Sideloading is not evil - it's what almost all the common consumer operating systems do

[Andy Burnelli]

For the permanent Usenet record... and for others to discuss...

*Sideloading is not evil* ...in fact... *sideloading is normal*

Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single common
consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any developer's
URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS. Nobody else.

It needs to be repeated because "sideloading" isn't anything special.
*No other operating system disallows installing a package by URL but iOS*

The reason I make this point is that sideloading isn't something evel; it's
not something risky; it's not something special. It's quite normal.

It's only considered "evil" on one consumer operating system & one alone.

We could go into _why_ Apple considers installing an executable by URL
evil, since it plays into Apple's overall strategy of making money off of
limiting the consumers' choices - but suffice to say sideloading is normal.

*Only in one operating system is installing a non-mothership app evil*
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully explain that sideloading is not evil.

[John]

On 4/2/2023 4:49 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> For the permanent Usenet record... and for others to discuss...
>   *Sideloading is not evil* ...in fact... *sideloading is normal*
>
> Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single
> common consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any
> developer's URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS.
> Nobody else.
>
> It needs to be repeated because "sideloading" isn't anything special.
> *No other operating system disallows installing a package by URL but iOS*
>
> The reason I make this point is that sideloading isn't something evel;
> it's not something risky; it's not something special. It's quite normal.
>
> It's only considered "evil" on one consumer operating system & one alone.
>
> We could go into _why_ Apple considers installing an executable by URL
> evil, since it plays into Apple's overall strategy of making money off
> of limiting the consumers' choices - but suffice to say sideloading is
> normal.
>  *Only in one operating system is installing a non-mothership app evil*

Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.

[Big Dog]

On 4/3/2023 9:52 PM, John wrote:

> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.

Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.

[Alan]

I'm going to need a cite for that, sunshine.

[Cecil Westerhof]

But you do not have to do the equivalent for:

Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.

Curious indeed.

--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof

[Alan]

On 2023-04-03 21:30, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> writes:
>
>> On 2023-04-03 19:04, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2023 9:52 PM, John wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a
>>> row.
>>
>> I'm going to need a cite for that, sunshine.
>
> But you do not have to do the equivalent for:
> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>
> Curious indeed.
>

On is purely opinion and one states a testable proposition.

Does that help you understand?

[Alan]

On 2023-04-03 21:30, Cecil Westerhof wrote:

> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> writes:
>
>> On 2023-04-03 19:04, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2023 9:52 PM, John wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a
>>> row.
>>
>> I'm going to need a cite for that, sunshine.
>
> But you do not have to do the equivalent for:
> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>
> Curious indeed.
>

But since you asked:

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/android-malware-apps-with-2-million-installs-spotted-on-google-play/>

<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-hook-android-malware-lets-hackers-remotely-control-your-phone/>

<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/hackers-have-developed-a-clever-new-way-to-add-malware-to-android-apps>

[Incubus]

Knowing how Apple users never understand security issues because they don't
actually read anything before they respond to it - they don't ever think
(which is why they're so excited by emoji and they ignore all iOS bugs).

Curious that not a single one of those "references" compares iOS malware to
Android malware. Maybe this alan didn't read the topic before posting?

As an example, I put into Google the same title of the last url above and
just changed Android to iOS and that alone, not surprisingly, found far
more similar articles but for iOS and not for Android.

These are just as meaningless but to make the point clear how poorly the
iOS devices handle security, let's just list them exactly as alan did.

https://thehackernews.com/2020/03/iphone-iOS-spyware.html
https://thehackernews.com/2019/04/exodus-ios-malware.html
https://thehackernews.com/2016/03/how-to-hack-iphone.html
https://thehackernews.com/2016/01/ios-apps-jspatch-hack.html
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/apple-ios-malware-apps.html
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/xcodeghost-ios-malware.html
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/ios-malware-attack.html
https://thehackernews.com/2015/10/ios-malware-attack.html
https://thehackernews.com/2015/09/ios-malware-cyber-attack.html
https://thehackernews.com/2014/11/suspected-wirelurker-ios-malware.html
https://thehackernews.com/2014/08/adthief-chinese-malware-infects-over.html
https://thehackernews.com/2020/03/iphone-iOS-spyware.html

And that's just from one up to date web site.

I'm not saying this proves how insecure iOS is nowadays compared to
Android. I'm just saying alan's response was just as meaningless.

Maybe alan didn't read the thread before he had responded?

Not only is sideloading normal on almost all computers, but the iOS devices
have been far worse in terms of malware than Android for many years now.

I guess alan thought we wouldn't notice he has no basis for his claims.
Besides, the topic is sideloading, which all normal operating systems do.

[Silvano]

Andy Burnelli hat am 03.04.2023 um 01:49 geschrieben:

> For the permanent Usenet record... and for others to discuss...
>
> *Sideloading is not evil* ...in fact... *sideloading is normal*
>
> Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single common
> consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any developer's
> URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS. Nobody else.
>
> It needs to be repeated because "sideloading" isn't anything special.
> *No other operating system disallows installing a package by URL but iOS*
>
> The reason I make this point is that sideloading isn't something evel; it's
> not something risky; it's not something special. It's quite normal.
>
> It's only considered "evil" on one consumer operating system & one alone.
>
> We could go into _why_ Apple considers installing an executable by URL
> evil, since it plays into Apple's overall strategy of making money off of
> limiting the consumers' choices - but suffice to say sideloading is normal.
>
> *Only in one operating system is installing a non-mothership app evil*

Imagine someone paying good money for linux or windows pro and then they
can only buy all their software from redhat or microsoft & nobody else.

That's ios. One company alone determines ALL your software choices.

Who would put up with that on windows or on linux or on android?

It's no wonder ios has so many software holes compared to android.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-04 08:20, Silvano wrote:

> Imagine someone paying good money for linux or windows pro and then they
> can only buy all their software from redhat or microsoft & nobody else.
>
> That's ios. One company alone determines ALL your software choices.

They don't determine your choices. You do.

They provide a free gateway for apps for your iOS (iPad) appliances.
Said gateway is accessible to all (for a nominal fee) to publish
whatever apps they like (some content conditions apply).

Said gateway scans the code for likely malware (etc), thereby providing
added value (at no charge) to iOS (iPad) users.

In the meantime, this behaviour of Apple's is so objectionable that it
sold an average 1,000,000 iPhones every 37.7 hours in 2022.

The crybabies have to pine for "how it used to be" for pitifully weak
examples of why Apple is "bad" for their s/w distribution model when the
model the crybabies hanker for is a base cause of malware distribution.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Bob Campbell]

Silvano <Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

> Imagine someone paying good money for linux or windows pro…

Anyone paying for Linux or Windows - with good or bad money - gets what
they deserve.

Operating Systems are free now for consumers. Companies pay for Windows
support and companies pay for Linux support.

No one cares about Operating Systems any more. No one buys any computer
to run an Operating System.

Besides, nearly all computers these days run Unix. Unix runs on everything
from IBM mainframes to Apple watches. All phones. All tablets. Macs.
Linux servers. The entire internet.

The planet runs on Unix. Anyone paying to be stranded on Windows Island is
a fool.

[sms]

On 4/3/2023 7:04 PM, Big Dog wrote:

<snip>

> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.

It's not true when you include sideloading.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[nospam]

In article <u0hdr1$3f65k$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.
>
> It's not true when you include sideloading.

it's also not true when you don't.

<https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-distributio
n-vector-for-most-android-malware/>
The official Google Play Store has been identified as the primary
source of malware installs on Android devices in a recent academic
study ‹ considered the largest one of its kind carried out to date.
...
The results showed that around 67% of the malicious app
installs researchers identified came from the Google Play Store.

<https://www.tomsguide.com/news/malware-hits-10-million-android-users-de
lete-these-apps-right-now>
Malware and adware continue to be a major problem on the Play Store

[Silvano]

Alan Browne hat am 04.04.2023 um 15:30 geschrieben:

>> That's ios. One company alone determines ALL your software choices.
>
> They don't determine your choices. You do.

It seems you haven't kept up on technology for about a dozen years or so.
You need to get out more often to realize the world isn't as you see it.

You are correct that you can get programs outside of the windows store even
though microsoft would love to lock you into *only* getting the apps in
their store (mostly because microsoft gets a cut on all the app costs).

But only a very scared person would put up with Microsoft determining the
choice of software available to you to put on your desktop or laptop pc.

Same with linux or android. Only a very scared person, almost always with
zero technical abilities, would want redhat or google or microsoft to make
all the decisions already for you as to what software was available to you.

> They provide a free gateway for apps for your iOS (iPad) appliances.
> Said gateway is accessible to all (for a nominal fee) to publish
> whatever apps they like (some content conditions apply).

With ios, one company alone determines your choices which nobody on windows
would put up with, nor on linux, nor on android.

The reason ios users put up with one company determining all their choices
is just that they're scared so they want that one company to make their
choices for them.

Nobody on windows or linux or android wants microsoft or redhat or google
to be the sole decision maker of what sofware choices are available to you.

> Said gateway scans the code for likely malware (etc), thereby providing
> added value (at no charge) to iOS (iPad) users.

What does scanning code for malware have to do with installing apps?
Every operating system automatically scans for malware natively nowadays.

Maybe you haven't read any news in about ten or fifteen years?

> In the meantime, this behaviour of Apple's is so objectionable that it
> sold an average 1,000,000 iPhones every 37.7 hours in 2022.

That makes sense because apple sells to people who don't know anything.
And there are a lot more of them than there are proficient people.

> The crybabies have to pine for "how it used to be" for pitifully weak
> examples of why Apple is "bad" for their s/w distribution model when the
> model the crybabies hanker for is a base cause of malware distribution.

It's only a very scared set of people who would put up with one company
determining the choice of software available to you to put on your phone.

[Jolly Roger]

Bets on whether sms adds these to his little document?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.04.23 um 04:04 schrieb Big Dog:

> On 4/3/2023 9:52 PM, John wrote:
>
>> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>
> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.

Burnelli, you are a stupid crétin.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[John]

On 4/3/2023 7:04 PM, Big Dog wrote:

LMAO!!

[Maxmillian]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 07:56:32 -0700, sms wrote:

>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.
>
> It's not true when you include sideloading.

When is the last time you owned an Android phone & installed an app?
If it's more than five years ago, then that's why you said that. :->

Things have changed a lot in the last five years with Google Play Protect.

If it's more than five years since you have touched an Android phone, you
need to catch up on how Google has improved the GPP instant & daily scans.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect

Look at the part where it makes no distinction between Google Play Store
apps and apps sideloaded from outside the Google Play Store. Same scan.

Let me know if you need to know more because it's way better than what
Apple does as Apple doesn't scan every day all the apps on the device.

[Cecil Westerhof]

Bob Campbell <nu...@none.none> writes:

> No one cares about Operating Systems any more. No one buys any computer
> to run an Operating System.

It seems I am no one.

[David E. Ross]

On 4/4/2023 9:04 AM, John wrote:
>>> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>>
>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.
>
> LMAO!!

The Apple crazies believe only Apple's propaganda but they don't realize
iOS has the most exploited security holes for about five years running.

There are so many holes in iOS that the federal government stopped asking
for a back door because iOS is so insecure the front door was already open.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat and other such vegetarian meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods. Real
meat is natural. Beyond Meat is definitely not.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 09:46, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/4/2023 9:04 AM, John wrote:
>>>> Yes and it is why Android is such a clusterfuck of malware.
>>>
>>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.
>>
>> LMAO!!
>
> The Apple crazies believe only Apple's propaganda but they don't realize
> iOS has the most exploited security holes for about five years running.

Proof please.

>
> There are so many holes in iOS that the federal government stopped asking
> for a back door because iOS is so insecure the front door was already open.

Proof please.

[David E. Ross]

On 4/4/2023 9:50 AM, Alan wrote:
>> The Apple crazies believe only Apple's propaganda but they don't realize
>> iOS has the most exploited security holes for about five years running.
>
> Proof please.

Over the past five years the number of open holes in iOS has been huge.

If you don't believe it, then you look up the number of zero day holes in
iOS (which is a dozen to fifteen a year for five years in a row!) and
compare that to Android which isn't even half of that.

Then look up the exploited holes, and you'll find half the iOS holes are
exploited because it takes Apple so long to get a release out the door.

This is widely known statistics where I'm not your personal secretary.
Either believe what everyone already knows or ignore them.

If you want to dispute stats, go and find your own stats for that since
you're the only one who doesn't know iOS has twice the holes of Android.

[sms]

On 4/4/2023 9:39 AM, Maxmillian wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 07:56:32 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>>> Android had far less malware than iOS for more than five years in a row.
>>
>> It's not true when you include sideloading.
>
> When is the last time you owned an Android phone & installed an app?
> If it's more than five years ago, then that's why you said that. :->

Uh, I own multiple Android phones right now. A Pixel 7 Pro is my main
Android device. I do sideload apps, on occasion, and use F-Droid.

[sms]

On 4/4/2023 10:47 AM, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/4/2023 9:50 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> The Apple crazies believe only Apple's propaganda but they don't realize
>>> iOS has the most exploited security holes for about five years running.
>>
>> Proof please.
>
> Over the past five years the number of open holes in iOS has been huge.
>
> If you don't believe it, then you look up the number of zero day holes in
> iOS (which is a dozen to fifteen a year for five years in a row!) and
> compare that to Android which isn't even half of that.
>
> Then look up the exploited holes, and you'll find half the iOS holes are
> exploited because it takes Apple so long to get a release out the door.
>
> This is widely known statistics where I'm not your personal secretary.
> Either believe what everyone already knows or ignore them.
>
> If you want to dispute stats, go and find your own stats for that since
> you're the only one who doesn't know iOS has twice the holes of Android.

All true, but the discussion was not about zero-day exploits it was
about side-loading apps.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 10:47, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/4/2023 9:50 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> The Apple crazies believe only Apple's propaganda but they don't realize
>>> iOS has the most exploited security holes for about five years running.
>>
>> Proof please.
>
> Over the past five years the number of open holes in iOS has been huge.

That's an "ASSERTION"

>
> If you don't believe it, then you look up the number of zero day holes in
> iOS (which is a dozen to fifteen a year for five years in a row!) and
> compare that to Android which isn't even half of that.

No...

...YOU look it up.

You're the one making the claims.

>
> Then look up the exploited holes, and you'll find half the iOS holes are
> exploited because it takes Apple so long to get a release out the door.
>
> This is widely known statistics where I'm not your personal secretary.
> Either believe what everyone already knows or ignore them.
>
> If you want to dispute stats, go and find your own stats for that since
> you're the only one who doesn't know iOS has twice the holes of Android.

You've presented no stats at all.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-04 10:17, Bob Campbell wrote:

> Besides, nearly all computers these days run Unix. Unix runs on everything
> from IBM mainframes to Apple watches. All phones. All tablets. Macs.
> Linux servers. The entire internet.
>
> The planet runs on Unix. Anyone paying to be stranded on Windows Island is
> a fool.

The planet runs on Linux. Embedded, database, servers, etc.

Unix ≠ Linux.

Windows isn't going anywhere soon. About 70% of the desktop market.
This is down overall over the years, but it's not tumbling.

While Mac OS enjoyed a rise since about the iPhone era (or the intel
era, pick one), it's pretty much plateau'd out.

Linux saturated in the desktop market a long time ago.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-04 11:23, Silvano wrote:

> It's only a very scared set of people who would put up with one company
> determining the choice of software available to you to put on your phone.

Sealion.

[Maxmillian]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 11:27:20 -0700, sms wrote:

>> When is the last time you owned an Android phone & installed an app?
>> If it's more than five years ago, then that's why you said that. :->
>
> Uh, I own multiple Android phones right now. A Pixel 7 Pro is my main
> Android device. I do sideload apps, on occasion, and use F-Droid.

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were an iPhone owner because of what you said
about sideloading malware which usually uninformed iPhone owners say.

Maybe you just didn't know that Google Play Protect scans for malware on
Android such that there is no risk from sideloading any different from
getting the app off the Google Play Store. It's the same scan for both.

Did you click on the link for what Google Play Protect does for you?
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect

If you like, you can ask me questions about GPP after you read that link.

[David E. Ross]

On 4/4/2023 8:28 PM, sms wrote:
>> If you want to dispute stats, go and find your own stats for that since
>> you're the only one who doesn't know iOS has twice the holes of Android.
>
> All true, but the discussion was not about zero-day exploits it was
> about side-loading apps.

I know it's true. All you have to do is read the news and they always say
the number of iOS zero day holes are twice that of Android and half of them
are exploited by the time Apple gets around to patching the releases.

I've seen lots of articles about malware on both iOS and Android, where
with iOS there is a lot of web kit malware which affects all web browsers.

That doesn't happen as much on Android because there are at least two
different architectures for web browsing on Android and only 1 on iOS.

Same with malware that affects teh messaging engines, since there is really
only one messenger on iOS but probably fifty to a hundred Android
messengers.

Even though it's easier for malware to attack iOS because of the limitation
in diversity, for total number of malware exploits, I'd bet they're about
the same knowing that it's a whack-a-mole job to find & remove malware.

I don't know if iOS has a built in malware scanner that runs multiple times
every day on the iPhone like the built in Android scanner does. Does it?

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 13:06, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/4/2023 8:28 PM, sms wrote:
>>> If you want to dispute stats, go and find your own stats for that since
>>> you're the only one who doesn't know iOS has twice the holes of Android.
>>
>> All true, but the discussion was not about zero-day exploits it was
>> about side-loading apps.
>
> I know it's true. All you have to do is read the news and they always say
> the number of iOS zero day holes are twice that of Android and half of them
> are exploited by the time Apple gets around to patching the releases.

Show me a single case of a news story that says what you just claimed.

[Silvano]

Alan Browne hat am 04.04.2023 um 12:04 geschrieben:
> Sealion.

You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you
the choice of choosing from. That's not a choice. That's a walled garden.

Maybe you've never heard the term walled garden but it applies to
sideloading very much because you can't sideload with iOS so you're stuck
with the choices that Apple pre selected for you inside the walled garden.

With Android, you can choose any app you like, even outside the google play
store. The google play store is another walled garden but there's nothing
stopping you from loading software outside that play store walled garden.

