Apple Approves Epic Games Store for iPhone and iPad in EU

[steve09090]

Here you go...

All the Mac malware we know about

Wondering how many viruses exist for the Mac? Here is a list recent Mac malware attacks, viruses for Apple computers, and security threats that Mac users have suffered

www.macworld.com

It funny that this isn’t required in iPhone…. But it will be in the EU. And it will slow the phone down and create bloatware. In other words, it will become Android-esk. The EU Commission, whilst I am sure they are trying to stay relevant or maybe even doing the right thing for their lobbyists, aren't really that smart are they?

…and every time you download a new application it checks that none of those definitions are present. This is part of Apple’s Gatekeeper software that blocks apps created by malware developers and verifies that apps haven’t been tampered with.​

 

[gnipgnop]

Sorry but this is nonsense. Apple could have charged reasonable prices for APNS, hosting and payment processing.

But charging 30% or even 15% is highway robbery and collects almost the complete profit. It is really hard to gain a 30% profit margin.

But like Steve Jobs told us many years ago: What killed Apple was greed …

Steam has historically charged 30% for PC games running on Windows. Did Steam manufacture all the PCs that are running the games? No. Did Steam create Windows and update the OS on those PCs? No.

Apple was more like console manufacturers that also charged 30%. Apple manufactured the iPhone hardware and created the OS that the hardware was running. Unlike console manufacturers, Apple needed to update the hardware and the OS every year.

 

[surferfb]

Here you go...

All the Mac malware we know about

Wondering how many viruses exist for the Mac? Here is a list recent Mac malware attacks, viruses for Apple computers, and security threats that Mac users have suffered

www.macworld.com

Also, iOS is a bigger target by orders of magnitude, which means the ROI of attacking it is much greater.

 

[AppliedMicro]

1) Apple having more cash reserves or a higher stock value than someone else, should not make them a target and is a pretty poor reason. Anti competitive at its heart.

I'm not proposing or saying that at all. I'm not at all saying that should makes them fair game.

But when you make unsubstantiated claims about legislators "taking bribes from lobbyist to bend over for Epic and Spotify", we should keep in mind that Apple is in a financial position well capable of "defending" themselves against that. You've presented no substantiating evidence that the law came to pass because of such bribes. And any "logic" that it couldn't have been otherwise, that there "must have been a nexus" falls flat - because Apple is able to "out-bribe" Epic and Spotify.

Please find a link where this transparency has occurred. Or are you suggesting Epic/Spotify didn’t lobby the EU?

Spotify during 2022 racked up between €800,000 and €899,999 ($861,363 and $969,032 at the present exchange rate) in EU “lobbying costs.”

...whereas Apple racked up close to €7 million - many times as much as Spotify!

In evidence, Apple also stated that Spotify have met with The European Commission 65 times and attempted to build 3 separate claims against Apple whilst never showing any consumer harm caused.

So what?
How often have Apple representatives met with the EU?
And antitrust law isn't limited to consumer harm caused.
The EU has found them having unfair trading conditions.

Spotify are clearly one of the companies most affected by Apple's anti-steering provisions - cause Spotify are large, music streaming is a big business and Apple is their largest competitor. No wonder the European would focus on that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Backdoors into the OS itself negate all need to backdoor a chat app. (...) The DMA is a security nightmare

There are no new backdoors.
No "backdoors" are required to allow installation of third-party apps from websites or other stores.

The $1.8 billion fine per music streaming wasn't based on law. And wasn't based on any evidence either.

It clearly was based on law - and the EU communicated which law that was.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Unlike console manufacturers, Apple needed to update the hardware and the OS every year.

They don't.
There's no reason that Apple couldn't run a two- or three-year release cycle on iOS or their phones. It's not as if they'd cease to work. (I would, in fact, welcome that for their OS, considering how hard-pressed they seem to complete development of features in time for new OS releases, and the bugs that crop up now and then).

