So says the apex predator. There are plenty of predatory pricing in the App Store since subscriptions came to town.
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 Does Deep Dive Into Security Protections and Risks With Alternative App Marketplaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So says the apex predator. There are plenty of predatory pricing in the App Store since subscriptions came to town.
I see you carefully left macOS out.
Wow. Just wow. This is chems in the contrails/G5 causes cancer/nanochips in the vaccine level out there. It's almost as if someone from the pro-alternate appstore is pretending to be part of the anti-alternate appstore to discredit that camp.🤔
If an app can install without user permission and/or knowledge, then the OS is seriously flawed. Any documents they have that claim the OS is secure is only useful for wiping your derriere.
Any OS that can execute unsigned code can install software without the permission of the OS. This is fundamental to how computer security works. If the code can execute with the lowest security permissions, assume it can execute at the hypervisor level.
Thus was the most credible part of your scenario. iOS wouldn't allow an unsigned app to install even with user's permission. No worry there.
For the scenario you dreamed up to even be possible, would require a perfect storm of improbabilities.
Russian spy agency with its own app store? Really? Someone sane installing an app store called Fascist R Us? That a step too far.
Without that app store installed, iOS would reject any app not signed with Apple's certificate.
And Apple lets you readily track your subscriptions and manage them all in one place, as well as request for a refund from their webpage.
Here is the thing. The origin(or the title) of the app store does not mean anything and a conceptually weak person will always serve interests of others rather than his own.
they pro alt app store gang also want emulators and install ROMS that are probably pirated. the other thing Apple wont allow.
I just don’t understand why people on this forum who moan about Apple hardware not being up to snuff every September and complain about bugs in iOS and swear by the Google Play store and demand side loading don’t just simply buy a Pixel or Galaxy. They would get away from the hardware, the OS, and the App Store they constantly swear is inferior AND save money.
I mean, it’s like going into a restaurant and ordering a Coca-Cola, then complaining about it being sugary and carbonated and lacking the rich smell of coffee. Why not just order coffee, if that is what you wanted in the first place.
I mean, it’s like going into a restaurant and ordering a Coca-Cola, then complaining about it being sugary and carbonated and lacking the rich smell of coffee. Why not just order coffee, if that is what you wanted in the first place.
People like me choose Apple for the Walled Garden.
Part of that Walled Garden is that Apps cannot be installed by side loading or other places.
I like that as makes much more difficult to have apps installed in the background.
Apple is the Phone Vendor that allows that so I chose iPhone over the alternatives. I exercised my choice and the same choice that you have.
By providing the facility that can be turned on then you take away my choice of a walled garden. Can you guarantee that the alt app and side load isn't turned on my phone without my knowledge.
At the moment then I have to goto the Apple App Store and choose to install an App and confirm the purchase before will install.
So this is how you are taking away my choice
By not providing on Apple products then I take nothing away from you ability to have a phone that you can do all those things on.
Currently choice is
Apple - Walled Garden, Apps from Apple App Store, payments via Apple, no option to turn them on and lose the Walled Garden.
Android - Open Platform, allows side loading and alternative app stores and alternative payment providers.
We both can choose what we want, I buy an iPhone, you buy your choice of vendors phone that uses Android.
Other than some Apple specific Apps that only run on iOS ie FCP X on iOS which not provided for other mobile apps instead have to use an alternative video editing app. then nothing on Apple iOS that cannot do on Android.
If have your way
Apple - Apps from Multiple App Stores, Multiple Payment Providers can be turned on.
Android - Apps from Multiple App Stores, Multiple Payment Providers
I have NO option for my walled garden.
This is how you take away my choice for a walled garden.
I used to drive an Audi A5 Sportback and now drive an SUV. I now drive my elderly parents around and they struggled with how low the Audi A5 sits to the ground and the side supports of the seats.
The Audi A5 no longer meets my needs so I bought a car that does.
I took my mother with me to all the different car dealerships to see how she was getting in and out of them.
I really wanted the Mazda CX-5 however when going to slide out then moms feet were 4 inches off the floor so completely unsuitable and I didn't buy one.
What you want with the changes to iOS is like me buying the Mazda CX-5 and then complaining my mom cannot get in and out of it properly and so Mazda need to lower the Car Height, instead of buying an SUV that my parents could get in and out of in the first place.
Or the eqiivalent of me keeping the A5 and saying Audi have to raise the height and reduce the side support on the seats so easier to slide in and out of.
Yes I have an alternative to buying a Mazda CX-5 but so do people that want side loading, app stores, payment providers on their mobile device.
MacOS has this setting, I don’t see any reason it should be absent on iOS. Give users and organizations the choice if they want it.
Does me installing iDOS on my iPhone to play DOS games “contaminate” it? What a weird statement, especially on an operating system that sandboxes everything very heavily…
(I sincerely hope you harden your networks better than this statement leads me to believe).
Last edited:
Sideloaded apps need to be signed by Apple and run in a sandboxed environment, to bypass this using a zero-day involves the same process - remote code execution, hiding malicious code in a benign app submitted to Apple for review, or exploiting a bug in another app like Safari - as bypassing the current App Store restriction. It’s been done before and remains a risk regardless of sideloading.Since most iOS devices are continually connected to the internet and Apple and other servers unlike a computer there could be a zero day malicious code with side loading that could spread quickly to all online devices or bringing down networks where each device acts like a robot.
Last edited:
You are correct, it is not for the manufacturer to decide, it is for the manufacturer to provide products that perform what the user wants if they want the users to buy them. If the product that they make doesn't meet your needs or cannot do something you need it too then you as a user buy a different product that does. It is the down to the user to buy a product that meets there needs.
Companies that don't make products that meet users requirements go bust or start to make products that do meet the users needs pretty quickly. Clearly enough people buying the walled garden that Apple haven't needed to open up the platform in 16 years.
If Apple don't make a product that meets your needs then why do you need regulation to change the product. Why are EU citizens buying iPhones if they don't meet there needs.
If the EU has to regulate what a product must do then they are implying that the citizens of the EU are incapable of looking at an Apple iPhone, with its walled garden approach and understanding that it is a walled garden and that they therefore need to regulate against it being a Walled Garden.
So what do the EU think of the intelligence level of it's citizens if they believe the citizens cannot distinguish this. Certainly seems that they don't think too much of the ability of there citizens to understand that Apple is a walled garden ecosystem.
When I buy my phone I buy the SE as I want to carry a phone with me, not pretend I am doing an episode of Trigger Happy TV. For anyone that not seen
I would much rather have Apple kept the 4" format as that was perfect. Does that not mean that the EU should also regulate the size of the phone that Apple should produce as I want a 4" iPhone, not a 4.7 or whatever size moving unto next when replace with the newer model of SE. After all I want a 4" iPhone why should Apple not be made to provide me the size I want and the size of phones if Apple want to sell phones be regulated. What is the difference in principle between my want for a 4" phone and your want for it to be opened up.
Where do you want to stop with what you do and don't regulate.
As posted elsewhere then didn't buy a Mazda CX-5 because mom couldn't get in and out of it properly. Surely that is physical discrimination against shorter people by Mazda with their Car, and Mazda need to be told to make the CX-5 lower so that shorter people can get in and out properly. The smaller SUV's don't have the space that need which is why was looking at a CX-5 model rather then the smaller models.
Who are Mazda to prevent me from using a CX-5 to run my parents around by making it too high off the ground. I should with your argument be able to use the CX-5 for what I want.
Yes that is taking to the extreme but is the same basic principle. If a product doesn't meet your needs then you buy the alternative that does.
Please explain to me how there is NO ALTERNATIVE to buying an iPhone.
Lets put it another way.
You are a company that provides video editing to your customers. However you use Windows Software and cannot supply the finished Video in ProRes format. You say to the person requesting it you cannot supply in ProRes.
Would you think it reasonable that the customer to take you to court to force your company to buy a solution that you could provide the finished video in ProRes or would it be expected that they find a video editing company that can supply the finished video in ProRes after all the world is not short of people that offer the service., as that is effectively what the EU is saying that the company will be forced if wants to offer video editing then has to be able to provide ProRes support.
Presuming you bought your iPhone with all it's limitations regarding being the walled garden then what made you choose the Apple iPhone with it's walled garden if you want the freedom you get with Android to do what you want with the device. (there have been complaints on the pro-open side that people presuming that they don't own an iPhone)
You don't have to justify your purchase to me but I am genuinely interested in why people that want the openesss of Android are buying iPhones instead. What is the compelling reason why you trade the openess of Android that you want for the walled garden on iPhone at purchase time.
Before current role then was a Consultant so would find out peoples requirements and then find a solution for them, and if a persons requirement was to have control over the devices then I would never be suggesting an iPhone to them as part of the solution.
Not to mention there is a two week no-questions-asked return policy on the iphone.
But they do have a choice. Just as people here are saying that I will have a choice once the stores fragment.
You can't have it both ways.If devs don't like the Apple ecosystem they can abandon it, vote with your wallet as they say. If Apple loses a good percentage of big names then they will have a decision to make. As it stands now devs want their cake ($$) and to each it too (complaining about Apple).
Consumers will never benefit from this.