That's choice.
It's the same with Windows.
And the same with Linux.

None except iOS limit your app choices to only inside their walled gardens.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 13:29, Silvano wrote:
> Alan Browne hat am 04.04.2023 um 12:04 geschrieben:
>> Sealion.
>
> You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you
> the choice of choosing from. That's not a choice. That's a walled garden.

And people choose that option.

In fact, many people consider it a feature of Apple's iOS offerings.

>
> Maybe you've never heard the term walled garden but it applies to
> sideloading very much because you can't sideload with iOS so you're stuck
> with the choices that Apple pre selected for you inside the walled garden.
>
> With Android, you can choose any app you like, even outside the google play
> store. The google play store is another walled garden but there's nothing
> stopping you from loading software outside that play store walled garden.

With all the opportunity to get malware in your software.

[Silvano]

Alan hat am 04.04.2023 um 22:44 geschrieben:

>> You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you
>> the choice of choosing from. That's not a choice. That's a walled garden.
>
> And people choose that option.
> In fact, many people consider it a feature of Apple's iOS offerings.

Why do you think many people consider having Apple constrain their app
choices limited to only what is inside the walled garden to be a feature?

>> Maybe you've never heard the term walled garden but it applies to
>> sideloading very much because you can't sideload with iOS so you're stuck
>> with the choices that Apple pre selected for you inside the walled garden.
>>
>> With Android, you can choose any app you like, even outside the google play
>> store. The google play store is another walled garden but there's nothing
>> stopping you from loading software outside that play store walled garden.
>
> With all the opportunity to get malware in your software.

Does the iPhone have a scanner that runs all the time so that app malware
is quarantined or removed (unless it slips past that malware scanner)?

[nospam]

In article <u0i1ae$3i78l$1...@dont-email.me>, Silvano

<Sil...@noncisonopernessuno.it> wrote:

>
> You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you

that's false.

>
> you can't sideload with iOS so you're stuck

also false.

[sms]

On 4/4/2023 12:58 PM, Maxmillian wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 11:27:20 -0700, sms wrote:
>
>>> When is the last time you owned an Android phone & installed an app?
>>> If it's more than five years ago, then that's why you said that. :->
>>
>> Uh, I own multiple Android phones right now. A Pixel 7 Pro is my main
>> Android device. I do sideload apps, on occasion, and use F-Droid.
>
> Oh. Sorry. I thought you were an iPhone owner because of what you said
> about sideloading malware which usually uninformed iPhone owners say.
>
> Maybe you just didn't know that Google Play Protect scans for malware on
> Android such that there is no risk from sideloading any different from
> getting the app off the Google Play Store. It's the same scan for both.

Do you not understand that there are hundreds of app stores besides the
Google Play Store? The Google Play Store is not even available at all in
China. It's not apps from the Google Play Store that are the issue,
whether directly installed or installed via the apk. There is no way
that Google can scan for malware in those other apps.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 13:50, Silvano wrote:
> Alan hat am 04.04.2023 um 22:44 geschrieben:
>>> You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you
>>> the choice of choosing from. That's not a choice. That's a walled garden.
>>
>> And people choose that option.
>> In fact, many people consider it a feature of Apple's iOS offerings.
>
> Why do you think many people consider having Apple constrain their app
> choices limited to only what is inside the walled garden to be a feature?

It makes the chances of putting an app on your phone infected with
malware next to nil.

[Maxmillian]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 14:09:25 -0700, sms wrote:

>> Maybe you just didn't know that Google Play Protect scans for malware on
>> Android such that there is no risk from sideloading any different from
>> getting the app off the Google Play Store. It's the same scan for both.
>
> Do you not understand that there are hundreds of app stores besides the
> Google Play Store?

This is going to be long but the entire message is unnecessary if you would
have read and understood the link about the GPP scan which you didn't read.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect

I'm sorry for not letting you know that I'm aware of virtually every place
you can get Android apps, where I don't know how to get you to stop
guessing at what GPP does so that you can understand what I said it does.

I don't know why you think all the things you think but they're wrong.
They are so wrong that it's why I thought you were an iPhone owner.

I'm sorry to have to say that to you but you need to understand GPP.
Currently it's obvious you don't know how GPP works.

I'm not sure where you have the disconnect, but the fact you bothered to
tell me about other repositories probably means you don't understand that
it doesn't matter WHERE you get the app from.

You can get the app from any dodgy malware-filled apk server, and GPP will
STILL run on that app at installation time, and once a day on the whole
smartphone.

I'm so sorry but I realize you don't know much about Android & therefore
I'm sorry to have to say it that way - but it seems like you think GPP only
scans Google Play Store apps & nothing could be further from the truth.

That's why there's no more danger from installing an app from the Google
Play Store than there is from installing an app from the dodgyest site you
can find on malware.hackers.com types of web sites.

The ONLY difference is that Google has "pre selected" the apps on the
Google Play Store but Google Play Protect still runs on EVERY app installed
so you get the same malware scan no matter where you got the APK from.

Windows works the same way so this shouldn't be a foreign concept to
Android owners (it should only seem strange to iPhone owners because they
can't easily install app IPAs from outside their locked-down app store).

> The Google Play Store is not even available at all in
> China.

See above. GPP isn't part of the Google Play Store.
It's outside the Google Play Store.

(There are details involved but they are too complicated for you right now
because you think GPP is part of the Google Play Store - but it's not.)

> It's not apps from the Google Play Store that are the issue,

I'm sorry but when you say that, you sound like a dumb iPhone owner.
I'm sorry, but you are set in your mind with a very dead wrong opinion.

If it's going to take a half dozen posts or more before you realize that
yuor mind is set wrong then I am sorry if I have to tell you you're wrong.

The GPP scan has nothing to do (directly) with the Google Play Store!

I shouldn't have to repeat this five or ten times that it doesn't matter
WHERE the apps come from - the GPP scanner will scan them no matter what.

> whether directly installed or installed via the apk. There is no way
> that Google can scan for malware in those other apps.

I am so sorry to have to say this but are starting to sound like an iPhone
owner because I gave you a link that shows that statement to be so wrong
that the only way you can keep repeating it is if you're just trolling.

The GPP scan doesn't care WHERE the app came from.
The GPP scan has NOTHING to do with the Google Play Store (not directly).

Think of the GPP scanner as nothing different than an AV scan on Windows.

The fact that it comes from Google doesn't mean it only scans Google Play
Store apps just like the Windows Defender will scan any apps, not just apps
that come from the Microsoft Store.

I shouldn't have to keep pointing you to the same link until you get it.

You should have understood this the first time, so I don't know if you're
just playing with me like the iPhone owners love to do or not.

Read the link and when you read what it does, FORGET anything you
previously thought about GPP only scanning Google Play Store apps.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect

If you keep that in mind, ask me any questions because I left out a lot of
details but you're not ready for those details until you open your mind up.

I'm sorry if I sound rude to you but you have your mind set up like the
iPhone owners do so you're not understanding what this link actually says.
https://developers.google.com/android/play-protect

[Silvano]

Alan hat am 05.04.2023 um 02:01 geschrieben:

>> Why do you think many people consider having Apple constrain their app
>> choices limited to only what is inside the walled garden to be a feature?
>
> It makes the chances of putting an app on your phone infected with
> malware next to nil.

The tradeoff of Apple choosing your apps for you is you don't get to choose
the apps you want, and all you gain is nothing in terms of malware scans.

Android runs an AV scan on every app no matter where you get it from.
https://www.android.com/safety/

That means Android is as safe in terms of malware & you get more choices.
A lot more app choices.

[Silvano]

nospam hat am 04.04.2023 um 22:53 geschrieben:

>> You don't seem to understand that you only can choose what Apple gives you
>
> that's false.

It's only false if you assume the only way you can choose the apps you want
to install on iOS is you have to jailbreak the device first.

Otherwise, Apple chooses the total set of apps that you can easily install.
Not you.

>> you can't sideload with iOS so you're stuck
>
> also false.

You don't appear to understand that without jumping through hoops, the
average iOS user isn't likely jailbreaking just to get a choice of apps.

On the iPhone Apple chooses the apps that you can select from.
On Android, you get to choose apps from anywhere you want to get them.

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 05.04.23 um 02:01 schrieb Alan:

Still, the supposed-to-be impossible happens all the time:
https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS

This list seems outdated, further googling hints on ongoing malware
activity reaching into the current year.

In the end, the only feature in limited app choices is having to invest
less time for finding the "optimal" solution.

[Ken Hart]

In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on Android.

The amount of malware "out there" is large for Android compared to iOS
because the amount of iOS apps out there are much smaller than Android.

But the chance of getting malware onto your phone is low on both devices.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2021/03/16/iphone-12-pro-max-and-iphone-13-not-more-secure-than-google-and-samsung-android-warns-cyber-billionaire/

Think about it this way. If you have the Windows malware scanner turned
off, and if you download software from sites around the world which are not
the Microsoft Store, you're likely to get malware after a while.

But if you turn on your Windows malware scanner, the only apps that get
through will be those which are too clever to be caught, which is few.

