Apple Clashes With UK Regulator in Fierce Response to Warning That Could Require It to 'Redesign the iPhone'

[MRrainer]

While most people on this forum can usually make an educated decision about when it might be appropriate to side-load an app, 99.999% (at least) of the rest of the iOS/iPadOS/WatchOS/TvOS user base cannot (and will never be able to) make that decision. Never ever.

I'm glad that I can 100% be sure and never have to worry that my mother can't be tricked into installing some fancy app on her iPad Mini just because a particular email or popup was very convincing to her at that moment.

Nation-state adversaries aside, iOS is a very, very secure platform and that is what I like about it and why I pay the premiums for it.

There are not many safe things anymore in this world - but knowing she will always have this non eff'ed up device that always works, instantly powers and always works the same is a big, big relief.

 

[Icy1007]

That's true as long as you only, for example, access apple.com or a relatively few other sites that are Apple oriented. Just because you have not had a problem with your limited use does not mean others don't. I have a problem with webkit daily. I try to use other browsers, but I don't like it.

There are zero issues accessing pretty much any website on an iOS device and I know no one else with issues either. Sounds like you’re the one with the issues.

Nothing wrong with WebKit.

 

[Icy1007]

About the only problem I've found with Safari on my iPad is with some obscure site called MacRumors where, in the forums, the "Reply/Quote" popups when you select text doesn't work.

...but nobody goes there anyway.

I just tested that feature and it works perfectly as intended.

 

[rolphi]

This is incorrect. Once the option to bypass the App Store is allowed, then apps will make it the only option to get their Apps and then force me to use that method if I want to use that app.

This is a pandora's box and effects every Apple iOS user, not just those who "opt in" to it.

For all of you saying you don't want this, you value Apple, their privacy, security and so on. That's fine. You don't have to install alternative app stores or sideload anything, so it's not going to have any effect on what you want. Only those that choose to.

 

[mmmtacos]

So the logic here is that if you don't want Android but you do want an open mobile platform so Apple should do what Google does?

The reason I go with Apple is because of their tightly controlled ecosystems.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I will never understand how consumers could support these attacks on iOS. Android phones are available everywhere, and come in all shapes and sizes. Why wouldn’t you just go buy your dream Android phone and enjoy your “open” OS and leave us alone? Why do you have to encourage government goons to ruin iOS for the rest of us?

Because it's easier than fixing your own product(s)?

I did know a few people that got iPhones and gave them away, or returned them and got droid devices. One got hit with malware, and wanted to go back to iPhone. But I've seen that kind of thing for decades. I remember people flocking to the iPod alternatives, even the really horrific ones, saying they 'would never buy an Apple product'. And many of those parroting the 'never buy Apple' are people who are woefully uninformed and just want to look 'informed' and 'all that hacker stuff'. Ask them if they lick counters in restaurants too telling them 'all hackers do that' and see if they will do it.

Posers.

It's easier to drag your competition down to your level than compete at their level. I did get a good laugh after hearing the Google Play Store was looking at using lifeguards to try to weed out the crap there. I keep hearing about flaws and attacks and wonder how long until the Android OS is locked down more? People aren't 100% immune on iOS, but they also aren't nearly as exposed... I had Windows clients that were getting 'helpfully' loaded malware from surfing, or from emails they received. There is a reason for the security, or 'training wheels', cage, or whatever analogy people want to use. People are targets, and our technology shouldn't be serving us up for dinner.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So the logic here is that if you don't want Android but you do want an open mobile platform so Apple should do what Google does?

The reason I go with Apple is because of their tightly controlled ecosystems.

And then what's next if they succeed? Opening up iOS for other vendors? Apple will never go that far. Look what a headache DOS and Windows were.

 

[gsurf123]

Like many posters here I work in a computer related field, which is my case is software development. I have no interest in futzing with, hacking, side-loading, or not using the App Store. I have an iPhone because it just works. If I wanted anything the things the iPhone does not do then I would purchase an Android Phone. The government has no business meddling in the activities of private companies, especially when they have a product that works for the consumer and not for a third-party (in this case developers).

The funny thing about all this is that very few people need or want this and even if it was mandated very few would exit the ecosystem strictly for the reason of having to give up your personal information to someone else.

 

[Psychicbob]

As a UK consumer, CMA do not represent what I want from my device. If I wanted the compromises removed I would be using an Android device.

The CMA complaint only intends to open the market to abusive companies with poor security, subscription and ethical considerations.

Absolutely agree 100%. Why are they trying to compromise the security that is one of the key reasons why I use Apple products in the first place? Meddlers for no good reason.

 

[LeeW]

then apps will make it the only option to get their Apps and then force me to use that method if I want to use that app.

That's a fair point, I guess they are all as bad as each other at manipulating every situation.

 

[subjonas]

And one that many including me would be happy with. Slap it behind a big clear warning, sure. But give the option, like you have on mac.

I don’t want iOS to be like Mac. Very different use cases and situations.
And even if I did, I don’t believe the government should be interfering in cases like this.

 

[vipergts2207]

I don't see anything wrong with how Apple is doing its business. It made them trillions from nearly closing down 15 or so years ago.

That was more like 25-30 years ago. Apple was turned around long before the iPhone's arrival and is directly related to Apple's acquisition of Jobs' NeXT.

 

[citysnaps]

That's true as long as you only, for example, access apple.com or a relatively few other sites that are Apple oriented. Just because you have not had a problem with your limited use does not mean others don't. I have a problem with webkit daily. I try to use other browsers, but I don't like it.

Really? I've been using many iPhones and iPads since the beginning, using *only* Safari over thousands of different sites, and have had zero issues.

Maybe it's time for you to switch to Android and find web-browsing happiness?

 

[citysnaps]

While most people on this forum can usually make an educated decision about when it might be appropriate to side-load an app, 99.999% (at least) of the rest of the iOS/iPadOS/WatchOS/TvOS user base cannot (and will never be able to) make that decision. Never ever.

I'm glad that I can 100% be sure and never have to worry that my mother can't be tricked into installing some fancy app on her iPad Mini just because a particular email or popup was very convincing to her at that moment.

Nation-state adversaries aside, iOS is a very, very secure platform and that is what I like about it and why I pay the premiums for it.

There are not many safe things anymore in this world - but knowing she will always have this non eff'ed up device that always works, instantly powers and always works the same is a big, big relief.

Spot-on assessment.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

There are some days where I'd like to see Apple just say "fine, we will be leaving XYZ market" just to see what would happen.

I’d rather Apple left the UK market and we had to order iPhones from the US than have iOS messed up by regulation.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don't see anything wrong with how Apple is doing its business. It made them trillions from nearly closing down 15 or so years ago.

So “making money” = “all good”?

You could defend literally anything using that methodology… including some truly horrendous stuff

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm glad that I can 100% be sure and never have to worry that my mother can't be tricked into installing some fancy app on her iPad Mini just because a particular email or popup was very convincing to her at that moment.

She can get conned right on the App Store - it’s filled with scams!

Or her email, which will open scams right in Safari.

So many are misattributing “safety and security” to “Apple App Store Review”

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don’t want iOS to be like Mac. Very different use cases and situations.

Such as?

Please give some examples of how they are very different and that should mean different levels of enforced App Store business policy review

 

[Alan Wynn]

I can side-load / install non-Apple software on a Mac and, as an adult, I accept the associated risks to my device and its warranty.

Because you can side load, there are many applications on that Mac that I cannot buy via the Mac App Store. Because you can side load, there are many applications that require I create a new account and share data I do not want to share and be inconvenienced (and have my data/privacy/finances at risk).

For those who want an unadulterated Apple experience, don't side-load. I'd fall into this category.

The problem is that if it becomes an option, many companies will make it the only option.

For the others who want to tinker, I say "go ahead" but only after you acknowledge the risks and accept the potential consequences to your warranty status.

