That’s a very interesting view of the last two decades in Mac/Apple history and the motivations behind those actions.
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's Craig Federighi: Mac Not Meeting the Bar for Customer Protection
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see how. Is Apple's argument that you don't need any education to be safe and secure on an iPhone?
There’s actually a very, very simple solution to this problem that I’m surprised no one has brought up.
before, you could use X code on the Mac to put an application, even one that isn’t on the App Store, on your iPhone/iPad.
so just open it up to where, if someone has Xcode installed on their Mac, and epic is willing to provide the file, you can use X code to open the file and add the file to your iPhone as an app.
that way, for 99.999999999% of people, the iPhone stays exactly the same. You only have one App Store, you can’t download apps directly off of the Internet, but also epic has the option to provide their application outside of the App Store if they really, really want to.
it’s just that they will lose access to the majority of customers that don’t have a Mac, and they don’t have Xcode installed on that Mac.
so this would be an amazing compromise in my opinion. It would technically give customers another way to install applications outside of the App Store, while not actually opening up the iPhone.
before, you could use X code on the Mac to put an application, even one that isn’t on the App Store, on your iPhone/iPad.
so just open it up to where, if someone has Xcode installed on their Mac, and epic is willing to provide the file, you can use X code to open the file and add the file to your iPhone as an app.
that way, for 99.999999999% of people, the iPhone stays exactly the same. You only have one App Store, you can’t download apps directly off of the Internet, but also epic has the option to provide their application outside of the App Store if they really, really want to.
it’s just that they will lose access to the majority of customers that don’t have a Mac, and they don’t have Xcode installed on that Mac.
so this would be an amazing compromise in my opinion. It would technically give customers another way to install applications outside of the App Store, while not actually opening up the iPhone.
The least they can do is end the extortionate 30% cut.
And how exactly is this more secure? Educating users to become standard users and only being admin when need be? That seems...silly. Eventually you would get tired of having to enter an admin username and password to install something OR having to leave your user account, go to the admin account, hope you can access the download you just got from Finder (or maybe even have to download it again) that you would just decide being a standard user isn't worth it. Think of how people feel when their IT department locks down their work laptops so they have to call IT to install something. That may be an extreme case, but eventually people will get tired of it and we will be back to the same thing.
This is why I like the iOS App Store. If I wanted everything to be wide open I would have bought an Android device.
CF and Apple have stated multiple times that macOS is remaining open for hobbiest and experimentation. Including being “UNIX” for software devs to run any thing “they like”.
If this changes off to Linux I go.
If this changes off to Linux I go.
Just hide it in some developer settings that are hidden unless you do a certain combo of your buttons and I bet you 80% of iOS users will never even bother. The other 20% „smart / interested enough“ should be aware that what they are doing is done on their own risk. Hell, integrate 2 warning pop ups before enabling it even
oh my ***** god. i enjoy hair force one at the presentations, but all i could do reading this was eye roll and think "get off this nonsense already."
i'm not sure where the metrics are on malware for macOS, but i install most of my apps NOT from the mac app store because i vehemently oppose the notion of it, and the microsoft store. much like on windows which does not babysit its users, i am *absolutely* fine and do not encounter some "unacceptable" amount of malware.
locking down an OS to someone's standards of "approval" is heinous, nonsensical, a horrible direction to take, and a piss poor excuse / defense for the lack of flexibility that iOS and iPadOS have. this is a disturbingly asinine position to take, and i hope this judge accepts nothing of this.
say NO to locked down macOS. locked down macOS would just suffer the same problem as this upcoming iPad: fantastic available power but nothing to actually do with it.
i have jailbroken almost every iphone i've had since the iphone 4. i would jailbreak my mobile apple devices the moment i got them into my hands if such an option were available. so much can be done that apple does not "permit" because "OMG MALWARE."
yeah. okay. because even jailbroken without the protection of Daddy AppStoreReview i didnt encounter a malware ridden device.
this makes me livid. how stupid does apple leadership think people are?????
i'm not sure where the metrics are on malware for macOS, but i install most of my apps NOT from the mac app store because i vehemently oppose the notion of it, and the microsoft store. much like on windows which does not babysit its users, i am *absolutely* fine and do not encounter some "unacceptable" amount of malware.
