Apple Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'

[SuperMatt]

The problem becomes, I want that switch… I need that switch, I have a right to that switch.
it is my device I should be able to do with it as I please, it’s OK if I’m in the minority and a bunch of people don’t want it or care.
If the switch existed they could choose to have it disabled which would be the default let’s be real.
so right now the alternative is those millions of people are on older versions of iOS, running jailbreaks so you’re increasing the security flaws tenfold while also discouraging them from ever upgrading or in some cases buying new supplementary devices because they rely on newer versions of iOS.

Whether you want that switch or not, not having it is a detriment not a advantage and security vulnerabilities will exist regardless of said switch, by forcing people to not have a switch you’re just encouraging bad behavior like never updating etc, jailbreaking etc.

but similar to being “green“ and right to repair it’s not like Apple actually cares about their users, they’ll just put out more propaganda and hope that enough people remain ignorant and continue to buy their devices And it works more often than not because even I am aware of the shady stuff and their anti-customer stances and yet, I still buy their stuff every time they do an event.

Incredible. Apple is making bad stuff but people are buying it because of propaganda? I guess they lied on the independent customer satisfaction surveys too? What did they do, pay off the companies that do the surveys? Or are all the users so mind-addled by the propaganda that they cannot tell if they like using the device or not?

Must be the best propaganda campaign in human history since the company is worth $2 trillion.

 

[cmaier]

Man, I find it completely laughable that people really feel like iOS would become Android or something simply by allowing users to have a choice. Apple could very easily allow for users to have to opt in to allowing third party stores and apps, even after a whole bunch of warnings and whatnot. Sure some people willingly choose to stick to a walled garden, but the fact that they feel like users shouldn't at least have a choice to install third party stuff is very sad.

User’s do have a choice. They can choose iOS or android.

”apple could very easily…”. Easy to say if you don’t understand how cryptographic signatures work and how the iOS app-launch security measures work.

Even if i stick to the walled garden, the mechanism that permits the walled garden to be pierced automatically becomes a vulnerability that can be exploited by bad actors. Just like the back door that governments want Apple to add.

 

[Xenofastiq]

I suspect that the vast majority would stick to the walled garden.

I find it interesting that after all of the decades that Apple had been the walled garden and everybody knows the, but they still buy into and bitch about it. I think that Apple could set up an alternative server system to house those other apps and maybe instead of charging a percentage, do it the way AWS does. Charge x dollars per GB stored on their server and per GB uploaded and downloaded. They can still monitor all data for malware and remove or quarantine anything bad.

The thing is, people still buy in to the Apple ecosystem because while they may not be as free to do certain things, it's undeniable that all Apple products tie in really tightly together, and apps in general just perform better because of how well it's all optimized on iPhones. So while the vast majority may stick to the walled garden, as long as they aren't touching say a theoretical setting that would allow third party stores and apps to be installed easier, then they wouldn't have to worry about a less secure walled garden.

 

[polaris20]

Epic agreed to the rules, then they decided they didn't like the rules, so they went against them, and then got booted. Monopoly? Then why can I still play it on tons of other platforms?

 

[thekeyring]

It's their system. Their product. Naturally, they have control.

Agreed. If the law sides with Apple, what happens to other companies which own platforms? Does Microsoft have to allow third parties to launch app stores on Xbox?

 

[3rik]

If apps can be sideloaded that means that there is now a mechanism to run apps that you never intended to run and which may be malware. Thanks for opening my phone to malware.

Not necessarily.
If sideloading apps required you to download the file, go to settings, some sort of security section, tap something like "ignore security risks and install anyway", enter your password/faceid, and then install it, (a bit like macOS with unverified apps) it would probably be fine. Or even better the app could run in a sandbox, either virtualised (like xbox games) or with separate folders and libraries and no permission to access anything system related or even your own files and folders.

Theres a lot of ways to ensure sideloading apps can only be done intentionally and to reduce the risks of doing so even if you decide to.

Another option could be like Xbox's DevMode which allows you to reboot into a separate OS (still technically the same OS but a separate installation of it) where you can sideload any UWP app (in the form of a .appx). Here you and the apps have no access to the files, games or apps on the standard OS. You also can't open or install any standard xbox apps. Something like this wouldn't be much of a security risk either.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Epic Games wants Apple to be forced to allow third-party app stores on iOS and to let developers offer direct payment systems, but Apple argued that a single, highly-curated App Store is necessary to protect the security, privacy, reliability, and quality that customers have come to expect from the company.

