Apple scrambles to quash iOS app sideloading demands with 'think of the children' defense

Apple, fearing regulators will force it to allow people to sideload whatever apps they like on their own iOS devices, has published a paper arguing about the importance of its oversight. The iGiant also sent a letter to US lawmakers warning of supposed harm if its gatekeeping is disallowed. The letter is directed at members of …

[karlkarl]

Can't they just do what Windows 8 did and only allow side loading if it is enterprise joined on a Windows Server based domain? That will pretty much ensure they keep control of all their consumers.

Then just fill the toolchain with so many developer DRM mechanisms to kill off any remaining passion from proper developers and keep the platform as scummy as possible attracting conmen and idiots.

*That* is how you make a phone app community ;)

[DS999]

They already allow this

There have even been a few shady apps with instructions that tell you how to download their enterprise cert, but when Apple found out an enterprise cert was being used for such purposes they disabled it.

You can also download Xcode for free and install your own apps, and of course follow the instructions available all over the web for jailbreaking and install from a third party app store.

None of that will satisfy those who think Apple should be forced to allow third party app stores by default. If that happens, then we'll just have to see what the rules are and how it is implemented. i.e. will Apple say "fine, you can have a third party app store but if you set one up then you are blocked from our store".

[karlkarl]

Re: They already allow this

"You can also download Xcode for free and install your own apps"

You need a provisioning profile before you can upload your software to your phone. This is basically the DRM component.

[Anonymous Kiwi]

what Windows 8 did and only allow side loading if it is enterprise joined on a Windows Server based domain?

They did WHAT?

I never heard of this, mind you Windows 7 is and probably always will be the best Windows, and I stuck at it until business meant moving to 10.

But please, no, don't suggest that!

[Sandtitz]

Browser

What is Apple's reason for not allowing other browser engines than Webkit? Safari is crap.

[Tessier-Ashpool]

Re: Browser

I can think of a couple of reasons: Security and Performance.

Adobe Flash was banned from iOS many years ago for exactly these reasons.

I imagine that WebKit has privileged access to, and control of, all manner of underlying networking libraries, for very good security reasons.

It's quite unlikely that third party browser engines could significantly increase performance, but it's very likely that they would decrease performance, potentially impacting the iGadget's other apps and processes.

WebKit is used internally throughout iOS itself and its stock apps. I imagine that third party browser front ends have access to those capabilities.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Browser

Quite a lot unjusified assumptions there starting with the reason for dropping Flash. This was quite clearly done to stop Adobe selling video services before I-Tunes was able to do so. Yes, it did have performance issues, memory mainly, but that and the security were really red herrings.

I'm not sad to see the back of Flash, but this was as much due to the work of Google and others on the HTML video side and relevant codecs as anything else.

[Chatter]

Re: Browser

Your assertion on flash alone has be proven. Apple was correct all along. If not Flash would still be here. Flash would be stronger than ever. Flash would be everywhere except Apple devices. The problem for you and others is that just because you like something, that does not make it the best, or even safe to use.

[doublelayer]

Re: Browser

What does that even mean? If Apple was wrong, Flash would still be here, except on Apple devices? Or maybe if Apple didn't block flash, flash would still be here, except on Apple devices?

We didn't need Apple to tell us Flash was crap. Everybody knew it. That's why HTML5 was made to remove most of what Flash was used for and they did a good job on that. Of course Flash had performance problems and basically nothing to say in favor of it except that there weren't good alternatives yet, but that's really not a good excuse for banning it. Lots of apps have performance problems and Apple still lets you run them if you want to.

[Tessier-Ashpool]

Re: Browser

For those with memories long enough, Jobs' first beef with Flash was that it killed the iPad's battery. Ergo, shit performance.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Browser

That was the smoke to justify the ban. Back then, there was no video acceleration for available to Flash and video decoding in software chews cycles. Flash itself was just a container for the codec and performance was not significantly to any "native" codecs. Since then Apple has been very careful when it comes to allowing hardware acceleration so that it can trumpet the performance of its own apps.

[doublelayer]

Apple English

Is it just me, or does Apple's insistence on the grammatical use of "iPhone" sound really weird every time? I'm thinking of a quote like this one from their paper: "Allowing sideloading would spur a flood of new investment into attacks on iPhone, incentivizing malicious actors [...]"

