Apple Confirms iOS 17.4 Disables Home Screen Web Apps in the European Union

[tobybrut]

In your example someone finds an exploit in Chromium and they get access to the camera that is Apple security issue.

If a camera turns on with out that little light turning on well that I put 100% on Apple. same for the mic.
That can easily be done in hardware to make it IMPOSSIBLE to exploit it. How for example it is done on a lot of web cams and on the mac for example that LED light is exact same wire that powers the camera. It should be impossible.

Now on your entire argument list let me break down the key point you missed. If you DON'T set a Chromium browser as your default it is not an issue. You continue to live in your Safari Webkit world under Apple's control. None of the rest of your argument applies.

Apple choose to be petty. Even if Apple is telling the truth Apple has already shown they are being beyond petty in other areas of this law with at best malicious compliance hence petty is a fairly likely. If this was the only thing Apple did involving this issue then it would be believable and just Apple made some piss poor choices over a decade ago and never bothered fixing it but this is just another item added to the malicious compliance list.

Chrome, which uses Chromium as its web engine (or it will be when it’s revised for the EU store), is a part of the walled garden because it is a part of the Apple App Store. All apps in the App Store are part of the walled garden. If Apple kicked all other browsers off of the App Store, only allowing it to be downloaded from a third party App Store, then you would have a case.

What you don’t get is that the security hole would exist only if Chromium got access to those private API’s. WebKit is fully protected against exploitation for using those low level API’s. The security goes around the caller of the API’s since the called API wouldn’t know who’s calling it and why. It’s just performing its tasks. The exploit, meanwhile, doesn’t bother to turn on the little light while WebKit would have done so. Apple prevents the security hole by not providing access to those API’s to third party web engines. They also had to remove calls to those APIs from WebKit because continuing access would violate the DMA. You’re not an engineer, so I don’t expect you to understand how API’s, public and private, work. Sorry, but finding an exploit in Chromium is a Google problem, not an Apple problem, but in order to minimize the damage, Apple isn’t allowing Chromium that low-level access.

 

[iHorseHead]

Can you point me to security experts saying Android is more secure than iOS?

Android vs. iOS: Security comparison 2025

Both iPhone and Android boast of continuous security improvements. Find out how they measure across different security factors and which is considered safer.

nordvpn.com

No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire
etc
Really depends on what you google. When I had Android I had no issues either tbh.

 

[vmistery]

I trust this is a temporary situation for our EU cousins and not permanent. Yes Apple have to follow the rules but it seems unlikely the only work around is to turn it off completely. Reminds me of the Microsoft browser choice saga

 

[Starfia]

Now on your entire argument list let me break down the key point you missed. If you DON'T set a Chromium browser as your default it is not an issue. You continue to live in your Safari Webkit world under Apple's control. None of the rest of your argument applies.

I accept that point: if there's a security issue with a Chromium browser, EU customers have the option not to pick the Chromium browser.

If I understand, the EU is requiring Apple not to inform users about that security issue until after the user has picked the browser. Is Apple's choice to sidestep that dilemma really a choice to be petty?

 

[cupcakes2000]

I accept that point: if there's a security issue with a Chromium browser, EU customers have the option not to pick the Chromium browser.

If I understand, the EU is requiring Apple not to inform users about that security issue until after the user has picked the browser. Is Apple's choice to sidestep that dilemma really a choice to be petty?

I’m not so sure about the dubious last paragraph in this statement, but I wanted to point out that chromium based browsers are by a long way the most renowned for being secure among security experts. Lots of people here go on as if Safari is the gold standard in web security. It’s not, and neither are gecko based browsers.

 

[traveler01]

Apple didn’t disallow the app. Every game within Xbox cloud is a different app. Apple’s fear is that an individual game would be able to introduce a virus or some other nasty thing into iOS without any testing whatsoever on Apple’s part. It was fear of security that asked each game to be submitted individually. There was nothing stopping Microsoft from creating a cloud app and following Apple’s request to submit each game.

