It’s closed unless she elects to unlock it. It is placing the keys in the users hands.
By your definition iOS is open because you can jailbreak?
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.
EU Competition Chief Tells Apple Not to Use Privacy as a Shield Against Competition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s closed unless she elects to unlock it. It is placing the keys in the users hands.
By your definition iOS is open because you can jailbreak?
Because you can't always get what you want, and unless Apple is a monopoly (they aren't) or causing actual harm (they aren't) they shouldn't be forced to give you something just because you'd like to have it.
I mean heck, I'd LIKE to have a single gaming console where I can play all my games from all the systems I've ever owned. That doesn't mean Nintendo or Sony or Microsoft should be forced to make it. I'd also LIKE to have every game ever made available for $1 each. Again, why should someone be forced to do or give me something just because I want it?
Setting that aside, allowing for side loading, even as an option, creates a security holes. Your wife's Android device, even without side loading enabled is less secure than an iPhone where it can't be enabled. This is an objective fact. There is a question about how much less secure, maybe its only a tiny amount, but it is inherently less secure because it has a greater attack surface. And yes, in your wife's case it might be fine, she might not be in a position where she needs to access Apps from side loading or 3rd party stores. But she is a single data point, one that serves to prove only that an individual case can exist NOT that an overall trend is likely or true. While she may not be in a position where she has to side load apps, not all users would be in that position due to various circumstances. As soon as side loading and/or alternate App Stores are a possibility, it means the likelihood of one or more key apps going that route goes up significantly.
Further, we already know there are multiple developers who want to get out of the Apple App Store model with its various privacy and security related restrictions. Facebook for one, Amazon probably as well. Google for sure would LOVE to be able to get more data on users. The API's and OS can enforce this to some degree, but the AppStore is the final barrier. An App introduced outside that model can use undocumented API's and other tricks to bypass at least some restrictions, and attempting to lock those down means Apple has to devote resources to other areas, areas it does not currently have to because the AppStore review process can prevent it. It also breaks the ultimate backstop against bad apps, Apples ability to completely revoke the apps certificate. Apps installed outside the AppStore would not be subject to this limitation. A bad app side loaded or installed via the Epic store or whatever would be able to continue operating and if Apple wanted to implement a further level of protection it, again, would require significant dedication of resources to try and find an alternative.
What we have now is like the difference between living in a city (Android) and living in the country (iOS). A person can choose to live in either one, some prefer one, some prefer the other, some have no strong preference either way and will go wherever life takes them. The people trying to force Apple to change are like people trying to turn a country town into the big city. What they SHOULD do is just move to the city (i.e. buy an Android) if thats so important to them. Instead they are trying to change the country town. "But you'll have more choices if it becomes like the city!" they say. "And if you don't like the choices you don't have to use them, you can still keep things the same!" they say. Except thats not true. The town will have changed, it will lose the advantages it had, the things people who wanted to live there CHOSE to live there for (or chose the iPhone fore). It will become more and more like the city, until instead of a city and a town, there are just two slightly different cities and no town. The choice will have been removed.
Right now you have a choice, if you want side loading and alternate app stores, you can buy an Android device. There are many many MANY options. No one is stopping you. Its really quite easy. I get that you may not like some aspects of the Android experience, you may prefer some of the things Apple does. I get that you want the best of both worlds, thats absolutely understandable. But just because you want that doesn't mean someone has to give it to you. As in most things in life, you have to weigh the pluses and minuses of each option and pick the one that best suits you. Not force someone to make the one you want.
- Look at the Mac. People had the choice to use the Mac App Store and side load and the App Store has not been a success. People never chose the App Store in iOS - it was forced from day one.
- Again, not all people want the closed system. Some people chose iOS because it's more secure etc but not necessarily because it's closed. You're not the spokesperson for the iOS user base.
- This just reads like an Apple marketing statement. To repeat my point from before; much of the security benefits in iOS come from the OS, not the App Store. We've seen countless fraudulent apps get through the review process. The malware risk will increase but I doubt to the extent you mention because of the fact that it's really hard for an app to break out of its sandbox unless it's jailbroken.
- I feel like you're over simplifying the situation. Yes, many of the bigger developers want more money, but why not if they're doing all the work and Apple is just rent-seeking? Then there are the indie developers like myself. If they open up iOS I'll still ship my apps via the App Store because it's more convenient, but my fundamental problem at the moment is any day Apple could decide "This conflicts with an app we're going to ship or another business interest so see ya later".
Apple keeps painting this black and white picture but we've seen that they still manage to do a good job with the Mac via gatekeeper & notarisation (although, even then they've had issues). That's totally possible in iOS, too.
Whole lot of words but doesn’t really say much. A gaming console is not in the same category as a mobile phone no matter how you try to present it. I would also add that the App Store is not the final protective barrier no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Plenty of crap has gotten through and still exists. Not to mention the abitrary “remove from App Store due to …” issues. Your attempt to equate side loading to failure of security and privacy is ludicrous at best and would challenge you to find factual data that proves this is a current major issue with Android.
Try to remember this is not about privacy or security but about money. The privacy and security aspects are an argument that Apple has raised in an attempt to thwart the potential impact to the current App Store cash cow and control.
No, it’s an intentionally open system with a formally designed way for any user to intentionally set it to open or to closed. Same with the Mac. I’m guessing same with Windows?
The other is an intentionally closed system with no formally designed way for any user to intentionally change that.
There is a distinct difference between the two.
It is a default closed system that the user can make a self determination on whether to unlock the ability to side load.
The "difference" as you are defining it is the ability to unlock is by the builder or the owner.
Think of it as a room.
Apple decided to hold the key to the locked door.
Android decided to allow the device owner to have a key to the locked door which the OEM or Carrier could take away.
Try to remember this is not about privacy or security but about money. The privacy and security aspects are an argument that Apple has raised in an attempt to thwart the potential impact to the current App Store cash cow and Apple control.
iOS is more secure because it is closed. Opening it up will make it less secure. Maybe not as less secure as Android but still it will have reduced security which is a deal breaker and forcing a company to nerf there product just cause of a few butt hurt developers that want everything handed to them.
The App store was not forced upon anyone. There was never sideloading only web apps before the App Store so anyone that has ever purchased an iOS device knows that they are buying a closed system that could only download apps from the App Store.
In the end it really is black and white. This is Apple's product. No one is forced to buy it. If you don't like it there are other options for you to buy. Are there tradeoffs with those options? Sure, but you aren't entitled to it being exactly the way you want it just because you say so.
This isn't the BK Phone you don't get it your way.
Why not? Both are computing devices. Both play apps and games. Both have network connectivity. The XBox, the PlayStation, the limitations on what games they play and what apps they allow are as arbitrary as the rules Apple has set for the iPhone and Google for Android. Logically and legally there’s no difference. So, unless you have some laws you can cite or legal precedent which says the differences between smartphones and consoles matter, whether they are in separate, arbitrarily decided by you and Epic, etc. is irrelevant.
Nice logical fallacy there. “It’s not perfect so it never works”. By your logic there is no such thing as security, or privacy, and all laws and policies are meaningless! It’s anarchy for everyone! That’s what’s ludicrous. Apple has never claimed the AppStore provides absolute security, just that it provides BETTER security. And it does. iPhones suffer from less malware. Far less. Apple can unilaterally shut down a bad actor App. Google can’t. The iPhone by it’s one store, side loading prohibited nature lacks an attack surface that Android has. That’s just a simple, obvious fact. You, and those like you, want to force Apple to weaken its security model for YOUR convenience. This isn’t about choice for users, it’s about getting what YOU want rather than having to make a choice. You could have the side loading and multiple App stores you clamor for. You’ve been able to have it for over a decade. Go buy an Android phone. No one is stopping you. It does exactly what you want RIGHT NOW! So what are you waiting for?
