Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'

[surferfb]

Then stay within that restriction. Nobody is asking you to sideload, use 3rd party stores, use 3rd party payment processing. Just stay within those restrictions. However, i should be allowed to go outside if i choose to.

Except that makes everyone’s devices less safe and secure. Even those who don’t use those features (or intend to use those features).

For example, right now my mother in law can’t get scammed into sideloading a malicious app onto her iPhone because it’s not possible to sideload. As soon as you open up that ability you’re going to massively increase the rate of scams and malicious apps. And while you may be savvy enough to avoid downloading malicious apps, not all of Apple’s customers are.

There is a reason iOS has orders of magnitude less malware than Android. It isn’t because iOS is better coded, or Apple has better engineers, or Apple users are more sophisticated - it’s because Apple’s restrictions prevent the primary attack vectors from even being possible by prohibiting third party app stores and sideloading.

That shouldn’t get taken away from everyone just because you don’t want to use Android.

 

[Compote]

Apple's not being anti-competitive, the U.K and the E.U. simply have nothing to compete with.

That's wrong. What do you think competition means? How did you understand the article? Did you not realise that the developpers who want their own Stores are competing with Apple's App Store?

Next, you seem to think that Europe doesn't inovate in consumers' electronics nor has access to manufacturing in China. We do. There is competition in Europe.

There's competition from Microsoft, from Google, from Huawei, Samsung, SONY, etc.

You're very confused.

Apple is being anti-competitive by forcing everyone to use their App Store. I don't have to use the App Store on my Mac. Why should I on my iPhone?? (Oh, silly me, I don't have to, I live in Europe, I'm protected from monopolies like the App Store's on iPhones..)

 

[BaldiMac]

Not true. Not all profit seeking activity is greedy.

I didn’t say all profit seeking activity is greedy. In fact my point was that the term is often used as a pejorative way to describe profit seeking.

 

[Compote]

Except that makes everyone’s devices less safe and secure. Even those who don’t use those features (or intend to use those features).

For example, right now my mother in law can’t get scammed into sideloading a malicious app onto her iPhone because it’s not possible to sideload. As soon as you open up that ability you’re going to massively increase the rate of scams and malicious apps. And while you may be savvy enough to avoid downloading malicious apps, not all of Apple’s customers are.

There is a reason iOS has orders of magnitude less malware than Android. It isn’t because iOS is better coded, or Apple has better engineers, or Apple users are more sophisticated - it’s because Apple’s restrictions prevent the primary attack vectors from even being possible by prohibiting third party app stores and sideloading.

That shouldn’t get taken away from everyone just because you don’t want to use Android.

Again, not true. I don't use the App Store on my Mac.

Let's entertain your notion for a minute. No, wait, let's not, because that's the law and you're not arguing with the law. If you want to, you go to court. Apple will lose that battle, if only because of the Mac and PC and Android precedents, and because they cannot justify holding a monopoly in OUR countries, because OUR countries do not allow that.

Why is it safe on Mac but not on iPhone? Because they would lose their PC market share if they blocked it on Macs (WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY TRY TO DO, THEY BLOCK APPS AND SCATTER AND BURY ALL THE TOGGLES IN SETTINGS).

Why is it safe to mirror your iPhone but not your Android? Because they want you to buy an iPhone, not an Android.
Not because it's not safe.

You MIL wouldn't be scammed if she decided to use only the App Store. Also, that's ageist and sexist of you. It's not up to Apple to decide. Walmart doesn't decide that your wallet is only safe when you shop with them. Walmart doesn't lock you inside a room and force you to only spend your money at their stores.

The law doesn't care that gna gna gna Android. The law is telling you to do this and this. You do it. Apple prevents third-party apps sideloading because it hurts their bottom line.

Next, we're not even talking about sideloading, we're talking about paying outside of the Apple Store.
You're not downloading anything when you pay for in-game credit on a web-page, while you're in a game downloaded from the app store.

You're trying to change the suject and flood the zone because you know you're wrong and you know people can tell.

 

[Compote]

My point was more you lost the power to make snarky comments when the UK started trying to apply its own laws to every person on the planet. All those people you were mocking for saying the UK hates freedom - I mean they kind of have a point, when the UK is trying to apply its laws on other nations citizens…

As for China, I don’t think I understand your point. Apple follows the laws in China, as it should. Corporations should not be above the law.

And I have no clue where you are getting China is evil from.

China is a surveillance state with the same regulations of surrendering all data to the CCP.
You're obviously trolling. China isn't evil? China isn't a cyberfascist dystopia? Give me a break.
You're a hypocrite about the UK, and you changed the subject. Paying from a webpage instead of the App Store isn't about surveillance.

 

[Compote]

I didn’t say all profit seeking activity is greedy. In fact my point was that the term is often used as a pejorative way to describe profit seeking.

It's not about greed. It's about following the law.

 

[Compote]

That is all absolutely fair. It is just the way some commentators post, it sounds like having a open ecosystem is the single most important factor in the world to them.

That petty remark is unacceptable, and it's a straw man. You're projecting, when it's Apple's Defence Force trying to tell people with common sense that the UK doesn't have a right to enforce fairness in competition and protect its citizens' interests. Nobody said an open store is something they value above all, you're just inventing that and attacking people ad hominem because you cannot tolerate being wrong, and cannot tolerate being told so by people with discernment.

 

[MrSnirf]

Except that makes everyone’s devices less safe and secure. Even those who don’t use those features (or intend to use those features).

iOS already has "side loading" capability. Apple intentionally restricts it because it sidesteps their app store payment system. The ability to Install apps from 3rd party sources does not make your device less safe or less secure if you don't use it. The capability is there and your mother in law can be scammed into using it today.

