I really have no idea wtf you’re asking here. Google had a higher risk appetite than Apple. Just like some banks have higher risk appetites on who they bank or what corporations they bank. And then you end up with HSBC or more recently Cibanco, laundering money for Mexican cartels and facilitating their wires to purchase fentanyl from China.
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 Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really have no idea wtf you’re asking here. Google had a higher risk appetite than Apple. Just like some banks have higher risk appetites on who they bank or what corporations they bank. And then you end up with HSBC or more recently Cibanco, laundering money for Mexican cartels and facilitating their wires to purchase fentanyl from China.
Another angle to this - people keep saying "my ability to sideload doesn't hurt your ability to use the App Store so why are you complaining?!?" Yes, it doesn't hurt, until some companies with popular apps decide to only offer them from their own store (say, for example, Facebook deciding to distribute through their own website, so they can bypass all those pesky privacy rules Apple has) - not a win for the consumer, and will leave many AppStore-only customers with the choice of abandoning their AppStore-only stance or abandoning some popular apps.
The people who buy iPhones and then demand that they should open up the walled garden always sound to me like people who would buy an EV and then demand that EVs should be retrofitted with gasoline engines so they can fill up at gas stations. Like, no, if you didn't do any research before making a multi-hundred/thousand dollar purchase, then that's on you.
Yes, very valid point. Because that’s one of several things that I prefer about iPadOS over macOS. I can manage all of my app updates in one place. And apps have to be more transparent about what kinds of data they collect or don’t collect, thanks to helpful Privacy Nutrition Labels, which allows me to make a more informed decision on what apps I want to install. And I don’t have to hunt all over the internet for reviews, or have to Google whether or not the app harvests data, etc. All that information is right there and available too. These are things that sideloading doesn’t provide. On the Mac, tons of apps require sideloading, which makes things far more inconvenient and difficult because every single app has their own different take on how you should manage app updates (which all basically suck), and then you lack the same transparency you get when installing from the App Store. Not to mention the pain in the butt it is just to ensure that you’re actually getting the real app from the real site and not a spoof… It’s just not a great system at all in my opinion, and if apps I currently use or rely on for my productivity were to go sideloading only, it would be a major pain in the neck, and would force users like me to either have to choose to use another app, or install it anyways and basically just hope they aren’t stealing my info, as you said before. 👍🏻
Yeah, and the silly thing is that if they love that kind of model so much, there’s already a platform that appeals to that. There are actually several. There are Android Phones, Huawei HarmonyOS phones, Linux phones, all kinds of other options out there.
I think you mean people who buy an EV would demand to be able to charge them at any charging station, on any network. That's at least a closer and more accurate comparison (still not great).
Pssst.. They can do exactly that .. even at Tesla chargers now, sometimes requiring an adapter, sometimes not.
Imagine how terrible it would be if a Rivian could only charge at Rivian chargers or a Tesla could only use SuperChargers. (neither of which are true)
People aren't wanting to run totally different types of Apps on an iPhone. They want to run iOS apps on iOS .. just sourced from themselves (self signed and sideloaded) or devs direct or from an App store.
Same Apps, made for iOS platform ... just sourced from various places.
Your analogy would only be accurate if people wanted to run Android apps on iPhones.
That maps more correctly to "gas engine in an EV"
Last edited:
Many people actually do care about their privacy and security. Just because many people are apparently more cautious than you doesn’t equal they’re “paranoid”…
And good security requires locking things down some. Who knows how many malware’s infect your device if any caution about what data an app can access or collect and wanting to know that upfront without having to hop through hundreds of Google results is “paranoia”… 🙄
What a cute tactic. I have this lower standard and I’m not worried about x, so if someone else with different standards, needs and preferences is worried about x, that means they’re “paranoid” and “FUD”…
@Kal Madda
I'm dying to hear why you downvoted my post above.
@CarlJ went with a totally incorrect analogy.
I'm fine with folks disagreeing, but let's at least use accurate analogues for the situations in play here.
Let's argue about the implications and pros/cons of various desired systems, but lets not get confused about what people are actually wanting.
There is no faction arguing for the ability to run Apps made for a different platform (gas engine) on iOS (EV).
We have too many smart people here, on both sides of this debate, to muddy it up with bad analogies.
I'm dying to hear why you downvoted my post above.
@CarlJ went with a totally incorrect analogy.
I'm fine with folks disagreeing, but let's at least use accurate analogues for the situations in play here.
Let's argue about the implications and pros/cons of various desired systems, but lets not get confused about what people are actually wanting.
There is no faction arguing for the ability to run Apps made for a different platform (gas engine) on iOS (EV).
We have too many smart people here, on both sides of this debate, to muddy it up with bad analogies.
Last edited:
iPhones work with pretty much any charger, and have for years. You could get adapters for lightning, and now adapters for USB-C if needed. So no problems charging iPhones with basically whatever charger you want so long as it produces enough juice…
To a more accurate and relevant analogy, plugging your EV into a car charger doesn’t open you up to several risks of fraud, misuse of your personal data, or malware that otherwise harms you and others. Sideloading does. It’s the prime vehicle for malware and before you say “well then be careful where you download apps from” (which still doesn’t address the issues when apps use your personal data without your consent or knowledge because they’re not transparent about it like they have to be in the App Store), the biggest targets of a lot of these malware attacks are two of the most vulnerable demographics: children and the elderly. Both can easily be tricked into sideloading harmful apps onto their devices. This is a rampant problem, and that’s why lots of people in these demographics use iPhones. Because it’s far harder to fall prey to such a scam on iOS without sideloading. With sideloading, it would potentially open up major risks to demographics who have relied on that extra security and protection for years. It would not be a good thing for many users. The only users it may benefit are a handful of geeks who really should be using a different device for that stuff anyways if they really care about it so much…
To clarify
Where I think "Gas engine" vs "EV" example falls down is that people aren't trying to swap in a different engine technology.
The iOS apps one gets from a EU 3rd party App Store, Apple's App Store or a Corporate direct distribution --- or dev sideloaded for testing...
Those Apps are all identical.
All that's different is the signing authority and ability to distribute.
Nobody is asking for a "totally different engine", or to run some competitors App that was built for a different platform altogether. That would be crazy and beyond laborious, if even technically possible (usually not).
Where I think "Gas engine" vs "EV" example falls down is that people aren't trying to swap in a different engine technology.
The iOS apps one gets from a EU 3rd party App Store, Apple's App Store or a Corporate direct distribution --- or dev sideloaded for testing...
Those Apps are all identical.
All that's different is the signing authority and ability to distribute.
Nobody is asking for a "totally different engine", or to run some competitors App that was built for a different platform altogether. That would be crazy and beyond laborious, if even technically possible (usually not).
Because I disagree with it… That is not a relevant comparison. Because connecting an EV (that’s managed and inspected on a regular basis) isn’t as inherently opening up your EV to the chance of being hacked or having your private data collected and used without your consent, as sideloading an app does. It just charges your EV. Sideloading apps can install malware that ruins your life, harms others, and even if no malware is involved, allows apps to be less transparent about what data they collect going in, and allow apps to circumvent the safety and security guards Apple has in place, and exploit workarounds or other such things to gain access to your data without your knowledge. This is why Apple uses an App Review process. So they can see if developers are trying to exploit workarounds to harvest data and such. If they are, they reject it. That acts as a safety barrier between me and developers who view me as a product for them to barter with… With sideloading, that protection would be gone…
From my POV, it really should be up to the company and the market.
To use your example about charging networks, if a car company thinks it can make a charging network that is proprietary to its vehicles a selling point (to make up an example maybe because "we have the best locations, with the best amenities, they're super safe, and you never have to wait"), and invests a bunch of money to make that happen, builds out a great network that it uses to sell more cars, then having the government come in and say "your cars are too popular and are owned by an attractive demographic that other service stations want to sell to, so now you have to open up your charging network and allow your cars to charge at others' charging stations" would be out of line as well.
And if you bought that car knowing it only charged at company-owned charging stations, then that is completely on you. Buying it because "it's such a great car" and then complaining about having to use the charging stations even though the car company advertised "you can only charge at our charging stations" as a selling point, and its competitors ran ads saying "Don't buy it, you're locked into their charging stations, buy ours instead" would be ridiculous.
Agreed. That is outside the proper scope of government authority. It isn’t illegal to make an exclusive product. That’s literally basically the basis of every business. It would be like the government telling successful restaurants that they must allow any other restaurant to add their food items onto the menu, and customers can bring food from other establishments into the restaurant to eat it at their tables with their amenities. That would be ridiculous. Yet that is essentially exactly what the EU is trying to do with Apple here… It’s Apple’s platform that they have put all the resources into building. They took all the risks to bring the product off the ground. They put in all the effort. It’s their property. So they can dictate how they allow other businesses to use their platform. They have every right to say “no, I don’t want that food item on our menu.” And they don’t have to allow customers to bring in food from other restaurants either, nor do they have to allow customers to bring in billboards for other restaurants…
Right now, those platforms (android and iOS) offers and are supported pretty much by the same services.
"Higher risk appetite" is just an excuse to try to keep the closed garden only to increase profits, not security.
Please explain why Android has 5000% more malware than iOS
One of the things that got considered is how easy it's to enter in the market.
Cellphones are an incredibly hard market to enter, and so are cars and that's why you can charge pretty much every car in every charging station: because company are not stupid and KNOWS that government would have forced their hands in allowing it.
As always is a delicate balance between maximising profits and not stepping the wrong foot.
Apple wants to maximize profit AND kick everyone in the shins. That's why it's being investigated in tons of places, INCLUDING AMERICA.
Preinstalled malware are the biggest threat ( https://securelist.com/triada-trojan-modules-analysis/116380/ )
Right now, new android versions are pretty good at security, sandboxing and preventing a random installed apps to steal all your data.
The biggest problem lies in customized android versions with preinstalled crapware full of backdoor; but we can thanks EU for forcing phone manufacturer to allow the removal of preinstalled apps so that you can reduce the attack surface.
And if governments truly cared about making the smartphone market more “fair” or “competitive”, than they would reduce the excess bloat and burden of regulations that make it harder for newcomers into the market, rather than trying to micromanage existing companies beyond the proper scope of government authority as they are trying to do…. Adding additional regulations (these aren’t even that, they’re essentially silly edicts decided at a whim) just adds to the burden and excess bloat of red tape and regulations, which only ever makes it harder for newcomers to the market. Rather than trying to pick winners and losers, and trying to micromanage the way companies manage their own property, governments should focus on deregulating the sector, and making it easier for newcomers by reducing the red tape and regulatory bloat…. And from there, let the free market decide…
It’s not “stepping on feet” to require developers to pay a commission on sales brought in from your platform. It’s Apple’s platform, they built it, they own it. Nobody else does. It’s Apple’s. Developers are not entitled to access to Apple’s platform. Apple has decided to grant developers access to their platform when they agree to and abide by terms and conditions laid out by Apple. Developers don’t have an inherent right to build an iPhone app. They just don’t… Just like game devs don’t have an inherent right to sell Switch games. Developers are free to choose to distribute on other platforms where they like the terms and conditions better if they don’t like Apple’s terms and conditions…
I literally see nothing in there claiming that particular method accounts for the majority of malware on Android. Not a single reference I could find to that claim. Just that it’s a threat…
So essentially you’re making assertions without data, because they even said they didn’t know the total number of victims of this particular method, which means we have no actual idea of what percentage of total malware on Android that accounts for…
What we're asking for is parity between two of Apple's product lines: the iPhone and the Mac. All Apple has to do is change their EULA to absolve them of liability if a user infects their phone with malware, bury the permission to allow side loading behind a timed warning switch that only unlocks after an hour (thereby preventing bad actors from instantly granting access) and they're golden.
The iPhone should be opened up because it's a computing platform now, not an accessory. Originally the iPhone was a satellite to the Mac like an iPod but those days are long gone. The iPhone has its own satellite products!
I've theoretically paid thousands of dollars for a phone. It's mine and I should be able to do with it as I please. Id quite like Apple to remove the training wheels from the OS and treat us like adults/Mac users.
The same way the PC has more malware: the market is larger and thus an easier target than going after niche Mac users.
The iPhone is only 20% of the global phone market share and less of a target.
Kaspersky seems to disagree, per the linked article above. But I guess they’re just on Apple’s payroll spreading FUD
More likely, not actually have. I'm 200% more likely to catch a cold engaging with the general public than I am staying sat at home but it doesn't mean I actually will.
It's like an article from a vitamin company saying that taking vitamins will make you healthier!Kaspersky seems to disagree, per the linked article above. But I guess they’re just on Apple’s payroll spreading FUD
Another source:
Read the article, not one “run antivirus in your phone” recommendation. Lots of “don’t use third party stores or sideload apps” recommendations though. But sure, Apple and all of us are spreading FUD and/or lying when we cite security issues.