You may be surprised to learn that the world isn’t so black and white, and more than one thing can be true. Apple can both be interested in continuing to generate revenue from the AppStore (and why shouldn’t it, it’s literally the purpose of a for profit company, you think Epic, Facebook, et al don’t want to make more money?) AND believe user privacy and iOS security are good things. Apple could have been gathering and using customer data, a LOT of customer data this whole time. It would absolutely have been profitable for them to do so (as demonstrated by Facebook and Google’s entire existence), yet it chooses not to. So yeah, it’s not only about the money for Apple, whether you like it or not.
Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it will not have tradeoffs or it will be easy. Yes Apple has a more open approach to macOS. Yes it COULD take a similar approach with iOS. That’s never been in doubt. It’s also not an argument for why Apple should be FORCED to do something it doesn’t want to.
First, the Mac approach IS less secure. And while Apple has taken steps to minimize some of the risks, they are still greater than iOS.
One reason is simply that the Mac has been around a lot longer and people have expectations around it. It’s been more open from the start. iOS has been closed from day 1.
Another reason is that the use cases and capabilities that Apple has chosen to offer for each platform are different. The restrictions that iOS has if applied to macOS, would prevent a number of scenarios from being possible. The technologies you mention have already limited or prevented some of them. There are always tradeoffs.
Why should Apple be forced to change the products it offers when:
1. It does not have a monopoly, customers can easily choose from a wide variety of Android devices
2. It openly and accurately discloses the nature of the iOS approach so customers can now EXACTLY what they are getting
3. It has taken this approach since the very beginning
Obviously there are people, including perhaps yourself, who would like the best of both worlds when it comes to smartphones. But just because you want something doesn’t mean someone else should be forced to make it for you. Users can choose, today, between two very capable smartphone ecosystems, with two different approaches, and as a result, different tradeoffs. Forcing Apple to become like Android would eliminate that choice and force Apple to devote time and resources to doing things it has no interest in doing. That shouldn’t be done just so some people can have their dream phone. As the saying goes, “You can’t always get what you want.”
Nicely taking my post out of context and trying to explain. Gaming console and mobile cellular the same? 😂 Not even close.
Let’s agree we are going to disagree And leave it at that. I am looking at the big picture where the “privacy / security” is one argument (of many) raised by Apple against this issue. It is not the primary issue no matter what you apparently believe.
btw - you don’t do a lot of homework - my iPhone is my alternate device. Android is my main. I have stated that across numerous threads here, including this one.
The “self determination” of course, that is not a formal documented process offered by Apple. And it’s not REALLY the builder or the owner unless the owner is one of the few that actually created the method. For anyone else, it’s a third party that building the tools they’re trusting to make the change.
I doubt anyone will be able to EVER make a system that a handy hacker can’t break into, but that doesn’t change the intent of the system. I have the ability to rip encrypted content from a DVD. However, no one would seriously try to state that DVD’s are “open”, it’s really all about the intent. A iPhone that’s closed now with OS 14.7 doesn’t become open when a jailbreak is finally released. It’s still closed and a user is taking steps to decrease the security of their device. So, it can’t really be said that it’s NOT about security when jailbreaking is effectively a user (using third party tools) to lower the security of their device.
Unless, of course, you’re saying that the security of an Android device in both Open and Closed modes is EXACTLY the same.
I feel I made some points already about it not being a change that is free from tradeoffs so won't repeat myself, and you also seem to be countering claims I didn't make so I'll just focus on the bullet points:
1. Didn't say it was a monopoly, but Apple is certainly in control of a significant portion of the market. Saying "You can choose Android" isn't really viable, IMO but I imagine we'll disagree there.
2. I don't see why this would stop with side loading?
3. And? They've also changed many things since the beginning, it's called progress.
1. I agree that it will make it less secure, but not to the extent that you and Apple claim. Again, it's not about developers wanting everything handed to them, just the choice and to have Apple stop abusing its role as the gate keeper for its own commercial gain. If the App Store belonged to an individual entity I'd be OK with that.
