Then close the store after giving enough time for taking down the app. Even Apple has let scam apps run for months before removing them.
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 Explains Why It Terminated Epic's Latest Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny thing is that Apple thinks sideloading is "dangerous" same time Android sandboxing is very well working especially when supported by hardware secure features. iPhone 15 pro for me anyway works as camera and as a 3d reference model scanner primarily.
Then explain something like this.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.
People will ignore that. But some people who fell victim to the iPhone passcode social attack…not forgivable apple.Then explain something like this.
Nearly 2,000 victims fell for Android malware scams, at least S$34.1 million lost in 2023
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.www.channelnewsasia.com
There is no denying that iOS is secure, but it’s largely debatable whether it’s more secure than Android, certainly these days.
In times gone by this was perhaps true, but not really for the past several years.
And even if it was more or less secure than any other operating system, this would have little to do with where one obtains apps, rather what apps can do once they’re installed.
Either way, there is no removable of options becaus you can choose not to download anything outside the AppStore. However, those that choose to now can, which is gaining options.
Love Apple products, but over the last decade their ethics have just gone from bad to worse. Overwhelming greed driving that company. It's sad and it makes me kind of uncomfortable.
Not every product is 100% perfect for every buyer/owner. People should absolutely be able to complain about the aspects of products they own and don’t like. Someone who owns an Android-based phone should be able to complain about aspects of it they don't like just as someone who owns an iPhone should be able to complain about aspects of it they don't like.
The EU specifically said it is not an antitrust law. They classify it as asymmetric sectoral EU internal market regulation. Similar to telecom or financial service regulation. It can be used to combat similar things but like financial / banking regulations can prevent fraud, not complying with those regulations don't mean you have committed fraud. There are very specific fraud statutes for that. Likewise, being regulated under the DMA does not mean you are a monopoly or in violation of EU Competition Law (Antitrust) or that you have done anything wrong. Even failing to comply does not automatically rise to the level of an antitrust law violation. It could, but it is not automatic. You would actually have to violate the antitrust law. Under the DMA, so many companies qualify for gatekeeper designation in the same market that they can't all be monopolies if the legal meaning of the word were to stand.
So, when people talk about treating Apple differently in terms of contracts, pricing, or business models because they are a "monopoly" or a "duopoly" they are disingenuously leaving out the most important part. They are legally neither. The DMA does not make them one and it was never intended to.
This is an argument I see put forward quite a bit but is fundamentally flawed. Up until now if you wanted your app on iOS it was required to be on the Apple Appstore, there was no other way (without jailbreaking, which is not a practical option, or unless you were distributing adhoc or using an Enterprise account). This meant that if you purchased an iOS device then you had a high level of assurance that if the app you want/need is available on iOS then it will be via the App Store with all the assurance that comes with.
Moving forward, if the fragmentation of app stores continues on iOS it is going to be inevitable that eventually there will come an app that your really want, or need (online banking maybe? or maybe its going to be an app like Facebook where the developers decide they don't like the rules on user tracking that exist within the Apple AppStore) where the developers have decided that they would prefer to distribute through a different application store. As going without a much needed app is not practical, users will find themselves being forced into using potentially less secure app stores.
Whilst I can see that for some the idea of being able to choose a different App Store on Apple could be appealing, and in that case they would see this decision as 'increasing choice', the reality is that these moves are actually decreasing overall choice as users will no longer have the option of buying a device and knowing they have brought into a secure ecosystem.
I speak with some experience, I have been a developer since way before iOS was a thing. I've developed professionally on both iOS and Android. In fact I completed a project last week that was specifically for AndroidOS and I can categorically tell you that Android is nowhere near as secure as iOS. I much prefer developing for iOS, the Apple toolchains are excellent and you get real bang for your buck with the Apple Developer subscription, however in this case the security features of iOS prevented us from doing what we wanted to do so our customer directed us to develop on Android as the use case is pretty specific and security will be managed in a particular way.
Same thing can be said about Tim Cook. "Tim Cook is so super mega annoying -- his look, his voice, his words, his decisions, his behavior".
This actually happened with DJI on Android. DJI removed their FLY app from the Play Store. New drone owners that want to use their Android phones to fly them are forced to sideload the app from DJI's website. A task which is not straight forward for most and leads to a lot of confusion among people not knowing how to allow it and if their phone or OS version are even supported (things the Play store figures out for you.) Now, I can only imagine what nefarious things DJI is doing with their app that not even google would allow it in their store that they would go straight to sideloading as distribution means. I suspect as soon as it is feasible they will do the same for iOS in the markets it is allowed.
Yes bc you have to have a developer account to do the other stores as I understand it. This is dangerous. Apple is really acting in a disturbing way and it makes me as someone who wants to start developing software for Apple platforms nervous. What if Apple does something and I speak out? They end my entire business? I’m starting to think that Google is less evil than Apple. :-/. Maybe I stop my Vision Pro apps now before I’ve invested too much money in a platform out to ban people for having different opinions to them. (To be clear I agree with Sweany here even if I don’t trust him the ideas he is expressing are 100% valid.) I do generally prefer Apple products that is why I want to develop for them but….not like this. Hopefully other XR platforms will be successful and I can take my ideas there instead :-/. It’s sad day when Apple is chasing away developers.
