Yes it does. Using "claims" is not a problem. The fact that both the Apple headline and MacRumors headline chose to omit "potentially" when that word was used in the body of the report is a problem.
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 Claims App Store Security Features Prevented Over $2 Billion in Fraudulent Transactions in 2022
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The real solution could be that Apple relaxes the restrictions on Apps and only stops Apps that are spam or real security threats. Right now Apple stops lots of Apps that offer no harm to the devices owners simply because Apple does not like the App for one reason or another.
Not the same, but also not an excuse. Well, clearly people are using it as an excuse.
There’s no way that Apple’s $1,200 4TB SSD costs them more than $500 — probably way, way less.
But is your average iOS user that different from your average Android user?
Right now users are more at risk from crafted communication (text, mail, calls) than anything else and more likely to have their data stolen via that method or via big-box-hacks (big companies).
JMHO, I feel like this is a bit over-blown.
Apple and Potatoes.
You are talking malware (so is Apple) and most else is talking about functions, apps, points of sale that Apple deliberately blocks.
Apple wants you tied, locked to the company store. Check history for those “benefits”.
JB and Cydia in the beginning was the WWW. Depending on the JB exploit and app/function installed and Apple’s never ending quest to hamstring JBing, crashes happened. Sometimes all to often. When I stopped JBing a couple years back, the landscape had gotten a whole mess cleaner and stable.
btw - I have yet to buy any software from the MacStore that Apple doesn’t produce. To each their own.
I wish the EU and other governments would simply make Apple provide guarantees about the apps in its App Store rather than focusing on sideloading. Sideloading will be a security risk and allowing it will likely cause an exodus, leaving a hollowed out App Store that's like macOS's rump of an app store.
It's for post like this I wish we had a "Hmmm...." response emoji.
Because of the language and legalese would guarantees change anything?
Who exactly do you think the option goes to? Certainly not users. The moment side loading becomes available every developer that doesn't feel they are benefiting from the 15% cut they pay to Apple is going to pull their app and put it on their website instead, at which point users have no choice but to get the app from the web and lose all benefits of the App Store. Not seeing any user choice there. Just a worse overall experience for users.
For developers, it will be nice to have the choice. But let's not pretend like this is good for users.
killing off the one closed mobile platform and having only open platforms is literally having one less option but you do you.
If Apple were held liable for any malicious apps it let through to the public via the App Store, then you might see they vet apps more carefully. Apple advertise their walled garden is secure. Make them pay when it is not.
Most of the time I have had a positive experience with Apple regarding faulty hardware that is under warranty, which are the only times I have had to determine whether Apple would stand by its guarantees. I take it your experience is different?
We would have seen this or very similar behavior on Android. If anything, smaller devs will offer their apps on a few different sites including the official store. Prices may vary.
For that Apple would need to commit to an in depth technical review.
Don't see that happening any time soon.
I'm sure Epic et al have been spending millions to allow smaller devs to maybe offer their apps on a few different sites including the official store.
Android is evidence that the increased competition from these new rules is a fiction.
And yet, the App Store is still filled with scammy junk...
This says something about humans and unregulated capitalism.
This says something about humans and unregulated capitalism.
Good luck holding a corporation responsible for anything, let alone getting accountability from a tech industry corporation... Laissez-faire capitalism is cancer to civilization.
Why would we have seen it on Android? That's not an especially profitable platform. Nothing compared to iOS, in fact. Completely different business altogether.
Can simply look to the Mac. Most of the top apps for Mac are not available on the Mac App Store at all.
I believe iOS and Android users are similar enough to be lumped into the same bunch. Android users are a little more tech savvy because the openness of that platform attracts those customers. But there are over 3 billion Android users and the vast majority (98%) of them are still just consumers that want a phone and don't care how it works.
The two methods you describe go hand in hand and affect one another. Any weakening of security on either side affects the other side as well.
This might be overblown but you cannot put the genie back in the bottle once it's out. For Apple, there is little upside. I don't believe they will gain any new users because there is side loading. More customers leave Android for Apple than vice versa and this is because they want the security of a walled garden. Apple customers don't expect an opening in the walled garden but they will certainly lose users who got burnt through hacking, ransomware, malware, data theft or their phone just got bricked. And Apple will have to pay for all of that additional support.
You're talking about the moderation problem that social media also has. Even with good moderation, you still get 1%-3% bad actors. That is good enough for most users, companies and even regulators. But we only hear about the 1%-3% from the media who needs .0001% to be a problem because their revenue depends upon it.
Yes, social media does also have this problem. However, it's not "good enough for most users, companies, and even regulators" because it's clearly harmful to all the above. Well, not the companies; they find profit in every kind of laziness and abuse available, especially in doing as little moderation as possible. It's harmful to their customers and to society, but they have no loyalty to either.
If you don't think it's harmful, you must have never fallen prey to exploitation, abuse, or scams... or you somehow chose to blame yourself for it when you were.
I'm sure Epic et al have been spending millions to allow smaller devs to maybe offer their apps on a few different sites including the official store.
Android is evidence that the increased competition from these new rules is a fiction.
Epic tried this with Android and we saw how far this went.
I suspect Epic wants an app store on device. Their biggest complaint with Android was difficulty in executing sideloading.