That’s a completely unfounded statement.
While not promoting blind fate in Apple, there is zero proof that Apple is just pretending to curate the App Store.
Every removed dangerous app is one less threat.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store Stopped 1.6 Million 'Risky' and 'Untrustworthy' Apps From Defrauding Users, Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While not promoting blind fate in Apple, there is zero proof that Apple is just pretending to curate the App Store.
Every removed dangerous app is one less threat.
Yeah because e.g. a third party payment System is so dangerous, and downloading stuff, too. I don’t even want to know what a third party browser engine could do, might kill your cat and hijack your grandma.
Why don’t Apple start whitelisting internet sites, and gatekeep on macOS too? Of course just for security purposes? Looking forward to see Apple forbidding brew.sh and any kind of sideloading on macOS, would love to see people rioting.
Here they saved the world once more time, Thanks Tim Apple:
Apple cracks down on iOS terminal apps because they can download code
iSH spared for now, but what will happen to a-Shell?
www.theregister.com
/s
For Apple, the Appstore is one of the many streams for making money. For a third-party store, it could be the only way they make money. If it fails, they become extinct. Hence, they will be more diligent.
No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire
An alarming new surge in malicious apps is a much more serious threat to iPhone users than you might think...
www.forbes.com
"Android’s reputation for securing its fragmented ecosystem is not good—the widely held view is that iPhone’s are much safer. But you can buy an Android and lock it down fairly easily. Not so with an iPhone. Apple makes its devices harder to attack, but also harder to protect. You are reliant on Apple to do the work for you—and so, for users and companies now under attack, Shwed warns that this has become a serious issue, that the security risks between the two platforms are now “balanced.”"
Why 'Zero Day' Android Hacking Now Costs More Than iOS Attacks
Brokers of so-called zero day exploits are paying out more for Android than iOS—which would have been unthinkable until recently.
Great to see a ripple of healthy skepticism, especially on this Apple-proud topic. As mentioned, a simple search can find many vampire apps (though any 'search' throughout Apple is abysmal), and why now (something to do with US Courts?), and how it does not tally with the many iOS rule abiding developers out there.
I e
No idea why you would think your answer is in any way relevant to my initial statement.
or why you would jump to such extremes. But that’s what the internet is for, right?
Yeah because e.g. a third party payment System is so dangerous, and downloading stuff, too. I don’t even want to know what a third party browser engine could do, might kill your cat and hijack your grandma.
Why don’t Apple start whitelisting internet sites, and gatekeep on macOS too? Of course just for security purposes? Looking forward to see Apple forbidding brew.sh and any kind of sideloading on macOS, would love to see people rioting.
Here they saved the world once more time, Thanks Tim Apple:
Apple cracks down on iOS terminal apps because they can download code
iSH spared for now, but what will happen to a-Shell?www.theregister.com
/s
No idea why you would think your answer is in any way relevant to my initial statement.
or why you would jump to such extremes. But that’s what the internet is for, right?
Before the app store, on Mac we had a web of developers, journalistic websites and portals that provided news and up to date information on the latest apps. It helped me find apps and tools for 20 years. This infrastructure is still working and arguably still much better than the Mac App Store. And the same infrastructure exists for the iPhone despite the iOS app store. All the app store did was popularize subscriptions and prevent cool software like emulators and Xbox streaming properly coming to the iPhone. To me it is a bit like malware itself to a flourishing software ecosystem. What Apple are arguing is that because they have accelerated software distribution’s pace and reach, causing changes in user perception of what software is and thus creating user profiles that are super susceptible to being exploited, that only they would get to exploit them financially because they are also the only ones protecting them from malware. They want to charge you 700 for a phone but cannot be bothered to implement security measures that still give users freedom to use of software as they see fit. I think anyone should see that the security/power coupling that is a telltale sign of market liberal conservatism (conserve nothing but corporate freedom) is nothing but Apple really trying to ******** you (in the sense of the word that Harry Frankfurt has analyzed).
Exactly and that’s why they started to kick out great price tracking Apps like AppAdvice, AppAgg, App Sliced in the past. They anticompetitively gatekeep mainly to secure their profits, they didn’t like that users were able to track price changes or offers. They also wanted to push their miserable AppStore Ad Network, and find a new income source by elbowing the competition or anything that crosses their way out.