2. It was totally forced upon iOS users because you have no choice if you want an iOS device. Yes, you can get an Android device but if you're stuck with iOS for whatever reason (my company only provides iPhones, for example) you're out of luck. What you just said in your second paragraph is the definition of forced, to me.
3. I completely disagree, you even implied it in your first paragraph: "Opening it up will make it less secure". Not "completely insecure", not "broken", but less secure. It's a spectrum.
Developers DO want everything handed to them, though. They don’t want to design and build the hardware, they don’t want to design the OS, they don’t want to have to deal with selling them, they don’t want to have to deal with returns and restocking the hardware, they don’t want to have to deal with recalls or defects, they don’t want to have to deal with the bugs in both hardware and OS nor do they want to have to fix those. They don’t want to deal with the continuous security attacks the hardware faces. They don’t want to deal with marketing and advertising of the hardware or the upkeep of the masses of servers on the back end required to keep things running as smoothly as possible (which in some cases isn’t very smooth… which, they don’t want to deal with that either).
HOWEVER, they DO want free and unfettered usage of ALL of the work done above. They want this entire money making infrastructure just handed to them.
I never said they were the same, obviously there are some differences, but they aren't THAT different either. And again, does it matter when it comes to the law on anti-trust? Not so far as anyone has been able to show so far.
It's true, I don't stalk you. That would be weird. Expecting people to have memorized every detail about you is also weird.
Never said it was the primary issue. It is, however, the entire point of the original post, so why we are focused on it in this post.
Not being a monopoly is rather an important aspect for whether or not a government should be able to apply anti-trust restrictions against it.
And your right, I absolutely disagree with you that choosing Android sin't viable. In what way isn't it viable? Android phones are available for the same or lower price than iPhones. There are a multitude of options. There is wide spread support for Android phones both hardware and software. Its got one of the biggest companies in the world behind it and isn't going anywhere. And both Google w/ Android and Apple w/ iOS make it perfectly clear (and have since basically day one) their approach to getting Apps. Google has always allowed side loading and other App stores. Apple hasn't. Consumers can EASILY make an informed purchasing decision (whether they do or not is on them). So I ask again, in what way is it not viable for people who want the open approach to choose Android for their phone?
Don't see why what would stop with side loading?
Not all change is progress. Change can be bad too. And again, just because something CAN be changed, doesn't mean it SHOULD be changed. And it definitely doesn't explain why someone else should be forced to change something they don't want to.
I will absolutely stipulate that Apple CAN allow side loading and they CAN allow alternate app stores. Thats not even debatable. Of course they can. Further, I agree there are people who would prefer that, and there may be advantages to some people if its done. Thats not the question that matters, the question that matters is should Apple be FORCED to do this, and why? I see no reason why they should be forced, against their will, to do this, especially since there exists a more than viable alternative (Android) and there exist a non-trivial amount of people who prefer the Apple approach.
Thats like saying someone who buys a diesel car is forced to buy diesel, or a person who buys an all electric car is forced to use only electricity. Or someone who shops at a Target is forced to use Targets checkout counters. Its a meaningless point because they were never forced to buy the iOS device to begin with. If you buy something willingingly, knowing in advance (or reasonably being able to know in advance) that the product has certain features and limitations, then no, you aren't being forced. You made a willing choice. If Apple had previously allowed it and then people had bought the iPhone and afterwards Apple changed its rules, you could make an argument. Or if Apple had a monopoly either literal or de-facto where it was highly impractical or impossible to buy and use another device then you could argue people are forced. But neither of those are true. You have a choice, iOS or Android or neither, it is possible (though perhaps sometimes less convenient) to go without a smartphone. The Apple AppStore is not forced on anyone. Not on users, who have a choice. Not on developers who have a choice.
You forgot a few things, they don't want to host the apps or pay for hosting the apps. They don't want to develop the APIs for their apps from scratch. Etc.