Actually that’s a fair point but in the current state of affairs you don’t even have a choice at all. A dictatorship is the best form of government if your dictator is benevolent and highly competent. However of late (and for me starting with ban of project XCloud to boost Apple Arcade) Apple seems to have given up complete benevolence. And with handling of the entire saga with the EU and with entire stream of strange decisions around which apps to ban from the App Store esp things like blocking the keyboard for watchOS only to immediately turn around and make their own. They don’t seem benevolent or trustworthy.
If I was Google right now I’d be out with the cookies and milk and wads of cash recruiting 3d party developers to make high end games, development of specialized api for camera etc all to get these developers to jump ship to Android without risks and with promise of giving them latitude. Google plays this right they can call out of lockstep with Apple on the App Store and I will start changing the direction of my company super fast to focus on Android where the stroke of a pen by Schiller or Cook won’t end my entire business.
Apple has the leverage here, developers don’t, that’s all that matters
What if your business model is a third party store at a mall and you lose your leasenand there are no other malls.
If your business model doesn’t have a contingency plan, it’s a bad business model.
DMA seeks to change that and alt appstores will reduce Apple's influence a lot. In fact, if Appld does not learn, then it will suffer a lot more.
You can't speak to ethical merits of a political system on here. It is against the posting rules and may get your post deleted. Which I agree with as this is about Apple and not political systems.
Haha. And how do you create revenue without business agreements? That is a magic trick I would like to learn about.
Last edited:
I’m starting to feel that we might be talking about ex ante and ex post in different contexts.
They can have different meanings depending on the context, but generally it’s merely an indicator during cases to explain if we’re looking at things before or after they happened.
In some instances, particularly criminal law, it’s used in the context of laws (not) being retroactive, usually referred to as ex post facto laws.
Sometimes it’s also used to indicate the nature of regulation, like ex ante regulation in the EU, regulation that’s trying to prevent something, the GDPR is a good example for this, but art. 102 TFEU and the DMA are also good examples I’d say.
I’m not sure what you mean when you’re talking about ex ante regulations in an ex post jurisdiction, because I haven’t seen the terms be used like that, relating to jurisdictions, before.
Maybe I’ll be able to better understand what you’re saying if you leave the jargon for what it is and try to explain in your own words what you’re trying to say?
As for visualseed, from how I understand it they’re merely arguing that the DMA isn’t antitrust regulation.
I have to agree with that, not just on the premise of what the EU calls it and how the EU classifies it, but also based on the mechanics in the DMA.
It lacks a mechanic to establish market dominance, as well as mechanics for finding antitrust violations and follow through if antitrust issues would be determined. In essence it’s a regulation to regulate specific markets without making qualifications on potential antitrust issues, not unlike regulations for other markets as they pointed out.
I can see why the distinction might be difficult to make, similar to how an administrative fine might look like criminal law, but isn’t.
Although I wonder what benefit this meta discussion has on the discussion here as a whole.
On agreements with unenforceable provisions: the principle of take it or leave still applies in those instances, as it always is the default position from which it will be adjudicated.
Depending on the specific jurisdiction and the regulations that exist in that jurisdiction to manage unenforceable, unfair and otherwise questionable provisions, and the severity of the provision being in contradiction of those regulations, a court may completely shift away from the “you could’ve just not entered into the contract” mindset or they may not at all and hold it against the party in question.
As such, the safest bet will always be to not sign the contract. The second safest bet will be to get a court to void the offending provision if you did enter into the contract, while simultaneously not violating that provision as you await the court’s decision. After that are the other options, which can be risky depending on the specific circumstances in that particular jurisdiction.
In general however, even in the EU, any protections afforded by regulation only apply when there are asymmetrical parties involved (e.g., consumer v merchant, employer v employer, etc), whereas B2B contracts are relatively free and deregulated.
Keep in mind that in those instances there is always a specific law or regulation that specifically bans a specific provision l (in your example that would be NLRB provisions).
What we’re talking about and what you’re asking about, a B2B contract where one party might have significant market power, is a different situation.
For starters you’re not asking about a specific provision like in your NLRB example, you’re asking about the general concept of dominant market power.
Neither the EU nor the US, nor any other jurisdiction to my knowledge, has any regulation that applies to such a broad concept.
Which makes sense because in any given commercial agreement there’s a high likelihood that one of the parties involved will have more power than the other party, and a lesser, but still significantly high, likelihood that one of the parties is quite big.
Putting the enforceability of contracts on a wonky footing just on the premise that one of the parties involved might be big would significantly affect trade.
Instead, not unlike in B2C situations, there are a handful of regulations that prohibit a handful of provisions, and if you stay clear of those then you can be as big or small as you want, but you’ll be able to freely make agreements.
The DMA for example contains a few of those provisions. One is, essentially, about forum choice and the other big one is that Apple can’t put in their contract that the DMA doesn’t apply.
There are some more vague ones, with terms such as reasonable, fair and more of such things, that would ultimately require the CJEU to weigh in, but that’s about it as far as the DMA is concerned.
