58% of quoted percentages are accurate 87.65% of the time in 73% of all cases.
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
Because multiple other torrenting apps have not reported being taken down.
The EU signed off on that part of the system as compliant, presumably because there is an actual benefit for the gatekeeper to be able to have platform integrity measures. Or, if you're cynical about it, they realized that unleashing a torrent of malware would be a really good way to turn the public against the law, which would potentially compromise their desire to ban closed ecosystems from the EU.
Apple can pull notarizations, but users can run unnotarized software if they really want to. 99% of users shouldn't though.
Open a Mac app from an unknown developer
If you try to open an app by an unknown developer and you see a warning dialog on your Mac, you can override your security settings to open it.
I would be more concerned about fellow Americans dying if they cannot afford medical bills vs content creators getting forked.
Apple can pull notarizations, but users can run unnotarized software if they really want to. 99% of users shouldn't though.
Open a Mac app from an unknown developer
If you try to open an app by an unknown developer and you see a warning dialog on your Mac, you can override your security settings to open it.support.apple.com
So why won't Apple let me do that on iOS?
We already know: Tim Apple loves service revenue just too much.
Exit light
Enter night
Take my hand
We're off to sue a cover baaaaand
macOS and iOS were built in different eras with fundamentally different assumptions. macOS has been open for 40 years, serves ~100M (with a large contingent of power-users and developers), and was designed to tolerate complexity and risk. iOS was deliberately built as a closed, tightly-managed ecosystem to serve 1–2B everyday consumers who expect security, privacy, and simplicity out of the box. A vulnerability that hit only 5% of iPhone users would be equivalent to a vulnerability affecting half of all Macs. The scale is totally different and so stricter control is warranted.
What makes sense for a niche, power-user platform does not necessarily make sense to a mass-market consumer platform. Smartphones are users' wallets, health trackers, ID cards, kid devices, and the only computer many people own. The cost of compromise is far higher, so, again, stricter control is warranted.
And it should be Apple's choice to make. If the market disagrees, Apple will lose market share or have to adapt. There is an open option for those who prefer it.
Two completely unrelated things can be true. And what about those creatives who depend on licensing their works to make a living, and perhaps afford medical bills, housing, groceries, etc.?
The number of people in this forum who seem to be completely fine with violation of copyright and stealing music, movies, books, photos, TV shows and other digital works shouldn't surprise me, but it does.
Honestly, I'm starting to think it's an education issue. People don't understand where their money comes from.
The money you are paid is essentially transactional. You give your resources (time, energy, skills etc.) and hopefully get to add a profit margin on top, and the person or organization gives you this money in exchange for your work.
I don't understand how people think it's OK to get something someone has made without paying for it. The same people would surely not be happy if they put work (i.e their resources) into something but were not paid for it.
It's "magic money tree" thinking.
Your logic could be translated into:
"Criminals drive on roads before and after they commit crimes, thus we should ban roads all together!"
Number of content creators copying and stealing existing work is exhausting. Those are just 1st world problems.
It'll be all the piracy I'll wager. Be interested in the non-piracy argument for these apps. Reading all the 'movies are hard to find now, you have to pay for them' and am struggling to sympathise. This stuff isn't a right. There are thousands in the industry who's jobs depend on people paying for the movies and TV they watch. The less people subscribe, the less budget/higher subs. It's pretty simple math.
No, the vast majority of uses for roads are non-criminal. The vast majority of use cases for torrenting apps are criminal.
A better example is signal jammers. Many jurisdictions (including the EU and the US) ban the sale and use of signal jammers, because the intended use case is helping people break the law. Doesn't matter that there are other, legitimate use cases (stopping cell phones from working in a movie theater, university using them for educational purposes, etc.), they're illegal.
I guess the question then is - how does one prove a hypothetical?
I remember this philosophy module I took some years back. The lecturer posited that human beings could be divided into 3 groups. The first (angels) would automatically behave themselves and follow the law without the need for consequences. The second group (devils) would always choose the break the law regardless of the penalties. That doesn't make the law worthless, because of the third group (fence-sitters). They might be tempted to break the law if they thought they could get away with it, and that is why punishment exists - to keep this group on the straight and narrow.
Say an app or movie was pirated 100 times. Of the 100 people who downloaded it for free, 30 of them would have purchased it had they not been able to access it for free, while the other 70 would not. So there is still some loss in earnings at the end of the day.
It also raises the question - why do people feel entitled to access something for nothing? If you aren't willing to pay for content, then just don't consume it. I honestly do not understand this mentality.
A variety have been provided already in this exact thread.