For example, right now my mother in law can’t get scammed into sideloading a malicious app onto her iPhone because it’s not possible to sideload. As soon as you open up that ability you’re going to massively increase the rate of scams and malicious apps. And while you may be savvy enough to avoid downloading malicious apps, most of Apple’s customers aren’t.

Scams that affect your mother in law and i assume she is older are the phone call tech support social engineering scams. 3rd party stores or lack there of does not prevent that.

There is a reason iOS has orders of magnitude less malware than Android. It isn’t because iOS is better coded, or Apple has better engineers, or Apple users are more sophisticated - it’s because Apple’s restrictions prevent the primary attack vectors from even being possible by prohibiting third party app stores and sideloading.

How fleeceware apps have earned over $400 million on Android and iOS

Avast researchers have discovered fleeceware apps with over a billion downloads and over $400 million in revenue on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Learn about the mechanics of these scams as well as how to prevent falling victim to them.

blog.avast.com

A total of 134 fleeceware applications have been identified by Avast on the Apple App Store.

Sensor Tower data estimates a total of 500 million downloads of these applications. It also estimates that the applications have brought in $365 million in revenue in their lifetime.

View the complete list of fleeceware applications on iOS.
Android

A total of 70 fleeceware applications have been identified by Avast on the Google Play Store.

Sensor Tower data estimates a total of 500 million downloads of these applications. It also estimates that the applications have brought in $38.5 million in revenue in their lifetime.

iPhone vs. Android: iPhone users more reckless, less protected online

Lower rates for creating unique passwords, buying items from known websites, and using protection software leave iPhone users at risk to online scams.

www.malwarebytes.com

The measurably unsafe behavior of some iPhone users online comes with unfortunate, measurable consequences. The poor password hygiene, risky buying behavior, and limited antivirus protection are all paired with a higher overall rate of victimization—53% of iPhone users have fallen victim to a scam compared to 48% of Android users.

Apples walled garden does not prevent people from getting scammed on iOS. You were just in a thread where Apple published a scam app and did nothing while their customers got scammed arguing that Apple is not responsible to recompense their customers because security is not 100% guaranteed. Something something "common sense and personal responsibility" was the retort used by some in that thread.

That shouldn’t get taken away from everyone just because you don’t want to use Android.

Your ability to stay in the walled garden remains. You and your mother in law can simply choose not to install apps from 3rd party sources and stay within Apple's restricted system.

 

[AppliedMicro]

“Developers are free to charge what they feel their product is worth”
But not Apple. That’s “wanting too much of the pie.”

Apple - as a developer of apps is - is free to charge any price they want for their apps.
Just like any other developer of apps.

Apple as a store operator is free to charge any price on their store too.
Just like any other store.

Apple as a duopolist platform operator that controls about half of the market (revenue) for something that whole industries depend on? They’ll be regulated. Of course they will - and rightly should be. Neither would we let telecommunications providers charge their customers a commission on their sales without competition.

No, Apple is charging developers for access to a large customer base with pre-loaded credit card data, payment processing, billing, features that benefit customers developers would otherwise not support, and use of Apple’s intellectual property.

…and regulators are making sure that they’re not the only (viable) way of accessing that customer base. That Apple doesn’t have a monopoly of accessing that customer base (which they’d otherwise have over the lifespan of the customer’s hardware purchase and use).

Or as we otherwise call it: competition.

Note that Apple is still able to charge for use of their intellectual property. They’ll just be prevented from “bundling” charging for the use of intellectual property that developers require with payment processing between third parties (third-party developers and consumers).

 

[racerhomie]

Highly intrusive? They want you to allow developers to sell directly to their customers without going through your payment processing system. There is nothing intrusive about that. What is intrusive is a corporation forcing developers to go through them to sell to customers.

I bought your phone now allow me to buy apps where i want and use whatever payment system i want.

Go buy an android phone and install apps from shadyapps.com. The free market has already given you permission to install malware on your phone

 

[lusty]

No, Apple is charging developers for access to a large customer base with pre-loaded credit card data, payment processing, billing, features that benefit customers developers would otherwise not support, and use of Apple’s intellectual property.

Most developers are choosing to pass those fees along to their customers, which is totally their right to do. But let’s not pretend it’s Apple passing that fee onto customers. It’s the greedy developers who want access to Apple’s hard work without paying for it.

You have this entirely backwards. Apple has a large customer base because developers wrote cool apps for their platform. Developers have until now allowed apple to take a cut of their profits on their hard work for no reason at all. Developers are not greedy, they want paying for their work. Apple have already been paid for theirs when you bought a phone.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Well, that's the whole freakin' point, innit?

 

[idrewuk]

‘so developers can pass savings to customers’

Ah yes, because that’ll definitely happen!

 

[theluggage]

I really can’t understand how anyone who feels so strongly about an “open ecosystem” can buy an iPhone.

I mean if an open ecosystem is what you care about, why do you have an iPhone?

Because the only viable alternative (if you want apps for the major services) is Android, and the only thing keeping that remotely “open” is Google being subject to the same global competition laws as Apple. Google have already faced multiple actions by the EU for things like trying to force phone makers to pre-install the Google Apps suite and Google search if they wanted access to the Play store.

 

[playtech1]

Apple, as a rational profit-seeking company, will of course try and maximise what it gets from being one half of the iOS/Android duopoly and I, as a citizen, expect governments to make sure they don't take the p***.

Seems straightforward really.

 

[mazz0]

"Highly intrusive" sounds like the most generic response imaginable to government regulation that a company doesn't like.