Why can't you have one without the other? Sure...keep one source for apps "to protect the security, privacy, reliability, and quality that customers have come to expect from the company", but let developers use their own payment systems for in-app purchases.

 

[quarkysg]

Theres a lot of ways to ensure sideloading apps can only be done intentionally and to reduce the risks of doing so even if you decide to.

Maybe I'm dense, but maybe can you explain why Apple should do this and increase their development cost, which likely this cost will be passed on to me as a consumer?

 

[SuperMatt]

Why can't you have one without the other? Sure...keep one source for apps "to protect the security, privacy, reliability, and quality that customers have come to expect from the company", but let developers use their own payment systems for in-app purchases.

Um... so advertise the app for free, put it in the store for free, host terabytes of downloads for free... and the developer keeps 100% of the money? This is not the way to run a successful business.

 

[SuperMatt]

Maybe I'm dense, but maybe can you explain why Apple should do this and increase their development cost, which likely this cost will be passed on to me as a consumer?

They won’t do it. And they shouldn’t. If people want an insecure system they can have Android.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Companies can enforce rules about what they sell and how they sell them. Walmart can remove a shirt that they discover is obscenely offensive, or Costco can only accept Visa cards because of their partnership with them.

The idea that Apple is being anti competitive is laughable considering how many platforms Fortnite is on.

Your example is terrible. If you buy a laptop at Costco, they don't require that you purchase everything for the laptop (accessories, software, etc.) from Costco, and only accept the Costco Visa for payment. That is essentially what Apple is doing.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Um... so advertise the app for free, put it in the store for free, host terabytes of downloads for free... and the developer keeps 100% of the money? This is not the way to run a successful business.

Who said anything about it being free? Not me...

 

[subi257]

The thing is, people still buy in to the Apple ecosystem because while they may not be as free to do certain things, it's undeniable that all Apple products tie in really tightly together, and apps in general just perform better because of how well it's all optimized on iPhones. So while the vast majority may stick to the walled garden, as long as they aren't touching say a theoretical setting that would allow third party stores and apps to be installed easier, then they wouldn't have to worry about a less secure walled garden.

While will completely agree that they tie in together, that is why I have been using Apple since the 512K. The reason that it all works so well and the the apps always "just work" is because they have such tight control. Every app had to have specific bits of code in every app, referred to as Apple "kernel". I would also postulate that the vast majority of iPhone users are just using it as a phone and texting with no thought into gaming or such. Just looking for a simple, just works device.

 

[SuperMatt]

Who said anything about it being free? Not me...

But you did, and maybe didn’t realize it:

but let developers use their own payment systems for in-app purchases.

So any developer could list their app as a free app (as Fortnite does) and then use their own payment system for in-app purchases, bypassing Apple. Therefore, Apple gets no money, and the app gets free store placement, downloads, etc.

 

[quarkysg]

Your example is terrible. If you buy a laptop at Costco, they don't require that you purchase everything for the laptop (accessories, software, etc.) from Costco, and only accept the Costco Visa for payment. That is essentially what Apple is doing.

I think your example is also misleading. You can purchase anything that's for sale in Costco and Costco expect you to pay via their payment counter, but you can probably pay with cash/credit card/voucher/whatever the payment counter accepts. I think this is more app.

 

[m11rphy]

I think Apple should actually crack down on developers like Netflix, if they don't offer user to subscribe va the App Store then tough luck not allowed on the App Store. Wont integrate with the Apple TV app again take them off the App Store. Lets make thing better for the user and not the developer.

 

[m11rphy]

Your example is terrible. If you buy a laptop at Costco, they don't require that you purchase everything for the laptop (accessories, software, etc.) from Costco, and only accept the Costco Visa for payment. That is essentially what Apple is doing.

Last time I went Costco they didn't accept MasterCard CC and I have to use my Visa checking account. Whats that about?

 

[cmaier]

Not necessarily.
If sideloading apps required you to download the file, go to settings, some sort of security section, tap something like "ignore security risks and install anyway", enter your password/faceid, and then install it, (a bit like macOS with unverified apps) it would probably be fine. Or even better the app could run in a sandbox, either virtualised (like xbox games) or with separate folders and libraries and no permission to access anything system related or even your own files and folders.