locking down an OS to someone's standards of "approval" is heinous, nonsensical, a horrible direction to take, and a piss poor excuse / defense for the lack of flexibility that iOS and iPadOS have. this is a disturbingly asinine position to take, and i hope this judge accepts nothing of this.
say NO to locked down macOS. locked down macOS would just suffer the same problem as this upcoming iPad: fantastic available power but nothing to actually do with it.
i have jailbroken almost every iphone i've had since the iphone 4. i would jailbreak my mobile apple devices the moment i got them into my hands if such an option were available. so much can be done that apple does not "permit" because "OMG MALWARE."
yeah. okay. because even jailbroken without the protection of Daddy AppStoreReview i didnt encounter a malware ridden device.
this makes me livid. how stupid does apple leadership think people are?????
“I’m not sure where the metrics are on malware for macOS” - well, guess what - he is. And he provided some. And they are discussing documents that explain it. And macos has much more malware than iOS. And Android has much more malware than iOS.
That is about the best storytelling i ever heard. When was this great glorious time when consumers and professionals revered the mac in greater numbers than today? The mac has always been in the minority. The only thing you didnt include in the dastardly deeds was the abandonment if the most glorius ADB connection.
It's much like how macOS works today, and has worked for years - you have to type in your administrator password (or authenticate with Touch ID) any time your computer needs elevated privileges. Installing apps, installing updates, deleting apps, etc. You've been using your computer like this for years most likely, whether you use Windows or a Mac.
The point is, you can build a secure OS without locking it down to an appliance level. Apple has done it, as has Microsoft. It's not like you plug in a Mac to the internet today and it's basically immediately infected like Windows 98 used to be capable of.
What scares me is the fact that an adult with the whole world at hand (google) is not capable of educating herself/himself/themselves/thewholebunchofhappypersonas of how to safely and responsibly use something.
This growing trend of #happycausestupid will rain reality in a few years when the educated bunch will take complete advantage of the situation.
In this case people are giving apple 100% trust without actually knowing what is it that they are giving away lol.
Do not care for epic but they better win.
This whole hold my hand mommy trend is getting old considering we live in the golden age of information access.
This growing trend of #happycausestupid will rain reality in a few years when the educated bunch will take complete advantage of the situation.
In this case people are giving apple 100% trust without actually knowing what is it that they are giving away lol.
Do not care for epic but they better win.
This whole hold my hand mommy trend is getting old considering we live in the golden age of information access.
But then how will they be the first company to be valued at a quadrillion dollars????!!!!???
Exactly if you want a less secure platform, Android is there, and they have some pretty great hardware, yet people stick with iPhone, wonder why?
Federighi is talking nonsense.
Androids malware problems does not come from side-loading Apps anyway, it comes directly from Google Store Apps, which are also reviewed. Apples AppStore is also full of scamming Apps btw.
Based on Apples logic, we should shut the Internet completely off, because you can do shady things there.
They should do less business with authoritarian States like China, which is probably from where they get their "security by obscurity" ideas from, and get back to western core values.
Androids malware problems does not come from side-loading Apps anyway, it comes directly from Google Store Apps, which are also reviewed. Apples AppStore is also full of scamming Apps btw.
Based on Apples logic, we should shut the Internet completely off, because you can do shady things there.
They should do less business with authoritarian States like China, which is probably from where they get their "security by obscurity" ideas from, and get back to western core values.
There's a simple solution to this. Separate the app vetting mechanism from the App Store. Here's how this would work:
1. App developers would still pay Apple $99/year for developer access. Apple uses this money for the app review process etc.
2. All apps MUST be reviewed by Apple to be available for sale. Period! The review standard should be "Is this malware?" if not, it passes review. Ideally, this should be done by an independent board, but having Apple doing it isn't too bad as long as the standard is "Is this malware?" and nothing more.