I downloaded a dodgy app the other day. Whilst it worked on pre M1 silicon Macs. It did not on Apple Silicon. I got my refund in less than 24 hours. Without the App Store and its policies it would have been much harder and it would have most likely took longer had I had to deal with a developer directly. Apple are a company and they are out to make a profit, but when it counts they are there and their service is second to none at times. I'd rather have that than be in the Wild West of apps here, and apps there... and be ripped off.
Target to Pay $18.5 Million to 47 States in Security Breach Settlement. That fraud prevention (ie security) worked so well /s
Do you think Google would pay Apple $11B/year without being able to fully monetize search, including targeted ads?
I'm not advocating removing Google as an option. I'm advocating not making it the default, if you're a company that actually cares about your users' privacy not being monetized. The same as how Apple's new app transparency setting doesn't default to a privacy-harvesting setting. The difference is Apple gets $11B/year to default one setting and nothing for the other - now guess which one they default?
They're not. That aside, the vast majority of consumers buy based on preference, cost, what they are used to, what their friends have or recommend, the pretty colours (my wife) and so on. They are not buying based on privacy and/or security, the average consumer is not interested enough to consider those unless they are faced with one of those issues.
Thought experiment: If there were no app store, you a) wouldn’t have downloaded a dodgy app in the first place, because the dev’s website (compared to the illusion of quality that the App Store creates) would have already put you off, b) you would have been able to fiddle with a demo version before shelling out any money in the first place, c) would have paid with a payment provider like Paypal that added a layer of security to your purchase.
It isn't impossible to code a virus or malware for an Apple product (as proven by Chris Johnson's Disinfectant and Gatekeeper in the late 80s and early 90s); it is just that the market is so small and the payout os small that the programmers that write such things prefer to go after the larger market (Windows) as it has a lot more potential "marks".
Apple's Gatekeeper is very stringent going 'do you want to run this software' from something that couldn't qualify for the Mac's App Store. It doesn't prevent social engineering but throwing up roadblocks to such potentially damaging software is a good thing.
There are enough webdesign tools to a make a professional looking site that I am genuinely surprised just how crappy some are.
What demo version? The is a reason demos are few and far between (especially in the gaming space). Never mind this assumes that the dodgy code isn't in the demo.
The shady programers know this and would like have a "time bomb" in the program where it installs a little something that once past PayPal's 180 day window does its "magic".
Thought experiments should be based on logic otherwise they are useless.
Last edited:
I wish there were useful websites like these.
App Sliced
App Sliced is a free and alternative App Store experience. Discover the best apps while saving money at the same time!
AppAgg — Apps, Games, Discounts, Lists, Search, RSS+
Application Aggregator. We support all major platforms: Android, iOS, macOS, Windows, Steam, Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox. Track prices. Add to List. Explore More, Discover New.
appagg.com
Maybe someday.
A third party could, but they will not.They will let those who pay them through to scam and stalk you.
IS it healthy skepticism, though? When it just amounts to “NU-UNH!”?
“I’m not someone that rejects all information and data I’m provided with that doesn’t agree with my PERSONAL view of how things are, I’m a skeptic.”
Here’s a good quote as well:No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire
An alarming new surge in malicious apps is a much more serious threat to iPhone users than you might think...
"Android’s reputation for securing its fragmented ecosystem is not good—the widely held view is that iPhone’s are much safer. But you can buy an Android and lock it down fairly easily. Not so with an iPhone. Apple makes its devices harder to attack, but also harder to protect. You are reliant on Apple to do the work for you—and so, for users and companies now under attack, Shwed warns that this has become a serious issue, that the security risks between the two platforms are now “balanced.”"
“Shwed sells security software—his latest innovation is Harmony, a multi-platform solution to safeguard a whole person, not just a few of that person’s specific machines.”
So, anyone that looks at Apple’s numbers and thinks “I don’t trust them to say anything other than that which supports their business” should absolutely feel the same about this guy.
If he thought saying “Apple products kill honeybees” would bring more attention to his company, he would! Even the author of the article says, “Unsurprisingly, the man who sells security software wants to sell more security software.” Essentially he feels Android is better because his security software can be installed on it.
Fair enough. Apple has billions of customers, each with their own opinions. Like a grain of sand at the beach.
Does the internet work differently if google isn't the default? I know there are a few of us that have gone endlessly around in circles on this one; beating the already dead horse.I'm not advocating removing Google as an option. I'm advocating not making it the default, if you're a company that actually cares about your users' privacy not being monetized. The same as how Apple's new app transparency setting doesn't default to a privacy-harvesting setting. The difference is Apple gets $11B/year to default one setting and nothing for the other - now guess which one they default?