Same with Android.
https://www.androidcentral.com/apps-software/what-is-google-play-protect

No matter where you get the app from, Google Play Protect scans it for you.
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-google-play-protect-4773171

If you leave the Android malware scanner on by default, even if you
download software that contains malware, Google heuristics catch it.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en

If the app is tricky enough to get past the scan on installation and the
scan every day that Android runs, then that same developer is just as
likely to get past Apple's heuristic scans for apps on their app store.
https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/

The risk of getting malware is not dependent on whether or not you sideload
but only on whether or not you turn off the default scanner which runs on
every installation and which won't let any malware install it knows about.
https://www.rd.com/article/google-play-protect/

Think about it like Windows where the AV scanners run on all apps
installed, not just the apps that Microsoft put in their store.

And, get this, Google Play Protect has been part of Android for ages.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3210587/google-play-protect-android.html
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 20:17, Silvano wrote:
> Alan hat am 05.04.2023 um 02:01 geschrieben:
>>> Why do you think many people consider having Apple constrain their app
>>> choices limited to only what is inside the walled garden to be a feature?
>>
>> It makes the chances of putting an app on your phone infected with
>> malware next to nil.
>
> The tradeoff of Apple choosing your apps for you is you don't get to choose
> the apps you want, and all you gain is nothing in terms of malware scans.

Apple doesn't choose your apps for you.

So start again without the false premise.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-04 20:25, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
> Am 05.04.23 um 02:01 schrieb Alan:
>
>> On 2023-04-04 13:50, Silvano wrote:
>>> Why do you think many people consider having Apple constrain their app
>>> choices limited to only what is inside the walled garden to be a
>>> feature?
>>
>> It makes the chances of putting an app on your phone infected with
>> malware next to nil.
>
> Still, the supposed-to-be impossible happens all the time:
> https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS

That list hardly represents "all the time"...

...all the moreso because it includes "jailbroken iOS"

[nospam]

In article <u0ir0f$hj3$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

> In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on Android.

quality vs quantity.

> The amount of malware "out there" is large for Android compared to iOS

yep.

> because the amount of iOS apps out there are much smaller than Android.

nope.

[Ken Hart]

On 4/5/2023 1:59 PM, nospam wrote:

>> In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on Android.
>
> quality vs quantity.

https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/

I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your choices.
to a level that is deconstructive instead of being constructively done.

It's not quality when Apple decides which person you are allowed to marry.
Just because Apple is afraid of Japanese people & only trusts Europeans.

Your whole life, Apple restricts you from mingling with Japanese people
because Apple tells you, our of fear, that you must marry only a European.

You're not even allowed to have a Japanese person inside your Apple home.
You call that quality versus quantify - I call it a restriction on choice.

>> The amount of malware "out there" is large for Android compared to iOS
>
> yep.

https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/

You're wrong on all counts because the choice for apps on iOS is limited to
what one company chooses every component of your religion for you.

I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your choices.
to a level that is deconstructive instead of being constructively done.

That lack of choice makes you feel safer, and you certainly believe that
having one company choose the food you eat for the rest of your life makes
you safer, and you have an argument there.

But that extreme loss of choice came at a price which you can't ignore.
You will ignore that cost - but there are many people who can't ignore it.

>> because the amount of iOS apps out there are much smaller than Android.
>
> nope.

https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/

You might need to read a news story or two about the Android scanner.

Android apps run malware scans and then pool their results over something
like a hundred million Android phones, is a hundred billion apps being
scanned every day, data which is then used to improve Google's AI scanner.

None of your responses show you have any inkling of how that process works.

I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your choices.
to a level that is deconstructive instead of being constructively done.

You only seem to know that Apple restricts the vehicle you can buy for the
rest of your life to only certain select European cars with no Japanese
cars allowed for safety reasons known only to Apple.

You are happy to be restricted to only interacting with people of your own
race while Android owners are just as safe interacting with everyone
because the Google scanner scans a hundred billion apps every single day.
https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Silvano]

Alan hat am 05.04.2023 um 01:15 geschrieben:

>> The tradeoff of Apple choosing your apps for you is you don't get to choose
>> the apps you want, and all you gain is nothing in terms of malware scans.
>
> Apple doesn't choose your apps for you.

how can you be so stupid that you don't know that the iOS store does not
contain all the apps you might want to install like Android can do?

I'm done with you because you are too dumb to know anything about iOS.
Or Android.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-05 10:20, Ken Hart wrote:
> On 4/5/2023 1:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>>> In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on Android.
>>
>> quality vs quantity.
>
> https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/
>
> I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your choices.
> to a level that is deconstructive instead of being constructively done.

Your whole argument is specious. Apple does have some narrow gates on
what they permit to be published on devices they sell in order that
iPhones and iOS (etc.) do not become a network for the distribution of
malware.

Much more than malware protection: another is explicit "porn" apps, apps
that promote violence, ets. and so on. Go read the T&C's to find what
"restrictions" are so "deconstructive".

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

Otherwise Apple's best interests are represented by maximizing the
number of apps on their store/platform - and you know what - it doesn't
seem to stop them from selling about 650 thousand iPhones *daily* [2002].

So moan all about it. Get an Android phone and be happy if that's what
floats your boat.

I'll just be content with the seamless (utterly seamless) interaction
between my Macs, iPhone, iPad, Watch and to a lesser degree AppleTV.
(There are other iThings that I don't have or need...).

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-04-05, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-04-05 10:20, Ken Hart wrote:
>> On 4/5/2023 1:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on
>>>> Android.
>>>
>>> quality vs quantity.
>>
>> https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/
>>
>> I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your
>> choices. to a level that is deconstructive instead of being
>> constructively done.
>
> Your whole argument is specious. Apple does have some narrow gates on
> what they permit to be published on devices they sell in order that
> iPhones and iOS (etc.) do not become a network for the distribution of
> malware.
>
> Much more than malware protection: another is explicit "porn" apps,
> apps that promote violence, ets. and so on. Go read the T&C's to find
> what "restrictions" are so "deconstructive".
>
> https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
>
> Otherwise Apple's best interests are represented by maximizing the
> number of apps on their store/platform - and you know what - it
> doesn't seem to stop them from selling about 650 thousand iPhones
> *daily* [2002].
>
> So moan all about it. Get an Android phone and be happy

Arlen and his troll gang aren't happy people, which is why they spend
literal hours every day trolling newsgroups of products they hate. They
certainly could just go on about their lives if they were happy using
Android and other non-Apple products, but the truth is they are not
happy people. Misery loves company, and the only semblance of
satisfaction in their pitiful hate-filled lives is berating strangers
who dare to use another product and disrupting otherwise pleasant
conversation in the Apple newsgroups.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Ken Hart]

On 4/5/2023 5:28 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

> On 2023-04-05 10:20, Ken Hart wrote:
>> On 4/5/2023 1:59 PM, nospam wrote:
>>
>>>> In the end, you have far fewer choices for apps on iOS than on Android.
>>>
>>> quality vs quantity.
>>
>> https://www.android.com/intl/en_us/intl/en_uk/play-protect/
>>
>> I will use analogy to make the point that Apple restricts your choices.
>> to a level that is deconstructive instead of being constructively done.
>
> Your whole argument is specious.

I will agree the "quality vs quantity" expression nospam gave is specious.

specious: having deceptive attraction or allure
having a false look of truth or genuineness
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious

> Apple does have some narrow gates on
> what they permit to be published on devices they sell in order that
> iPhones and iOS (etc.) do not become a network for the distribution of
> malware.

That's not the real reason imho but that is what Apple's stated reason is.
I will agree with you on Apple's stated justification for locking down iOS.

Everyone knows the real reason as that real reason has been in court cases.
Luckily for Apple, they have won most of those court cases, even in the EU.

Therefore, we can agree Apple limits your choice which Apple says is to
protect you from things like web browsers that Apple deems "unsafe."

> Much more than malware protection: another is explicit "porn" apps, apps
> that promote violence, ets. and so on. Go read the T&C's to find what
> "restrictions" are so "deconstructive".
>
> https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

It's not so much the off-the-edge apps that Apple limits but more like a
simple web browser that Apple won't let on their iOS app store that limits
your choices for reasons that Apple states is for your own protection.

There are a lot of useful utilities that are on Android not on iOS which is
because Apple doesn't want you to have the use of those common utilities.

Most of these common utilities exist on macos so there's something
"special" only about iOS where Apple wants to limit your choice of apps.

> Otherwise Apple's best interests are represented by maximizing the
> number of apps on their store/platform - and you know what - it doesn't
> seem to stop them from selling about 650 thousand iPhones *daily* [2002].

There is no doubt the iPhone is successful but there is just as no doubt
that Android is also successful - even more successful than the iPhone by
sheer numbers - but not so successful if you break it down model by model.

But I think the lack of success of iOS over Android (in terms of sheer
numbers of phones out there) is one of those specious arguments you decry.

Why would it matter so much to you in terms of malware that Apple sells
about 20% or thereabouts of the phones that exist today in the world?

Your argument that sales numbers indicate lack of malware is specious.

> So moan all about it. Get an Android phone and be happy if that's what
> floats your boat.

Well, I think you missed the discussion topic being that sideloading is
what all the operating systems do except for iOS and that sideloading
doesn't make your phone any more susceptible to malware on Android.