3. Developers can choose to offer Apps on the Apple iOS App Store. To be on the store it would need to fit other Apple criteria for their app store e.g. "Is this app good or terrible, Apple doesn't need to include terrible apps". "Great" apps would be featured by Apple as they are today. If offered on the App Store they would be subject to Apple's revenue split (70/30 (or 85/15 for small-time devs))
4. Developers can also choose to offer the app via alternative iOS App Store. The other app stores would decide whether to take the app or not i.e. They can have their own vetting, but they CAN'T offer apps that didn't pass #2. Apps offered in these stores would be subject to the revenue split of these stores.
5. Developers could offer the iOS app on their own website (as long as the build passes #2). They could offer whatever web payment mechanism they wanted (PayPal, ApplePay, AmazonPay, etc.), or offer the apps for free.
This solution KEEPS USER'S SAFE, ALLOWS DEVELOPER'S CHOICE, and crucially GIVES THE APP STORE COMPETITION on iOS. The App Store desperately needs competition on iOS, Apple is not properly incentivized to improve the App Store. It is very hard to make a living on the store because Apple caters to a very small handful of its favorites. Here's where the App Store fails:
1. Search isn't great (a direct name search for an app often doesn't result in the app on the first page of results, e.g. try searching for "Simile" you'll get "Smule" and its competitors, not the painting app by that name)
2. The dev rev split isn't great (85% is better than it was, but competition would help)
3. There is 1 app store for all apps, it can't possibly serve everyone equally well. It might be nice to have an app store curated by people that you resonate with. e.g. An app store run by single Latino moms might have a different selection of favorites than Apple would pick.
1. App developers would still pay Apple $99/year for developer access. Apple uses this money for the app review process etc.
2. All apps MUST be reviewed by Apple to be available for sale. Period! The review standard should be "Is this malware?" if not, it passes review. Ideally, this should be done by an independent board, but having Apple doing it isn't too bad as long as the standard is "Is this malware?" and nothing more.
3. Developers can choose to offer Apps on the Apple iOS App Store. To be on the store it would need to fit other Apple criteria for their app store e.g. "Is this app good or terrible, Apple doesn't need to include terrible apps". "Great" apps would be featured by Apple as they are today. If offered on the App Store they would be subject to Apple's revenue split (70/30 (or 85/15 for small-time devs))
4. Developers can also choose to offer the app via alternative iOS App Store. The other app stores would decide whether to take the app or not i.e. They can have their own vetting, but they CAN'T offer apps that didn't pass #2. Apps offered in these stores would be subject to the revenue split of these stores.
5. Developers could offer the iOS app on their own website (as long as the build passes #2). They could offer whatever web payment mechanism they wanted (PayPal, ApplePay, AmazonPay, etc.), or offer the apps for free.
This solution KEEPS USER'S SAFE, ALLOWS DEVELOPER'S CHOICE, and crucially GIVES THE APP STORE COMPETITION on iOS. The App Store desperately needs competition on iOS, Apple is not properly incentivized to improve the App Store. It is very hard to make a living on the store because Apple caters to a very small handful of its favorites. Here's where the App Store fails:
1. Search isn't great (a direct name search for an app often doesn't result in the app on the first page of results, e.g. try searching for "Simile" you'll get "Smule" and its competitors, not the painting app by that name)
2. The dev rev split isn't great (85% is better than it was, but competition would help)
3. There is 1 app store for all apps, it can't possibly serve everyone equally well. It might be nice to have an app store curated by people that you resonate with. e.g. An app store run by single Latino moms might have a different selection of favorites than Apple would pick.
Epic doesn't want that, they want their own AppStore, so they can charge their developers the fees instead of Apple.
They are the champion of malware? They are the champion of making money for themselves.
Are you kidding me. Try Microsoft and Adobe to start. Then add in anyone that wants to just open up a store. You don't think that someone like Amazon wouldn't want to open a general store front and charge developers 25% instead of 30%. Anyone can undercut Apple because they don't have Apple's overhead of needing to develop the platform.
Found a new account registered to epic employee
And Apple wants total control, just to milk iOS Users and Devs.
That was literally exactly my point:
”…which could encourage the majority of Mac devs to put their software on the App Store…”
So it shouldn't concern any of you as you will still be able to use the apple store as is.
I mean why you have issue with people using other store for apps while you can still use the one from apple?