Exactly. I did switch from iPhone to Android and back again. And as someone technical enough to spend time hanging out on a tech forum like this, it was still a huge pain. And that was just counting me, not even the rest of the family and work software related considerations, etc etc.
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 Criticizes U.S. Antitrust Bill That Targets the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. I did switch from iPhone to Android and back again. And as someone technical enough to spend time hanging out on a tech forum like this, it was still a huge pain. And that was just counting me, not even the rest of the family and work software related considerations, etc etc.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
As one of those “lightening defenders”, I agree usb-c is better. It’s just mandating it into law is incredibly short-sighted and stupid, particularly when it is clear it was going to happen in a year or two anyway.
I'm really not sure it was going to. I can't remember if it was 14 or 15 where they finally did it, but it was clear at the time they didn't want to even then.
I don't think the law specifically names USB-C as the only standard forever, but it just makes sense. We really don't want Apple to come up with yet another proprietary port, they already were part of creating USB-C anyway, they were already using it everywhere else.
But for some reason they still clearly did not want to use it on the phone. Which at that point could only have been for anti-competitive reasons. It just doesn't make sense anymore.
Yes there is the theoretical possibility of getting locked in to what becomes an old standard like happened with electrical outlets. But that's actually another great example of why standards are good, and with DC power over USB-C it's just a lot simpler.
We're already at the practical power limit for most portable devices, and at the practical thinness limit. It will be a long time before something is obviously better than USB-C for both power and data.
We already have an improved form in Thunderbolt and that's already too high end for most uses.
It's not a lex Apple Lightning and never has been. We are talking about thousands of other devices that are also covered by the law.
Additionally, while the law only applies to a limited number of product categories, the ubiquity of USB-C equipment creates a strong incentive for many other vendors to also transition to USB-C for power delivery and charging, even if they are not strictly covered by the mandate.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I admit I do like Lightning for how svelte and robust it is.
Ultimately, I like the idea of "the same connector for everything" (or as much as possible) so I'll go with whatever the flow is.
I'm stuck with Lightning + USB-C for quite a while, unless Apple is ever going to make a new iPhone I like again.
Ultimately, I like the idea of "the same connector for everything" (or as much as possible) so I'll go with whatever the flow is.
I'm stuck with Lightning + USB-C for quite a while, unless Apple is ever going to make a new iPhone I like again.
It does feel more robust.
Apple had a chance to make it a standard, but they apparently preferred to keep it exclusive to their ecosystem. A missed opportunity, but that's now water under the bridge.
maxoakland
macrumors 68000
Anything that breaks Apple’s iron fisted control over app installation is a good thing for users and developers
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I think that’s my point a customer who may be irritated with the lightning port it’s one of those decisions where the importance is down in the list. For me, if the lightning cable had faster charging that would be my choice of connector.
While progress is inevitable tough to know how many cheered and how many jeered for the change to USB-C.
Last edited:
surferfb
macrumors 68030
It’d be terrible for users, bringing Android’s malware problem to iOS, which will in turn be bad for most developers, as users will be less likely to download apps.
I’m sure the big developers will enjoy increased profits, which will not be used to lower prices though! Glad someone is looking out for them!
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
It’s a bad thing around for all. And certainly those who dislike apples policies there are alternatives.
Mrkevinfinnerty
macrumors 68040
Won't somebody think of the 'Privacah and Securitah" 😱
Apple needs 30% of everybody else's business to keep them safe, just like the mafia.
Apple needs 30% of everybody else's business to keep them safe, just like the mafia.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
There’s a reason there is significantly more malware and scams on Android. It’s not because Android users are less sophisticated, or because Apple has better engineers than Google, it’s because Android allows sideloading and third party app stores.
- Here's a 2023 survey paper citing McAfee data reports 2.34M mobile malware cases, of which only 389 were on iOS.
- App Security Project quoted Nokia Threat Intelligence report that found that Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of observed malware infections (Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%), with third-party app stores being a key vector due to lack of security vetting.
- Zimperium found that users who sideload are 80% more likely to have malware on their phones.
- Tom's Guide reported that users of alternate apps stores had up to 19 times higher probability of encountering malware compared to the PlayStore
- Certo Software says sideloaded apps have a 200% higher chance of containing malware
- Banks in Singapore won't let users use their apps if they detect apps from unverified sources (i.e., side loaded and third-party stores)
- In the US, the Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, the FBI, and NIST all say don't sideload (DHS calls out third-party stores in particular).
- The EU's own Agency for Cybersecurity recommended users "use the official application marketplace only… to minimize the risk of installing a malicious application."
- ENISA has also stated that "Compared to other software distribution models and depending on the review process implemented, the walled-garden approach makes it more difficult for cyber attackers to spread malware" and that "most experts agree that the walled-garden approach could help to reduce the impact of malware."
- The European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation says: "only install apps from official stores".
- Australia's eSafety Commissioner: "Apps for your iPhone or iPad should only ever be obtained from the App Store, while apps for Android devices should only be obtained from Google Play. Apps obtained from anywhere else may well be dangerous, and could try to misuse your information or put a virus on your phone"
Mrkevinfinnerty
macrumors 68040
Nobody disputes that sideloading increases risk. Windows, macOS, and the web all allow software from multiple sources while still maintaining strong security models.
None of this justifies giving a single company complete control over software distribution, payments, and access to devices that consumers own
surferfb
macrumors 68030
“Strong security models?” Windows showed us the folly of the model you’re trying to bring to iOS. “my PC is full of garbage, just reinstall Windows” was basically a meme before memes were a thing. macOS has spent the last decade moving toward more lockdown, not less as it gets more popular because Apple is seeing more malware. While it’s less than Windows is still significantly more prevalent than on iOS.
They “anyone should be able to install anything” is terrible for almost all users. A platform where that isn’t possible should be allowed to exist. If you don’t like it no one is forcing you to buy iOS.
It absolutely does. Apple didn’t trick anyone. iOS has always been a curated, walled ecosystem. You didn’t buy a general-purpose computer that Apple then restricted on you after the fact; you bought into a product whose security model was part of the advertised value proposition from day one.
I do get that but my point is for me and many others, it was an unnecessary line in the “cons” column that they did to themselves, and they didn’t care if the users liked it.
There was never any opportunity to vote with one’s wallet short of switching platforms. And Apple knew it.
Mrkevinfinnerty
macrumors 68040
The problem is that Apple treats security and competition as if they're the same thing. They're not.
Requiring apps to be notarised, sandboxed, and permission-controlled is a security measure. Requiring every developer to distribute exclusively through Apple's store and payment system is a competition issue.
If Apple's concern were purely security, it could allow alternative stores and direct distribution subject to the same security requirements Apple already enforces. That's essentially the direction regulators have pushed in Europe.
Apple uses the locked down nature of iOS to turn the screw on competitors there have been several high profile instances of this.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
surferfb
macrumors 68030
Again, if you don’t like Apple there is plenty of competition. There is no good reason to force this on Apple and its customers. It’s going to be a net negative, literally no one is asking for it outside of a tiny subset of tech nerds and a few bureaucrats personifying the “we’re all trying to find out who did this” meme on why there’s no innovation on the continent because wrongly blaming Apple instead of their suffocating regulations.
Even on Android, where alternative stores have been legal and forever, the overwhelming majority of users never leave Google Play. Samsung’s own Galaxy Store, preinstalled on every Samsung device (the best-selling Android brand), barely registers usage despite zero friction to use it. Amazon’s Appstore, F-Droid, Aurora, all of them combined are a rounding error next to Play Store downloads. No one wants this. It’s literally not worth it.
So we are going to force Apple to build and maintain permanent infrastructure for alternative distribution and payments that almost nobody will use in exchange for new attack surfaces, more confusing permission flows for average users, and engineering effort that could’ve gone toward features people actually asked for. If the demand were there, Android would already show it. It doesn’t.
What we’re left with is a mandate that imposes real costs and risks across the entire iOS user base to serve a sliver of users who, by the way, already had options on Android the whole time.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The throw the baby out with the bath water is a common sentiment around these parts.
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
If a simple API exposure is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", one has to wonder how dense and sticky the bathwater really is (remember the API is already there due to EU regulations)
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
That does not mean it’s good for consumers, devs or Apple as discussed over thousands of posts.
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
It can't be simultaneously harmless as in "it's used by less than 3% of users" (someone shared a research upthread) and "the worst thing to happen to the iOS ecosystem". If it were bad for consumers it would've been painfully obvious by now, given almost three years have passed since Apple enabled third party stores.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Because something didn’t happen today, doesn’t mean it won’t happen tomorrow. These laws make it worse for all who opted in to become involved with Apple.
Samplasion
macrumors 6502a
The benefits far outweigh the cons for those who have a use for it, and for those who don't, we've seen it makes no difference. It doesn't make it any worse than it already is, as the last two years have shown all the fearmongering about "the walled garden being eradicated" was baseless.
Also, if your involvement with Apple was only about not being able to install indie apps on one kind of the many devices Apple sells, that's on you to be honest
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The needs or wants of the few superseding the wants of the many is exactly the hallmark of a terrible government. The EU is not alone in this regard.