Are there legitimate complaints that developers have in regards to working with Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, etc.)? Sure. Could Apple do a better job in some areas in regards to working with and supporting developers? Absolutely. Does that mean Apple should be forced to abandon the one App Store/no side loading model? Absolutely not.
1. I think you can still be at risk of anti-trust without being a monopoly. And my comment about the viability of Android was in the context of switching to Android from iOS because it often comes up as an argument (e.g. "if you don't like iOS, leave"), sometimes it's just not viable to expect people to re-purchase the apps on the other platform etc.
2. I was talking about the expectations consumers would have with iOS. Imagine if Apple went for the Android approach where there are numerous warnings about side loading when you try to enable it - I think people would understand the risks.
3. I stand by my comments that you're being forced to use the App Store. Yes, you're not forced to buy an iPhone (I never said this) but if you choose to buy an iPhone you're forced to use the App Store and my point is that the fact that when consumers were given the choice in macOS they didn't really go for the App Store shows that the App Store may not be as great as people think it is. Is this a problem for most consumers? I doubt it, it's quite nice to have a safe place to get apps from, but I don't see the problem with allowing consumers the choice to shop elsewhere.
And your last point about developers having a choice isn't realistic. The iOS market is richer. If we look at your Target example, imagine if there was a Target store in a neighbourhood that would be perfect for your product (exact target demographic etc) but that Target store was the exclusive store for those people - they couldn't even drive somewhere else to buy your product at a store that offers a lower fee for you. That's how the App Store is at the moment, and that's why I suspect Apple is under scrutiny. It's one thing to have exclusive control over the apps on your OS, but then to abuse your gatekeeper position to your own advantage and even ban developers from telling consumers they can get the product for cheaper elsewhere. That's anti-competitive.
You're just generalising here. Apple makes more than enough money from the sales of the hardware, so why would that be the concern of the developers? You're making it sound like it's a one way street when the iPhone would suck without third party apps.
It's not even about free access to all the points you listed. I'm perfectly happy to pay and will keep my apps in the App Store. But given that the App Store review process is simply terrible, if side loading actually provides competition for the App Store I can only see it as a win-win because Apple would be motivated to get their **** together.
1. Customers know what Apple offers in re: to the AppStore before they purchase. If they later realize they don’t like it, fine, then they should switch. Is switching inconvenient? Sure. But it’s not onerous. It’s something people have to do in life. You buy a car, you get things for that car. You get a new car, you have to buy new things. Even for software, switching from Mac to PC you might have had to rebuy software. It happens, again it’s not an unreasonable burden. Switching is not hard.
Really? What in the entire history of the world gives you the idea that people understand risk? I mean look at current events. People in large numbers refuse to do something so bog simple as wear a mask to prevent the spread of a deadly disease. You think they will carefully read and consider every dialogue the OS throws up? World history aside, user research shows that people just click OK more often than not if you start throwing dialogues at them all the time.
But setting that aside, have you considered there is a market for people who don’t want to have to even think about those risks? Apple did, and it’s one reason why the iPhone is such a huge success.
My own father is an example case, he hates using computers because he is always worried he will do something to mess it up and won’t be able to fix it. Guess what he loves using? His iPhone! Because he basically can’t screw it up! He can’t accidentally download a virus. He can’t accidentally install a bad app. He can screw around in the weather app or a news app or whatever all he wants and know it won’t affect ANYTHING else. For him the protections the closed system offers are a benefit. Forcing Apple to change its model takes that away from him and all the rest of us who prefer it this way. You are robbing us of choice.
You can stand by it all you want, but you are factually and logically wrong. If you choose the iPhone you are choosing the App Store approach. That’s a choice. It’s not now nor has it ever been forced on you.
So, the parent makes plenty of money, why shouldn’t the kid get a car for free? Is that where we are?