The equivalent is something like Adobe Creative Cloud, which has over a dozen apps. Adobe could either submit one app that allowed downloading of other apps that evade scrutiny of Apple’s software reviewers or they could submit each app individually. They chose the latter route, so each app could be checked for harmful behavior or behavior that violated the rules. Can you imagine Adobe not submitting Photoshop for review, but rather submitting only a shell app that allowed Photoshop to circumvent review? Microsoft decided not to bother since they didn’t want to submit each app. But that was Microsoft’s choice to not play by the rules.

Apple relaxed the rules, now allowing the equivalent of unsubmitted apps onto their platform and Microsoft decided not to play anyway. This is on them.

The reason Microsoft is irritated is that they wanted to freeload off the App Store. Hypocrites. Nobody remembers what App Stores were like before Apple created one. I remember it well from the Windows CE and Windows Mobile days when Microsoft charged developers 70% on their App Store. Once Apple entered the fray, they begrudgingly reduced their fee to 30% and that fee remains today on Windows App Store. Now they want to create their own App Store on the iPhone and not pay Apple a penny. Apple followed the EU rules by allowing third party app stores but are charging a 27% fee (30% minus the credit card transaction fee) and Microsoft doesn’t want to pay, despite now being the biggest company in the world.

All of this was Microsoft’s choice. They just never want to play by Apple’s rules.

So many lines of text and you’re just excusing Apple for no good reason.

 

[lucansmiles]

A bizarre comment. The voting public of each EU country has absolutely no say as to the decision making process of the EU Council. So yes, it's a one way street for the lowly EU Apple consumer.

This statement is somewhat misleading. In reality, the European Council is composed of the heads of state or government from all member states and sets the EU's political agenda. Therefore, EU consumers have the potential to influence this agenda by voting for different representatives in their national elections.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

P

You do not understand any of this.

I think you haven’t understood none of his points.

Opening the OS to install apps outside the App Store does not stop you from only install Apps from the App Store just like you want it to be.

It seams that you ignored this and went off on a tangent about how the EU is making you install Apps from anywhere else.

 

[garranhado]

How I hate PWAs, really very bad experience, sometimes stop working, particularly on iOS / iPadOS. Just don’t works , must be banned like Flash.

 

[tobybrut]

So many lines of text and you’re just excusing Apple for no good reason.

Here’s what you said in your original post I quoted from: ”No, my beef is with Apple that didn’t allowed them to make such an App in the first place…”

I only responded because you were demonstrably wrong. Apple did not forbid Microsoft from making an app. They requested each game to be submitted for review, hardly an unreasonable request to ensure security on the platform. It was Microsoft’s choice to not abide by those rules. You made it seem like Apple banned them, and they did not. Microsoft, themselves, abided by those rules with regards to the Office Suite, normally a package of multiple apps sold under a single subscription. But what do you know? Microsoft submitted each app individually. They were fine playing by Apple’s rules for Office. But with games, nah. I reiterate that it was Microsoft’s choice to not submit the apps. They were not banned at all, so you got that completely wrong.

EDIT: I point out there are tens of thousands of games in the App Store, all of which were submitted individually, even when made by the same company. Microsoft wanted special treatment. Apple said, play by the rules everyone plays by and we’ll be happy to host your apps. Microsoft said no.

 

[Samplasion]

How I hate PWAs, really very bad experience, sometimes stop working, particularly on iOS / iPadOS

Looks like Apple has succeeded in making you hate the intentionally bad experience they put out in order to push users towards their App Store. Now that's a legit opinion, but with that said I don't agree with your argument:

must be banned like Flash.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Looks like Apple has succeeded in making you hate the intentionally bad experience they put out in order to push users towards their App Store. Now that's a legit opinion, but with that said I don't agree with your argument:

Yeah. It is just the worst implementation on the market.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple didn’t disallow the app. Every game within Xbox cloud is a different app. Apple’s fear is that an individual game would be able to introduce a virus or some other nasty thing into iOS without any testing whatsoever on Apple’s part. It was fear of security that asked each game to be submitted individually.

Man. Either your mind is totally trapped on Apple RDF or you mean to trap others. In this context, its is my opinion that company is just misleading the public, fearmongering with security concerns to justify any kind of policy against their wallets, charging iOS users even more.

