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 Privacy Chief: North Dakota Bill 'Threatens to Destroy the iPhone as You Know It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or class action law suits against those alternative app stores for not protecting users.
The cats out of the bag, the expectation has been set with Apple and the App Store.
To force a worse offering isn't going to work as the consumer now knows what can be done and how much good protection they are getting at this point in time.
Those too young to remember the virus ridden mess that was windows will get a nasty shock when they open up their devices to the "free market", that requires CPU hogging virus protecting 3rd party apps and the cost if their subscription.
Have we already forgotten what the App store fixed and what Microsoft missed as a great opportunity.
While I really understand everyone wants to run their software of choice on the hardware they bought I don't see anyone really thinking through how an alternative appstore (or multiple appstores) will play out.
First, small developers just don't have the manpower and infrastructure to roll out their own appstore so they will have to remain in Apple's or one of the competitors and get nothing out of this.
For the Epic case it's just a money question since they just want to negotiate a smaller cut. At this time.
Think what happens when (not if) Facebook start their own store: they will make it mandatory if you want to use their apps. Since lots of people (at least here in the EU) seem unable to communicate with each other without the dreaded Whatsapp that means about everyone has to install the new store. Which will come without all those nasty privacy labels, warnings and with maximum user tracking. Same with Google services.
While I want to be able to choose my applications I think "freeing the appstore" is an idea most welcomed by the big privacy offenders.
First, small developers just don't have the manpower and infrastructure to roll out their own appstore so they will have to remain in Apple's or one of the competitors and get nothing out of this.
For the Epic case it's just a money question since they just want to negotiate a smaller cut. At this time.
Think what happens when (not if) Facebook start their own store: they will make it mandatory if you want to use their apps. Since lots of people (at least here in the EU) seem unable to communicate with each other without the dreaded Whatsapp that means about everyone has to install the new store. Which will come without all those nasty privacy labels, warnings and with maximum user tracking. Same with Google services.
While I want to be able to choose my applications I think "freeing the appstore" is an idea most welcomed by the big privacy offenders.
Of course. You can get support from Apple if you have a problem with an app downloaded on the App Store.
What's funny is that gamers on Windows are complaining that 3rd party stores are a mess.
They're tired of being forced to download a store / launcher for every game company, having to update each store, wasting CPU and memory for that, and many wish that everything could be downloadable on only one place like Steam.
Genuine question. Does Apple now take responsibility for any money stolen from you on your phone? Asking out of curiosity? Any references where Apple has taken responsibility for such an occurrence? Either on the iPhone, iPad, or Mac?
It’s no surprise that this is being pushed by companies like Epic, and not consumers. It’s all about these developers wanting more power than what Apple is willing to give them, and they will burn the App Store model to the ground to get what they want, which is basically more money.
Users will not see a better user experience, or lower prices, but hey, a few of them get to sideload third party apps, so yay?
I guess nobody forced Apple to sell iPhone either. There are many other companies selling phones and many more that are not selling phones. Apple can be in just one of either of these categories. It is not like everybody feels iPhone is a necessity. Just saying..
^^You've answered your own dilemma there.
If using multiple app stores isn't better for the end-user, they won't do it.
To what detriment do you speak? I speculate you mean the potential for abusive or exploitative apps?
There are ways around this. For example, on macOS Apple has a notarization system where developers can have Apple sign their apps before 3rd party distribution using their Apple developer ID.
In the event that a developer plays fowl or gets hacked, Apple can—and has—revoke the associated certificates and variant of compromised software, and/or disable the developer account of the software (as reported by Apple on TechCrunch).
If Apple is forced to permit 3rd party App stores or otherwise 3rd party App downloads, they could enforce (or provide the default option of) only the installation of notarized apps just as is done for macOS. Since a developer ID is required, one could assume developers would still have to pay the annual developer fee to cover the cost of notarization.
In other words, even if 3rd parties are permitted to install Apps in the iOS (or iPad OS) environment, there wouldn't be a drop in annual developer fee revenue.
Additionally, I think it's highly unlikely Apple would ever raise their annual developer fee to compensate for reduced App Store revenue. That argument seems to grasp at straws.
Last edited:
No different to installing apps on a personal computer. Having personal choice is a good thing.
Hey consumer, here is an advice. Don't buy a product that does not offer things that you want. Pure and simple.
The choice to make ones own decisions is always welcome.
I am free to install apps on my own PC, a phone should be no different.
As for Apple increasing prices for lost revenue elsewhere, Apple is free to make it desirable for people to host their apps with Apple, competition benefits the consumer and being one of the richest companies on the planet, it is FUD to suggest prices will rise.
I've been saying for years that a closed architecture would lead to lawsuits sooner or later.
There's no way Apple can keep on locking their devices indefinitely, even more so with all the "give us a cut of your sales" situation.
The conflict of interest is obvious, let's all be realistic here.
All along, we have taken for granted that it is the PC’s open nature that is the norm and that Apple’s locked down approach is the aberration.
What if it’s actually the reverse? What if it’s the PC’s open nature that is the aberration and Apple’s approach is genuinely better for more people?
It depends on what developers do with that freedom.
Some say it works well as it is on the Mac, but I don't totally agree. I think the locked approach provides a better experience.
For example, to use Photoshop, you're forced to install the Creative Cloud app to update it. I don't like having apps running in the background that doesn't serve any other purpose than managing a single company's apps.