On the contrary, the Phone was selling well prior to the App Store and would be selling well today without it. Would Android still be selling more? Absolutely, many times more, nothing would change there. Would Apple STILL be making a profit? Yup. Would Apple actually be saving a TON of money by not having to externalize API’s and create a development environment for millions of others to use? Most certainly. Apple’s poured a LOT of money into their hardware/software stack JUST to make it possible for developers to develop apps, money they didn’t HAVE to spend. As this is an investment, they’re going to protect it.
It is absolutely about free and unfettered, uncontrolled, unrestricted access to hardware they couldn’t be bothered to create. Which is precisely what sideloading would allow.
The iOS device is the choice, if you want an iOS device by default you want the App Store model because that is the only option that has ever existed for it. If they were to switch the Mac over to the iOS model than yes, that would be forcing existing users, since the Mac started out as an open system and users purchased them with that expectation. iOS never was open so if they are to switch to open then they will forcing iOS users onto an open system since it wasn't open when they bought the iPhone/iPad.
Apple does not force iOS device ownership upon anyone.
In your situation it was your company that made the choice to only use iPhones but they weren't forced to by Apple. And it technically is your choice to work for that company (Not that I'm suggesting quitting over device preferences, it still is a choice that an individual has)
I mean, now you're comparing this to the pandemic so I'm not sure if it's the way I explain it or you just not getting it, so I think there's not much more to be said here.
The period where the iPhone was selling well prior to the App Store was a period where there were no app stores in the conventional sense. If the iPhone had continued without apps and competitors like Android shipped an App Store I don't think the iPhone would have done well.So, the parent makes plenty of money, why shouldn’t the kid get a car for free? Is that where we are?
On the contrary, the Phone was selling well prior to the App Store and would be selling well today without it. Would Android still be selling more? Absolutely, many times more, nothing would change there. Would Apple STILL be making a profit? Yup. Would Apple actually be saving a TON of money by not having to externalize API’s and create a development environment for millions of others to use? Most certainly. Apple’s poured a LOT of money into their hardware/software stack JUST to make it possible for developers to develop apps, money they didn’t HAVE to spend. As this is an investment, they’re going to protect it.
It is absolutely about free and unfettered, uncontrolled, unrestricted access to hardware they couldn’t be bothered to create. Which is precisely what sideloading would allow.
I completely disagree with the way you put it, to imply that Apple is doing developers a favour. It's really not like that. I'm not saying Apple owes developers the world or anything but just some basic respect would be a good start.
There were certainly App Stores, unless you’re insisting that the first smartphone that EVER ran applications was the iPhone. In addition there was sideloading. Folks who had an opportunity to buy devices that allows sideloading of apps or use of an app store intentionally bought the device that promised ZERO of each. The hardware, again, that the developers want free access to, was THAT good.
It wasn’t users that wanted an App Store, they were fine with the devices as is, as shown by the far greater than expected sales (Apple’s target was ONLY 1% marketshare in the first year, that beat that several times). It was DEVELOPERS that wanted a way to make money. Apple, having already invested millions into the effort of just making the hardware and OS, invested millions more to create a compromise where Apple could continue to protect their TRULY massive investment while also allowing developers to offer their software on this protected platform. That solution was the App Store.
Basic respect is what devs have. They’ve had it for years. Basic respect is improving the tools, listening to “reasonable” feedback, implementing changes to the review process, etc. Everything with an eye towards protecting their investment while providing a platform for developers. What (some) developers want now is the ability to erode Apple’s protections of their investment.
Apple knows how to create a platform that people like and want to use AND most importantly want to spend money on. If ANY developer had the same skills, they could very well do the same thing. But they don’t, they DO know how to create their little app that piggy backs on someone else’s video hardware, audio hardware, cameras, motion detectors, GPS, Wi-fi, Bluetooth, NFC, security infrastructure, etc. to make some money. Further, I would BET you that if ANY developer were to go through the arduous effort to invest and create their own massively popular, successful and world class hardware, you can BET those developers would fight like heck to protect that investment.