The App in question was a Stream Client much like Netflix, HBO or whatever but for games. Meaning it would receive the stream of a game being processed on Microsoft Servers and allow the player user to interact with the game remotely, play it. There no Game being locally installed, much like Netflix does with videos but for games. There is not much security concerns on a video stream as it is on a game stream, it the same from that perspective.

Apple said no to such App and required each stream to have separate stream client on the App Store and game streams to be sold separately because ... well they receive a 15% in such case for one. There was no technical or security concern here. Apple could have applied the same requirement to Video, Music, Books argumenting the same security concerns. It's just manipulation.

Imagine, you bought a game say on XBOX Cloud. Than you would need to pay for the game stream in the Apple Store just for Apple to be able to indirectly charge you, the user some more $$ for buying them the device. Not only that, Apple regardless of what you might want to play, for whatever reason they thought of, could just veto it.

It is so clear that this requirement had nothing to do with security concerns that that Apple also said that if the market don't like this App Store policy, the alternative is for businesses to build a Web App / PWA and game stream through iOS Safari. Guess what, Microsoft did that. Yet now, for the EU they also disabled PWA features to favor the App Store and the new policies .5c per app install or update and still the ability to veto game streams.

Since when became normal to ask for 7 euros a week for wallpapers? Since when became normal to charge 600 euros to change an internal cable on the device? Get the picture? Its all built on axioms, not actual business cost.

Maybe some people are correct. To stop this kind of nonsense being played against consumer rights and wallets, EU should be clearer regarding the DMA. Require gatekeeping businesses to decouple App Store businesses from their OS / Devices business and be very specific about how to do that in business terms. Or simply leave the market, we don't want this kind of nonsense against EU citizens that today depend on computing devices just like they depend on energy and water. Now or ever.

The idea that what is in question is the Gatekeepers right to be payed by their products and services, is a fallacy. There is nothing in this practice about assuring that is the case. But to create an ecosystem based on a fabricated construct, axioms, to facilitate indirect charges to users for possessing and using the device while adding minimal to no capability to it. Wether the user is a person or a business ... all costs flow to the entity that bought the device ... maybe because of its amazing camera, good looks or nice UI, which is good no doubt but there is more at play. This is just an example among many if you look closer.

 

[Starfia]

I’m not so sure about the dubious last paragraph in this statement, but I wanted to point out that chromium based browsers are by a long way the most renowned for being secure among security experts. Lots of people here go on as if Safari is the gold standard in web security. It’s not, and neither are gecko based browsers.

cupcakes2000 – Here's one report with elaboration on the "dubious" paragraph: https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit (under the section titled "default browser choice screen"). You're right that my specific phrasing is perhaps debatable.

The point about Chromium, of course, is beside the point – Apple's issue is that they've previously chosen to take full responsibility for the security of their platform at the system level rather than entrusting the safety of a core feature to others. The issue might be settlable if every other browser engine were proven to Apple's satisfaction, not just one.

 

[cupcakes2000]

cupcakes2000 – Here's one report with elaboration on the "dubious" paragraph: https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit (under the section titled "default browser choice screen"). You're right that my specific phrasing is perhaps debatable.

The point about Chromium, of course, is beside the point – Apple's issue is that they've previously chosen to take full responsibility for the security of their platform at the system level rather than entrusting the safety of a core feature to others. The issue might be settlable if every other browser engine were proven to Apple's satisfaction, not just one.

There are three browser engines in mainstream use, webkit, geko and chromium (Blink).

I can’t see anywhere in your linked article a sentence that described what you suggested, the EU actually requiring Apple NOT to tell users about a security issue?

 

[Starfia]

There are three browser engines in mainstream use, webkit, geko and chromium.

I can’t see anywhere in your linked article a sentence that described what you suggested, the EU actually requiring Apple NOT to tell users about a security issue?

I was interpreting Apple's claim as quoted there: "This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them."

