Thank goodness we can only put Apple approved software on our Macs.........I feel so safe, after all Papa Tim knows, best, right?
What's that I hear, "1984"
What's that I hear, "1984"
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
Just like there was no real reason to ever put anything but Apple approved software on you Mac or only Microsoft software on your PC?
I think you have cause and effect backwards.
The macOS App Store is a barren wasteland because users are allowed to download apps directly from third party websites. There was no need for them to go through the App Store, and so they didn’t.
In contrast, the iPhone launched within an App Store, and when it launched a year later, every developer hopped on it because it was the only way to sell apps to users.
This means that I as an iPhone user can purchase any app I want directly from the App Store. No need to visit 50 different websites to download 50 different apps (especially if I want to reinstall them later). My subscriptions are all consolidated in one page for my ready viewing and management. I can update all of them with the tap of a single button. I don’t have to worry about my payment details getting compromised in the event of a hack.
It’s just so much more convenient when I have everyone in one place for ready, easy access.
Opening up the App Store would definitely see many other types of apps that previously weren’t allowed on iOS. Porn. Gambling. Vaping. Maybe pirated or clone apps. Even Parler.
More variety, yes. I wouldn’t call them better quality though.
I addressed this above. If macOS had been locked down the same way iOS is, those apps would have been in the macOS App Store. But that rubicon has long been crossed. It’s too late for the Mac, but it’s also precisely what results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of users on iOS.
There’s no perfect solution that will allow everyone the best of all worlds. Just trade offs and what each is willing to compromise on.
Again you have absolutely zero understanding of how the technologies you use are developed.
If the Mac was a locked down as iOS the app store wouldn't exist.
The only reason the software that is on the App Store exists is because there are open operating systems (like macOS/Windows/Linux) that allow developers to build it.
Which may be true, but it’s not what I was responding to.
At best, it just means that the only good reason for the Mac to remain open is so that developers can continue to develop apps for iOS.
No, you think that because you live in a bubble where all that matters is Apple and their bottom line.
The advancement and development of society depends on open operating systems that allow software to be developed.
Example, the development of electric vehicle platforms that will ultimately help tackle climate change need software to be written to run them, do you think Elon and co are writing this on an iPhone??!
You need to look at the bigger picture rather than focussing on the next app store fart app.
I know oberservation span has always been a problem to people - reading the article would answer your question from an apple person himself saying - the thight store is for privacy reason ...
Yeah - dead hitter argument - A i say it again A company needs to make money - Apple makes enough money and can adjust their portfolio to make „money“ somewhere else!
Fair enough point. But I wasn’t arguing for the Mac App Store to be locked down like the iOS App Store currently is, not least because I don’t think it’s possible nor worth the effort at this point. So I am not in disagreement with you on this point at least.
Rather that the iOS App Store doesn’t have to be as open. It’s the same argument I give for it being okay for the ipad to not be as open or fully-featured as a full-fledged PC. That the heaviness of the PC (including the Mac) is what allows iOS devices to be as light as they are, because iPhones and iPads don’t have the same shoes to fill.
For example, I don’t need the iPad Pro to run x-code because we already have the Mac for that. Free up the ipad of the need to be everything for everyone, so it can be the general-purpose computer for the masses who don’t need to code, or run CAD simulations, or whatever other specialised professional task.
Gatekeeper is poor at preventing malware in a situation where there are many legitimate distribution sources. Gatekeeper only verifies developer signature and checks if app is flagged for malware during the first application launch. Getting around those restrictions is actually simple when there isn’t Apple watching over. If you want to make it effective you need constant application monitoring and traffic filtering.
Last edited:
So my thing is ... I’ve purchased apps on the App Store but can no longer install them. Luckily I downloaded them and was able to side load them on my older iPad. My main issue is that if I purchased these apps I should be able to still use them. I guess I should have added that to my original comment.
Na, the concept is fine here and is a successful business as anywhere else on a walled garden. You are not forced to get their product and buy something else.
But thanks for the silly ad hominem.
I think you're making a few assumptions here, and you'd have to expand on that. (Depending on what "Apple watching over" means.)
Getting around those restrictions might be simple if:
- this hypothetical iOS version lets you open the app without checking the digital signature, as macOS lets you do. I don't think this is likely.
- this hypothetical iOS version lets someone ship a tool that can re-sign any app with a different signature. This is even less likely.
No traffic filtering required, and iOS has strong protections in place.
Personally, I find Gatekeeper on the Mac useless. It blocks me when I want to install a legitimate app, so I end up turning it off anyways, and leave it off, so it’s probably just a matter of time before I just end up installing a dodgy app by happenstance and said feature won’t be enabled at the right time to do its job.
Let me know if I am using it wrong, because personally, I feel that a security feature that users can turn off as and when they wish may as well not exist.
Point?
I just don’t see the necessity of it. We lived an easy life with one - and exactly one - App Store on any Apple device, as well as plenty other entertainment systems. Let’s not pretend walled garden ecosystems are new or that the consumer doesn’t know what they’re buying into.
I find that logic to be very circular. It is, you know, accept, it isn’t open to change.
Easy if you don't have to run a business that uses it or happen to have an app that competes with one of Apples services..
If any of you have half an hour to kill, Renee Ritchie does a pretty good take on the issue (he starts with the 30% cut).
Here's the part where he talks about alternative payments:
And lastly, side loading (which also addresses the issue of gatekeeper not being all that effective):
Many months old, but no less relevant.
Here's the part where he talks about alternative payments:
And lastly, side loading (which also addresses the issue of gatekeeper not being all that effective):
I doubt developers will gain much in a competition among app stores either.
And yes it’s always tough when the big ones scoop up your idea rather than buying it.
Ever heard of never change a running system?
True not everything needs to be changed. The shape of the wheel isn’t being reinvented all the time either and still I see no comments about designers not being open minded enough.
It’s an OK take on it, but fails to acknowledge a couple key points. Apple has dropped their cut to 15% for smaller developers (grossing less than $1M/year). The next is continuous software development and advancement of all the Apple APIs/ SDKs and frameworks. I could very well see Apple not allowing full use of all their frameworks and developer tools for apps distributed outside the App Store. And they would be well within their right to do that. In fact, their cut of revenue is specifically classified as the primary source of funding for continued development of developer tools, APIs, etc.. in addition to App Store marketing, legal expenses and more.
If Apple/Google are required to open to alternative App Stores, then what? So you have the EPIC Games Store and developers can create and submit apps there built within EPIC’s tools, Unreal Editor, etc.. They would have to provide all the amenities to attract developers like payment gateways and opening up foreign markets, extending legal protections, whatever... They’re going to want their cut to build and maintain all that infrastructure.
The safety of App Store lies in the ability on Apple's behalf to fend off bad actors from delivering malicious apps to unsuspecting users. It may not be a big deal for the many, if one or two people get spied or ripped off online but on a larger scale an accumulation of malicious apps in 1.5 billion iPhones or so means that every future iOS release will be in jeopardy with security breaches, account leaks etc.
On the flip side this protection mantle seems to be very beneficial to Apple, maybe for a good reason or maybe not.
Let's admit it, if Apple were a successful business in the range of a few billion dollars of revenue no politician, self righteous activist or self aware customer would be bothered about the App Store... The big money however brings envy and unrest!
On the flip side this protection mantle seems to be very beneficial to Apple, maybe for a good reason or maybe not.
Let's admit it, if Apple were a successful business in the range of a few billion dollars of revenue no politician, self righteous activist or self aware customer would be bothered about the App Store... The big money however brings envy and unrest!