You showed no hint that you understood that fundamental point of view.

How can you disagree with what you don't show any understanding of?
Every argument from you is specious until you understand scanning.

> I'll just be content with the seamless (utterly seamless) interaction
> between my Macs, iPhone, iPad, Watch and to a lesser degree AppleTV.
> (There are other iThings that I don't have or need...).

The point of view is that Android has more choice than iOS and you can't
disagree with that. And the point of view is that Apple "says" the reason
is Apple wants to protect you from malware - and since Apple has won that
point of view in court cases, you can't disagree with that point of view.

But you have yet to show any understanding or comprehension of scanning.
You can't possibly disagree without showing any hint of understanding.

Do you at least understand the position on Android malware scanning?

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-05 12:25, Ken Hart

graduated to sealion.

[nospam]

In article <u0k7d0$55r0$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> There are a lot of useful utilities that are on Android not on iOS

and vice versa, many of which are impossible on android because the
hardware and/or software frameworks do not exist.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> and vice versa, many of which are impossible on android because the
> hardware and/or software frameworks do not exist.

All you iKooks own the brain of a small child. It's _why_ you're iKooks.
*That statement proves these strange iKooks live in make-believe land*...

Instead of pasting a paragraph filled with Apple branding trademarks,
nospam, and instead of you fabricating imaginary make-believe
functionality, nospam, why can't you post a URL to a _single_ app on the
Apple App Store whose functionality isn't available to Android.

That app needs to work on the iPhone, all by its itty bitty self, in that
it can't require a five thousand dollar mac in order for it to work, not
billions of dollars in iCloud servers for the simple app to work, nospam.

Point to a _single_ app URL on the Apple App Store that *YOU CLAIM* has
basic useful functionality (all by its itty bitty self, nospam), that
Android lacks.
*URL TO APPLE APP STORE APP FROM NOSPAM GOES HERE*

Here, I'll go first: This is free mock gps lockation spoofing...
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

I'll even do another: This is graphical wi-fi cellular signal strength:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=make.more.r2d2.cellular_z>

Heck, I'll do one more: This is automatic call recording, nospam:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.giga_recorderapp.callrecording>

That's three app functionalities, which don't require the entire Internet
and which don't require an expensive desktop to work, nospam.
1. Fake GPS Location Spoofing
2. Cellular/Wi-Fi Graphical Signal-Strength Debugging
3. Automatic Call Recording

Now it's your turn, nospam.
Can you back up your claim or not, nospam.

Show us whether your belief system based on _one_ provable fact, or not.

*Back up your make-believe imaginary belief system with a single URL*.
*ALL WE NEED IS ON URL TO AN APPLE APP STORE APP FROM NOSPAM TO GO HERE*

If you can't find a _single_ app in the entire iOS app store, then that's
proof positive that your belief system is completely imaginary, nospam.
--
All you iKooks own the brain of a small child. It's _why_ you're iKooks.

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/04/23 09:09, sms wrote:
> Do you not understand that there are hundreds of app stores besides the
> Google Play Store? The Google Play Store is not even available at all in
> China. It's not apps from the Google Play Store that are the issue,
> whether directly installed or installed via the apk. There is no way
> that Google can scan for malware in those other apps.

It doesn't seem like you've ever read anything about google play protect.

It scans all apps on the device.
Not just apps you got from the google play store.

Since you're obviously too busy to look things up, here's a readers digest
version, literally a readers digest version.

https://www.rd.com/article/google-play-protect/

"Before you download an app that's not on the Google Play store, Google
Play Protect runs a thorough safety check to ensure there aren't any
issues. (Apps on the Google Play store have already undergone virus
scanning.) From there, Google Play Protect scans the apps on your phone on
a daily basis and can also be used on-demand.

Google Play Protect is probably the most effective 'malicious behavior'
scanning app around," says Steve Tcherchian, chief product officer and CISO
for XYPRO Technology."

Can you admit you were wrong?

--
Peter Moylan

[J]

In comp.mobile.android Andy Burnelli <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single common
> consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any developer's
> URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS. Nobody else.

It's quite surprising that in any tech market the most expensive brand
is the least open to interoperability. I guess this unusual behavior
of a luxury brand comes from Steve Jobs singular personality. And
once these control-freak tics get into the corporate culture of a
company is impossible to take them out.

Aside of Apple in the world of tech I don't know any other example of
an expensive posh brand that behaves like that. In the world of
photography, for example, the luxury brand (Leica) is more open than
cheaper brands like Canon or Sony both in terms of software (Leica
uses the open DNG raw format) and in terms of hardware being friendly
to other companies to use their lens mount.

And BTW I am not an Apple hater. I am quite appreciative that they
bring some diversity to the world of desktop computers.

[nospam]

In article <-YCcnX-H6cUpEan5...@brightview.co.uk>,

<j...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> It's quite surprising that in any tech market the most expensive brand
> is the least open to interoperability. I guess this unusual behavior
> of a luxury brand comes from Steve Jobs singular personality. And
> once these control-freak tics get into the corporate culture of a
> company is impossible to take them out.

look no further than microsoft, who created wma/wmv, .net, active-x and
a host of other proprietary formats solely to lock people in. they're
still doing it, having released a version of windows that *only* allows
app store apps.

installing apps on ios outside of the app store is easy for anyone who
is so inclined. it's a little more than toggling a switch in settings,
but it's not impossible, as the usual trolls try to claim.

> Aside of Apple in the world of tech I don't know any other example of
> an expensive posh brand that behaves like that.

then you haven't looked very hard (or at all).

> In the world of
> photography, for example, the luxury brand (Leica) is more open than
> cheaper brands like Canon or Sony both in terms of software (Leica
> uses the open DNG raw format) and in terms of hardware being friendly
> to other companies to use their lens mount.

third party lens manufacturers (e.g., sigma, tokina, tamron) make
lenses for all of the major brands, including canon, sony, nikon, leica
and others.

also, dng is also not what you think it is, and the various raw formats
are public and supported by a *lot* of software, some of which is open
source.

and as for canon, the ef lens mount was explicitly designed with a
short back-focus so that lenses from other companies could be used with
an adapter.

long ago, there was the pentax m-42 screw mount, which was used on a
wide variety of cameras. however, it was a pain to use and replaced
with the pentax k-mount bayonet, also used on cameras other than
pentax, although not as many as m-42.

> And BTW I am not an Apple hater. I am quite appreciative that they
> bring some diversity to the world of desktop computers.

what (and who) you are is quite obvious.

[Po Lu]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> look no further than microsoft, who created wma/wmv, .net, active-x and
> a host of other proprietary formats solely to lock people in. they're
> still doing it, having released a version of windows that *only* allows
> app store apps.

OK, but then I haven't seen anyone using that version of MS-Windows.

> installing apps on ios outside of the app store is easy for anyone who
> is so inclined. it's a little more than toggling a switch in settings,
> but it's not impossible, as the usual trolls try to claim.

Would you please explain this procedure?

[Andy Burnelli]

J wrote:

>> Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single common
>> consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any developer's
>> URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS. Nobody else.
>
> It's quite surprising that in any tech market the most expensive brand
> is the least open to interoperability.

Bear in mind most of the iKooks are not educated so they don't know this.
1. Sideloading is what _every_ operating system does...
2. Except for iOS

No iKook is aware of the fact malware is NOT rampant on iOS or Android.
A. The reason is that Android scans _every_ install & scans every day
B. In fact, the Android scan is, apparently, far better than with iOS

*It's only Apple who has "demonized" what _every_ other platform does.*

The _reason_ Apple demonized what iOS can't do, and what _every_ other
platform easily does - is Apple needs to _control_ every aspect of iOS.

For profit.

Apple is no different than tobacco or soda conglomerates in that Apple
isn't a creator of content so much as a brilliant MARKETING outfit.

Knowing that Apple's R&D spend is the lowest, for decades, of _any_ similar
high tech company, and knowing how great Apple marketing is, is evidence.

However, what really matters is Apple's ungodly profit margins per device.
You can't make those ungodly profit margins off an intelligent customer.

Right?

> I guess this unusual behavior
> of a luxury brand comes from Steve Jobs singular personality. And
> once these control-freak tics get into the corporate culture of a
> company is impossible to take them out.

When you analyze how Apple attains those ungodly profit margins per device,
you find out that Apple _controls_ every aspect of the iPhone to do that.

There's a reason the iPhone lacks basic functionality such as the portable
storage, the extension jack, the ability to load any software, etc.

It's clear to intelligent people Apple's basic strategy is to slowly
"decontent" the iPhone so that people have to scramble to get stuff back.

And when people scramble to get back, oh, say, the loss of the charger,
Apple wins in that Apple can better _control_ where the money goes.

> Aside of Apple in the world of tech I don't know any other example of
> an expensive posh brand that behaves like that.

Apple likely spends orders of magnitude more in MARKETING their product
(just like tobacco and soda companies do) than in designing the product.

Remember, nobody is anywhere near as low as Apple in R&D spend. Bar none.
*Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D than anyone in high tech?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/STrAkx09VYk/>

> In the world of
> photography, for example, the luxury brand (Leica) is more open than
> cheaper brands like Canon or Sony both in terms of software (Leica
> uses the open DNG raw format) and in terms of hardware being friendly
> to other companies to use their lens mount.