They've chosen to.
Well, mobile phones are a competitive market after all.
(Unlike the market for processing of digital software/in-app purchase transactions on these phones)

 

[BuffaloTF]

There are no new backdoors.
No "backdoors" are required to allow installation of third-party apps from websites or other stores.


It clearly was based on law - and the EU communicated which law that was.

Installing from a website or other stores is… a backdoor…

It’s a security weakness. It’s independently been identified as such. The EU will not stop until they’ve successfully implemented their surveillance program. They’re just taking smaller steps right now.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Installing from a website or other stores is… a backdoor…

👉 This has been possible on iOS devices for over a decade.

Besides, it's not a backdoor in the classical sense.
Particularly considering app are sandboxed.

 

[WannaGoMac]

The Switch and PS5 console platforms have the best games, despite them charging developers the same 30% just to publish their games.

This continues to confuse me how that Xbox, Sony PS, switch etc are not also forced to allow other marketplaces?

 

[I7guy]

👉 This has been possible on iOS devices for over a decade.

Besides, it's not a backdoor in the classical sense.
Particularly considering app are sandboxed.

No it hasn’t. One can install from an app store with a certificate that meets certain guidelines. That not a back door unless one includes jailbreaking.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No it hasn’t

Yes it has.
Download from a website, install, trust the developer in settings.
No jailbreak necessary, no developer account nor tethering to a Mac/XCode either.

One can install from an app store

It doesn't need an "App Store".
A simple website will suffice.

with a certificate that meets certain guidelines.

Yeah! So? Your point?
The DMA doesn't change that.

That not a back door

It's not a back door - we agree on that.

 

[I7guy]

Yes it has.
Download from a website, install, trust the developer in settings.
No jailbreak necessary, no developer account nor tethering to a Mac/XCode either.

No. You cannot do that on iOS unless you are connected to a Mac and even then there are only 7 days. Otherwise that would be a “thing.”

It doesn't need an "App Store".
A simple website will suffice.

Yes it does on iOS.

Yeah! So? Your point?
The DMA doesn't change that.

What it changes is the approval process is bypassed.

It's not a back door - we agree on that.

The method mostly stands except for side loading and bypassing the approval process.

 

[AppliedMicro]

No. You cannot do that on iOS

Yes, you can do it. And Apple helpfully explains how to do it.

To reiterate: End users have been able to download an app from a simple web site, install it, approve its developer in Settings and run it. For many years.

It's just that Apple hasn't allowed that for wide distribution from developers of apps to end users. As a matter of policy. A "door policy", if you will. And that's the thing they have to change under the DMA will change: Their policy. No new (back-) "door" at all will be required, however.

Otherwise that would be a “thing.”

It is "a thing" for enterprises.
And for the occasional Asian fly-by-night cracked software store.
And sometimes for Google and Meta, too (no backdoor though... ust software consumers chose to install).
And now, it will become a thing for apps from other, trustworthy developers, too.

Yes it does on iOS.

It doesn't. Apple's knowledge base proves that.
And I've seen it with my own eyes and done it:
Went to a website, downloaded an app, installed and trusted its developer - and it worked.

What it changes is the approval process is bypassed.

Not sure what approval you mean. But no, it doesn't. You still have to approve the developer for running its apps on your phone. And furthermore, Apple continues to review all apps under DMA rules - based on their decision to do so and continue requiring it - with no indication of the EU has any qualms about it.

 

[gnipgnop]

It clearly was based on law - and the EU communicated which law that was.

Article 102 TFEU
"Article 102 prohibits abusive behaviour by companies holding a dominant position on any given market. Most abuse of dominance cases concern practices having an exclusionary effect on actual or potential competitors."

LOL...this is exactly what I mean. The EU is trying to claim anti-steering falls under a section of law that is primarily concerned with companies trying to exclude competitors. All you have to do is look at the actual history of music streaming apps on mobile to see how ridiculous this is. Apple's anti-steering rules did not prevent competitors from existing on the App Store or on the iPhone. And it didn't prevent those competitors from being successful.

Look at the list of services in the link below...the platform with the most "No" entries for availability is desktop! Yep, the distribution model that the EU claims is the best for competition has less choices than mobile for music streaming.