Similarly art. 102 TFEU, or rather it’s attached case law, has some others that are highly dependent on the context, but there is no blanket “you’re a monopoly so your contract is void” type regulation.
Fair and competitive are subjective terms. In all their wisdom, legislators across the globe have decided that the actual existence of commerce is more important than ensuring that in every single transaction, whether between businesses or ones involving consumers, both parties are 100% equal with equal power. Presumably because the latter is rather impossible to achieve.
So instead, most governments have decided to protect consumers to one degree or another and declare that businesses should be professional enough to know when to enter into agreements and when not to. As well as attributing some of it to “the risk of doing business”.
The only exception to this is antitrust matters, but again, instead of a blanket ban on successful business (or effectively banning them by severely hampering their ability to engage in transactions), they’ve opted to assess situations case by case or at best a pattern of behavior. Often requiring a formal finding by either a government agency or a court, or both.
They’ve decidedly not chosen to allow parties to just declare that something is antitrust and thus you they should be able to enter into contracts with the intent of breaching them.
I don’t think my mind matters much in this because it has no ability to make any changes. But if it’s out of personal interest that you ask me about this then I’d say it’s not ideal, but perhaps the less worst way of handling this. Because I can’t think of a way of managing this without significantly hampering commerce, due to how laws and legislation, by their nature, require a broad application.
When and how it crosses the line is ultimately up to the courts, not me, and often in antitrust legislation.
Take note of the end of that quote:”strongly suggest that Epic Sweden does not intend to follow the rules"
It's only contributory insofar that it seems to indicate, to Apple, that they don't intend to follow the agreement. This makes sense of course if you remember the context.
Last time there was no indication that Epic disagreed with parts of the agreement, they blindsided Apple by purposely breaching the agreement.
This time Epic and Sweeny are plastering huge red flags all over themselves, flags that say they don't agree with the agreement they want to enter in. That's why Schiller brings it up because it increases concerns that they will break the agreement again.
It's not about criticism itself. Look at Spotify, criticizing Apple regularly. Three blog posts just in the last month and a quick Google search shows more than 15 in the last year (stopped countering after that). Not only that but they sicced the EU on Apple.
All of it just as harsh, if not harsher than what Epic does. But they're still in the App Store. Why? Because while not agreeing with everything, they haven't breached the contract.
Epic has.
The Nokia Threat Intelligence reports of the last five years or so say otherwise.
Android consistently accounts for half of all infections on all devices and it's consistently pointed out that the biggest contributor to this is the availability of alternative app stores that host trojanized banking apps (see attached).
Hell, even the Play Store has had trojanized apps.
As for taking away choice. Of course choice is taken away. From the market. People who want another choice besides the option of an open system will be left without one. Because the alternative, a curated and closed experience is being forced to be like the one other option.
That you have the choice to not use certain features on the system doesn't change the fact that the choice of products on the market is being reduced. That's like saying it's no big deal that the only option going forward is pick-up trucks, because you don't have to use the truck bed.
Edit: Fixed attachments
Last edited:
Yeah, I know a lot of infected Android users who download banking apps from alternative app stores. It's such a nightmare and nobody is buying Android anymore. It's all you hear people talking about. People are just ripping their hair out in desperation. It's all over the streets, it's in the cafes, its in the schools, it's everywhere.
And more importantly than anecdotes; it’s extremely well documented and backed up by cold hard statistics.
Security is an issue on Android for less technologically savy users, I would agree. But you have to also look at the causes. Putting the blame squarely on third-party app stores falls short in my opinion. Android is an incredibly fragmented platform and in my opinion not comparable to iOS. Even with the DMA and third-party app stores, Apple will still have very tight control over the OS and app security. Google never had this type of control, because OEM have a lot more possibilities to screw things up with regard to security. Add to that the very bad track record when it comes to patching and keeping devices current.
I think that most alternative app stores on iOS will have very focused catalogs with well vetted applications. Look at how the Apple App store works now. There are hundreds of thousands of apps listed, most of them junk, some outright malicious. Alternative app stores could actually be an improvement over what Apple has to offer right now.
Right, statistics that skew India and third-world and are not reflective at all of real life in developed countries. Nobody is in mass hysteria over Android outbreaks all over the place (not even in the third-world, as those scary statistics are still a drop in the bucket compared to the total population). I've used this phrase before, but... observe reality. Every OS is fine. Windows is fine. macOS is fine. Linux is fine. iOS is fine. Android is fine. You're going to be okay. Nobody would be driving cars if they sat there and freaked themselves out about the safety statistics, paralyzed with fear.
Last edited:
The sandbox is what secured the OS. It’s not fundamentally flawed, it’s exactly what it is. Get some knowledge on the matter.
Doesn’t say much about the actual security and the integrity of AOSP though. Just shows that manufacturers don’t push out updates, and users don’t update and AppStore’s aren’t the key to secure software (which is my actual point anyway) - I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed we were talking about OS security - and I assume vanilla, not some mash up of world wide statistics taken over years.
I was speaking strictly APSP v iOS, as the op I replied to implied that iOS was much more secure than Android.
Last edited: