Definitely true!
macOS security model design and policy is exactly how you do it. (or at least a way to do it)
Last edited:
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.
iOS 26.2 to Allow Third-Party App Stores in Japan Ahead of Regulatory Deadline
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Definitely true!
macOS security model design and policy is exactly how you do it. (or at least a way to do it)
Maybe a bit much, but it's honestly how I feel. Why is your "freedom" to install software more important than my freedom to use a closed ecosystem, Apple's freedom to offer one, or Apple's freedom to decide how it's intellectual property is used?
My MIL has almost been tricked into installing viruses on her Mac like 5 times in the past year. I don't have to worry about that with her iPhone. These laws will change that, all so Epic and Spotify don't have to pay for what they use. I see zero upside for anyone but big corporations who want to freeload and tech nerds, and A LOT of downside for everyone else.
And whenever I bring up the downsides I am told "it's FUD/not real" despite the fact that it absolutely is real on Android, and even Google admits it.
My MIL has almost been tricked into installing viruses on her Mac like 5 times in the past year. I don't have to worry about that with her iPhone. These laws will change that, all so Epic and Spotify don't have to pay for what they use. I see zero upside for anyone but big corporations who want to freeload and tech nerds, and A LOT of downside for everyone else.
And whenever I bring up the downsides I am told "it's FUD/not real" despite the fact that it absolutely is real on Android, and even Google admits it.
I agree with most of what you say. However I want to understand what the persona of an older folk is. The older folk I know are handily working with iOS 26. People into their 70s and 80s. My aunt 101 is not as facile with an iPhone as she used to be but she still FaceTimes.
I think the forced changes to the platform are overall bad and imo iPhones are easier to use than android for “older folk”.
The apple cut problem is a platform issue and not a usability issue. Apple can and should take whatever cut it wants aligning with regulations. People who on principal disagree with apples fees and commission can use their platform of choice.
Just curious, did you update it for them, or suggest they do so? Apple hasn't pushed iOS 26 to people yet, and in a unit full of iPhones here at work, only one person is running iOS 26 on their personal device, and it's a 17 Pro. My brother, sister, and their spouses haven't updated because they just rely on auto-update, I haven't because I do have it on my work-issued iPhone, and can't stand it.
The vast majority of people haven't updated yet, and have no idea what it looks like. I suspect the Liquid Glass backlash is in it's infancy.
Last edited:
I disagree with you here. I think there should be some relationship between the value that Apple provides in a transaction and the fees they take. If you're a small indie developer publishing your pomodoro app or whatever, maybe 30% is reasonable - Apple does payment processing, handles refunds, pushes updates, and provides a certain level of marketing for your app (and I think Apple takes 15% for small indies now, which definitely seems reasonable.)
For something like Patreon, though, Apple being in the transaction provides little value. Patreon is a company that takes donations from individuals and gives them to individual creators, making it basically a financial services company. A small cut for payment processing is reasonable, but 30% is not. That would be very similar to Apple wanting a 30% cut when you send your buddy $5 via Apple Pay.
More generally, I think Apple should be pressured to be good stewards of the system they created and I don't see anything wrong with that.
FWIW my mother in law was annoyed "stuff moved around" (particularly in the camera app) but apparently she doesn't mind the visual changes. I was expecting a firestorm from her and pretty much got crickets. She also updated on her own, without asking us first (we would have told her not yet), so we really dodged a bullet 🤣
I agree with you completely.
I'm just not sure of any way to exact meaningful pressure on them that isn't tied to financial results.
i.e. actual competition.
A big argument I'd make here, to all fans of Apple up and down the spectrum, is that Apple themselves (like most companies) are absolutely way better when they are having to compete.
It is an enormous benefit to us as customers to enjoy the fruits of a driven company that is having to earn it due to stiff competition.
It's supposed to be the fundamental driver of our entire business and innovation system here in the US...at which point IP law, and different device and service types and industries and all the debates about that come into play. It's an enormously complex topic.
Regulators across the globe have taken note of how important smartphones are to modern society, as well as all the downsides to the switching costs, and would like there to be on platform software competition & optionality.
That's what this is about.
There's an entire other tack Apple could take here to still be the best hardware AND the best platform to be on with the most competitive and safest and private App landscapes to choose from ... and be working to ensure their own App Store value prop is the best, and attractive to devs on those merits, etc.
Maybe it's just going to take a different CEO. I'm not sure.
I agree 100% companies are better when they have to compete, I just fundamentally disagree that Apple isn't already competing in the app space. I understand why that might be weird to some of you, but to me it's like claiming Playstation and Xbox don't compete because you can't download software from third party stores on their platforms. We've seen that Google and Apple respond to things the other do in their respective stores (small business programs, subscription pricing, etc.), so the idea they aren't competing doesn't track to me.
I also don't think the potential benefits of opening up third party stores (which as we've seen on Android aren't used by most consumers) don't outweigh the potentially significant harms of doing so (both from a "security/malware/scam" perspective as well as a "user experience" perspective. (To further the UX point, there's a universe where major apps leave the App Store and you have to install a Microsoft Store for productivity apps, a Meta store to download WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram, Google opens up the play store for iOS and then pays major apps for iOS exclusivity, etc.)