Unfortunately, it will not just be them, it will be you as well. Facebook had a fake VPN, and had another piece of spyware they distributed using their enterprise certificate. That was with things as locked down as they are. Imagine what happens when anyone can do that.

Apple is like any other corporation; they're doing this to protect shareholder return.

You are absolutely right, but not in the way you are implying. Apple has made ease of use, privacy and security a selling point. They charge a premium for that (and have to do so because they cannot make up the revue selling your data and privacy).

For the love of your preferred deity, stop the incessant and idiotic canonisation of a company that wants to extract as much revenue as it can from every customer.

If you think this is about their app store revenue, you are sadly mistaken. This is about maintaining the experience of the ecosystem.

Oh, and for the record, I'm a capitalist and don't have an issue with Apple making a bunch of money - just stop with the holier-than-thou BS; especially Schiller the jacka$$.

As a capitalist, you should understand that there are multiple choices in the market. Those who want to force this change are not adding choices, they are taking one away. I (and many others) buy these devices for their security and privacy model. If I wanted the Wild West, I would buy an Android device (there are many great ones out there).

 

[WaffleBoi_15]

It’s like they don’t understand why people choose to buy iPhones and like iOS.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s like they don’t understand why people choose to buy iPhones and like iOS.

I know of absolutely nobody who bought an iPhone for the “curated Apple App Store”.
It is filled with garbage, scams, ADs, search is awful, on and on.

Every single person I know bought it because they like the industrial design, the cameras and usually some existing iMessage/messages on Mac or Apple Photos lock in at this point. An additional factor now is simply inertia of already have an iPhone and it’s been “fine”.

In other words.
Great Apple marketing was a major factor.

 

[devinci99]

I'm one of those customers who chooses Apple over other mobile because of its closed system.

I don't want to side-load anything on my phone, nor want to have that even available. Being able to install something on my phone means anyone else can also potentially install something on it.

There are often times we have handed over our phones to someone else: to take pictures, to show receipts, to show some work, etc. I'm more open to this on Apple iphones, because I am pretty confident in it that the person who has my phone at the time, cannot sideload anything from untrusted source unto it and hand back to me.

If regulators force this onto Apple and iPhone now allows side-loading, I may not trust it anymore than I do Android. I mean any users who want that feature can choose Android, right?

 

[turbineseaplane]

I'm more open to this on Apple iphones, because I am pretty confident in it that the person who has my phone at the time, cannot sideload anything from untrusted source unto it and hand back to me.

With respect, you comment makes it appear that you're confused about how side loading generally functions, as well as the inherent security of the platform itself.

You realize that, just like on macOS, installing anything could at the minimum require an admin password, right?
(and likely would require a bit more, honestly -- perhaps even physical connections to a Mac)

 

[bsolar]

Because you can side load, there are many applications on that Mac that I cannot buy via the Mac App Store.

This is not always the reason an application is not available on the Mac App Store though.

Some applications cannot be on the Mac App Store due to licensing issues. As example, a GPL application cannot be distributed via the Mac App Store because the Mac App Store requires imposing further limitations to the user of the application, which is prohibited by the GPL.

Other applications cannot be on the Mac App Store because the Mac App Store applications run in a security sandbox and this is not always compatible with the features the application provides. As example, I think Parallels can only offer a more limited version of its virtualization product on the Mac App Store and has to distribute its own application package to allow for the full set of features to work properly.

The Mac App Store is a very good distribution method in general, but it's not adequate for all kind of applications and it does not satisfy all use-cases.

 

[gund1234]

And one that many including me would be happy with. Slap it behind a big clear warning, sure. But give the option, like you have on mac.

Problem is if Apple allows FB to create their own App Store, then they won't use Apple App Store to release apps to avoid restrictions on data collection or have an inferior app in Apple App Store. People are not fighting on the Apple restrictions it is corporations that are loosing billions of dollars in revenue from adds that are fighting this.