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?

--
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.

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.

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.

--
“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

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

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.

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

In comp.mobile.android Andy Burnelli <nospam@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.

In article <-YCcnX-H6cUpEan5nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@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.

nospam <nospam@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?

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.

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?

In comp.mobile.android nospam <nospam@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.

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...

In article <piSdnYliULg5Kan5nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@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.

In comp.mobile.android nospam <nospam@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?

On 2023-04-11 02:26, J wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android nospam <nospam@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?

Because sideloading opens huge holes for malware.

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?

In comp.mobile.android Alan <nuh-uh@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.

In article <mpicnfvDh4CEoaj5nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
<j@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> They should have some sandboxing for apps.

they do.

In article <X0CdnVDDOZAluqj5nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@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>

J 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.

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?

In article <n3mdnbYZOdCW-aj5nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@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 giant¹s 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.

In article <ssra3ih3cue4a22h7su9va6k8tjqdqm40f@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<Ken@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.

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

>In article <ssra3ih3cue4a22h7su9va6k8tjqdqm40f@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
><Ken@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.

That lets me out. <G>

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.