Comparison of music streaming services - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AppliedMicro]

Article 102 TFEU

So you now do agree it was based on law?
I mean, we can still disagree whether or how that law was applied correctly and appropriately

Apple's anti-steering rules did not prevent competitors from existing on the App Store or on the iPhone.

They prevented them from communicating and marketing to them (at their primary point of interaction - the mobile app). Unless they agreed forking over 30% of revenue to Apple, their (nowadays) biggest competitor.

Preventing companies from communicating with their customers is exclusionary.

 

[Rradcircless]

Even if Apple are in the wrong on some things, which they always might be, I'm getting tired of the nonstop b****ing and moaning from Epic and the EU.

 

[d686546s]

Pretty sure no one really cares about Epic. But that doesn’t mean they can’t disagree with the EU taking bribes from lobbyist to bend over for Epic and Spotify. Are you suggesting people shouldn’t care about such things?

The idea that Epic and Spotify would hold so much power that they could influence the European Commission, Parliament and Council in a way American big tech cannot is ridiculous.

Add to that the pending litigation in the US and other jurisdictions considering DMA-like frameworks and you all of a sudden end up with a worldwide conspiracy.

 

[BuffaloTF]

👉 This has been possible on iOS devices for over a decade.

Besides, it's not a backdoor in the classical sense.
Particularly considering app are sandboxed.

It’s been available with developer or MDM certificates. Yes, fully aware. That’s how you were always able to install emulators. If they were found doing it, your certificate was yanked. The difference being how closely monitored it was, a single issuer, a single monitor, control.

And sandboxing… cool term for that decade ago you mention. Sandboxing hasn’t been safe in years though. Attackers have long been able to escape the sandbox and grant themselves privilege escalations, malware is smart enough to evade the sandbox through delayed execution and checking to see if it’s sandboxed or in the real user environment before running the single time it needs to succeed. And sandboxes have always been weak against the usual social engineering tricks. This is such the case that the future of sandboxes is considered dead. But go ahead and buzzword up your next reply.

 

[gnipgnop]

They prevented them from communicating and marketing to them (at their primary point of interaction - the mobile app). Unless they agreed forking over 30% of revenue to Apple, their (nowadays) biggest competitor.

Preventing companies from communicating with their customers is exclusionary.

What you're claiming doesn't match what actually happened in the market for music streaming.

Example: Spotify's original choice back in 2008 was to make the free ad-supported version available in the App Store and to have customers sign up for the premium subscription version on the internet. Apple can't take a cut in either situation AND Spotify's least expensive option WAS available on the App Store. Remember, the EU is claiming that anti-steering was preventing customers from knowing about the CHEAPER version.

It's entirely obvious that Spotify and other music streaming services had the means to communicate and market effectively without steering being present. And that Apple's anti-steering rules did not exclude competitors from existing in the App Store or on the iPhone. The reality is that Apple's entry into music streaming in 2015 was at the start of the most rapid growth for the music streaming business. Spotify's own executives bragged in 2016 that Apple Music had helped them grow their subscriber base faster than ever. I guess the EU never bothered to read those quotes when they were deciding that Spotify was unable to communicate/market their product effectively?

 

[Macaholic868]

Well, they are doing so by essentially violating Apple’s property rights and their actions are somewhat akin to nationalising a US company. So not that far off the mark.

Except when I purchase that device it is no longer Apple’s property. It’s becomes mine. What I can and can’t do with it at that point is a matter of the law of the land in which I purchased the device and if I live in the EU those rights include the right to load alternative app stores and run the software that is for sale in those alternative app stores.

If Apple doesn’t like it, then they have the right not to sell their device to those who live in the EU. Just one problem. They won’t do that because they want the $$$. So as much as they may whine, complain and moan about it, they won’t put there money where their mouth is and stop selling in the EU.