This. Again and again, this.
No industry can function without investment. The simplest form of investment is paying people for their work, as paying means that they are more likely to be financially stable and able to produce more work, and so more media, etc.
If you don't pay people, those people will not be able to afford to do what they do.
If you like what someone does (and if you like what they do, you have consumed their output, because you wouldn't know you like it if you hadn't), support them.
Giving them a "like" isn't support. Financially support them. By paying them.
The only person who can decide if content is free is the content's owner. You don't get to decide that for them.
If you don't pay and provide financial support by paying, the only new music, film, TV etc. will be AI generated slop.
I'm not even suggesting people be moral, I'm suggesting they be logical.
The attitude of "I want other people's stuff for free, but I want people to pay me for my stuff" is nonsensical and unsustainable.
The world is not inhabited solely by trust-fund babies. There are no "magic money trees".
Last edited:
Or maybe
Free loaders drive on roads before and after free loading. Maybe they should pay road tax.
Free loaders drive on roads before and after free loading. Maybe they should pay road tax.
No, because there’s no warranty on the physical hardware. Just like when you buy a computer with a licensed copy of Windows, Microsoft doesn’t replace your computer when it wears out.
It’s not if what you’re buying is a license that’s a fact. You don’t have to like it or agree with it for it to be true.
Unfortunately, the mental gymnastics people will have to go through to make themselves feel better about being a thief is crazy.
If you’re stealing software, then you are stealing money from the developer. If you’re stealing grapes from a supermarket, then you’re stealing from the supermarket. It doesn’t matter if the enjoyment from that theft encourages you to buy other products there. You’re still stealing.
In the end, it’s paying consumers that pay for it. Walmart doesn’t lose money when you steal merchandise. They just pass that cost off to consumers. Software developers don’t lose money because they have to include whatever they lose through theft as part of business so they pass the cost to the consumer.
I’m not going to pretend like I’ve never used torrents or stole a candy bar when I was young, but that doesn’t make it right. I remember the other kids saying well everybody does it so it’s OK. When you grow up, you realize that’s not correct.
Assuming malicious compliance is the same problem as assuming Apple can do no wrong. They're merely two sides of the same bias/prejudice coin. The thing the internet (and human nature) is bad at is simply not making judgments before getting all the facts.
I will say though, the break down in communication sounds very frustrating for the developer here.
The other consequence of what you are describing is that large developers / shops etc are able to initially absorb the loss ( cash-flow) and pass it on to the paying consumer (maintain revenue) far more than smaller developers / shops. Economies of scale, bigger entities can spread the extra cost to the consumer out more palatably than smaller entities.
Which means we will have a far smaller number of media/software/content companies, but the companies that are left will be larger and more monolithic. That reduces variety and quality for consumers ( both paying and pirating ).
We have already seen this and we are seeing this right now in the collapse of smaller "indie" music labels, and film/TV production companies. There's a reason why the vast majority of new movies are "one more entry in an existing franchise".
If you have a goose that lays golden eggs, feed that goose. Otherwise there will be no more gold.
Last edited:
Do you not understand that content creators who "get forked"might not be able to afford to pay medical bills?
Or are you saying that "fellow Americans" and "content creators" are mutually exclusive?
Exactly who or what do you think a "content creator" is?
You’re absolutely right that small businesses are hit significantly harder by theft. They are already at a disadvantage vs big corporations and can’t always raise prices to cover losses. This applies to stores selling physical goods and small developers selling digital goods.
Of course this does make some people feel better when the victim of the theft is a large corporation because it’s not as likely to hurt them directly. They are generally capable of passing on the costs
They shouldn’t be allowed to control what gets installed on alternative app stores
This is why we need sideloading
This is why we need sideloading
It's still too much short-term thinking.
As well as increasing prices to the consumer, corporations will cut costs, and will make staff and sub-contractors redundant if they are losing revenue, to maintain shareholder value. They will impose tougher agreements on suppliers and retailers. And those retailers and suppliers may have to cut staff to maintain revenue.
At the end of the day, you ( the universal "you") might see yourself as a hero and champion of some notion of "freedom" by pirating and so bravely attacking a large faceless corporation, but really, it's the people that get fired that are going to suffer. Because the board of directors is highly unlikely to fire the CEO over revenue loss due to piracy, but they will greenlight "human resources streamlining".
The only way someone can argue that "piracy is OK" is if they consistently refuse to acknowledge that economies are made up of people, and if you steal, it's another person, not a faceless entity, who will bear the brunt of that.
Last edited:
Trash take. This is like saying the internet is bad because of porn so let’s take your web browser away.