Apple's strategy is obvious to all who are intelligent enough to see it.

Inexorably, Apple decontents the iPhone, providing myriad excuses for what
is always the same strategy, so people are forced to buy that content back.

And in doing so, Apple can further _control_ where the money goes for it.

> And BTW I am not an Apple hater. I am quite appreciative that they
> bring some diversity to the world of desktop computers.

Me neither. I'd say the same thing about Google or Microsoft or Canonical.
And I do on the adult common operating system Usenet newsgroups.

It's only on the child-like operating system newsgroups where you're not
allowed to say anything truthful about their revered God, Mohammad [sic].

In summary, the reason Apple is so profitable is not that Apple spends a
dime in actual R&D but that Apple spends all its money in stellar
marketing... no different than the major tobacco or soda companies do.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is to faithfully explain Apple's core sales strategy.

[Heron]

On 4/11/2023 12:02 AM, nospam wrote:
>> It's quite surprising that in any tech market the most expensive brand
>> is the least open to interoperability. I guess this unusual behavior
>> of a luxury brand comes from Steve Jobs singular personality. And
>> once these control-freak tics get into the corporate culture of a
>> company is impossible to take them out.
>
> look no further than microsoft,

Are you again saying Microsoft forced Apple to be a closed system with iOS?

[J]

In comp.mobile.android nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> look no further than microsoft, who created wma/wmv, .net, active-x and
> a host of other proprietary formats solely to lock people in. they're
> still doing it, having released a version of windows that *only* allows
> app store apps.

That is business as usual, because Microsoft is not an expensive
luxury brand. But from a luxury brand like Apple one would not expect
those kind of lockdowns.

> third party lens manufacturers (e.g., sigma, tokina, tamron) make
> lenses for all of the major brands, including canon, sony, nikon, leica
> and others.

Canon is not friendly for 3rd party lenses. Sigma had to reverse
engineer their EF mount, which became problematic around 2004 when Canon
made small changes to the EF mount electronics, rendering many Sigma EF
useless on newer bodies, i.e. a Sigma lens would work on the Canon
1Ds, but not on the 1Ds mk II. Leica bodies never had those issues.

https://www.ephotozine.com/forums/topic/sigma-lenses-and-canon-10d-compatability-problems--11172

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/don%E2%80%99t-expect-any-third-party-autofocus-lenses-in-the-near-future.41704/page-15

> also, dng is also not what you think it is, and the various raw formats
> are public and supported by a *lot* of software, some of which is open
> source.

Yes, those raw formats are supported by a lot of programs, but in many
cases the formats are not officially documented. DNG might not be
perfect, but it is the closest you can get to an open standard for RAW
files.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> look no further than microsoft, who created wma/wmv, .net, active-x and
>>> a host of other proprietary formats solely to lock people in. they're
>>> still doing it, having released a version of windows that *only* allows
>>> app store apps.
>>
>> OK, but then I haven't seen anyone using that version of MS-Windows.
>

> not many do, but it exists.

In other words, nobody uses the version of Windows that nospam pins his
entire argument as to why only iOS advertises sideloading as evil.

It's _always_ the same argument with nospam: *Microsoft made Apple do it.*

The real reason Apple disallows sideloading is to _control_ what users can
do, which is Apple's basic underlying fundamental strategy for iOS IPAs.

>>> installing apps on ios outside of the app store is easy for anyone who
>>> is so inclined. it's a little more than toggling a switch in settings,
>>> but it's not impossible, as the usual trolls try to claim.
>>
>> Would you please explain this procedure?
>

> among the various options include enterprise deployment, test flight,
> self-signing, xcode, configurator and altstore, all of which do not use
> the app store.

In other words, nospam fabricated what he, himself, has never once done.

In summary, nospam is _desperate_ to explain away why only iOS says that
sideloading is evil, when, in fact, every other consumer OS allows it.

Everything bad that Apple does, according to nospam, is always because
Microsoft always makes Apple do all the bad things that Apple did first.

Just watch...

[nospam]

In article <piSdnYliULg5Kan5...@brightview.co.uk>,

<j...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > look no further than microsoft, who created wma/wmv, .net, active-x and
> > a host of other proprietary formats solely to lock people in. they're
> > still doing it, having released a version of windows that *only* allows
> > app store apps.
>
> That is business as usual, because Microsoft is not an expensive
> luxury brand. But from a luxury brand like Apple one would not expect
> those kind of lockdowns.

apple is not a luxury brand.

> > third party lens manufacturers (e.g., sigma, tokina, tamron) make
> > lenses for all of the major brands, including canon, sony, nikon, leica
> > and others.
>
> Canon is not friendly for 3rd party lenses. Sigma had to reverse
> engineer their EF mount, which became problematic around 2004 when Canon
> made small changes to the EF mount electronics, rendering many Sigma EF
> useless on newer bodies, i.e. a Sigma lens would work on the Canon
> 1Ds, but not on the 1Ds mk II.

that's the problem with reverse engineering. sigma could have licensed
it, but they didn't.

sigma lenses have all sorts of compatibility problems with many
different cameras. sigma is short for 'significant malfunction'.

> Leica bodies never had those issues.

that's because leica is now part of the sigma/panasonic/leica alliance
for the l-mount.

pretending that the current leica cameras are comparable to the leica
of old is highly disingenuous.

> > also, dng is also not what you think it is, and the various raw formats
> > are public and supported by a *lot* of software, some of which is open
> > source.
>
> Yes, those raw formats are supported by a lot of programs, but in many
> cases the formats are not officially documented.

not many, and only very specific things that are entirely unimportant
to the image itself, which are *not* included in dng (along with a lot
more).

> DNG might not be
> perfect, but it is the closest you can get to an open standard for RAW
> files.

then you'll be happy to know that iphones save photos in dng:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965>
ProRAW uses the industry standard digital negative (DNG) file format,
so you can open ProRAW files with apps that are compatible with DNG
files.

it's not often a troll attempt backfires as spectacularly as yours.

[J]

In comp.mobile.android nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> DNG might not be
>> perfect, but it is the closest you can get to an open standard for RAW
>> files.
>
> then you'll be happy to know that iphones save photos in dng:
>
> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965>
> ProRAW uses the industry standard digital negative (DNG) file format,
> so you can open ProRAW files with apps that are compatible with DNG
> files.

That's exactly what I would expect to get when buying the most
expensive smartphone in the market from a posh luxury brand.

Why don't they apply the same philosophy of interoperability to sideloading?

[Alan]

Because sideloading opens huge holes for malware.

[Minoru Osaka]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 02:51:53 -0700, Alan wrote:

>> Why don't they apply the same philosophy of interoperability to sideloading?
>
> Because sideloading opens huge holes for malware.

Explain why it's normal for every operating system to allow users to load
software from wherever they want to get it from (mac, linux, windows,
android) except for only one operating system where it's suddenly risky?

Why is it only ios that has a huge malware problem from sideloading apps?

[J]

In comp.mobile.android Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> Why don't they apply the same philosophy of interoperability to sideloading?
>
> Because sideloading opens huge holes for malware.

I would expect those security holes from some cheap OS like Android or
the now defunct Windows Phones by MS/Nokia. But Apple iOS? They are
the most expensive brand and have full control of the design of their OS.
They should have some sandboxing for apps.

[nospam]

In article <X0CdnVDDOZAluqj5...@brightview.co.uk>,

<j...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> >> DNG might not be
> >> perfect, but it is the closest you can get to an open standard for RAW
> >> files.
> >
> > then you'll be happy to know that iphones save photos in dng:
> >
> > <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211965>
> > ProRAW uses the industry standard digital negative (DNG) file format,
> > so you can open ProRAW files with apps that are compatible with DNG
> > files.
>
> That's exactly what I would expect to get when buying the most
> expensive smartphone in the market from a posh luxury brand.

it's not the most expensive smartphone in the market nor is it a posh
luxury brand.

these are luxury brands:
<https://www.vertu.com/collections/mobile>
<http://www.goldvish.com/collection-1>

[nospam]

In article <mpicnfvDh4CEoaj5...@brightview.co.uk>,

<j...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> They should have some sandboxing for apps.

they do.

[J]

In comp.mobile.android nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> it's not the most expensive smartphone in the market nor is it a posh
> luxury brand.
>
> these are luxury brands:
> <https://www.vertu.com/collections/mobile>
> <http://www.goldvish.com/collection-1>

Apple does have some expensive limited edition phones

https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/11/04/apple-iphone-14-pro-max-130k-dollars/

Although that doesn't happen very often. The Apple management is too
obsessed with control, and that makes them lose the opportunity for
partnerships with other companies.

[Andy Burnelli]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but there is only one reason for
the fact that iOS is severely crippled to the point it can't install IPAs
from anywhere or anyone that Apple doesn't allow.

Just like there is only one reason each IPA you install gets a _unique_
identifier that Apple inserts based on your mothership tracking account.

And it's not malware.

Doesn't it ever occur to the iKooks that only iOS (not even macOS) is so
crippled in almost every way possible that it can't do the simplest things?

Like load software from anywhere (which Linux, Windows, macOS & Android do)
and like NOT having a unique tracker inserted into every app you install.

Only iOS does that.

It doesn't occur to you why Apple is incapable of designing an OS with
choicez like _all_ the other common consumer operating systems enjoy?

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:26:58 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Wow! I had no idea that there were any anywhere near that expensive.

[nospam]

In article <ssra3ih3cue4a22h7...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> >these are luxury brands:
> ><https://www.vertu.com/collections/mobile>
> ><http://www.goldvish.com/collection-1>
>
>
> Wow! I had no idea that there were any anywhere near that expensive.

they're customized with lots of diamonds and gold, for people who have
more money than they know what to do with.

[nospam]

In article <n3mdnbYZOdCW-aj5...@brightview.co.uk>,

<j...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > it's not the most expensive smartphone in the market nor is it a posh
> > luxury brand.
> >
> > these are luxury brands:
> > <https://www.vertu.com/collections/mobile>
> > <http://www.goldvish.com/collection-1>
>
> Apple does have some expensive limited edition phones
>
> https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/11/04/apple-iphone-14-pro-max-130k-dollars/

try reading it first.

that's *not* from apple. it's a customized phone from *another* company.

A new version of the Cupertino based giant零 iPhone 14 Pro Max was
made by Caviar and it has a Rolex Daytona Watch on the rear.

> Although that doesn't happen very often. The Apple management is too
> obsessed with control, and that makes them lose the opportunity for
> partnerships with other companies.

false.

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:47:59 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

That lets me out. <G>

[Jolly Roger]

They do have sandboxing, *and* they have less malware than Android.
It's almost as if Apple's strategy is working. Huh...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Heron]

On 4/11/2023 10:24 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> They do have sandboxing, *and* they have less malware than Android.
> It's almost as if Apple's strategy is working. Huh...

How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need to limit
people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps... just to keep the user
base from malware (which linux, android & windows do quite well lately).

That's not iOS working.
That's iOS being broken.

You have to give up almost all choice with iOS but not with the others.

[nospam]

In article <u13vel$3lt2p$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> > They do have sandboxing, *and* they have less malware than Android.
> > It's almost as if Apple's strategy is working. Huh...
>
> How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need to limit
> people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps...

more than 2 million apps is not 'almost nothing'.

> just to keep the user
> base from malware (which linux, android & windows do quite well lately).

the numbers show the opposite.

the nokia threat report (posted yesterday) showed that android had over
50% of malware, windows in second place at 23%, both well above ios
which was lumped into 'other' at 3.73%.

[Heron]

On 4/12/2023 12:55 AM, nospam wrote:
>> How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need to limit
>> people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps...
>
> more than 2 million apps is not 'almost nothing'.

You know nothing about iOS if you don't know how limited iOS app choice is
compared to the vast choice of Android which includes not only the Google
Play Store (which has far more variety than iOS has) but also sideloading.

>> just to keep the user
>> base from malware (which linux, android & windows do quite well lately).
>
> the numbers show the opposite.
> the nokia threat report (posted yesterday) showed that android had over
> 50% of malware, windows in second place at 23%, both well above ios
> which was lumped into 'other' at 3.73%.

Nokia didn't cause Apple to limit the type of iOS apps that are available.

If people want an app then a developer wrote it & it's for them on Android.
If Apple doesn't like it - it's not a choice on iOS even if people want it.

[Alan]

On 2023-04-11 03:22, Minoru Osaka wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 02:51:53 -0700, Alan wrote:
>
>>> Why don't they apply the same philosophy of interoperability to
>>> sideloading?
>>
>> Because sideloading opens huge holes for malware.
>
> Explain why it's normal for every operating system to allow users to load
> software from wherever they want to get it from (mac, linux, windows,
> android) except for only one operating system where it's suddenly risky?

It's risky anywhere.

>
> Why is it only ios that has a huge malware problem from sideloading apps?

False assumption.

[Alan]

That's called differing priorities.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-04-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
> On 4/11/2023 10:24 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> They do have sandboxing, *and* they have less malware than Android.
>> It's almost as if Apple's strategy is working. Huh...
>
> How is it "working"

It's working just fine. iPhones sell like hotcakes because people love
them and find them useful, and malware isn't anywhere as big of an issue
with iOS devices compared to Android devices.

> You have to give up almost all choice with iOS but not with the
> others.

More nonsense from Arlen.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2023-04-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 4/12/2023 12:55 AM, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>> How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need
>>> to limit people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps...
>>
>> more than 2 million apps is not 'almost nothing'.
>
> You know nothing about iOS

Projection. Your inability to acknowledge that billions of people are
doing a whole lot more than "almost nothing" with their Apple devices is
proof that it is *you* who know nothing about iOS.

>>> just to keep the user base from malware (which linux, android &
>>> windows do quite well lately).

They do nowhere near as well as iOS, which is the point.

>> the numbers show the opposite. the nokia threat report (posted
>> yesterday) showed that android had over 50% of malware, windows in
>> second place at 23%, both well above ios which was lumped into
>> 'other' at 3.73%.
>
> Nokia didn't cause Apple to limit the type of iOS apps that are
> available.

Have you always had a hard time with reading comprehension, or is this a
new issue for you?

[Heron]

On 4/11/2023 7:10 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> It's working just fine. iPhones sell like hotcakes because people love
> them and find them useful, and malware isn't anywhere as big of an issue
> with iOS devices compared to Android devices.

What's funny is only the iOS users trade all their choices to live without
the use of useful software simply because they're afraid of their iPhone.

Nobody on android or linux or windows is so afraid of their computer that
they willfully give up on any freedom of choice to select their own apps.

Just iPhone owners are afraid of having any choices. Nobody else.

[Heron]

On 4/11/2023 1:14 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Projection. Your inability to acknowledge that billions of people are
> doing a whole lot more than "almost nothing" with their Apple devices is
> proof that it is *you* who know nothing about iOS.

What's clear is only the iOS users trade all their choices to live without
benefit of useful software simply because they're afraid of their iPhone.

[Alan]

Arlen... ...stop making new nyms.

[Bob Campbell]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
> Arlen... ...stop making new nyms.

Arlen will never stop making new nyms. He thinks it helps his cause when
“lots of people agree with me”.

Its just more childish nonsense from the iTroll Kiddie.

[Ken Blake]

On 11 Apr 2023 18:14:39 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
>> On 4/12/2023 12:55 AM, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need
>>>> to limit people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps...
>>>
>>> more than 2 million apps is not 'almost nothing'.
>>
>> You know nothing about iOS
>
>Projection. Your inability to acknowledge that billions of people are
>doing a whole lot more than "almost nothing" with their Apple devices is
>proof that it is *you* who know nothing about iOS.

I don't know what he and you know about iOS, but I know that I know
nothing about it. And I don't want to know any more about it, so if
you want to continue this sub-thread (and especially your arguing), I
would appreciate it if you would both remove comp.mobile.android from
your posts.

[Ken Blake]

Yes, you made a great post! Always tell trolls what to do, because
they always do whatever they are told to do,

More seriously, please do *not* reply to trolls. Doing so does nothing
but clutter up the newsgroup.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-04-11 18:31, Ken Blake wrote:

> More seriously, please do *not* reply to trolls. Doing so does nothing
> but clutter up the newsgroup.

+1


--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

[Andy Burnelli]

AJL wrote:

>>I don't use Chrome as an operating system so may I ask if Chrome also
>>limits the applications that are available to you
>
> Yup. To the Play Store.

Chrome uses the exact same debilitating crippling concept that iOS uses.
The problem with that is the best apps are NOT in the Play Store, IMHO.

For example, Chrome and iOS share the same crippling of apps, where the
_best_ apps on the planet will _never_ be offered to the users, such as:

*NewPipe* by Schabi (FOSS YouTube client)
<https://newpipe.net/>


>>And is that approved subset missing huge functional areas
>
> Dunno. I haven't tried all the millions of apps available yet.

Chrome uses the exact same debilitating crippling concept that iOS uses.

Try to find the official Tor Browser, or, oh, say, Ungoogled Chromium:
*Ungoogled Chromium*
<https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-android>

*Bromite*
<https://www.bromite.org/>
<https://github.com/bromite/bromite>

They do that to restrict your choice - which is fine if you're that type of
person who wants a mothership to lock you inside a prison on your device.

>>If Chrome is also lacking in functional apps, what good is it as an OS?
>
> The only apps I've found Chrome lacking in so far is Usenet newsreaders.
> This one sucks and it's the best I've found so far. But for the average Joe
> the OS likely performs just fine...]

Chrome uses the exact same debilitating crippling concept that iOS uses.
If you've only found one functionality lacking, that simply means you're
like most iOS and Chrome users (they're essentially the same thing).

Most iOS users only play games on their iPhones.
Zero iOS users do wireless debugging, for example.

Given both iOS and Chrome are toy operating systems, for the type of person
who only play games & makes phone calls, those operating systems work fine.

But you can't expect toy operating systems such as iOS & Chrome to do
actual technical work such as spoofing the location, using alternative app
stores, wireless and cellular debugging, automatic call recording, etc.

In summary, both Chrome & iOS use the same debilitating crippling of apps.
Developers are NOT ALLOWED to provide the user the apps they might want.

That's horrible.
But for a Chrome and iOS user, that's NOT horrible.

They actually like being crippled.
Makes no sense to me - but iOS users and Chrome users exist.

So being crippled makes sense... to iOS & to Chrome users.
A crippled device makes them feel safe.

And that's OK.

As long as they comprehend that Chrome & iOS can't do real work.
But not being able to do anything, makes Chrome & iOS users feel safe.

And again, that's OK.
Chrome/iOS users feel safe because the operating system is crippled.

*The crippling of the device... is literally what makes them feel safe.*

Most people on both Chrome & iOS are _afraid_ of the device, so it works
for them; but locking everyone in these choice-restricted prisons isn't for
those people who use the device as something other than to just play games.

[Jolly Roger]

Heron (aka Arlen, Andy, and a slew of other nyms) is the one you are mad
at, because he is the one who constantly adds unrelated newsgroups in
his Apple trolls - even when the rest of us remove them in our replies.
He does this on purpose to stir shit. And you're falling for it. Kindly
direct your complaints to him.

[Ken Blake]

On 12 Apr 2023 03:24:05 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-11, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2023 18:14:39 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2023-04-11, Heron <McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2023 12:55 AM, nospam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is it "working" when every other operating system doesn't need
>>>>>> to limit people's choice to almost nothing in terms of apps...
>>>>>
>>>>> more than 2 million apps is not 'almost nothing'.
>>>>
>>>> You know nothing about iOS
>>>
>>> Projection. Your inability to acknowledge that billions of people are
>>> doing a whole lot more than "almost nothing" with their Apple devices
>>> is proof that it is *you* who know nothing about iOS.
>>
>> I don't know what he and you know about iOS, but I know that I know
>> nothing about it. And I don't want to know any more about it, so if
>> you want to continue this sub-thread (and especially your arguing), I
>> would appreciate it if you would both remove comp.mobile.android from
>> your posts.
>
>Heron (aka Arlen, Andy, and a slew of other nyms) is the one you are mad
>at, because he is the one who constantly adds unrelated newsgroups in
>his Apple trolls - even when the rest of us remove them in our replies.

I am not "mad at" anybody here,and I am not "falling for" anything.,
And Arlen has long been killfiled here.When he posts under a new nym,
it doesn't usually take me long to add the new nym to my killfile
(although I hadn't added Heron yet).

And I wasn't "complaining"about anything. I was simply asking if you
wanted to argue with him, don't continue to post your arguments about
iOS to comp.mobile.android. I'm not interested in reading arguments,
and I'm not interested in reading anything about iOS.

Better yet, if Heron is a new Arlen nym, killfile that nym. I'm about
to that. I'd rather not also killfile you, but you keep posting
arguments with him, I eventually will.

>He does this on purpose to stir shit.

Yes, that's what trolls do.

>And you're falling for it. Kindly
>direct your complaints to him.

No, He's about to be killfiled here under that nym.

[Andy Burnelli]

Ken Blake wrote:

> And I wasn't "complaining"about anything. I was simply asking if you
> wanted to argue with him, don't continue to post your arguments about
> iOS to comp.mobile.android. I'm not interested in reading arguments,
> and I'm not interested in reading anything about iOS.

1. Sideloading is not evil - it's what every operating system does.
Except iOS.

2. Ken Blake knows absolutely nothing about iOS or Android.
Worse - Ken Blake can't ever talk about the topic.

3. Jolly Roger and Ken Blake can't talk about the topic.
They both know absolutely nothing about the topic.

Neither Jolly Roger nor Ken Blake added _any_ topical value.
Neither Ken nor Jolly Roger even _understand_ the sideloading topic.

Yet, they post...
So who is the troll...

[Frank Slootweg]

Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2023 03:24:05 GMT, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-04-11, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

[...]

> >> I don't know what he and you know about iOS, but I know that I know
> >> nothing about it. And I don't want to know any more about it, so if
> >> you want to continue this sub-thread (and especially your arguing), I
> >> would appreciate it if you would both remove comp.mobile.android from
> >> your posts.
> >
> >Heron (aka Arlen, Andy, and a slew of other nyms) is the one you are mad
> >at, because he is the one who constantly adds unrelated newsgroups in
> >his Apple trolls - even when the rest of us remove them in our replies.
>
> I am not "mad at" anybody here,and I am not "falling for" anything.,
> And Arlen has long been killfiled here.When he posts under a new nym,
> it doesn't usually take me long to add the new nym to my killfile
> (although I hadn't added Heron yet).
>
> And I wasn't "complaining"about anything. I was simply asking if you
> wanted to argue with him, don't continue to post your arguments about
> iOS to comp.mobile.android. I'm not interested in reading arguments,
> and I'm not interested in reading anything about iOS.

If you're "not interested in reading anything about iOS", then just
killfile crossposts to misc.phone.mobile.iphone. I assume that Forte
Agent can do such killfiling.

[...]

[Ken Blake]

On 12 Apr 2023 17:33:02 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

Yes, I'm pretty sure it can. But two things;

1. If I've ever done this, it's been very seldom, and I don't remember
how.

Yes, I could do a little research and find out how to do it, but ...

2. ,,, there might be other threads in the future that are crossposted
to misc.phone.mobile.iphone because they are pertinent to both Android
and iPhone, and I might be interested in them.

For that reason, I'm generally wary of killfiling posts that are
crossposted to any particular newgroups. Yes, it might be likely to
get rid of posts I don't want to see, but it also might rid of posts I
do want to see,

[Jason H]

On 4/3/23 00:49, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> For the permanent Usenet record... and for others to discuss...
>   *Sideloading is not evil* ...in fact... *sideloading is normal*
>
> Bear in mind on the topic of "sideloading", there is only a single
> common consumer operating system that doesn't allow you to go to any
> developer's URL pointing to a package to load it. Only iOS. Just iOS.
> Nobody else.
>
> It needs to be repeated because "sideloading" isn't anything special.
> *No other operating system disallows installing a package by URL but iOS*
>
> The reason I make this point is that sideloading isn't something evel;
> it's not something risky; it's not something special. It's quite normal.
>
> It's only considered "evil" on one consumer operating system & one alone.
>
> We could go into _why_ Apple considers installing an executable by URL
> evil, since it plays into Apple's overall strategy of making money off
> of limiting the consumers' choices - but suffice to say sideloading is
> normal.
>  *Only in one operating system is installing a non-mothership app evil*

Nevertheless, it's not something I'd recommend for most peeps. There
are few apps that people need that cannot be found in Google Play or iOS
App store. I think the last app I had to sideload was Didi Chuxing a
few years back (sometime it just happens - you need a ride in Shanghai).

That said, if you need it you need it and that a big plus for Android.

[sms]

Note that in China, there is no Google Play Store available so
everything you load is via other, non-Google, app stores, or is side-loaded.

I also loaded Didi Chuxing, to use in Shanghai in 2019. But I ended up
taking the subway and the bus everywhere I needed to go in Shanghai and
never used Didi. I took a nice long train and bus ride to Costco in
Shanghai two weeks after it opened. I'd been to Shanghai so many times
that I'd already seen the tourist sites, but Costco was a real local
experience.

The more annoying thing in September 2019 was that foreign tourists
could not sign up for WeChat Pay or Alipay. Cash is a real hassle in
China these days. Now they are allowing tourists to use electronic
payments from phones.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[quicksilver]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 07:48:37 -0700, sms wrote:

>> That said, if you need it you need it and that a big plus for Android.
>
> Note that in China, there is no Google Play Store available so
> everything you load is via other, non-Google, app stores, or is side-loaded.

Since you can download apps off of Google Play without the Google Play
Store app (a web browser or any other app can access it also),

Is it Google or China who wants to prevent the installation of apps?

And how do they block the Google Play Store IP address when a web browser
on any pc can download apps off that Google Play Store IP address & domain?

Even if they block all known Google Play Store domain IP addresses, isn't
everything on the Google Play Store already in the many mirrors out there?

How can they block everything?

[Jason H]

I was there in October 2019... I used Didi Twice (both times at risk of
not getting back to my hotel before the tube shut for the night). The
public transport system is otherwise very good there.

AliPay were on the verge of launching a payment service to visitors.
I've no idea if that ever actually happened. That said, in larger shops
and tourist sites, asking if a western credit card can be used is
usually met with an "I can try it". Surprisingly often, it works.

[Maxmillian]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 16:27:05 +0100, Jason H wrote:

> I was there in October 2019... I used Didi Twice (both times at risk of
> not getting back to my hotel before the tube shut for the night). The
> public transport system is otherwise very good there.
>
> AliPay were on the verge of launching a payment service to visitors.
> I've no idea if that ever actually happened. That said, in larger shops
> and tourist sites, asking if a western credit card can be used is
> usually met with an "I can try it". Surprisingly often, it works.

How can anyone stop you from getting apps from a google play store domain?

[sms]

On 4/16/2023 8:27 AM, Jason H wrote:

<snip>

> AliPay were on the verge of launching a payment service to visitors.
> I've no idea if that ever actually happened.

I think that it was November 2019 that they allowed foreign tourists to
use Alipay.