They do this all the time and it sounds weird to me. Yet if you switch iPhone for Linux or Windows, it doesn't sound as weird. I wonder where grammarians stand on using product names of separate devices as singular proper nouns.

What? You thought I was talking about the article's point? We've already covered this on about fifteen similar articles in the previous months. What more is there to say? Let's talk grammar instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Apple 'English'

Agreed on the grammar weirdness - Apple's small print on App development requires this wording, also one should not mention iOS in app descriptions, only iPhone or iPad as it apparently may confuse people.

It's weird because normal people think of 'an' iPhone as a particular, specific physical device, not as a general software platform such as Windows or Linux. The same way one would talk about 'a' PC that runs Linux. One wouldn't "install the program on PC running 'the' Linux". Or uploading a video to "the YouTube".

Apple refer to their phones as 'an iPhone' you can buy and also as a software platform and want to have it both ways. The use of 'runs on iPhone' comes across as a bit presumptuous and pushy. 'Runs on iOS on your iPhone' would be much better. But this is Apple, so there.

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Is it just me, or does...

Nah, it's just you. Weirdo.

[Chatter]

Re: Apple English

Well then gOOGLE is ok then as well? Or maybe Micro$ is better for you. If you worried less about things we cannot change and more about how you are going to get your utopian ecosystem up and running, then Apple would not be a problem for you. It would appear that only your lack of imagination is at risk here.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Apple English

"it was decided" a while back that the nicname should be "Micros~1", remember?

[RegGuy1]

Re: Apple English

Yeah, they also say things such as 'it was reported Monday...' rather that the British 'it was reported on Monday...' I expect the difference is due to diverging histories, but it's still annoying.

[IceC0ld]

SO, I think that the bottom line here is the bottom line, and a 30% cut ad infinitum is definitely going to keep Apple pushing the " but what about the children" approach, even when it is obvious what they REALLY mean is what about our cut ? :o)

my take, if it is good enough for the MAC OS it really should be good enough for their phones as well, as for the cut, they MIGHT be entitled to take something, it should NEVER be as much as 30 %, maybe a one off payment equal to 5% of cost of the app, and that is it

anything more is blatant profiteering IMHO

[sorry, what?]

that forever cut...

OK, so it costs some money to provide the security scanning and app hosting, search and download.

Solution: an annual payment for this service that is only enough to cover costs, and where a small dev can choose to spread the payment into a fee per download/in-app purchase until paid off. To ensure this, payments for such an app would be via the app store, including in-app payments. For the other model, you can use alternative, vetted payment services.

And this should probably be run by a not-for-profit that Apple is forced to support for free with the latest software for app security scanning, since that way they get to keep the OS and their users safe, like they want.

[Martin Summers]

Re: that forever cut...

I was with you an annual fee. Then you lost me at only covering cost and having that facilitated by a not for profit. Apple are perfectly entitled to make a profit and they shouldn't have to just cover costs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it's Apple's store, I have no problem with them charging a 30% cut, a 50% cut, or a 90% cut.

What I have a MASSIVE problem with is that Apple's store is the only way to load software on MY iPhone. THAT is what the law should fix. I even hate the term "sideloading" being a thing, because that implies that it's not the normal way that any software should be loaded, and it absolutely is. I should be able to load software on an iPhone or iPad the same way I load software on any other computer, by downloading it and installing it from any source I choose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Permissions, what a novel idea

"Wardle said if Apple is forced to allow sideloading, he expects the company will be able to provide parental or enterprise settings to only allow apps from the App Store, and parents or enterprises could choose to enable those settings."

So iOS would have to implement permissions like a real OS.

But I guess I'm not thinking of the children. Or Tim Cook's yacht.

[W.S.Gosset]

Re: Permissions, what a novel idea

That yacht is his baby.

Please... think of the baby.

[W.S.Gosset]

Boo

Someone doesn't like babies.

[chuBb.]

so apple would add the android dev toggle switch, and digital voodoo ritual tapping of the right version number to enable full options

will epic be the opera of app stones and force a useless nag screen 99% of people just click ok and accept default on, wouldn't be very surprised if apple launched its own curated internet with a chat application and called it Apple-On-Line...

I do find it hard to hear "think of the children" and not hear "think of the 30% of the huge microtransaction inflated phone bills, some muppet got letting their device be used unsupervised"

[bombastic bob]

or think of the developers HAVING TO PAY A TOLL to get cert signing or DRM tagging or whatever OTHER "security" scheme Apple comes up with, if they can't simply use the store to filter out what they do not like and get "a piece of the action" at the same time...

Side-loading MUST become possible WITHOUT certs and DRM crap. Otherwise it will be POINTLESS with Apple as the only gatekeeper. This is most important for independent developers and FOSS.

(Saying that removing Apple's exclusive gatekeeping would somehow HARM developers is BACKWARDS)

[45RPM]

Counterintuitively, I think that the freedom of choice argument is valid. Sure, the restrictions imposed by the App Store mean that I can’t fundamentally alter the OS or the features that it provides (GUI, way that NFC works, the App Store etc) but I can build apps to do nearly everything else. The thing is that, personally, I enjoy the security that not being able to change low level functionality provides. If I had one wish it would be that the curation was more rigidly enforced - I mean, they do let some right old crap through!

If I wanted to have a more open ecosystem, one where I can do pretty much whatever I choose, then I have choice. There are a lot of nice Android phones out there (and a lorry load of really nasty ones too if cheap and plasticky is my preference). If I want total openness, do whatever I like no holds barred, then there are pure Linux phones available too. I have choice.

To mandate that Apple has to open the iPhone up to third party app stores, or system level changes, is to deprive people who think like me of choice. I suspect that the people who are most rabidly pro third party in this case actually don’t want an iPhone anyway - this is a religious thing for them. They just want everything to work like Android does - and that’s not good for anyone.

[werdsmith]

Yes, I’m quite happy with the anti fart app approach on iPhone. People want to side load, buy a different phone.

[W.S.Gosset]

It's not Either/Or

, you can do both.

Apple just creates a (password-protected) toggle Setting: "Allow sideloading: Y/N".

You want total restriction/security? Leave it on the default of No.

A-aaaand you're done.

That way, those who wish to sit peacefully in the walled garden with bold heroic Apple fiercely striding the ramparts, can do so ; while the wild & crazy riskmeister fewls can caper and dance to their lunatic hearts' content amid the bear-traps and ravening wolves which ceaselessly, hungrily, pace the antient dark forests of phishing phear outside.

Everyone's happy.

The End.

(I love a happy ending)

[45RPM]

Re: It's not Either/Or

You could, yes - and it would be very bad for security. You have the savvy to know not to enable such features just because that cold call from “Apple Macintosh” or “Microsoft Windows” told you to - my mother in law definitely doesn’t. At the moment, her iPhone keeps her safe - with your suggestion she’s be open to attack by predatory phone calls and social engineering.

A better idea, credit to John Gruber, might be to enable such functionality - but only to registered developers. Still sucks though.

[noboard]

Re: It's not Either/Or

The problem is you talk like the iPhone is secure. It isn't and it's unlikely it ever will be. So if the walled garden doesn't keep it secure, then what is its use?

Allowing side apps could increase the security of the iPhone, just like it can increase the security of Android phones. It can also be used to stop google and facebook snooping. Apple are happy to block others snooping, but they would hate to give up the control they have over their users.

[45RPM]

Re: It's not Either/Or

You’re right - it isn’t. It’s better than most though, but still worse than some. The point is to protect the majority - some people will be such high-profile targets (world leaders etc) that it’s worth overcoming any security to get them. The security on the iPhone is good enough to protect my family - and likely yours too - and that is the key point. The more holes you poke into it the easier it is to attack people who aren’t tech savvy, and that is not a good thing.

[Chatter]

Re: It's not Either/Or

For sure no computer with a single interface to anything, including Humans are secure. Apple is attempting to be the most secure. That is all. Anyone that thinks any computer they have, use or talk to is secure, is in a dream. It is very dangerous to believe otherwise. It is even worse to not make the attempt to be secure.

[doublelayer]

Re: It's not Either/Or

"my mother in law definitely doesn’t. At the moment, her iPhone keeps her safe - with your suggestion she’s be open to attack by predatory phone calls and social engineering."

Right. The scammer on the other end will tell your mother-in-law to go into settings, down several levels, turn off a security feature, agree to the warning, go to a site, install an application, agree to a warning, launch the application, agree to a warning, agree to several permissions, and then they can do their evil deeds. That's not what they will do. They will get her to open up a website which has nice convincing logos and enter in her passwords and account details. The risk of social engineering is already there, and what they can already do is much stronger than anything this would gain them. Especially given that Apple wouldn't have to let sideloaded applications have extra powers--they could and almost certainly would live in the same sandboxes and have access to the same permissions that store-loaded apps do.

IOS is pretty secure already but it's not the App Store people who make it happen. It's the OS developers who make it happen.

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: It's not Either/Or

45RPM wrote: "my mother in law definitely doesn’t. At the moment, her iPhone keeps her safe - with your suggestion she’s be open to attack by predatory phone calls and social engineering."

@doublelayer - I agree with your response about where is the true social engineering risk. In a different thread I wrote that macOS is keeping my mother safer than Windows used to. iOS is more locked down than macOS, but I'm thinking that macOS is good enough security wise.

From the original article: "Aboukhadijeh argues that these OS-level security features exist in macOS and allow apps to be downloaded from any source and run safely. He contends there's no reason iOS couldn't follow the macOS model."

The only "reason" is that Apple's roadmap all along was to make macOS follow the iOS model, not the other way around. Shame if a lawsuit or legislation prevented the control freaks from tightening their grip as planned.

[Charlie Clark]

You can open up the app store without compromising the integrity of the OS: the two issues are not at all related. You can sideload on Android but this core OS is untouchable because the OS runs in a separte read-only partition. This is why you have to jump through several hoops to install different versions of Android.

The problems with app store and the ban on sideloading are entirely commercial: Apple dictates the terms because there are no alternatives. This is pretty much the definition of abuse of a monopoly.

[45RPM]

But why do you care? Presumably if you want that functionality you’ll buy an Android device. If you would prefer that that functionality isn’t available you can buy iPhone. Isn’t it good to have the choice? I’d have more sympathy with this view if Android didn’t exist, or if Android was total crap. But Android does exist, and it isn’t bad at all - so why do you care what the other team are getting up to?

[Charlie Clark]

Weird logic: just because I don't have any children should I not care about abuse of them?

The reason we have anti-trust laws is because they are necessary.

[heyrick]

Because you paint it as an "us or them" situation, where one who doesn't mind control freakery can use Apple but those who want to make their own choices about what to install have to use Android.

What happens if somebody happens to like Apple but also wants the freedom to install an app from elsewhere? FFS, nobody is asking for operating system source code or the ghost of Steve Jobs to pay them a personal visit, they're only asking that it be possible to do something that can be done on pretty much every other mainstream operating system on the planet.

Yes, fair enough, this may be a vector for malware... but then so be can the official curated app store.

[heyrick]

" mean, they do let some right old crap through!"

So, remind me, what was that about security and thinking of the children?

[Tessier-Ashpool]

"According to Apple, 500 reviewers scrutinize 100,000 new and updated apps a week."

Ooh, I don't know. Perhaps there are just way too many apps on the App Store. There's a virtually uncountable number of crap apps.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: "According to Apple, 500 reviewers scrutinize 100,000 new and updated apps a week."

Yep. But if we could choose to only enable open-source stores that would significantly reduce the number of crap apps we see.

How many uploads a week does F-Droid get (too lazy to look)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sideloading no, better revenue model yes

If Epic manages to break Apple's ability to protect users (because they DO mostly do a ood job keeping crap out), than Epic has broken one of the means by which you can keep especially the dumber ones at least safe to a degree. It is exactly because of Apple's control that it's safe - but that is really not the issue at hand, that's just used for leverage because if you break that, you break a lot of what Apple has worked on over the last few years. In other words, the real agenda would be harming Apple's privacy protections.

The visible debate is really about money. If Apple can lower its tariffs (which others have already done), that's one way, but the real problem is that Epic doesn't want to hand off 30% of its revenue, and blames Apple for asking for it, conveniently foregoing the fact that they would not have the remaining 70% if it wasn't for Apple creating that eco system in the first place (which, by the way, the Android store is simply a later copy of, just worse in terms of protecting users so Google's percentage actually delivers substantially less added value).

Do I think 30% is a bit much? Yes, but so far, everyone asked it and somehow that worked. If you want to find a real rip off, try selling a book through Amazon - and that too, has been a long established practice.

Personally I think Apple should have engaged a bit more before both sides opened up a costly can of lawyers and took it to court. I can't see a good outcome here now, other than for the lawyers. I do not think it will add value for users, and if Epic somehow damages the control Apple has it has destroyed one of the last places you can send a user to without too much worries that they'll screw things up beyond recovery. No, Apple's App Store isn't 100% safe (especially not in the gaming section where plenty of app developers are after the kids), but from a safety perspective it beats the Android one hands down.

Unless, as I said, the real agenda is removing those pesky controls so the smear of three letter agencies in the US finally get access..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Real Agenda

@A/C

Quote "Unless, as I said, the real agenda is removing those pesky controls so the smear of three letter agencies in the US finally get access.." unquote.

You have just hit the nail on the head. All the rest is just a sideshow.

Have 10 of these.

[doublelayer]

Re: The Real Agenda

Oh, isn't it so nice that Apple's method for keeping the NSA off the iPhone is to ... not allow them to publish apps to the App Store? Dream on. The NSA doesn't publish apps. If they want access to the iPhone, they go to the OS and break through that way. They don't care at all about app review because they don't publish apps.

When Apple has taken its famous stances against surveillance, they rely on the exemplary work of their OS developers, but they never rely on the reviewers. Keep that in mind.

[Peter2]

Re: Sideloading no, better revenue model yes

The visible debate is really about money. If Apple can lower its tariffs (which others have already done), that's one way, but the real problem is that Epic doesn't want to hand off 30% of its revenue, and blames Apple for asking for it, conveniently foregoing the fact that they would not have the remaining 70% if it wasn't for Apple creating that eco system in the first place

If Apple hadn't created that eco system in the first place then everybody would be using either an *nix/android or a windows device, which don't charge you 30% of your revenue to run your applications.

If Apple charged a single rate of £100 for adding the application to the store (which would more than cover it's costs if the people checking things are spending less than an hour doing the checks) then the objections go away.

And this is the real issue; should a company be able to charge 30% of your revenue for running your application on their platform?

[Chatter]

Re: Sideloading no, better revenue model yes

NO! I do not believe any company should be able to charge 30% for anything. In fact they should get Zero %. There is but one problem. Nobody has figured out how to make that happen and stay in business. Everything costs something. I see so many out there with the attitude that Apple is so greedy. Yet none of you are willing to put up your money to create the perfect ecosystem. You know where everyone is protected and everything is free.

Way to many "Useful Idiots" out there.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Sideloading no, better revenue model yes

Why should the market not be able to decide?

[Jason Hindle]

Perhaps a happy medium would be to....

Have an option to switch sideloading on but in a way that sensitive apps can detect*? For example, your bank may prefer their app doesn't work on a device deemed insecure? The only way to switch off such an option (which effectively jail breaks the device) would be a full factory reset.

* Merely mooted because it looks like this will ultimately be forced on users whether they want it or not. I certainly don't want it - I have Android for that (and the only app I've ever had to side load onto my Android phone was Didi Chuxing).

[Gene Cash]

Re: Perhaps a happy medium would be to....

> For example, your bank may prefer their app doesn't work on a device deemed insecure?

Fuck that. I've had to deal with that on Android where my phone is rooted because I have written apps that need to control things on the phone like turning the GPS/cell-data on/off.

Having the bank software (which is shite to start with) and the bank's mobile website both not work, is not ok.

Then my bank (Chase) has the gall to serve up cookies from .ru and .cn

I've then had to install s/w that masks that the phone is rooted.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Perhaps a happy medium would be to....

I don't understand any of this. Why use an app? What's wrong with accessing your 'app' via the browser?

What am I missing? I refuse to download apps to my (android) phone, because I have to have a google account. I won't download the NHS app because of this. But I can get to the NHS website, so I don't need the app. Or do Apple hobble the browser?

[doublelayer]

Re: Perhaps a happy medium would be to....

If you're willing to do banking on your phone at all, using the app can have some advantages. For one thing, it may have features a site can't easily do, such as depositing via camera. It also allows the banking system to be isolated from any other things that might have access to the browser's data or integration with native security features. Either those benefits or the bank just doesn't let mobile users use their site because they wrote an app so if you can use it, you're going to.

[Jim-234]

This is a rare opportunity for the courts to break the near monopoly Big Tech is trying to force on the consumer.

If Apple wins, consumers all across the world for a long time are going to be the losers.

Especially if Apple is allowed to continue with their unfair, undocumented, unaccountable, obtuse stands or approving or disapproving apps that essentially say they can do anything they want for any reason or no reason and tough for any developer they don't like.

[Chatter]

Useful Idiots

This is just one big tech company wishing that they had built the ecosystem first, and to lazy to build their own. Oh, wait, they did try that. Their economy still has not worked. I believe only the lawyers will ever win in this fight. However, there are those that see this as a way to bring all the rest down to their level of insecure living.

[Chatter]

When I hear and read opinion on this issue, I hear all sorts of things about how Apple is ending our freedom or has no faith in their customer. For truths sake I do not believe anyone has used this exact fraise, but it is the idea they are getting across. And so if all of these people are correct in their assertions, then. Why on earth does every company I have ever worked for do the exact same thing that Apple is doing? Why then, do we make every attempt to stop any outsider from getting into our networks and for sure our computers?

Well if Apple must stop their walled garden, then every corporation in the US / World should simply drop their walled gardens. Everyone should have access to every piece of data world wide. Every nation should have access to every citizen's personal information. Maybe not specifics but in generalities anyway. No true secrets, no privacy. Oh, wait, that is the Android system. So if, as a consumer, I have the choice of getting an Android phone, pad, or watch then are not the rest of you simply attempting to get into a corporate network in a different country without that nations consent and without that users consent?

I see this as no different than gentlemen's club. If I choose to hang it all out there so there are no secrets, so that everyone knows exactly what I have, I have that choice. But if I want to keep what I have private and show it only to my spouse I can. The fact that it makes some uncomfortable that I get to see yours and you do not get to see mine, well that is to bad. You chose the quick Euro over privacy. And I totally support your choose and the right to have that choice. Why then are so many so hell bent on taking my choice, and that of so many, away? Or is this about your big tech company of choice not having access to my data and therefor making an extra dollar on my information?

If this is all about who makes the most Bitcoin in the shortest time, then it is not just the big tech that are greedy. Remember Stalin's famous words "We must make full use of the useful idiots". Yes I know that is not the exact quote. I just know I did not think of it first.

[CommonBloke]

You got it wrong

Apple's behavior is similar to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft with their respective consoles. Unless you jailbreak them, you can't sideload stuff or experiment willy-nilly with your device. Whether they're right in doing that is the debate that also varies with each country's laws.

Now, this isn't "everyone gets free access to every data ever", the idea is that you own what you bought. It's not "Apple must show all its secrets!", it's "We want sideloading because we paid for the device". If I have an iPhone or iPad, why should I -not- be allowed to use it to program or test a new app that i don't intend to put on the app store?

That's where the similarity to consoles is obvious: "To fight piracy and ensure quality, we only allow apps/games approved and/or licensed by us".

[doublelayer]

Your analogy fails. The point is that you can decide what people do with the stuff you own. You own the network, you decide who can use it and who can't. You own the data, you decide whether to make it public or not. You own the phone, so you decide what to run and what not to.

Apple thinks it should have the rights to decide what you are allowed to do with the phone you own. If Apple was renting them, I'd see their point. They are not.

[JWLong]

Apple

Will fight like hell to keep its 85 BILLION in revenue that the store generates.

[CommonBloke]

Their main worry is jailbreaking

Pretty sure Apple's main worry is jailbreaking. Yes, there are plenty of guides out there in the internet, but if you could sideload an app that made it much easier, you'd also see an increase in the number of jailbroken devices. Piracy becomes easier, but I also suspect Apple's more worried that, suddenly, they see an increase in these "rogue" phones and how dare they ignore the will of Big Brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Their main worry is jailbreaking

.. and guess who then gets the blame and the bad reputation? Yes, Apple, because people won't admit they violated the secure model that protected them when they go and whine in the press.

I can quite understand that Apple doesn't want to even contemplate going down that route.