TechCrunch thinks the DMA requires this list to allow users to learn about each browser, so perhaps Apple's "before" literally means "immediately before" – meanwhile, no reporting seems to omit the disclaimer that Apple's compliance has yet to be fully evaluated by the EU, so there's still grey area everywhere; those are what I was thinking about when conceding about my own phrasing.

And, of course, three major browser engines does not necessarily map to three browsers; the potential for the introduction of security risks by the leverager of an engine is an ever-present one.

 

[j26]

The EU seems to be turning into a proper headache for Apple - it seems it's about to be fined in the region of $500m for anti-competitive behaviour in regards to Apple Music

 

[djphat2000]

I really need 🤷‍♂️ as a reaction, because I just don't know what to say anymore. The DMA does not force you to use 3rd party store, sideload or use a different browser, it just says Apple has to offer that option. Not, not less. And I still believe that this will improve iOS more than it will harm it.

For it to be an option. Apple has to change the underlying OS enough to enable it even if you don't want to use it.
No different than an extra door in your home that you can't by default "use" to go outside. But, it exists. Verses the old way that simply had no door there at all.

Now, that the new door is there. It has to be properly supported. Can't just put a door in any wall and expect everything around it to play nice. Which means more changes. Same with the OS. Having the door means you have to support it and everything around it. Since you have made that change. Somethings you will change because you need to in order for it to work and it's important. Others, you will remove because it's too difficult to account for it working as it did. Everything has a trade off. Say where the door is now, there was an electrical outlet. But, that outlet was very rarely used for anything. As you have another one on another wall close by. Do you "move" the existing outlet adjacent to the door? Or do you forgo the outlet since it wasn't used much? It will cost something to move the outlet, and it has to be to code, etc.

In the end, this will be what it is for the EU. I for one am happy for it to stay in the EU for a while. I actually like what Apple has done to comply with the rules. It's better than I could have come up with.

 

[threesixty360]

P


I think you haven’t understood none of his points.

Opening the OS to install apps outside the App Store does not stop you from only install Apps from the App Store just like you want it to be.

It seams that you ignored this and went off on a tangent about how the EU is making you install Apps from anywhere else.

Again you don’t get it.
A PWA app runs on a browser. Browsers don’t typically allow unrestricted access to the underlying OS. So from a JavaScript command in my web app I can’t go on your hard disk and find a file on any folder I want. Or I can’t invoke an api that calls some low level finder api to something. Basically my app is running in what’s effectively a “sandbox”, a restricted access system.

PWA allow web apps running JavaScript commands better access to your OS via a set of extra API’s. This allows your web app to view contacts or have access to some areas of your hard disk. The security issue is that web apps are downloaded from the web and are not run as admin users but could potentially put a malicious file on your system via these api’s.

Because safari engine is written by Apple they trust the access that this browser engine has at a low level. So they are ensuring safety for the PWA’s that run on safari. However, they have no idea how Chrome or Firefox would run with that level of access. I’m not even sure that the browser engines Apple are allowing in the EU will run with the same level access to the OS that safari does. I think they maybe sandboxed as well.

I think the EU directive allows for a customers browser to use a third party default engine. So Apple can’t force the web app to run on Safari and can’t ensure that third party engines that PWA apps will not allow exploits on customer devices.

So they think it’s best to not allow them to run at all in the EU systems rather than potentially allow a random website to download stuff that can get to restricted areas on a customer device.

So it’s not as simple as you make out.

 

[tobybrut]

Man. Either your mind is totally trapped on Apple RDF or you mean to trap others. In this context, its is my opinion that company is just misleading the public, fearmongering with security concerns to justify any kind of policy against their wallets, charging iOS users even more.

The App in question was a Stream Client much like Netflix, HBO or whatever but for games. Meaning it would receive the stream of a game being processed on Microsoft Servers and allow the player user to interact with the game remotely, play it. There no Game being locally installed, much like Netflix does with videos but for games. There is not much security concerns on a video stream as it is on a game stream, it the same from that perspective.

You’re comparing a game to Netflix? You do realize games are fully interactive. Movies are not at all interactive. You can interact with the shell telling it to start, stop, fast forward, and rewind, but that’s not the movie. That’s the app doing those things. Movies are one-way. The game, itself, can take all sorts of inputs, including personal information and anything else you can possibly think of. You don’t interact with movies and music or books, so there’s no risk of anything bad happening to you. You didn’t think about interactivity, did you? Oh, it’s just a movie, right? No, it’s not.

Apple said no to such App and required each stream to have separate stream client on the App Store and game streams to be sold separately because ... well they receive a 15% in such case for one. There was no technical or security concern here. Apple could have applied the same requirement to Video, Music, Books argumenting the same security concerns. It's just manipulation.

Likely any direct access to a game would have a zero price tag. Apple gets nothing from that. Try again.

Imagine, you bought a game say on XBOX Cloud. Than you would need to pay for the game stream in the Apple Store just for Apple to be able to indirectly charge you, the user some more $$ for buying them the device. Not only that, Apple regardless of what you might want to play, for whatever reason they thought of, could just veto it.

Why would they veto you buying a game, even if it didn’t have a zero price tag? Are you opposed to Apple getting money from in-app purchases, which would be exactly the same thing if there were a single XCloud app? Exactly what is it you oppose here? Again, Microsoft wants to freeload off the App Store, just like Epic Games wanted to.

If you bought it directly from Microsoft not through in-app purchases, MS can make it easy to not give Apple a dime. Make the downloaded game app free. There, no problem. Again, I don’t see any argument from you here.

It is so clear that this requirement had nothing to do with security concerns that that Apple also said that if the market don't like this App Store policy, the alternative is for businesses to build a Web App / PWA and game stream through iOS Safari. Guess what, Microsoft did that. Yet now, for the EU they also disabled PWA features to favor the App Store and the new policies .5c per app install or update and still the ability to veto game streams.

From Apple’s direct responses, the two things they demanded were that apps be scrutinized because they are not playable media like movies and the second being that games needed to be ranked. You can’t rank games when you can’t see them being played. With the disabling of PWA, you can still play from the web without a PWA. So, what’s your argument here? Also, along with the removal of PWA’s, they also changed their policy to allow Microsoft to develop a single app for XCloud gaming. What was Microsoft’s response to winning that argument? Nah, we won’t make one anyway because we might have to give Apple money through their App Store instead of freeloading through our own App Store. Microsoft got Apple’s full concession to making a single app. But they’re not going to do it. Whose fault is that? They were previously fully willing to do it when they had to pay 30%. Now they only have to pay 27% and it’s a no? As I said, this whole thing is of Microsoft’s choosing, not Apple’s. They didn’t ban it at all.

The fact that Microsoft won every concession they wanted from Apple and still won’t make a gaming app means that it was never about splitting out games. It was all about not wanting to pay Apple anything and freeloading off of Apple’s hard work. The thing is I don’t mind Microsoft being greedy. It is their right to be, and also Apple’s right. Businesses exist to make money. Good for them. My objection is painting Microsoft as the aggrieved party. I was on their side with the whole EU and Internet Explorer because I thought it was the heavy hand of government unjustly forcing MS to create N versions of Windows. Utter nonsense. You might get the impression I despise know-nothing government regulators. You got the right impression then.

If Microsoft had said that now they can make a single app and put it on their own store and then said we’re now happy to make an app, you might have a point. That they’re still saying no means that everyone arguing on MS’s behalf are arguing on a false premise.

Since when became normal to ask for 7 euros a week for wallpapers? Since when became normal to charge 600 euros to change an internal cable on the device? Get the picture? It’s all built on axioms, not actual business cost.

Relevance? What 600 Euro cable are you talking about? Who’s paying 7 Euros a week for wallpapers? Is this an in-app purchase? If so, what’s your issue? Without in-app purchases being charged the normal commission, every app on the App Store would be free and you’d have to pay in-app to activate any features at all. In the end, if Apple didn’t charge for in-app purchases, they’d get zero revenue in the App Store. It seems the only thing you want to do is to allow everyone to freeload off of the App Store.

