I’m surprised they did! The developer was counting on Apple not saying anything. And, because the reason for removing it was not an Apple decision, I can understand that they would need to have some specific clarification as to what they could publicly say from the government.
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.
Apple Blocks iTorrent App From EU Alternative App Marketplace [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m just a messenger, so don’t take this as me endorsing, however…
Apple can already completely block certain Mac apps from opening without notarization, just like they can on iOS.
In fact, there once was a bug that stopped all Mac apps from opening, see here…
Mac Apps Not Opening or Slow Due to Apple Server Issues: How to Fix For Now
If you are seeing long delays in launching apps or being unable to open Mac Apps at all, this may be due to Apple having significant problems right...
www.macrumors.com
Thank you for the information, I had already forgotten about it. Hmm according to that note, denying the process trustd or disconnecting from the internet when launching the app solves it. That makes me think… if it wouldn’t be appropriate, privacy-wise, to just block trustd process, so that Apple couldn’t, not only prevent me from executing a software, but also to prevent them from knowing what I’m doing on my computer.I’m just a messenger, so don’t take this as me endorsing, however…
Apple can already completely block certain Mac apps from opening without notarization, just like they can on iOS.
In fact, there once was a bug that stopped all Mac apps from opening, see here…
As long as you are connected to the Internet, Apple can absolutely stop any Mac app they want from opening.Mac Apps Not Opening or Slow Due to Apple Server Issues: How to Fix For Now
If you are seeing long delays in launching apps or being unable to open Mac Apps at all, this may be due to Apple having significant problems right...
I'll be on Asahi Linux by the next weekend if Apple ever flips a killswitch for a Mac app I'm using.
Oh for sure! The problem is when your main device is an iPad or iPhone, and there's no Mac or PC to use. Then, Apple's stance is just... horrible.
LOL, sure, but that undercuts the whole bs "but I download linux distros" argument.
Look, I torrent, and have no moral hand wringing about it, but I also don't try to engage in mental masturbation that I am not depriving the rights holders of their agreed upon fee structure from legal ways to view the content. I'm frankly stunned at the posters acting like it's not illegal/unlawful/morally questionable.
Look, I torrent, and have no moral hand wringing about it, but I also don't try to engage in mental masturbation that I am not depriving the rights holders of their agreed upon fee structure from legal ways to view the content. I'm frankly stunned at the posters acting like it's not illegal/unlawful/morally questionable.
If only physical things can be stolen, then we wouldn't have laws around copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. Creative works are stolen all the time. Do you think stealing a patent can only be committed if someone steals a physical print of the patent itself?
Okay, go buy 2 lbs. of electricity, I'll wait. This is a hilariously bad take.
Actors, directors, musicians, crew members artists, photographers and other creators are all paid for their work partly in thanks to licensing of digital works. Ever heard of residuals? Actors, writers and others had a very well-publicized strike against Hollywood studios recently over their contracts, which included expanded payments for works that go to streaming. Those contracts have always included residual payments. Maybe you heard about that? Money paid to streaming platforms don't only go to those at the top, they are a crucial part of the income for many creatives. It's payment for their labor, period.
It's pretty clear that these arguments are simply justification for infringement and theft. With the added bonus of trying to high road that infringement and theft by saying it only hurts the rich and powerful. As someone who earns income from creative work, and who knows people in many creative industries, it's a despicable attempt at trying to rationalize theft.
Last edited:
If you buy a copy of Windows (from Microsoft) and your install USB/DVD wears out, you can download the ISO image from Microsoft and use your license key on an install made using the ISO, because you still own a license to the software regardless of the original delivery mechanism being gone. I'd argue the OEM install of Windows is not actually sold to the user, it's sold to the computer manufacturer and that's why it's tied to the system hardware.
There's no secondary maker in the case of audio CDs and home video discs. The license to sold direct to the consumer. So I still own the license to the music/movie even if the disc is gone.
By that logic, why does Netlifx pay to license content from other creators then? Why not just torrent episodes of "Friends" to host on their serves and stream for free?
Perhaps an an argument can be made that something which exists on the Internet can be replicated an infinite number of times at no additional cost, meaning that there are zero marginal costs of production. However, I like to think that when I pay for Netflix, or subscribe to a newsletter like Macstories, or even support my favourite streamer with a Twitch sub, I am not simply paying for a physical product. I am paying to support the creators so they can stay around and continue to deliver value to me. This can only happen they what they do remains financially viable.
At best, you can rationalise that because there are so many people already paying for something, it's okay for a small number of pirates to download their content for free because the creator can still withstand the financial loss. That still doesn't make it right (merely tolerable), and it further shines a spotlight on the importance of legitimate, paying customers who help to keep creators afloat. These people need to be commended, not mocked or ridiculed for "being dumb enough to actually spend money".
Monument Valley Devs Reveal Shocking Mobile Piracy Stats
'Monument Valley' was one of last year's most surprising hits. It's also, sadly, one of the most-pirated mobile titles, as up to 95% of all Android versions are 'unpaid.'
gamerant.com
Something like this was made apparently more than a decade ago. When monument valley was released in 2013, the vast majority of android users chose to pirate the app instead of pay for it, meaning that the developer made far more money on iOS compared to android. The end result is that we continue to see more developers choose to support iOS over android even till today, because that's where the money is.
You mean like what XProtect is doing?
I would certainly prefer that to be optional (it KINDA is, but SIP is a pain in general) for the people who want it, instead of Apple unilaterally deciding what I'm allowed to run.
But since I don't install or use malware anyway, that's a pure hypothetical anyway.
This is all very far removed from the problem at hand though:
Apple removing distribution rights for apps outside the App Store, without any anything being malware.
Note, the reason for removing the rights:
“Notarization for this app was removed in order to comply with government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions.” Torrent Freak reported that the developer had a Russian developer account, which probably explains it.
In other words, they were required to do so by (presumably) EU governments. This isn't an Apple issue, it would have happened even if Apple didn't have the ability to pull notarization; the governments would have asked AltStore to pull it instead.
I can totally understand why people are opposed to the idea of Apple being able to prevent software from running on other devices, but as I am often told, Apple has to follow the law of the countries it operates in. This particular case isn't "big bad Apple maliciously complying with the DMA" - it's "Apple following the laws of the countries it operates in."
If Apple wants to continue operating in the EU, it would be best for them to adhere to the regulations.
You don’t have to intentionally install or use malware. You could have a app installed right now that has had its libraries compromised in a way that still attains Apple’s approval for distribution. I would expect that, if Apple finds that exploits are currently active against users with that app (installed from the App Store), they would remove that app from my system, even without my knowledge. I’m sure any indignation I’d feel would be quickly ameliorated by the news stories indicating that others have been affected while my system is waiting for the dev to release an updated version with a fixed library.
The likelihood is low as Apple’s tools catch things like this, but in the one-in-a-million instance that it were to occur, I would just want Apple to handle it quickly.