Steve “give em a case antennagate” Jobs. For the people all right! What it highlights is companies must defend their turf or risk losing it. Epic just plays dirty.
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.
Epic: Apple's Updated App Marketplace Install Process Proves 'Scare Screens' Deterred Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Cannot exactly say that they are scare screen. Keeping user informed is very important and there is no harm in letting customers know what exactly they are doing.
Three points:
- Apple should be free to charge whatever and however for being on the App Store and not be forced to let apps on it.
- Apple should allow sideloading and then be free to have a warning, like on the Mac, if the app is not signed. That should be the default and Apple free to charge for signing.
- APPLE should be free to allow users to limit access to their data, including blocking all access to it and not provide any tracking data. Apps should be required to ask, user to say no, and app developers decide. What to do if they get a no.
I'm talking about from a product feature side. I'm aware they pay artists less, but I'm not about to use Apple Music if the experience sucks. Say what you want about Spotify, but there's still a lot to be desired in Apple Music. I won't argue with you though, since use-case is a more subjective matter.
I do hate Epic largely for similar reasons though, namely stealing money from kids and whining about not making higher percentages on profits of infinite currencies from them.
There are risks inside as well. Let me install both and decide for myself which store does a better job of securing their apps.
Not only that but this would push Apple to build a better store with better app discovery as well as security. Maybe another company would do both of those things better forcing Apple to compete .
You may think you know all there is to know in order to gauge such a decision, and the willingness to take on the risks and accept responsibility for that decision, but others may not have any idea, so, warning screens make them aware of potential risks. Just because you can, doesn’t mean everyone can, and these screens don’t come with a knowledge test.
Last edited:
I think many of us who appear to be against Epic (or against the EU on these matters, and so on) agree with you. But the primary question here is not what anyone thinks Apple should do, but whether it's appropriate for governments to require them to do it, particularly with the prerogative to sculpt those requirements at a level of specificity close to – and overriding – those actually leading the company.
That is to say: if the DMA was rescinded and Apple decided the following month to implement its basic mandates anyway, plenty of people would think that was fine. That's not really contradiction or hypocrisy; just a matter of principle. (Of course, it would put the lie to Apple's officially-stated rationale if they used precisely the same methods constraints required of them, and people would be entitled to watch and see whether they did. I imagine they wouldn't.)
Anyway; I mainly wanted to point out that since there's been so much repetition and passion around the legal question, that we oughtn't conflate your question with it.
I tend to favor less regulation over more due to unintended consequences and how companies use regulation to stifle competition. When the do regulate, I think they need to:
- apply them equally to all companies,
- not use them to favor local firms, and
- be clear what is need to comply and not play wack a mole.
I think that's fair, both as a response to my interjection and to the EU (or whomever else might deign to involve themselves).
How failed? Epic won, Apple keeps using cheap tricks.
I suspect, in the end, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for Epic. Sweeny's final comment on the matter may be "One more such victory and we are completely done for!"
Epic lost on 9 of 10 counts, and the ruling for the one they “won” on 1) turns out was wrong on the facts and 2) the remedy that Apple isn’t allowed to charge is extremely constitutionally questionable and at serious risk of being overturned.
While not the worst proposal I’ve seen, I still think this falls into the “I’m a developer and know what I’m doing” trap and would absolutely be a net negative for most users.
If you add a system toggle for 3rd-party installs, malware authors will immediately target it with social engineering (we see this on Android). If you make developer identity optional, the people who should be tracked won’t opt in. (There’s a reason Google is trying to force developer verification, and despite what you see on here, it isn’t because “Google wants to lock down like Apple.”)
And if you let people notarize their own builds, you’re just giving malware its own stamp of approval. There’s not a way to set up “self notarization only the good guys can use.” And most users will just skip over the “extensive app data” warning and on top of it the bad apps will just lie about what they use and why they do at launch.
I know we disagree on this, but I really think Apple’s current model is the best compromise between user safety and security and developer openness.
#7 apis for easy payment of fees and commissions to Apple.
Some more thoughts from Jeff -- so so true.
He's right on the button here.
He's right on the button here.
Everything he says is wrong… For one, no, nobody has an inherent right to make an iPhone app. Nobody but Apple. The iPhone is Apple’s platform and their product, they are well within their rights to decide who can or can’t make apps for it… Because nobody has an inherent right to use their platform. Apple offers access to their platform in accordance with their terms…
Second, these are not “anonymous” product submissions. Developers must provide information in order to submit apps to the App Store and apps are tied to developer accounts… This isn’t an “anonymous” system as suggested where there’s no ability to hold developers accountable…
Third, this is just his opinion stated as if it’s a “fact” with zero supporting evidence. He asserts that the App Store is allegedly not for protecting customers, but cites zero evidence for his claims. He’s just assuming his own premise… The fact of the matter is, multiple things can be true at once. The App Store can protect customers (and it does according to the data on the malware risks of sideloading), and enable Apple to extract commissions from developers for access to Apple’s platform. As they should, because it is their platform, their product, that they built. The data proves the risks of malware and spyware increases with sideloading vs the App Store, so the App Store does protect customers, and there’s absolutely no debating that fact. Customers stand higher chances of being harmed by sideloading, period.
And finally, the App Store isn’t a “nutty” system, it has been demonstrated by the data (as I mentioned already) to protect customers better. And not just any “rando” can successfully publish an app into the App Store (also as previously mentioned). Developers must create developer accounts to which the apps are linked, and they can be submitted, but must be reviewed before publication into the App Store. Again, not as he makes things seem… If the App Store model were so “nutty” then how come basically every major vendor has emulated it? How come customers tend to prefer using it? Again, he makes more unhinged assertions with zero evidence…
Last edited: