back to article Apple warns sideloading iOS apps will ruin everything

Apple, besieged by regulators and rivals challenging its exclusive control over its iOS App Store, has published a 31-page defense of its ostensibly benevolent monopoly that warns of disastrous consequences if Cupertino is forced to allow competition. "[S]ome are demanding that Apple support the distribution of apps outside of …

  1. msobkow Bronze badge

    "It will ruin EVERYTHING!!! Our cash cow IS 'everything' to us..."

    1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

      "It will ruin EVERYTHING!!! Our cash cow IS 'everything' to us ..."

      Calm down. You're squeezing it wrong. :D

    2. vtcodger Silver badge

      Whose security are we talking about

      Indeed. The "security" Apple is referring to appears to be financial security --- theirs.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Whose security are we talking about

        While the app store brings in a good amount I think you need to take another look at Apple's situation if you think it impacts their financial security at all.

        1. Slipoch

          Re: Whose security are we talking about

          App store revenue:

          $1.2bn from fortnite alone in a single year.

          $64bn overall in 2020

          This is NOT counting the fees developers have to pay per year.

          So we're looking at around 7% of total current company value on the stockmarket. (excluding any knock on effects). For the turnover to be this high in only one of the three consumer business areas is unusual.

          Add in the other things the EU are eroding such as the program you have to be part of (that also forces a percentage payment) of devices that use lightning connectors. (instead forcing them to use the superior usb-c connection method they signed up to).

          1. jmch Silver badge

            Re: Whose security are we talking about

            "$64bn overall in 2020"

            Per statista.com, Apple's 2020 revenue was $274 billion, and App store revenue was $72.3 billion, so that's over a quarter of their revenue.

            Also, given that they spend on average 12 min per app on vetting and that the infrastructure is otherwise a basic app repository + shopfront, the margins must be incredibly high. So it might be a quarter of revenue but surely it's a much higher %age of profit.

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/265125/total-net-sales-of-apple-since-2004/

            https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-store-revenue/

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Whose security are we talking about

              https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/FY20_Q4_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf

              Where is the App store in there? Seems like services to me. What are statisa basing the app store revenue on? They are estimating from something. I'm not seeing any 72.3 billion line in there, it sure as hell isn't a good chunk of the iPhone income.

              1. jmch Silver badge

                Re: Whose security are we talking about

                " What are statisa basing the app store revenue on?"

                Since Apple don't break out AppStore Revenue in their accounts, yes it is an estimate, and I believe it's based on Apple publishing what they distribute to developers every year. Since we know they take a 30% cut, you could estimate 100 revenue for every 70 distributed. Of course not clear-cut.

                I guess most of AppStore revenue would fall under "services", but maybe in some convoluted way they consider some of it to be "products"?

                Either way, from the link you sent, I note the services gross margin is 66% vs 32% for products. Whichever way you cut it, even a small (5-10%) drop in AppStore Revenue would be quite a blow for Apple's profits

      2. HildyJ Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Whose security are we talking about

        Sounds like Zuck talking about why FarceBook's algorithms are necessary and can't be restricted.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Thing is I can see their point - people who have opted into the IOS prison have done so in an informed way, not like it's something new.

      How do you control what third parties do with their apps other than rely on trust or review individually? I guess they could - but that'd add a huge delay to publication.

      It's not like any other mobile OS has ever managed it.

      1. martyn.hare
        Happy

        There is a simple fix for it

        Make it so you only need to have your app go through the App Store if it is supplied as a binary. Then, allow users to compile, sign and sideload apps to their own device with the caveat that those apps are sandboxed under a separate UID from other apps.

        This prevents the spread of malware between devices, limits access in the event of a sandbox break and will result in a flourishing open source community which might even do better than say F-Droid.

        1. Slipoch

          Re: There is a simple fix for it

          why not keep the sideloaded apps separate like a properly sandboxed environment? Compile your own may actually open the way for more malicious behaviour (most malicious behaviour seems to be on the legit stores anyway), if we look at the recent repeated breaches of NPM and other library systems we can see some pretty large security threats there.

          I don't see how it stops the spread between devices, of malware breaks out it may auto-sideload onto other devices, much as some of the recent ios malware did.

          Without decent incentives, the OS community will noit flourish as well as on droid/linux/PC, particularly if you gimp how users can use products.

          This is why if you need industry specific apps succh as the ag industry, scientific, manufacturing, etc. You generally do not find good apps for them on iOS or MacOS.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: There is a simple fix for it

          > Make it so you only need to have your app go through the App Store if it is supplied as a binary. Then, allow users to compile, sign and sideload apps to their own device with the caveat that those apps are sandboxed under a separate UID from other apps.

          I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. It's already possible to develop an app and load it onto your own Apple devices (via USB cable) without having to put the app into the store. I don't think you even need to register with Apple as a developer (but I've been registered long enough now that I lose track of what you can and can't do.)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sandboxing. You do it with sandboxing. A technique that has existed for aeons in computing time.

        As far as I am concerned, they should be able to vet anything that goes on their app store, but if a person or business wants to develop something that is for their own use and doesn't need to be published to a "vetted app store" then it shouldn't be blocked.

        At most all we need is a mechanism through which we can register and pay a token (geddit?) amount for signing keys for side loading.

        That way Apple still weilds a ban hammer of sorts but opens up the platform to private / open development projects. The primary rule being "you can only go through the app store if we vet your app" and everything else is "installed at your own risk and comes with no Apple quality guarantee".

        Which means if Apples quality control stacks up, the app store will become the safe "Shangri La" they purport it to be and anything signed with sideloading keys is not their responsibility.

        It actually gives them a degree of plausible deniability.

      3. Spanners Silver badge

        Informed?

        people who have opted into the IOS prison have done so in an informed way

        Maybe the ones you know have but I, and I suspect others here, have come across plenty of users who have not and simply believed everything they were told.

        Curiously, most of the people I have come across criticising me for doing what I am told WRT the pandemic have iPhones. They don't trust doctors and immunologists but they do trust Apples adverts.

  2. jake Silver badge

    I believe the expression everyone is looking for is ...

    ... ODFO, Apple.

    IOW, nobody believes you, chiselers.

  3. Pseu Donyme

    App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

    While having the ability to sideload on iOS would be an improvement it and 3rd party app stores can't really fix the root problem which is an inevitable tendency to de-facto monopoly. This is because of the network effect where app developers and users attract each other in a self-amplifying loop resulting in one dominating app store, a de-facto monopoly. This is what we have seen with Android where Google Play absolutely dominates. There is no reason to think that things would be different if competition was nominally possible on iOS, on the contrary, an upstart's prospects against the incumbent are dire, practically nil.

    Monopolies - whether absolute or inescapable de-facto ones - ought to be run as regulated utilities. Ideally, perhaps, an app store could be a mutual non-profit corporation / co-op controlled by the developers. In practice regulating the current ones, most importantly limiting their commission towards making them non-profit entities, seems like a pragmatic approach.

    1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

      Re: App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

      In the early days of smartphones it quickly became clear that the app ecosystem was key to success. Apple and Google won that, which killed Microsoft's and Nokia's smartphone OSes completely and made players like Jolla, Pinephone and others into really tiny niche players.

      However, at least Android allows side-loading and external appstores. Stores like F-Droid have different criteria (technically, commercially, etc), different business models and costs, different apps and different customers from Google Play.

      Google Play is still very much the dominant player in the non-iPhone app market, but those alternative stores are still much bigger than players like Jolla (and, in fact, enable players who want to offer non-Google alternatives like /e/, Jolla, etc).

      Opening the iPhone to external app stores (and, to a lesser extent, straight side-loading) would be great news for those who are invested in the Apple ecosystem and those who want to increase privacy by having alternatives to the Apple apps.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

      Once the monopolistic control exists, those who perceive themselves as "owning it" are VERY unlikely to relinquish their power and control, even a fraction of it. Kinda like GUMMINTS, that way.

      Control freaks control (In My Bombastic Opinion) NOT because they are benevolent and/or best suited for the task, but because they FEAR, and "control" assuages their fear by giving them a false (or sometimes REAL) sense of, well, being in CONTROL. (as such they can NOT trust)

      Fearing loss of power or money or ability to manipulate the market sounds like a likely motivation to want to retain monopolistic control, at ANY cost even.

      And MY behavior and use of a product (or anything ELSE about my life) should NOT be dictated by "someone else's FEAR".

      1. FordPrefect

        Re: App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

        I'm not saying I agree with it but legally for them to have a monopoly they'd have to have a monopoly on hardware supply which they do not, they don't even have a dominant market position as android outsells them substantially. People do have the choice not to be tied down. I've switched back to Android as previously I took the point of view that I'd rather have regular OS updates rather than a carrier or manufacturer taking there time releasing them. Now even before pegasus I'd changed my mind given a lot of information about memory resident malware in ios devices, at least with android you can have 3rd party security solutions such as bit defender. From a security perspective you really are piling all your eggs and trust in one basket with ios devices you have to trust that apple wont let anything slip onto the app store and in practice I dont see how they can realistically keep all malware out, and thats not even considering memory resident malware or transient stuff downloaded via the web or 0day exploits via whatsapp etc. I just feel the security model on apple ios devices is currently flawed, I dont think android is perfect but I think android plus some additional security software and keeping it all updated is probably safer than apple now.

        1. Naselus

          Re: App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

          "m not saying I agree with it but legally for them to have a monopoly they'd have to have a monopoly on hardware supply which they do not,"

          No, that's not true at all.

          No-one is contesting hat Apple have a monopoly on the phone market. They're contesting that Apple have a monopoly on the after-market of iPhone users - which they do. The end user is not the person being targeted and disadvantaged by the monopoly in question; instead, iOS app developers are being forced to sell their product via the Apple storefront, and are being forced to pay Apple fees for that at whatever price Apple chooses to demand. There's no other option if you want to sell to iUsers.

          Apple have created a position where they have a product (access to iPhone users) that customers (iPhone app devs) need access to, and where Apple is the sole possible provider of that access. There is no competition in that market, and no competition is even possible. That is not just a monopoly, it's an incredibly aggressive one, far more egregious than anything Microsoft tried in the 1990s.

        2. LDS Silver badge

          "they don't even have a dominant market position"

          Are you sure? That also depends on countries. In many countries Android/iOS is often around 80/20, but in others it's close to 50/50 (see US, for example) - and that makes that market a duopoly where both hold a dominant position. And anyway when there is very little competition, like in the mobile market where the choice is down to just two OS - as almost all applications users may have to use are supported only on one or the other - is a market without real competition.

          Since antitrust laws care only about local market share, and not the global one, how many Android devices are sold in India or China doesn't change what antitrust authority can do in US or EU.

          1. Spanners Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: "they don't even have a dominant market position"

            In many countries Android/iOS is often around 80/20, but in others it's close to 50/50

            That is not the monopoly they are talking about. How many app stores to Apple users have access to? The answer is 1. That is the monopoly under discussion.

            The fact that people in the USA, for example, have more money and spend it on iThings is a cause for mockery only.

    3. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: App stores are de-facto monopolies and should be treated as such

      Another approach would be allow third-party purchase systems. I have free apps where features are unlocked via in-app purchases. If the iPhone had, say, Google pay installed, then it would be nice if I could choose Google Pay instead of Apple. (Or any other third party provider.)

      Ideally the same would be true of apps with an up front purchase price.

  4. bazza Silver badge

    This is What Happens...

    ... When you dam the river and charge downstreamers an excessive amount for water.

    Sure, regulate the flow, do a useful service. But ratchet the price up to profiteering levels and people look back to the good old days of free water with the occasional flood.

    Profiteering seems to have been a constant refrain of the big tech companies, which in the long run will earn them less money. Cook could go down in history as the man who killed Apple. Zuckerberg is already on the infamy list, but one day Facebook will meet its comeuppance. Google too risks losing it big time when their product finally has too many data protection hindrances.

    None of them have a sustainable business model by the looks of it.

    Microsoft? Not so sure. The company certainly seems to be in a "let's be nice" mood, and it makes good money still. Could they have found the magic balance?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Could they have found the magic balance?

      Borkzilla has found no balance, it is simply surfing the sheer volume of applications that exist for the Windows environment, coupled with total apathy from the users who couldn't care less what OS they are running, and the apparent mind control it enjoys on the business users.

      Legacy is what is making money for Borkzilla, that and the current Cloud madness.

      The day Linux will have as many useful applications is the day Borkzilla will start to see its money vault shrink.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        "The day Linux will have as many useful applications"

        So, why does not Linux have them? Why not only Windows has, but macOS too?

        Why developers don't write may useful Linux applications or don't port them to LInux? Just because they are evil developers?

        Or Linux still have fundamental issues when it comes to desktop applications (and not server ones), both technical (GUI development in Linux is still a minefield, and many UI still look bad compared to macOS and Windows) and commercial (if users expect applications for free developers are not interested in the platform...)?

        MS would have killed Windows if they had attempted to make it closed to third party applications like Apple did on iOS. From that perspective, the Windows Store failure is important - nobody wants their desktop OS hostage of a store. People may accept it on a phone just because of the far simple needs on a mobile.

        But on the other hand the Linux model shows that security does not depend on the way applications are distributed. One can still install evil code on any Linux machine, but it does not happen so frequently. Probably because the actual users are more IT-oriented than others, but also because there are far less shady sources. It could change if Linux users attempted to download wharez as well - but even third-party sources would not hinder to allow only signed and verified code.

        1. msobkow Bronze badge

          Re: "The day Linux will have as many useful applications"

          Tsk. It seems both of you have neglected to realize web-facing interfaces are "the thing" with SaaS provisioning across the board. You can't even *buy* most of the apps that I used to buy 15-20 years ago; they're ONLY available as much-more-expensive-in-the-long-run "services". Services that don't even guarantee the safety and integrity of your data, if you read the fine print. In fact they don't guarantee much of ANYTHING other than a "reasonable effort" to deliver the service-product you paid for.

          G-g-g-g-g-gouge Gouge Gouge

          G g g g Gouge Gouge Gouge g Gouge

          THAT is the modern "business model" for tech right across the board of the big web provisioners. I have yet to see a single one whose prices I consider "fair" for what they deliver. As with real work brick-and-mortar, the only "deals" to be found are with the "mom and pop" small development house products where integrity and honesty still matter to the "board" of one or a few owners.

          Why build an app for Windows or Mac or Linux or any OS when you can build for a web stack once and be done? Web provisioning delivers a much bigger chunk of potential users than platform provisioning does.

          Most "apps" for cell phones are nothing more than restrictive browser interfaces coded to the phone's UI rules; they don't do any processing or validation on the phone itself. They're not the APPLICATIONS you bought like accounting software in days of yore.

          1. LDS Silver badge

            "both of you have neglected to realize web-facing interfaces are "the thing" with SaaS"

            True - but many people who need a specific OS need it because of desktop applications they must run - and related applications.

            Even web applications may need local applications - how many web applications end to manage Office documents? So people still need a system able to run Office. Or they may need to process data locally before feeding them into a web application. And many web stacks are still unable to deliver quickly what desktop application can without a lot of effort - plus the need of a separate run-time environment (see Electron).

            "Most "apps" for cell phones are nothing more than restrictive browser interfaces"

            Actually, but some simple ones, it's the other way round. Phones shown that local applications may often be better than applications needing always a remote server to run.

        2. iron Silver badge

          Re: "The day Linux will have as many useful applications"

          It's all the fault of evil devs like me who twirl our moustaches while C# writing code that will only run on Windows. Muhahahahahaha

          But wait... most of the C# code I've written this year actually runs on Docker, Linux or iOS! Perhaps I'm not so evil after all and don't need to buy that dog with the funny sounding laugh.

    2. mark l 2 Silver badge

      Re: This is What Happens...

      Microsoft might be playing nice on Windows by allowing 3rd party app stores within the Windows ecosystem, but I doubt they will do the same on Xbox allowing publishers to bypass Microsoft and publish games on the Xbox without MS getting their cut.

      If Apple were to allow the install of apps from outside their own walled garden this might make me consider buying an iPhone for my next device, as I do like the quality of the Apple hardware and the privacy controls on iOS.

  5. Totally not a Cylon
    Mushroom

    Law of unintended consequences

    So what happens if Apple are forced to allow other app stores?

    What's next; Smart TVs, Games consoles, Cars?

    Supermarkets? Waitrose forced to let you use Aldi to process your payment?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      I'd settle for being allowed to do anything I want with anything I own.

      1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        I applaud your concise summary.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        I pretty much can[0] ... but then I ignore marketards and don't purchase sandboxware.

        [0]Barring things that are illegal, like shooting people.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: Law of unintended consequences

          How in god's name (or whatever you believe) did we get from sideloading apps to using not shooting people as an example?

          1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

            Re: Law of unintended consequences

            Because jake.

            1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

              Re: Law of unintended consequences

              Ah, hello jake.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: Law of unintended consequences

                Hello. Running out of people to talk to?

            2. jake Silver badge

              Re: Law of unintended consequences

              Because jake what?

          2. jake Silver badge

            Re: Law of unintended consequences

            How? The OP wrote "I'd settle for being allowed to do anything I want with anything I own."

            I answered "I pretty much can[0]", and added an example of a thing I can't. In other words, we have laws to (hopefully) protect people. We don't need Apple (or any other tech company) protecting us from ourselves. Next thing you know, hammers will come with built-in padding so we can't possibly hit ourselves in the head and hurt ourselves, and Xacto knives will come unsharpened. Chainsaws will be right out. They are already banning the sale of gasoline powered garden tools here in California (thus opening up a HUGE grey market, which I intend to get filthy rich from ... ).

            The nanny-state is upon us, aided and abetted by the Tech world. Are you sure you want that?

      3. ibmalone Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        Having just bought a new WD external drive, I discovered that what I initially thought was an instruction manual was in fact an extensive class action waiver in apparently every major language. Apparently I 'agreed' to this by buying it. This kind of rubbish needs to stop, the anglophone (at least) world's legal system is weighted in favour of those with money. (I suspect consumer rights in the UK should render such terms meaningless, apparently that doesn't stop companies thinking they can get away with it.)

        1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

          Re: Law of unintended consequences

          I recall seeing a software CD some years ago (I think it was an MS one) that was sealed in shrink wrap and had a label on it saying words to the effect of "by opening this packet you agree to the conditions of the enclosed EULA". That surely can't've been legal.

          1. heyrick Silver badge

            Re: Law of unintended consequences

            In sane jurisdictions, it isn't. You cannot be held to any terms and conditions that weren't clearly marked before opening the package.

            This may also extend to annul that pre-installation crap you must "agree" to because it's not available until the package has been opened, and many places won't accept returns of opened software packages, but I don't think this specific scenario has actually been tested. Most people just click the Continue button without reading all that legalese crap...

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Law of unintended consequences

              you reminded me of a South Park episode regarding Kyle, NOT reading the EULA, and Steve Jobs (and the new Apple i-something). yeah I think that's what it was. heh.

              1. Robin

                Re: Law of unintended consequences

                Ah, The Human Cent-iPad. Great episode!

          2. Medixstiff

            Re: Law of unintended consequences

            Back in early Windows XP days quite a few years back, members of a local Perth Linux community went to court to claw back the $'s for having XP supplied as part of buying a computer, they lost the case because the Judge decided that Linux was not an operating system and that the law specifically stated that computers in Australia must be sold with an OS.

            1. heyrick Silver badge

              Re: Law of unintended consequences

              "the Judge decided that Linux was not an operating system"

              What did he think it was, a giant animated penguin?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      "Supermarkets? Waitrose forced to let you use Aldi to process your payment?"

      Why would they need to, if they didn't accept the payment method I wanted, I can still buy elsewhere. I'm not restricted to a single supermarket. So I take it you are advocating for multiple app store for iOS then?

    3. ibmalone Silver badge

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      Where to start?

      Supermarkets. I don't know if you've noticed, but supermarkets accept cash and various different payment processors. And yes, if you have your credit card from Tesco, Sainbury's will accept it as a means of payment.

      Cars, you have always been able to use third party parts. Recent moves by manufacturers to use software to prevent this are being resisted by right-to-repair legislation.

      Smart TVs and games consoles. An interesting one. Market dominance in this sector is much less than Apple's in smartphone. Your smart TV will have an HDMI port into which you can insert a Roku, Firestick, Chromecast or even Apple TV (the device, not the streaming service, which, coincidentally, can be accessed from all of those). Useful when the manufacturer stops supporting it or the BBC updates their app so its no longer compatible. Consoles also have strong competition, but yes, vendor lock in is a problem there. Not sure why the danger of moving on to improve another sector justifies Apple locking third parties out. What's the opposite of a slippery slope? An upward escalator?

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
        Childcatcher

        Re: Tesco

        seem to be determined to make anyone without a snoop card... sorry clubcard feel like a second class citizen. All those money off (cough-cough or money on for the great unwashed) prices are there to make you sign up to their data collection system.

        Want to keep things private and still shop in Tesco? It will cost you ££££££££££££.

        TBH, it is about the last place that I'd willingly go to do my weekly food shop but that is just how this GOM feels about the mass scrum that the place is at weekends.

        I'd cheer loudly if Tesco ceased to exist tomorrow. Even Morrisons is a better place to go.

        1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

          Re: Tesco

          I hate Tesco's snooping. Have you noticed that their Party Membership Card Clubcard uses an Aztec code that contains far more information than just the card number? For example:

          9794021234567890:RLNHUWE2OPINQFnIUIcmHJxHJm9enVEDMQ1CXEBFkNPBgCsIWHMozNX7+BgX

          (Only the bit before the colon is required.) They initially give you a card and two fobs, and if you look closely, you'll see that each has a unique set of 60 gobbledegook chars added to the end. I got annoyed with this, so I've changed mine to things like:

          9794021234567890:TRACKINGPe0p1eUsingAZTECCodesIsKindOfCR33PYSoISp00fedThis0ne

          and

          9794021234567890:IM0nlyDoingTHIS7oAnn0yYou3utIDONTEvenKNOWIfANYONEWill533This

          and printed out replacements to sellotape over the originals. They apparently work fine. (I take care to use the optical rather than contactless scanner. I also gave them a fake name, FWIW: I only want it for the "Clubcard price" so-called discounts, so once I have the cards, the address can be changed to that of a random sorting office...) I know these numbers are obviously still unique, but it's a matter of principle. If I actually had a smartphone, I'd consider writing a little app to randomize it every time (yes, I know all of this is pointless, but it's also fun).

          1. Tom 38 Silver badge

            Re: Tesco

            Its not that weird, its just memberID:cardID.

            1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

              Re: Tesco

              But why do they even need to know which physical(/electronic) card you're using? And in any case surely that information could be just as easily encoded in just a few digits, as the Clubcard number itself is already unique. And what's with the downvote hate?

              1. ibmalone Silver badge

                Re: Tesco

                I don't know, maybe they don't. But a first thought would be that with a card id you can block certain cards. Some reward schemes let you spend points from the card, and being able to block a stolen or lost card would be desirable in that case. (Haven't used Tesco's scheme for years so not sure if they use points like that these days. I remember they used to send out reward vouchers for smallish sums, not sure if you needed to present a card when using them, I know other shops do require that.)

                1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

                  Re: Tesco

                  Well if it's for that purpose then it's evidently flawed if I can spoof it with any old nonsense.

                  1. doublelayer Silver badge

                    Re: Tesco

                    Not really, as they've just increased the key space. You can spoof with anything you like, but if you do, you probably can't spend any of the theorized points you would have earned because each spoof has been distributing them across fake addresses. They won't mind.

                    1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

                      Re: Tesco

                      I've disproved that one too. Before changing my address, I got a voucher for £1.50, which it happily accepted with the spoofed nonsense.

              2. Tom 38 Silver badge

                Re: Tesco

                Well I have three Tesco clubcards, one on my phone, one on a keyring and one physical card, my wife has another couple with the same member id - however all of them scan the same way at the till - qr code. If I was running a project to provide the same clubcard in multiple physical formats, I'd for sure be doing something so that I can see which format was being used rather than just the member id.

                Loyalty cards are literally about tracking usage, you can't use a loyalty card and then bitch about your usage being tracked.

                1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

                  Re: Tesco

                  all of them scan the same way at the till - qr code.

                  It's an Aztec code.

                  If I was running a project to provide the same clubcard in multiple physical formats, I'd for sure be doing something so that I can see which format was being used rather than just the member id.

                  That just demonstrates that you're creepy too. I guess you're all in favour of exhaustive telemetry in all software as well. But again, why does that particular use case need a whole sixty 8-bit ASCII chars? A handful would do.

                  you can't use a loyalty card and then bitch about your usage being tracked.

                  I can bitch about them setting stupid prices for people without a loyalty card. Sadly I don't have a car, and Tesco is the only moderately-sized supermarket in plausible walking distance. As such, I'm doing all I can to keep the prices I pay sensible while avoiding their creepiness as far as possible.

                  I maintain that the amount of data stored in those Aztec codes is just weird.

                  1. msobkow Bronze badge

                    Re: Tesco

                    Fortunately, Tesco also sells tinfoil, or so I've heard...

                    The previous comment is right. You can't complain about a loyalty card that tracks your loyalty in using it. That is kind of the whole PURPOSE of the thing: to track you and your purchases in exchange for the occasional bonus cookie points or discounts.

                    You're as much part of their "production line" of shilling stuff as the trucks that bring it in.

                  2. Cederic Silver badge

                    Re: Tesco

                    Sorry, what's creepy about tracking your customers' preferred means of accessing a service you're offering?

                    At a population level, if nobody uses the keyfob because they're using the card or phone instead, you can discontinue the keyfobs. At an individual level, if someone's using the card or keyfob and never use a digital device, don't send them SMS offers, post them instead.

                    While the totality of their data slurp is (from one perspective) creepy, that specific part makes a lot of sense.

                    That you choose to support them demonstrates that you recognise that your personal data has value. You're exchanging it in return for cheaper shopping and that's a conscious choice you've made. I fail to see how accusing them (let alone the person to whom you replied) of creepiness is justified when you're the one choosing to give them your data in exchange for financial benefit.

                    1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

                      Re: Tesco

                      As noted, I don't have a lot of choice. At my nearest Tesco, they also know it – they recently changed a long-standing "Metro" into an "Express" just so they could further price gouge (it's clearly the size of a normal supermarket rather than a "convenience" offering).

                    2. ibmalone Silver badge

                      Re: Tesco

                      Absolutely, the number they use to track you is the first part anyway. The second bit will tie to the card, whether they use it or not (in other contexts most on here would be criticising them if they didn't include some way of doing that). There's nothing more creepy about that than the first part, unless you believe it's some kind of qabalistic spell. They've got your details in a database they can tie to that card number anyway.

                      Not keen on the increased pricing for non-clubcard users. While it's not a part of GDPR I'm familiar with, I'd thought this was a questionable practice.

                      "Customers might get tired of these eventually, so you’ll need an incentive. Luckily, everybody loves discounts and a personalised experience. Therefore a lot of customers are willing to supply their data and opt-in for a wide variety of business communication to get a little bit of extra service, or to be a part of loyalty programs and promotions including discounts. Do note that if consent is made to be a precondition to the service, but the tracking is not necessary for that service, consent is deemed to be invalid."

                      https://blog.privacyperfect.com/gdpr-for-retailers

                      1. Cederic Silver badge

                        Re: Tesco

                        Regarding "Not keen on the increased pricing for non-clubcard users" I'd be surprised if they do this directly.

                        The indirect method is by offering discounts to clubcard members, which they absolutely do. Ethically I'm fine with this as it's recompense for the provision and use of data, although I'd much rather they explicitly articulate it in such terms.

                        1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

                          Re: Tesco

                          They do do it directly – they just call it the opposite like they're doing some big favour to people. In reality, they just shamelessly put the prices up. See, for example, a particular type of bagel – before they introduced "Clubcard Price" at my store, a packet cost £1.20. Afterwards, the cost was £1.80. Can you guess what the clubcard price is now? Yes, it's £1.20. In my eyes, that is not ethical.

    4. LDS Silver badge

      "Supermarkets? Waitrose forced to let you use Aldi to process your payment?"

      In any supermarket I go I can use several payment system - from cash to different kind of electronic ones including some standard ones open to different banks. Would you like a supermarket where you can pay only with their exclusive proprietary card?

    5. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      Games Consoles

      If you do not like one, buy another, failing that buy a PC.

      But all of the consoles could plug into my TV.

      Cars, plenty of aftermarket for mine, including better than standard parts at rather high prices.

      Plenty of choice at supermarkets.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        All phones can plug into your TV as well. What's your point? How does that make it OK for Sony to offer the only place to get software for your PS5 but it isn't OK for Apple to offer the only place to get software for your iPhone?