Maybe some people are correct. To stop this kind of nonsense being played against consumer rights and wallets, EU should be clearer regarding the DMA. Require gatekeeping businesses to decouple App Store businesses from their OS / Devices business and be very specific about how to do that in business terms. Or simply leave the market, we don't want this kind of nonsense against EU citizens that today depend on computing devices just like they depend on energy and water. Now or ever.

You see no value, whatsoever, in making sure there are no bad apps or corrupt actors? And the billions Apple spends on maintaining the App Store, vetting, and creation of developer tools should all be free? No comment about Windows App Store charging 30% or that MS used to charge 70% before Apple entered the market? Who’s the greedy one?

The idea that what is in question is the Gatekeepers right to be payed by their products and services, is a fallacy. There is nothing in this practice about assuring that is the case. But to create an ecosystem based on a fabricated construct, axioms, to facilitate indirect charges to users for possessing and using the device while adding minimal to no capability to it. Wether the user is a person or a business ... all costs flow to the entity that bought the device ... maybe because of its amazing camera, good looks or nice UI, which is good no doubt but there is more at play. This is just an example among many if you look closer.

A lot of words that mean nothing. I want everything for free. That’s what I get from this.

 

[djphat2000]

Here’s what you said in your original post I quoted from: ”No, my beef is with Apple that didn’t allowed them to make such an App in the first place…”

I only responded because you were demonstrably wrong. Apple did not forbid Microsoft from making an app. They requested each game to be submitted for review, hardly an unreasonable request to ensure security on the platform. It was Microsoft’s choice to not abide by those rules. You made it seem like Apple banned them, and they did not. Microsoft, themselves, abided by those rules with regards to the Office Suite, normally a package of multiple apps sold under a single subscription. But what do you know? Microsoft submitted each app individually. They were fine playing by Apple’s rules for Office. But with games, nah. I reiterate that it was Microsoft’s choice to not submit the apps. They were not banned at all, so you got that completely wrong.

EDIT: I point out there are tens of thousands of games in the App Store, all of which were submitted individually, even when made by the same company. Microsoft wanted special treatment. Apple said, play by the rules everyone plays by and we’ll be happy to host your apps. Microsoft said no.

This secretly keeps the Mac a non-gaming platform.

 

[blotchy-veil]

You’re comparing a game to Netflix? You do realize games are fully interactive. Movies are not at all interactive. You can interact with the shell telling it to start, stop, fast forward, and rewind, but that’s not the movie. That’s the app doing those things. Movies are one-way. The game, itself, can take all sorts of inputs, including personal information and anything else you can possibly think of. You don’t interact with movies and music or books, so there’s no risk of anything bad happening to you. You didn’t think about interactivity, did you? Oh, it’s just a movie, right? No, it’s not.

This is such a laughably bad take I don't even know where to start. 🤯 Just, wow.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Again you don’t get it.
A PWA app runs on a browser. Browsers don’t typically allow unrestricted access to the underlying OS. So from a JavaScript command in my web app I can’t go on your hard disk and find a file on any folder I want.

Check the quote you are answering and check your answer. You went on a tangent about PWAs and browser security vs native app security, which is another issue.

Would you feel safer if you could only go to Walmart for groceries and all that jazz? Guess what, regardless of device you can if that is your case. But you can also choose to go to Wallmart as well as others as you see fit if that is your case.

This is what you are arguing against. The idea that you would be safer if everyone only get their goods from Wallmart is totally dystopian. History has proven just that.

PS: It seams that you POV is such that people with a different perspective from yours you immediately assume that is due to the fact they aren't understanding you. Sometimes it can because they are a few steps ahead of you, no? More experienced both in life and technology.

 

[tobybrut]

This is such a laughably bad take I don't even know where to start. 🤯 Just, wow.

I have a feeling you don’t understand the issue. In other words, you prefer to allow someone else to ensure the security of your platform. Games are fully interactive and send back all sorts of information to their servers. They can also ask you to create accounts where you provide a lot of personal information. None of this is verifiable by Apple because none of those games are submitted. Microsoft could do it before allowing it on their platform, but since when do you allow someone else to verify security for you when you are on the hook for any legal liability?

A movie, on the other hand, is completely non-interactive. The movie app can be checked for proper behavior, but the movie doesn’t need to be checked because you have no interaction with it. All data is one-way only. Movies cannot gather any data from you except for you actually watching it, but that’s done server-side. Data in a game is bi-directional and you have no idea what’s going back unless you verify it. if you think this is a bad take, it’s also the exact same explanation Apple gave for why they wanted to review each game. I take it you don’t believe them. That’s your prerogative, but to a software engineer, it makes perfect sense.

My point remains that even after Apple gave Microsoft everything they asked for, a single app with no breakout of games, Microsoft is still saying no, which tells me and everyone else that all this talk about splitting out games is a diversion from what they really wanted: a free ride.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

You’re comparing a game to Netflix? You do realize games are fully interactive. Movies are not at all interactive. You can interact with the shell telling it to start, stop, fast forward, and rewind, but that’s not the movie. That’s the app doing those things. Movies are one-way. The game, itself, can take all sorts of inputs, including personal information and anything else you can possibly think of. You don’t interact with movies and music or books, so there’s no risk of anything bad happening to you. You didn’t think about interactivity, did you? Oh, it’s just a movie, right? No, it’s not.

Technically game streams are not unsafer than video streams, there are also interactive videos that can go beyond play, pause and rewind.

Regarding the specific situation in bold. Because this an important note.

Did you blame the Apple App Store for the Cambridge Analytical Scandal or Facebook? Was that App removed qt any point in time? Didn’t notice if it was. I did notice hearings in congress, people being jailed and all that jazz and was actually proven that this happened. From Apple and App Store heard nothing but to contact Facebook on the matter.

I would advise you not to blindly trust your data to digital service you plan to use, no one, including Apple. Regardless if you got it from the App Store or from anywhere else. In that regard the sense of security the App Store and the iPhone provides is an illusion and that can be extremely dangerous. Know your app and digital service suppliers!!!!!!

On my iPhone I have dodged several situations where perpetrators tried to get me using perfectly safe Apps.

Check this out. There is an App on the iPhone that allow users to list their second hand materials to sell. I listed to sell my two tennis rackets and explicitly stated that I only deliver in hand. 10 minutes after I got a message of an interested buyer blah blah blah, we agreed to meet at a specific place, date and time. 2 hours later I got an in-app voice call from that person stating that could not meet me at that time and place, asking if I could send the goods by mail. I said yes, but only after payment. The person asked he could pay me using another app, that I know well its good app too, I said yes. The guy than asked me, "did you received the payment notification already?". I said, no ... "weird" he said. "can you please check this and that, do this and that" ... in the app. Immediately I stopped him, because he was clearly giving me instructions to send him money rather than me receiving his money.

It would be absurd to complain to App Store about this even though the Apps were downloaded from their App Store. No corrupt digital services were in use. The answer would be of course to notify the digital service itself which in turn would thank me and refer to doc about best practices.

So you see, I am not your typical "grandma". Regardless if I am talking with this guy, Apple or some other company when it comes to busine$$. I can see through things clearly ... and I am not a millennial. My kid was born in this brave new world and he knows too. Apple can't to much for the "grandma" either when it comes to the kinds of attacks you mentioned.

Wait ... but there is more I see Apps on the App Store asking 7 euros a week to access and download wallpapers that are available for free on the web. The approach is the same, social engineering using the "safeness" of the App Store as the platform to get into your wallet for almost nothing if anything ... golden pig tactics. The illusion of knowing and normality is the most dangerous thing.

I advise you to learn to do so because no one can save you from your own ignorance and lack of interest in knowing to protect yourself using the tools at hand. The same kind of spirit that is leading you to the reasoning that the App Store will keep you safe if you pay enough.

EDIT.

PS: Do you use Microsoft , Sony ore even Epic gaming services? Explain to me why suddenly in some ecosystem these and any other companies that you rely on became untrusted suppliers of yours compared to Apple? Technically Is there an iOS or iDevices problem that we don't know about that only Apple App Stores solve that we should? You know very well when it comes to game streaming technically is safer than Apps as no bins are installed and run.