iOS, forsaking user privacy in the process.

Full story from the iMore Blog...

 

[Annie_M]

I am concerned about this as well.

 

[metllicamilitia]

Well, for one, you can already sideload on iOS. It's just not easy to find the .iap and you need to use a computer. If these laws made Apple change things to make .iap's easily available and able to be downloaded and installed directly on device like Android, that would be great. Apple is only concerned about losing profit as companies like Epic would just have everyone sideload their games and bypass the App Store cut of profits and Apple wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They just hide this under the guise of "privacy concerns" that they never seem to mention. The ones that were mentioned are a concern regardless of how apps are installed.

 

[Up_And_Away]

“ Apple is only concerned about losing profit”

No, full stop. Yes, Apple is very concerned about profit as all for profit companies are (there’s this bizarre belief in some circles that Apple is unique in pursuit of profit. Bizarre indeed). However Apple sells the feature of privacy and makes that point loudly. Apple at any point before fairly recently could have taken the Facebook, Google, Epic, now Amazon (and hundreds or more of other smaller companies) route of vacuuming up user specific data that in today’s market would probably be in the 20+ billion revenue. This would translate to better than 10B in profit (it’s high profit revenue as can be seen from the earnings reports of those other companies not as interested in profit as Apple). Apple didn’t go that route. Apple chose to make a selling point of significantly higher privacy AND security, which they have factually done much better beyond competition. Sideloading indisputably undercuts the security and privacy feature, and it undercuts their very stamp of their name on their product. Companies — with Apple being a glaring example — go through a lot over many years to protect their brand name. You want to call that only profit motivated? then every single action by any company is profit motivated.

By the way, “Apple wouldn’t be able to do anything about it” is odd, no? Who ever writes the OS most certainly has something they can do. (The u.s. law has a “security” exception).
interesting to note not once did Epic (or Facebook or any others foaming at the mouth to sideload onto biggest closed hardware-software ecosystem user base on the planet) get mentioned as motivated by profit for getting their app on Apple products without supposed limit. Just Apple I guess? Disregard that these companies are prolific harvesters of user specific data because that data is great for…what’s the word I’m looking for…..oh yea, profit (the profit by accessing your map data, call log data, browsing data, contacts data, images data among others).
But let’s come to agreement since legislating what a company must do with their product is so benevolent and beneficial. In this legislation will also be privacy. Companies like Epic and Facebook can only gather first party user specific data, period. If they attempt cross app/third party data recording then all data must be anonymized. If caught cross app/recording third party user specific data, it’s a felony as well as specifies civil court suing procedures for every user that had their data collected. Perfect, right? Apple gets to keep the privacy feature selling point and Epic can sideload. In 3..2..1… there’s Epic, Facebook, the app fairness coalition and a host of others collectively saying “let’s forget the whole thing” along with “it’s our app, our product, our user experience we are providing for our users. Not fair for government to intervene in that”. Huh, what other company could use that argument?

 

[metllicamilitia]

Apple could do something about stopping a company like Epic from selling directly to used and bypassing Apple's thirty percent cut.....if it stays only in the App Store. Once your app no longer needs to be housed and monitored by the App Store, you can sell directly to your users and Apple can't stop you. This is absolutely Apple's biggest concern. The privacy and "security" is simply a byproduct of that. I don't need to write a book to point that out either.

 

[Up_And_Away]

Understood. Then a company painting the walls of any of their offices, providing coffee or lunches for their employees, providing them parking spaces, joining coalitions is all a byproduct from the hunt for profit. Every single action they perform is a byproduct in the hunt for profit. Then that seems to be ad misericodiam to point out Apple, and only Apple, is about the money in a conversation about 2 company’s motives. Ok, so Epic’s motivation is entirely about the profit. It has nothing to do about their users. Whatever they’re doing for their users is simply a byproduct for more profit. Side note: The App “fairness” coalition they started and the other companies in it are all about the profit (see above). Or do I have that all wrong and Epic’s is a different and benevolent motive?
And I am saying that he who creates and controls the operating system has a bit more than “well it’s out of our hands now”. If you disagree then we’ll agree to disagree. But I’ll point out this: an Epic app will still run on iOS, no? And the company, Apple, who some obviously feel has a uniquely pernicious motive for profit, this money seeking on steroids company also happens to entirely write and control that iOS, (and the hardware) will just say “gee fellas, you win, keep your money”(ironically, just go to the Epic store to get your app)? I think you’ll find money grubbers don’t quite so easily give up money especially when they own the only bridge into AppleLand. Let’s hypothesize: let’s say Apple makes their own version of what is called “sideloading”. Now You and Epic may just not like that and say they can’t do that. So the legislation you’re very happy about has the term completely defined and the IOS code defined? There’s no gray area for a money grubbing legal team to parse? Creating something different than you are expecting and demanding? Or did I miss the legislation being bandied about that now doesn’t contain qualifiers and exceptions such as “security” and does say you can’t charge a penny under any circumstance?
We Weill see what we see. I mean no offense, genuinely mean no offense, but I’d not start popping your champagne corks quite yet. Apple tends not to just roll over for, for example, Epic or Google Android users who frequently demand Apple must be more like them.

 

[metllicamilitia]

I'm not sure where this 2 companies or more idea is coming from. I would say the same thing for every company. That's literally why Epic went on their sueing spree and doing what they do. That's also the only reason I used them in my comments. However, this article is about Apple and side loading. So yes, the brunt of my comments are aimed at Apple in the comment section of an article about Apple. I also completely agree that Apple will do whatever they can to prevent true side loading. We can not see eye to eye on it all you want, but the point remains. If you buy something from Target then Walmart can't do anything about that product. In the case of true side loading, you download the app installation file from a website, then install directly from your device, on your device, and it does not touch the App Store. They are coming from completely different sources. See earlier in my reply about how Apple will absolutely do everything to prevent this. They will do that to maintain control and keep their 30% cut of in-app sales. In regard to your comment about buying from the Epic store, no. You cannot buy from the Epic store and have it on iOS. Not in terms of software, maybe some other things, but not software, not subscriptions, nada. Anything sold in the App Store or in-app on iOS gives Apple a 30% cut. When Epic bypassed this Apple removed them from the App Store for violating the ToS. You may say, sure it's because they violated the ToS, however, the only ToS that was violated was the one that took Apple's cut away.

 

[Ledsteplin]

I don't believe it's about security at all. Why would Apple be concerned about my security, if I'm not? All of it is about profit. Apple just won't tell you that.

 

[Ledsteplin]

I am concerned about this as well.

Why would you be concerned, if you're not side loading anything? If a user wants to take that risk, I say let them. I would wager most side load apps are safe.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Business 101: The primary objective of any business is to offer a product and/or service at a profit. The loss of profits can hurt the standing of a company and cause investors to withdraw and that is why they fight so hard against anything and anyone they consider detrimental.

The advertisement business is probably the best example I can think of. They don’t care about you, me or any other consumer. They care only about getting theirs ads to you whether you want to see them or not.

As for Apple, it doesn't want to lose out on the money it generates from controlling its App Store. I don’t know how true it is, but I read somewhere that the App Store generates 1 billion dollars a week. If so, why would Apple want to give that up? It wouldn’t, in my opinion.