So apparently a users choice of
A) Android and has all of this that you want
or
B) Apple and Walled garden
Is not a choice that people are capable of making? That does surprise me.
You agree indeed that there are alternatives to iOS as not a monopoly however you then want to argue that something inside of iOS is a monopoly.
Monopolies are where you have no alternative.
There is a clear alternative to using Apples App Store and Apple Pay and that is called don't use Apple. You are only required to use these once chosen to use Apple iOS devices. So users when purchase an Apple iOS device (and we agree there is an alternartive to buying an Apple iOS Device) are they not aware of what they buying into?
On your basis then Supermarkets need regulation as they have a monopoly of what I can buy once I have chosen the Supermarket to shop at.
One of the dinners I like is Mr Brains Faggots, however whilst Tesco's sell them they do not sell the pack with just 2 in them at my local store. Surely regulation therefore needs passing forcing that if Tesco is going to sell Mr Brains Faggots that it also makes the 2 pack available alongside larger packs so that I can buy them.
Not all food is suitable for reheating and they come in a single foil tray so all are cooked at the same time. So buying a 6 pack and cooking 2 at a time separately is not practical.
So when I want to buy Mr Brains Faggots then I have to either A) buy a 6 pack at Tesco and throw 4 away, B) Eat all 6 even though really don't need to eat that much and would struggle to do so, C) shop at a different supermarket that do sell them.
Most people would (quite correctly) laugh or facepalm if suggested that such a thing should be regulated and that I simply go somewhere that does sell Mr Brains Faggots in the 2 pack.
Yet apparently applying this logic and common sense to Apple iOS isn't valid and apparently end users are incapable of choosing to purchase a mobile device that has all of these requirements already instead of purchasing an iPhone.
When you break it down then what is the difference between Tesco don't sell Mr Brains Faggots in 2 Packs in my local store and being told to if want those then go to a supermarket that does sell them, and saying Apple iPhone doesn't have alt app stores, alt payment, side loading, and being told then why don't you buy a mobile phone that does have them.
I know many people that never bought Apple products as they are locked down and get through life without any difficulty using the alternative products,
What is it that compels people that want side loading, alt app stores, alt payment providers etc to buy Apple Products?
If people want/require this then stop buying Apple iPhones/iPads and sales drop, and they will look for why have dropped and they can easily reach out to registered iPhone users why they stopped buying them.
Security protections, risks.... ROFL, my sides. Apple, please stop with this "we care so much about you and your security" posturing. Apple's spin doctors, some of the finest in the biz.
Which brings up something I have issues with iOS--and Android--the lack of a built-in firewall. The first and easiest line of defense against network attack, yet neither has it. Why?🤔Since most iOS devices are continually connected to the internet and Apple and other servers unlike a computer there could be a zero day malicious code with side loading that could spread quickly to all online devices or bringing down networks where each device acts like a robot.
The only way to get a firewall is by rooting/jailbreak. That leads to another can of worms that you either deal with or you're SOL.
I hope Apple makes a better case in court, because they will loose for sure with these arguments.
More countries will follow with similar legislation. Just look at what happened recently in India, where a high ranking minister was making a lot of fuss when Google wanted to kick out dozens of (local) apps from the Play Store for violating terms related to in-app payments. The bigger picture is, that governments don't want two companies to have total control of the mobile app sector. This battle is far from over.
India's communications and IT minister says delisting of popular Play Store apps “cannot be permitted”; Google reinstates some apps without IAPs
By Jatin Grover / FE Tech Bytes. View the full context on Techmeme.
www.techmeme.com
You do not understand the concept of consumer protection. If you want to buy a smartphone, you just have two option. Either Apple's walled garden or Google which sells your private data. So you have the choice between two evils. It is the job of consumer protection to convert that into the choice between two good options. So Apple has to be stopped from locking consumers in and at the same time Google's power to sell private data has to be restricted.
Google and Microsoft warn their users of the risks too, but don’t let facts get in the way of your outrage, I guess. 🙄
You have the choice of iPhone or one of the hundreds of manufacturers of smartphones that have elected to pay google $1 because these manufacturers don’t want to or can’t develop their own operating system. That is a false duopoly. Not like in the US where there is a tri-opoly for cell phone carriers and entrants can’t get into the business except by being an mvno.
Last edited:
It's still two operating systems and two stores. What is "false" about the duopoly?
You don't say that Microsoft does not have a dominant position in PC OSs just because there is Dell, Lenovo and all the other PC manufacturers.
Because it’s the manufacturer that’s paying google to use their operating system.
And Microsoft has a dominant position in some categories but some pc manufacturers offer multiple operating system choices.