        There's absolutely no reason anyone can claim with a straight face that iPhone's software market should be forced to open up, but not PS5 and Xbox.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Law of unintended consequences

          The difference, if there is one, is the amount of competition. If you can, for example, buy a game on a disk and Sony doesn't get paid, then there's a lot more competition than Apple has. If there are lots of game systems available, then each one has less market dominance and therefore has less ability to cause harm. I don't use consoles myself, but if they're doing the same Apple thing, I wouldn't mind making them open up a bit too.

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Law of unintended consequences

            Sony gets paid for every game whether it is downloaded or purchased on disc.

            That's why they can sell consoles at a loss, because they know they are getting a cut of every game on their system. They and Microsoft also have control over what gets on their system - an Xbox is basically PC and there's no reason you couldn't get say LibreOffice for it and not have to buy a PC if you're a student and need something to write papers on. But there's no model for "free" apps on a console and Microsoft doesn't want to provide Xbox owners a potential way to not have to pay them for Windows.

            There are two major phone OSes and two major game consoles (arguably three but one doesn't really compete on the same level) so I don't see the difference.

    6. Paradroid

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      A car analogy? Well, you don't have to take your car back to the franchise dealers for a service to maintain your warranty. Although it took government intervention for that to happen.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        And so they started warrantying the different bits individually... Annual hybrid health check, anyone? Each one extended the warranty of that component by another year, and only the stealership had the necessary know how and diagnostic tools to do the job.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        "you don't have to take your car back to the franchise dealers for a service to maintain your warranty."

        Might want to let Tesla know.

        And John Deere, for loose values of "car".

    7. Manx Cat

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      Pr1ck.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Law of unintended consequences

        Out of curiosity, do you honestly think that replacing the i with a 1 somehow sanitizes the meaning behind your post?

    8. desht

      Re: Law of unintended consequences

      Your argument basically boils down to "Chewbacca is a wookie and therefore app stores are good!"

  6. anonanonanonanonanon

    Installing malicious apps is not just done by "Cybercriminals"

    Shady apps are probably more likely to be installed on grandmas phone by grandkids than by cybercriminals, social engineering isn't just someone trying to gain access to someones bank details, it can be targeting kids to pester parents etc to install this totally safe app that has no protections on in app purchases.

    It's pointless to argue that on el reg forums though, as everyone here is perfectly informed on every aspect if software, they would never allow anything to install without going through every line of source code first

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Installing malicious apps is not just done by "Cybercriminals"

      Hyperbole isn't becoming.

      1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

        Re: Installing malicious apps is not just done by "Cybercriminals"

        I'd say there's literally nothing worse than hyperbole.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Installing malicious apps is not just done by "Cybercriminals"

          I've told you a million times that one must never exaggerate.

  7. Warm Braw Silver badge

    Apple is known for not communicating openly

    Or, around these parts, at all.

    Let's hope on this occasion its fruity disdain proves hubristic.

  8. NomadUK

    That's a convoluted way of saying you're not responsible enough to decide what gets loaded onto your iPhone.

    If you've ever dealt with a member of the general public — or, as I prefer to call them, the Great Unwashed — you'll realise this is actually a perfectly valid point of view.

    1. idiot taxpayer here again
      FAIL

      @Nomad UK

      So you, as a member of the elite, (well you obviously think you are superior to those whom you refer to as the"great unwashed) are responsible enough to tell them what to install? On what grounds do you come to that conclusion?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Typical of ElReg's own GreatUnwashed ...

        ... putting words into the mouths of others.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      "Great Unwashed"

      You, just like everybody, may be part of the Great Unwashed in other sectors where your knowledge is far lower than others. For example, would you be OK if your bank allowed you to spend the money in your accounts only in its products - because they "know better"? Or a video/music player that refuses to play any content it deems "unsuitable" or "dangerous" for you? And without having much choices to replace them?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: "Great Unwashed"

        We are not referring to changing banking rules back to those of the 1800s. Or a mythical world where video players have the intelligence to decide appropriateness of content. What we are discussing is Apple and it's marketing ethics (or lack thereof).

        Misdirection noted. Care to try again?

        I, for one, don't owe my soul to the company store ... neither do you.

        1. Claverhouse Silver badge

          Re: "Great Unwashed"

          Or a mythical world where video players have the intelligence to decide appropriateness of content.

          .

          Your own country implements --- possibly wisely, otherwise America might have a tremendous violence problem --- a technology to prevent viewers from seeing harmful content, based on the arbitrary decision of the moral guardians who decide ratings.

          .

          The V-chip was an added provision in Bill Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996. He said, "If every parent uses this chip wisely, it can become a powerful voice against teen violence, teen pregnancy, teen drug use, and for both learning and entertainment," as he signed the law on February 8, 1996. "We're handing the TV remote control back to America's parents so that they can pass on their values and protect their children.

          .

          Profound, if orotund, words.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: "Great Unwashed"

            The V-chip is completely opt-in, per household. It is used by almost nobody. Quite frankly, I had forgotten that it even existed until you brought it up. A quick call-round to a dozen friends with kids between 4 and 11 years old returned the following: 9 "What's a V-chip?", 1 "I thought that thing died a death years ago!", 1 "I see no need", and last but not least, 1 "Hell no!".

            Do with that what you will.

            Seems to me that TehIntraWebTubes has put the kibosh on such things ...

        2. LDS Silver badge

          "What we are discussing is Apple and it's marketing ethics"

          Sure, and why Apple advocates for itself rules that would look idiotic in any other sector? Does Apple "know better"? Or it doesn't and just try to fence a lucrative market for competition?

          Among "dangerous" applications there are web rendering engines which are not Apple's one, there are applications that let use scripting languages to automate tasks but let people create applications bypassing Apple Tax and so on.

          Why Apple should be allowed to limit what a user can do with a device they bought (and not cheaply). "For user safety"? Beware of allowing Apple get away with it, because in a few years if people are lured to believe it and companies see a very simple way to extract a lot of money from users, you will become far less free and far poorer - believe me.

          Safety rules are OK - many products need to follow safety regulations but if you follow them you are free to sell them and buy them - you can't be forced to buy from a single supplier because you bought something from it and nobody else can supply adds-on and replacement parts.

          Everybody screams if HP & C. try to block people using inks from alternative sources - why HP is bad if it does so, and Apple is good if does the same? HP too tries to protect your printer from dangerous inks...

          And think - I use my professional photo printer only with the manufacturer's own inks. I don't see any advantage in taking risk with other inks as I could not find here a reliable provider here, and re-profiling inks/papers combinations takes time and money.

          But that's **my choice** and I'm in no way forced to it. Other users are still free to use any inks they like.

          1. jake Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: "What we are discussing is Apple and it's marketing ethics"

            Thank you. Have a beer :-)

    3. doublelayer Silver badge

      I could make that argument about a lot of things, but it's always fallacious. The general public makes plenty of mistakes with tech, just as we probably make plenty of mistakes with those things we know less about. However, we don't take away our own rights to make decisions, nor should they be taken away from someone else who knows less than we do. Everyone makes a mistake from time to time, and that's no reason to treat them unfairly.

      For that matter, I recently made a mistake with technology (a computer stopped booting to Windows and gave me an automatic restore screen instead, and I foolishly thought starting the restore would run a fsck and restart, but it instead chose to do a wipe and reinstall, destroying all the data). Should my right to make system decisions be revoked, even though I knew enough to boot to Linux and do some command-line investigation to find out that this had happened and cleanly reinstall? If we're to decide what rights others have because we know more than they do about the tech, I don't think we want to know all of the rights someone else would take from us on the same basis.

  9. heyrick Silver badge

    that aren't from an official source, such as the Microsoft store

    I can't help but feel that that comma is misplaced. Is the Microsoft store an official source or not, because with that comma, it would seem to imply that they're listing the store as an example of a non official source...

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: that aren't from an official source, such as the Microsoft store

      The structure of the phrase only allows for the store to be listed as an official source, although the comma isn't required for it. Even with it split out as a separate clause, it can't mean that it's non-official because the only thing the "such as" can apply to is "official source". It can't refer to "aren't from an official source" because that isn't a noun, and it can't refer to "apps" because the store is a source for apps, not an app of its own (in functional rather than technical terms).n I bet the comma was put there without considering this, so it's very good it didn't read like this:"Sideloading apps is when you install apps that aren't from an official source, such as from the Microsoft store." That could apply to the verb, so it would reverse their meaning. English grammar has so many little traps like that.

  10. jollyboyspecial

    I would sympathize with Apple's position were it not for one thing. Some very dodgy apps have made it into the app store. As such the app store is not a secure infrastructure.

    1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

      Of the millions of apps on the App Store, a vanishingly small percentage tried to do dodgy things, largely failed, and were removed promptly. Tens of thousands of apps that TRIED to get access were rejected at source due to Apple's secure infrastructure.

      FTFY.

  11. Cuddles Silver badge

    It's just plain loading

    "Sideloading apps is when you install apps that aren't from an official source, such as the Microsoft store."

    No, that's simply called "installing a program". There's no such thing as an official source. The Microsoft store is just one among many third-party sources of software. It's bad enough that Apple and others have made this way of thinking the default on phones, let's not allow Microsoft to drag PCs down along with them.

    1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

      Re: It's just plain loading

      "Official" = relating to authority. As Apple is currently the only authority over the Apple ecosystem, they get to decide what's 'official' and what's not. Ergo: the App Store is 'Official', most everything else (with very limited exceptions) is not.

  12. ecofeco Silver badge

    Apple can bite it

    See title.

  13. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    You wouldn't sideload a car

    1. jake Silver badge

      Define "sideload a car", please.

      I rather suspect I do it all the time ... depending on your definition, of course.

    2. fidodogbreath Silver badge

      You wouldn't sideload a car

      I sideload people and things into my car all the time. 80% of its doors are located on the sides.

      1. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells Silver badge
        Holmes

        The apple car will do away with doors as they are ugly.

        Entry will be through the sun-roof. Charging will be possible by flipping the whole car upside down like a Magic Mouse.

        1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

          I suspect the esteemed commentators above missed the piracy reference.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wouldn%27t_Steal_a_Car

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Utterly irrelevant

    Here's a thought: nobody forces you to buy Apple. If you don't like the one shop model, and you don't like the lack of sideloading you can tell Apple that with your wallet by not buying gear from them (assuming you could, given the apparent chip shortage).

    It's not exactly a secret what each eco system brings or doesn't bring, and you base your choices on that.

    Don't like Apple's (semi-)curated approach? Buy Android.

    HTH.

    1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

      Re: Utterly irrelevant

      Don't you come here bringing that sane talk. Could get you into trouble in this here Apple hatin' town.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      "Here's a thought: nobody forces you to buy Apple."

      Unluckily for Apple (or maybe luckily for its coffers...) the mobile landscape sees only two operating systems both in dominant positions. So antitrust rules apply. If Apple had for example the market share Linux has on desktops nobody would have bothered about its Store policies.

      Nobody was also forced to buy Microsoft - still MS had its share of antitrust troubles....

  15. aldolo

    iphone with sideload ok for me

    good hw and good sw. i'm ready for a switch

  16. aerogems
    Big Brother

    Because fake apps are SO much better

    Apps that do nothing of value, but demand a subscription, are just fronts for underground gambling sites, are little more than sample projects from some "learn iOS programming" tutorial, or apps that are clearly pirated versions of more popular apps hoping to trick people into paying for the pirated one... all things that have been plaguing the app store for YEARS, are clearly SOOOOO much better.

    1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

      Re: Because fake apps are SO much better

      You have your app stores confused. The Google Play store is thataway ->

  17. antihero

    Right Hand/Left Hand

    Why are Apple updating applications to use the latest Apple Signing Certificate when said apps, have not been updated by the developer for 4 years? As such there is no privacy policy update, yet this particular App requires a macOS 11.0 or later and a Mac with the Apple M1 Chip.

    The App Store is flooded with examples of this.

    1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

      Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

      It's a way of forcing security compliance. If the app developer can't be bothered to update the app to keep it secure, Apple will update the infrastructure around it - thereby depriving the lazy sod of income until they step up and do what needs to be done.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

        The first rule of OS development is "Thou Shalt Not Break Userspace!"

        1. msobkow Bronze badge

          Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

          The first rule of OS development is: secure the system, and if that means breaking insecure apps, so be it.

          Only Microsquishy and Apple worry about bug-for-bug compatibility. REAL operating systems like the *nix family worry more about security and performance than running a 15 year old videogame...

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

            You've obviously never talked to Linus about the subject.

            Here's a rather famous rant of his from two days before xmas, 2012. The concept was in existence over a decade earlier, thus his ire.

            1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

              Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

              What are you suggesting; that a known insecure, unsafe and/or malicious app be left alone because removing or limiting it might break the userspace for that app?

              That's dumb whoever says it. And Linus may be objectionable at times but he is far from an idiot; even he is not suggesting this.

      2. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

        Most of that is wrong.

        "It's a way of forcing security compliance."

        No, it's changing a certificate so things don't break. The new certificate isn't more secure than the old certificate, and it doesn't do something to change the action of the code. It's there because the old certificate is going to expire and Apple doesn't want users complaining about the apps no longer working.

        "If the app developer can't be bothered to update the app to keep it secure, Apple will update the infrastructure around it - thereby depriving the lazy sod of income until they step up and do what needs to be done."

        The app developer isn't doing anything, and Apple isn't taking on their role or depriving them of income--in fact, by this point, the developer has probably stopped supporting the app altogether.

        1. Cybersaber

          Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

          A code signing certificate expiring shouldn't break things.

          T+0: Code is validly signed and and timestamped with a signature chains back to a valid CA. The validtity period is two seconds.

          T+3: The signature *still* works, but the certificate is no longer valid to create NEW signatures. It still is completely valid and efficacious in IAAA terms.

          Updating the certificate is only necessary if either the cert or on of the CAs in the chain is revoked for whatever good reason. Even a CA cert expiring doesn't affect its protection.

          Source: https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/white-paper/2018/01/26/security-considerations-for-code-signing/final/documents/security-considerations-for-code-signing.pdf

          Edit: The certificate expiring may well break an app on IOS, but if so, that's an apple policy choice, not a security problem or a limitation of code signing certificates.

          1. doublelayer Silver badge

            Re: Right Hand/Left Hand

            You are correct about signing in general. This is an Apple policy with IOS, where they cycle through certs and block apps that have outdated ones from newer versions of the operating system. That's why they update. It has no effect on the security of the users' data. I can think of a few reasons they might do this, which range from acceptable to sneaky, but in no case does it help other security situations.

  18. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

    "Apple, besieged by regulators and rivals..."

    'Besieged' my arse. That's like claiming an elephant is 'besieged' by a mosquito.

    1. jake Silver badge

      So Apple spent umpteen million dollars on lawyers to draft a 31 page response just to swat a mosquito?

      OK. If you say so.

  19. Ribfeast

    With the FluBot malware running rife through the Android ecosystem (I get dozens of texts from it a week), in some ways I appreciate the walled garden of IOS somewhat. If there was a way to sideload without losing that security it would be good though...

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Just because Android allows "sideloading" (aka installing the apps the user chooses) doesn't mean everybody is going to use it wisely or carefully.

      Just as people get suckered into handing over the keys to their bank account, others will be suckered to installing malicious apps.

      Me? I appreciate it because there are some things not available on Google Play (for starters, none of these app stores offer a way to roll back to an earlier app release if you think the newer one is worse (which usually means 2% new functionality and 20% more objectionable advertising).

  20. Chet Mannly

    "Some sideloading initiatives would also mandate removing protections against third-party access to proprietary hardware elements"

    In other words this could kill the massive margins we make on Apple Pay too!

    This has been a long-running issue in Australia where Apple had a standoff with the local banks over the commission Apple charges on Apple Pay transactions. If the banks themselves could make their own pay function that would really mess up Apple's applecart...

  21. Jonjonz

    Apple users are like those cluless car owners who get thier car serviced at the dealership, and willingly pay double for things like oil and brake fluid.

    1. dave 93

      How to void your warranty

      Good luck making a claim on your car's warranty if you got it serviced by your mate using cheap oil and brake parts...

      1. Chairo

        Re: How to void your warranty

        I think the point was more about licenced 3rd party garages, that actually know what they are doing and do it for a reasonable price.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: How to void your warranty

        I dunno about your country, but here in the United States all motor oils for sale to the general public meet the standards required by the manufacturer's warranty. Same for brake parts.

        Legally, the manufacturer can not refuse a warranty claim if you (or your mate) change the fluids and filters in your car ... unless you put brake fluid in the engine or other stupidity.

        The brakes are covered by the warranty and will be replaced by the manufacturer if they fail prematurely. After the warranty has expired, you are on your own anyway.

  22. dave 93

    How does sideloading affect your warranty?

    Would Apple or Google be within their rights to say installation of unauthorised software voids your manufacturers warranty?

    They certainly say that for unauthorised hardware modifications...

  23. Chairo
    Devil

    Imagine, for example, a Mozilla-run iOS app store that conducted a more detailed app review, allowed for the possibility of a developer-paid security audit, and disallowed all third-party analytics and ad SDKs.

    I think El Reg just destroyed any chance that Apple will ever talk to you again...

    1. RyokuMas Silver badge
      Stop

      It would certainly drive competition and innovation in app stores - although since it appears that it's not "who has the best stuff" that wins but rather "who can make the most noise", I rather fear that Google would end up in prime position here by virtue of how they can abuse their monopoly on search, video etc...

  24. Jonjonz

    Ever since Steve Jobs learned all he could from a top softdrink salesman, Crapple has been about style and brand before substance.

    "Sideloading" is like Gucci warning customers wearing anything other than Gucci is not cool.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021