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

[Marshall73]

I suggested this before in another thread but Apple should release an ‘open’ version of the iPhone and iPad. Charge $5000 for it and supply it with a tool allowing you to load whatever software you want on it. The device would be excluded from all Apple services though, iCloud etc etc

 

[cmaier]

I suggested this before in another thread but Apple should release an ‘open’ version of the iPhone and iPad. Charge $5000 for it and supply it with a tool allowing you to load whatever software you want on it. The device would be excluded from all Apple services though, iCloud etc etc

And when i cross a national border and my phone is confiscated, then the government can install the corresponding firmware on my phone and use it to exfiltrate all my data.

Sounds fun.

 

[subi257]

I wish Apple users would realize that you can still have a walled garden if you want to. All that Epic is asking for is a door.

People who like Apple's curated space can stay inside an be comfortable there. People who want more choices can unlock the door and step outside.

All applications would still be subject to iOS's strong sandboxing and security; you'd just have more choices where you can get apps.

And for people saying "Well you would have to leave the sandbox to install Epic's games"... well, you can't install them at all right now, so this would be an improvement.

They want a door and this other guy wants a door and the government a door....too many doors to watch. Maybe make two houses....each with one door....pick a house.

 

[quarkysg]

I suggested this before in another thread but Apple should release an ‘open’ version of the iPhone and iPad. Charge $5000 for it and supply it with a tool allowing you to load whatever software you want on it. The device would be excluded from all Apple services though, iCloud etc etc

Not going to happen. That will put Apple in a lot of liability where their devices may be a vector for denial of service attacks on the cell network.

 

[Wildkraut]

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.

And this would instantly lead to another antitrust lawsuit.

Apple set up a tent in the court room, better than driving up and down the road every day for the next years.
This won't end with fight anyway, EU and other countries is already after Apple, and even in the U.S. more will come.

 

[diamond.g]

And when i cross a national border and my phone is confiscated, then the government can install the corresponding firmware on my phone and use it to exfiltrate all my data.

Sounds fun.

Doesn't Cellebrite allow that already no firmware needed?

 

[cmaier]

And this would instantly lead to another antitrust lawsuit.

Apple set up a tent in the court room, better than driving up and down the road every day for the next years.
This won't end with fight anyway, EU and other countries is already after Apple, and even in the U.S. more will come.

That one would be easy for Apple to win. If you allow arbitrary apps to run, then apple can't know that the client is not compromised.

 

[cmaier]

Doesn't Cellebrite allow that already no firmware needed?

Not currently, no. Google "signal cellebrite"

 

[Wildkraut]

And when i cross a national border and my phone is confiscated, then the government can install the corresponding firmware on my phone and use it to exfiltrate all my data.

Sounds fun.

They can also just put a gun at your forehead, and say unlock it, it's much easier, cost less and quicker.
Or call some shady unknown guy who punches you till you freely unlock it.

If your data worth something to them, they'll get it the one or the other way.

 

[diamond.g]

Not currently, no. Google "signal cellebrite"

I saw that (and thought it was funny) but that would assume everyone has Signal installed (which if you do great).

 

[akashagrawal]

While I have some concerns about Apple charging so much money to devs and still letting scams and malicious apps through, I would NOT want to go to a completely open system. Sure, you can download an android app off a web page. You can also download an android malware app off a web page.

Discounting the fact that Epic is scum, I think there are merits to having an open system. But people are jerks and you can be sure there are gonna be way more bad stuff on apple devices if this happens. Even with all the rules and it being a walled garden, devs make more money from apple platforms than they do from google, and there's a reason for that.

 

[diamond.g]

They can also just put a gun at your forehead, and say unlock it, it's much easier, cost less and quicker.
Or call some shady unknown guy who punches you till you freely unlock it.

If your data worth something to them, they'll get it the one or the other way.

xkcd for everything....

 

[subi257]

I really really wish Apple loses. Greediest company on earth.

But you are either using their products or are a troll. Companies are in business to make money first and foremost.

 

[subi257]

I’m literally so confused about how this case could be taken to court.

Whole Foods has very strict requirements on what ingredients the products they sell in their stores must have or not have. Yet, I can’t imagine any company suing Whole Foods for not allowing them to be sold at in their stores if they don’t comply with their requirements. Seems pretty straight forward. People shop at Whole Foods cause they know they’ll get vetted products, same exact for the iPhone and App Store.

Exactly and whole foods sells other brands bedsides house brand, but house brand get better placement. Aldi, trader Joes, Lidle only sell house brand....is somebody going to sue them?

 

[cmaier]

I saw that (and thought it was funny) but that would assume everyone has Signal installed (which if you do great).

No, Cellebrite has disabled the ability to exfiltrate i-devices, because they can’t know, ahead of time, if the device has signal, and the consequences of the device having signal would be catastrophic to the device.

 

[subi257]

Because most people would not understand the implications of such switch.

think that is completely true because I think that the vast majority of iOS users are not gamers/hacker geeks and just want to use their device for texts, calls, watching moves, etc

 

[ani4ani]

This is a common counter argument. So you are saying we don't have to use Microsoft Office, Adobe, any games and more? Then you don't need to use the App Store. Period. If you don't foresee that we will have potentially dozens of stores that we don't need, then we don't even need those apps to begin with. So what is the point? Just don't use any apps then.

HOWEVER, if I DO want to use Office, Adobe, games, etc I WOULD be forced to "unlock" my device because it is NOT on the App Store now.

Wow…talking about something going over someone’s head.

Just because there could be numerous stores doesn’t eliminate the “original one.” All the software is still available in Apple‘s app store and despite potentially numerous other stores to pick from, nothing precludes you only ever shopping in Apples store…you remain in the protected enclave and nothing dirty can get in.

However, of course the real concern for Apple is that these other stores might have much lower hosting costs and the potential for developers to start developing exclusively for the store taking the lowest cut. Despite all the rhetoric about people consciously choosing IOS because they want the best, most secure system, once they can get what they want cheaper, they will go there, it’s simple human nature.

 

[3rik]

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?

If installing that firmware required you to unlock your phone then it wouldn't be an issue would it? Then it would be behind the same security as your data itself. Unless they tried flashing the chip manually with some custom tools, but even then, what would that cause? Oh wow now they can boot to a second os and sideload apps in there, but the main OS and all your data is still going to be encrypted with your unlock password.

Also, I don't see how the mere existence of a hypervisor that can run iOS apps in a vm is a security risk. If done properly the only real possibility of a security issue would be via networking but this can be mitigated by using Bridged networking which should in theory make it no less secure than running dodgy software on a PC on your home network. Its also not like you can hack a phone over the network anymore. Unless im missing something big here?
Im not sure if current iOS devices have the same hardware accelerated virtualisation capabilities as the M1 (and intel/AMD CPUs), probably not, but it can be added to future models.

Theres already something sort of similar on the App Store called iSH that uses a usermode x86 emulator to run alpine linux, and you can run pretty much anything in there. (Limited to cli of course, performance probably isn't good enough for GUI, but that doesn't affect the security of it) It's not a security risk because whatever you run in there is isolated.

And im not eager of anything, im just suggesting ways that this could be done without even really harming the walled garden. If Epic wins, something will have to change. I don't necessarily *want* them to win but that doesn't mean its not going to happen.

 

[kingfish78]

I have Netflix on iOS but I never paid through the App Store. How come Epic can’t do that? Allow payments outside the App Store.

I am just so worried some dumb judge is going to screw this up.

You could. Same as you can buy Kindle books through the website, just not the Amazon app. Same as you could subscribe to Spotify at a lower rate through the website than through the App Store. But, for Epic it wasn't about "helping the consumer" as they claim. It was about increasing revenue for Epic. Otherwise they would just markup the App Store fees by 30% to cover Apple's cut and sell cheaper directly.

 

[3rik]

Because most people would not understand the implications of such switch.

Yeah this is also true. Making the process of flipping that switch as complicated as possible would help though. Maybe you would need to use a CLI tool on a computer or something. Some people would still end up doing it and not know what they are getting into but it would reduce the chances

 

[dannyyankou]

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.

Ok so here's a more appropriate example. Many car manufacturers design their parts in a way where you can only buy replacement parts directly from them, as is the case with my Lexus. Trying to use aftermarket parts could void your warranty. Should Lexus face an antitrust lawsuit for that?

 

[ackmondual]

I have no horse in this race. I don't play Fortnite at all, let alone on iOS. I still have an iPad Air that's about to croak due to battery after using it for close to 5 years. I may get a new model, basic iPad down the line, but I'd honestly would be more eager to jump if I got a nontrivial discount (say, $80 off).

Epic is saying they're doing this for others on the iOS App Store. Apple is saying control is about security. Both sides are really only after their bottom lines. The last ridiculous corporate statement I can recall is Bill Gates saying "unless Windows 98 can ship, the American economy will be crippled".

 

[m11rphy]

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.

As an apple and Netflix customer I don't feel better served, I would if Netflix was like HULU and Disney plus where I pay via the App Store and they integrate with the Apple TV app which consolidates all stream services. This makes a great user experience but Netflix and Amazon ruin it with instance on wanting all the user data

 

[31 Flavas]

As someone who only started using an iPhone because I like the phone design and interface, and a person who doesn’t tend to defend corporations, I’m all for breaking up Apple’s control on what I can do with my device. The leaked emails show that Apple’s primary concern is monetary, which obviously, they’re a for-profit organization, but what’s the point of siding with the tech giant whose interests lie in keeping you walled in to their system? Don’t get me wrong, Epic is a tech giant too and not worth defending, but I feel like as a user of these phones who isn’t interested in giving Apple any more of my money they don’t already have, I’m with Epic on this one. I’d think developers would feel the same way, but I don’t know.

I mean this question in good faith: for the folks who are worried this would affect the security of your device, can’t you not download apps from a third party store? Outside of that, what are the reasons for defending Apple?

As you stated yourself, you aren't a person who tends to defend corporations. So I figure you, likewise, would be in favor of breaking up Apple-like control anywhere else it exists. And, likewise, would ask "What are the reasons for defending such companies that control their hardware like Apple does?"

Well, this exists with Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo's own gaming hardware devices. Just to be sure, I'm asking would your views be applied equally where analogous?

If (anyone's) iPhone is their own device for them to use, customize, and download with what they care to -- Would not any Sony Playstation, Microsoft xBox, or Nintendo Switch, be someone's own personal device for them to use, customize, and download with what they care to?

Typically when I bring this up it gets ignored. I can't ask you to respond on behalf of other people. But, is my premise sound?

I wish Apple users would realize that you can still have a walled garden if you want to. All that Epic is asking for is a door.

I responded to you, in turn, Zorinlynx. Perhaps you didn't respond because the response was obvious, "Yes, all three should be required to likewise open their hardware, just as Apple, for the same reasons I shared vs Apple." If that's the case, I'd just like you to confirm as much.

However, if it was ignored (as I've assumed) because you feel that the two are different and that those monopolies can exist - I'd enjoy knowing why Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo do not need to provide a door to Epic, other developers, or their consumers.

 

[Denzo]

Personally, I can’t wait for Apple to crush these punks.