I’m sick and tired of people who believe a corporation has rights in the way we as people do. You are brainwashed if you believe that to be true. Corporations exist because we the people have passed laws that allow them to exist and what rights they do or don’t have as a legal entity versus a living breathing human being are dictated by we the people. Corporations aren’t people despite what they want you to believe. At least that’s the way it is supposed to be in countries that are democratic in nature and not authoritarian if people would wake up from their McDonald’s induced corporate comas and pickup a book.

 

[gnipgnop]

I’m sick and tired of people who believe a corporation has rights in the way we as people do. You are brainwashed if you believe that to be true. Corporations exist because we the people have passed laws that allow them to exist and what rights they do or don’t have as a legal entity versus a living breathing human being are dictated by we the people. Corporations aren’t people. They are legal entities recongnized only because the people being goverened in some kind of democratic form of govnerment choose to recongnize them. What rights they do or do not have are also to be dictated by the people. At least that’s the way it is supposed to be in countries that are democratic in nature and not authoritiarian if people would wake up from their McDonald’s induced corporate coma’s and pickup a book.

Just keep in mind that it wasn't consumers that complained to the EU about the App Store rules. It was billion dollar corporations (Epic, Spotify, Tinder) and trillion dollar corporations (Microsoft). So it's still centered around the views of corporations and what they want.

 

[lkrupp]

Will the store launch in the UK too?

Absolutely not. The UK is not in the EU and their regulations do not apply.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s been available with developer or MDM certificates

Or enterprise certificates.

If they were found doing it, your certificate was yanked. The difference being how closely monitored it was, a single issuer, a single monitor, control.

Government has access to such certificates. That's the point: Bad actors, and that includes snooping governments - have or can get access to such certificates. The existence of shady stores full of cracked apps is proof of the limitation of the monitoring. Let alone the fact, that enterprise apps aren't even reviewed by Apple. It's all merely policy, not a (new) door. Additionally, Apple won't even be giving up on the monitoring. They continue requiring apps to be verified.

I'm not saying there's no security implications for the average user going forward. But the suggestion that the DMA is a backhanded ploy to introduce surveillance does not add up. A single, central gatekeeper that can be controlled by laws enables governments to obtain access for chat control - and sideloading allows users to escape that.

And sandboxing… cool term for that decade ago you mention. Sandboxing hasn’t been safe in years though. Attackers have long been able to escape the sandbox and grant themselves privilege escalations, malware is smart enough to evade the sandbox through delayed execution and checking to see if it’s sandboxed or in the real user environment before running the single time it needs to succeed

Not disputing that sandboxing isn't perfectly secure - but that's what Apple should really be focusing on to make iOS secure. Instead of spreading all that FUD about how only their own store and review processes could guarantee that.

But go ahead and buzzword up your next reply.

It's no less "buzzwordy" than your "backdoor" claim. But sandboxing user-level apps is the proper way to ensure that malicious apps can't escalate their system access - not their superficial review process.

 

[AppliedMicro]

What you're claiming doesn't match what actually happened in the market for music streaming.

Example: Spotify's original choice back in 2008 was to make the free ad-supported version available in the App Store and to have customers sign up for the premium subscription version on the internet.

We're not living in 2008 anymore.
Apple is denying competitors access to its customer base today.
And it's leveraging its unfair trading practices for the benefit of its own, competing service.

It's entirely obvious that Spotify and other music streaming services had the means to communicate and market effectively without steering being present

They used to offer in-app subscriptions on iOS...

The reality is that Apple's entry into music streaming in 2015 was at the start of the most rapid growth for the music streaming business

...and that was about the time that Spotify stopped offering them: After Apple began offering their own, competing service.

👉 That was the point when the competition between music streaming apps on iOS became most unfair:
When Apple introduced their own competing service - and Spotify would have had to pay commissions to their competitor. And accordingly, they stopped their in-app subscriptions shortly afterwards.

 

[Jamie0003]

Here you go...

All the Mac malware we know about

Wondering how many viruses exist for the Mac? Here is a list recent Mac malware attacks, viruses for Apple computers, and security threats that Mac users have suffered

www.macworld.com

And did macOS implode?