I think there are a lot of people on MacRumors who think "I would never use Android, therefore iOS has no competition and should be forced to open up" but in my mind, that's as silly as saying "I will never drink Pepsi products, therefore Coke has no competition and must be forced to serve Dr. Pepper products out of their soda fountains for free" or "Therefore they must give the secret recipe to store brands."
If I were in Apple or Google's position I would be saying much the same thing.
I'm sure I'm not alone in here when I say I trust Google about as far as I can throw them. Why start believing them now?
I agree that competition is the most straightforward way to make Apple behave well, but by opening up competition you negate the security of the "walled garden." I suppose Apple could invest a lot of engineering effort to make altstores as safe as possible, but the altstores ought to pay for that somehow - and the EU wouldn't like that - and at the end of the day there's only so much Apple can do because the responsibility for code review (if any) would rest with someone else.
I think it's true that tech nerds are a big part of the push for opening up the app store, but there's probably another factor, too - for a lot of people now, the phone is their main computer. It's easy for me to champion keeping the phone a very limited, specialized device because I have lots of different devices. If I want to do something I can't on my phone, I just open up my Mac or Windows machine. But a lot of people don't really have that option, and Apple deciding something shouldn't be done on their phone means they just can't do it.
I advise those sorts of people to go with an Android, of course, but it's become a more tricky problem as phones have become more widespread and central to peoples' lives.
Here’s where we disagree. Government should stay out this and let $$$ vote. I could be persuaded to be all over let’s regulate everything if car dealers could be brought inline.
This is why I keep mentioning the macOS security model and design. It's exceptionally similar to iOS and I think is the likely middle ground that would be good (or something like it).
I do fundamentally believe that Microsoft (or pick your company or Indie dev, or anyone) should be able to release software for iOS and distribute it themselves direct to consumers. Maybe that tier of usages of Apple IP needs a different Dev fee each year, but it needs to be allowed and possible (as it already is for corporations).
Or, as you said, perhaps Apple will need to be required to be more invested in 3rd party App Store vetting also (and remunerated for it), and have that be a route to go. I'm not really sure.
You've hit it on the head though with the comment about these things being "the computer" for people increasingly. That's at the heart of this also, and it also means it's not a topic that's going away.
I really think Apple is mistaken if they think they'll force or sue their way into huge cuts of revenue flow through Apps in perpetuity.
I honestly really hope they have some grand alternative plan and I really am starting to worry they do not.
Totally agree if apple assets aren’t being given away for free. That’s not competition. There is another word for it. Competition is when a competitor actually produces competition…from blood, sweat and tears.
Are they liable for scams and things that get through their locked down App Store now?
Totally agree.
I only suggested to my family members to update. iOS 26 has been all over the news and social media and has gotten a lot of coverage. Plus a lot of the folks I alluded to are investors and follow the news. So they are savvy.
But it's not just Google (their report is here for anyone interested. Apple's similar report is here).
- Here's a 2023 survey paper citing McAfee data reports 2.34M mobile malware cases, of which only 389 were on iOS.
- App Security Project quoted Nokia Threat Intelligence report that found that Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of observed malware infections (Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%), with third-party app stores being a key vector due to lack of security vetting.
- Zimperium found that users who sideload are 80% more likely to have malware on their phones.
- Tom's Guide reported that users of alternate apps stores had up to 19 times higher probability of encountering malware compared to the PlayStore
- Certo Software says sideloaded apps have a 200% higher chance of containing malware
- Banks in Singapore won't let users use their apps if they detect apps from unverified sources (i.e., side loaded and third-party stores)
- In the US, the Homeland Security, the Federal Trade Commission, the Small Business Administration, the General Services Administration, the FBI, and NIST all say don't sideload (DHS calls out third-party stores in particular).
- The EU's own Agency for Cybersecurity recommends users "use the official application marketplace only… to minimize the risk of installing a malicious application." (“Vulnerabilities – Separating Reality from Hype”). Maybe they should send a memo to the EC?
- ENISA has also stated that "Compared to other software distribution models and depending on the review process implemented, the walled-garden approach makes it more difficult for cyber attackers to spread malware" and that "most experts agree that the walled-garden approach could help to reduce the impact of malware."
- The European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation says: "only install apps from official stores".
- Australia's eSafety Commissioner: "Apps for your iPhone or iPad should only ever be obtained from the App Store, while apps for Android devices should only be obtained from Google Play. Apps obtained from anywhere else may well be dangerous, and could try to misuse your information or put a virus on your phone"
The goal here is not to "curb the dominance". The goal is to improve the situation for the consumer by curbing the abuse by the companies having the monopolies. Mandating alternative app stores helps the consumers.
I want to dig deeper into this source in particular because of one line in it that stood out to me;
Which, to me at least, indicates that even the Play Store isn't safe. I mean, it's right there in the article, 67% of identified malware came from the Play Store.
If the garden walls don't keep the weeds and riffraff out, what purpose do they serve?
"Criminals still break into houses, so let's ban locks on the doors!" "Criminals are going to break the law anyway, so no reason to pass any!"
I'd argue Apple does a much better job that Google. Not perfect, but significantly better. And all of the links above show why this is such a bad idea. Including security experts employed by some of the same governments trying to force Apple open. If only the competition people would listen to them. But nope! Can't have that.