Theres a lot of ways to ensure sideloading apps can only be done intentionally and to reduce the risks of doing so even if you decide to.

Another option could be like Xbox's DevMode which allows you to reboot into a separate OS (still technically the same OS but a separate installation of it) where you can sideload any UWP app (in the form of a .appx). Here you and the apps have no access to the files, games or apps on the standard OS. You also can't open or install any standard xbox apps. Something like this wouldn't be much of a security risk either.

Yes necessarily.

The mere existence of the mechanism means that it can be exploited. It’s an indisputable mathematical property of cryptography. Even something like a double OS installation could be exploited, because changes to the secure store firmware would doubtless be required. The only safe way to do it would be to require that you download one firmware for “crap up my phone” mode, and another for “pure apple mode.”

Of course, that would STILL reduce my privacy, because that is exactly what the feds wanted apple to do in that case involving the alleged terrorist - create another version of the firmware with exploits. So now if a bad actor finds or takes (with or without warrant) my phone, for example when I cross a border, they can install an apple-blessed alternative firmware and use it to hack my data.

Why is it you people are so eager to give away my security and privacy? So you can run crypto and porn apps or something?

 

[mrochester]

Your example is terrible. If you buy a laptop at Costco, they don't require that you purchase everything for the laptop (accessories, software, etc.) from Costco, and only accept the Costco Visa for payment. That is essentially what Apple is doing.

That’s because Windows/MacOS is not a vertically integrated platform the way iOS is.

I‘m not sure why there’s an expectation that iOS will work exactly the same as Windows or MacOS. Why can’t it work in a different/better way?

 

[quarkysg]

I think Apple should actually crack down on developers like Netflix, if they don't offer user to subscribe va the App Store then tough luck not allowed on the App Store. Wont integrate with the Apple TV app again take them off the App Store. Lets make thing better for the user and not the developer.

Actually that would be taken to be anti-competitive I think. But Netflix is exactly the example that can be brought up to show that Apple is not just about exploiting everyone purely for profit. They can accept compromise from others to ensure their customer base are better served, which in turn translates into better customer satisfaction and repeat customer purchases.

 

[Wildkraut]

I was responding to “I never heard of malware on android.” What does iOS malware have to do with that?

Shame on you! iOS does not have malware, period!!!one11eleven!!1!
Apple has plenty of AppStore Review Teams taking care of malware, and futuristic gorgeous amazing magic AI, and also super duper algorithms.

Security through obscurity a.k.a. AppStore lock-in.

 

[cmaier]

Shame on you! iOS does not have malware, period!!!one11eleven!!1!
Apple has plenty of AppStore Review Teams taking care of malware, and futuristic gorgeous amazing magic AI, and also super duper algorithms.

Security through obscurity a.k.a. AppStore lock-in.

This sounds like someone who walks behind a news crew and just blurts random things out. "bababooey!"

P.S.: the App Store is not security through obscurity. It is security through cryptography. Math - it's your friend.

 

[cmaier]

The thing is, people still buy in to the Apple ecosystem because while they may not be as free to do certain things, it's undeniable that all Apple products tie in really tightly together, and apps in general just perform better because of how well it's all optimized on iPhones. So while the vast majority may stick to the walled garden, as long as they aren't touching say a theoretical setting that would allow third party stores and apps to be installed easier, then they wouldn't have to worry about a less secure walled garden.

Once apple is forced to allow arbitrary apps to run, you can bet that any such mode would disable things like apple pay. Certainly apps not signed by apple would not be able to use iCloud, apple pay, or anything that touches apple's servers.

 

[subi257]

try owning a bake shop and refusing to sell a cake to a certain group of people

That makes no sense in this situation.

It would be more like these are the cake and breads that we make. We don't make any others, so you can buy what I have to sell, or go to other store that might have what you as asking for.

 

[Marshall73]

and yet there are literally 1000’s (if not 10’s of) of these games on iOS, but thats Ok because the common denominator is hard cash from the user that Apple gets its 30% cut of.

I don’t disagree. These IAP for currency etc needs to go on all of these games. Just imagine a world without clash of clan adverts and whatnot. LOL