But with some other apps, like JetBrains apps, each app is standalone and has its own updater, which is perfectly fine.
I’m quite ok with iOS as it is and most of the constraints in the early days have been solved: file browser, airdrop, auto syncing of playlists, photos, apps, etc.
However I can understand having a choice though, the “go Android then!” suggestions are a bit extreme maybe.
Maybe opening up does have a series of drawbacks and performance implications which I wouldn’t want to pay as a tradeoff, in which case maybe Apple should just allow jail breaking, that does changes a bit some underlying runtime things, the install of that backed by 2FA in case someone stole the phone, behind a series of many prompts and “are you sure” buttons.
The reason for this suggestion is that I wouldn’t want to have to deal with warranty issues because of “apps out of store” doubts (there isn’t any if I never opened it up) or a dev having double issues because he is forced to support a sort of a changed environment.
Not at all.
Apple have the freedom to do what they want technically on their own developed technical platform. They are not operating phone lines, public bandwidth, water pipes or any public or common assets.
For the govt to tell you you cannot operate private closed software or payment services on your hardware platform is flat out unconstitutional. At that point they are stealing your property, your innovation.
The legislation here is pure ignorance - and from a state that has long history of bad, biased business practices put into law.
The only place Apple go over the line is if they define the transfer of the hardware as a SALE and they still want to dictate to you how to fix it or modify it.
Without the technical understanding of how the ecosystem works, the politicians have made a move that could jeopardize everyone involved. Yeah sure, I'm all for anti-trust and I welcome additional methods of app distribution as well as anything of value contributing to healthy competition.
But if the bill passes now, it's not just going to affect ND developers, it will affect ALL. There's no way for Apple to know whether a developer is from ND besides their claim. So the likes of Epic Studio can simply create new games under a ND developer and charge their players outside the apple payment system.
The politician failed to answer this question: Why would Apple run a multi-billion dollars operations for free?
If the additional app distribution methods prove to be healthy competition, then the first legislation has to allow additional appstores. Making the restriction now, but there's no other appstore will actually be like climbing out to a tree branch and turn around, sawing that branch off the tree.
But if the bill passes now, it's not just going to affect ND developers, it will affect ALL. There's no way for Apple to know whether a developer is from ND besides their claim. So the likes of Epic Studio can simply create new games under a ND developer and charge their players outside the apple payment system.
The politician failed to answer this question: Why would Apple run a multi-billion dollars operations for free?
If the additional app distribution methods prove to be healthy competition, then the first legislation has to allow additional appstores. Making the restriction now, but there's no other appstore will actually be like climbing out to a tree branch and turn around, sawing that branch off the tree.
I would believe that most of the people on the planet would agree with you.
But you are conflating approach with choice.
I am not a smoker, and this may be a poor analogy, but an outright ban on smoking would genuinely be better for more people but I think that smokers would tell you that they would rather have the choice. As long as the choices made by smokers does not affect me then who am I to argue with their choices.
In some ways, I can understand this logic. I don't want crappy, insecure apps on my devices. On the other hand, I want the final say which apps are on my devices. Do an "informed consent" kind of thing.
I'd also like to see an "App Mall" kind of thing, where I have several app stores. I could choose which store I use. Hopefully have a single way to update all apps. Something like what other OSes have where I can add repositories, and with a single update command, update all apps, regardless of which store/repository it came from.
and shield customers from "devastating, monopolistic fees imposed by big tech companies," which refers to the cut that Apple and Google take from developers.
I see only devastating wave of idio... and hidden interests to destroy iOS security.
Fair point. Over the course of time vulnerabilities, bugs, annoyances have been found in Apple software. Microsoft just released patch Tuesday with patches containing fixes for critical vulnerabilities. Apple has a good track record of patching those types of vulnerabilities.Fair point.
Here is another example of the iOS security theater.
Apple iOS vulnerability causes connections to bypass VPN | Proton VPN
We discovered a security vulnerability in Apple’s iOS that causes connections to remain unencrypted even after connecting to VPN.protonvpn.com
My point was companies don't declare security and privacy done and after the declaration and subsequent parties don't work on them further.
Last edited:
Apple doesn't ban competitive apps and what Microsoft did was different even if some try to paint the broad stroke of big corporations bullying customers and vendors.
For an analogy you want to get a single can of some product, but you are in Costco and can only buy a case. Do you think one can legislate Costco to sell single items or do you go somewhere else to buy your product?
Basically because some developers don't like Apple's system and want access to Apple customers, infrastructure, services without paying Apple, they are for legislation. Similarly, some customers want to buy an Apple product but resent the way the ecosystem works. Third, some don't own any Apple products, but weigh on these items without any skin in the game.
In the first case, I hope Apple prevails, it is entitled to run it's ecosystem the way it sees fit. In the second case it's great there is competition.
When is the last time you have used Windows? I haven't used anti-virus (with exception of build in Windows Defender), firewall and IPS.
Your App Store only is only way to prevent malware is invalid. There were cases where malware ended up in App Store. The very idea that once give people ability to install app using other method must leads to malware infestation is false.
You never argue risk of being cheated, being poisoned, being sold something fake etc from real world stores. Would you argue that only government sanctioned supermarket, computer stores, car dealers? Would you argue banning all other stores?
What is the difference between app sold in App Store and real world product sold in variety stores?