Or you could just approve the app to run like they already allow you to bypass gatekeeper on macos...
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.
Judge in Apple v. Epic Games Case Wants In-Person Trial Starting on May 3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which proves my point - macs are much less secure than iOS, even with gatekeeper.
The claim was that everybody wins if Epic wins. My point was “no i don’t,” because I don’t want weak security. The response was that security wouldn’t weaken unless you used an alternate App Store. But everything everyone has said to try and support that point proves the obvious - merely allowing the OPTION of alternate app stores weakens the ios security model.
How would your security be compromised if you stayed within the walled garden, but somebody else chose to side load an app on their device?
On a computer the majority of secure things you do on a phone are going to be browser based, with the security controlled server side. On a phone things are done almost exclusively via self contained applications.
If things are opened up your banking apps could then start talking to another dodgy app from an alternative source (insert "cool" app that goes viral for a couple of days).
If I have a secure device, but send private messages, or allow you to view my FB pages for example, on a compromised one. You don't feel my privacy is compromised as well if your device is hacked ?
I have already explained this. To allow others to leave the walled garden, apple has to reduce security on the device. Right now, every time you launch an app, there is a check to see if the app is allowed to run. To allow apps from other app stores to launch, that mechanism has to be weakened.
Apple getting money from both the developers and customers is no different from Playstation and XBox models. While they may lose some money (not a lot) on each console sold, they make that up on the back end in two ways: their cut of every game sold for the consoles (whether physical or digital copies) and subscriptions such as PSN or Game Pass Ultimate.
You don't understand how the iOS security model works at all, do you? If Apple is forced to allow third-party app stores on iOS/iPad OS devices, there are no guarantees those stores will have the same privacy and security protections Apple has in place for its App Store. That means that third-party app stores could serve as gateways to install spyware and other malware onto your device and there would be nothing Apple could do about it - you'd be on your own trying to fix your stuff.
In order for Apple to even allow third party app stores on their devices, they would have to rewrite parts of the OS to accomodate such stores. That would by design reduce the overall security of iOS/iPad OS, even if you never installed a third party app store on your device. Basically, the same hooks Apple would have to build into the OS for third party app stores to use would be an additional attack vector for malicious actors to compromise the OS.
What you want is going to be very dangerous for your iPhone. If you want to download apps outside of the App Store, then you should switch to an Android Phone then.
Why does it bother you that I might do something that is dangerous for my iPhone?
Realistically the switch you want exists, AltStore uses it to put apps on your device that are not from the App Store by utilising a personal signing key that Apple permits you to put 10 apps onto your device and the certificate needs to be refreshed every seven days.
Why it bothers many of us here is that by enabling a third party large scale App Store environment of the likes that Epic is pushing for would start to fragment the apps the same way Epic has fragmented the gaming ecosystem on the desktop. It will lead to situations where companies will make their own App Stores and will put exclusive apps in those App Stores to force people to install them. Many of us don't want to have to deal with having to use the Steam launcher for Steam games, Epic Games' launcher for their exclusive games, EA's launcher because they forced you to buy and launch games through their store, the Adobe updater and all of the crap it loads onto a device and the Microsoft updater that half of the time needs to update itself before it can then update their own apps.
I like that on iOS I don't have to deal with this noise and by forcing Apple to provide an alternative you in fact remove choice from me. If iOS' limited options aren't sufficient for you, there exists a mobile device operating system that provides this capability that is important to you. It is not that you might do something dangerous for your phone but by enabling the functionality you desire, it repeats some of mistakes that other platforms have made.
No I want third party installs, my Android phone and Windows PC work fine thanks... difference is I'm not a blind fanboy.
Your windows pc and android phone are insecure. Difference is, we want security.
If you want third party installs and you already have those other devices that permit it, why don't you use them? There exists a platform that has the features you want and according to you they work fine so why not use them? Why change iOS when you have what you want?
Because iOS has other things I want.
Why not use iOS, but not allow third party installs on your own devices? That way everybody wins.
Because third party app stores is part of the fragmentation problem on the desktop that means I have a bunch of different launchers for each of the vendors because they have their own stores and push exclusives. Epic Games is actually one of the worst of these paying developers to make games exclusive to their app store. I don't want that on the desktop and at the moment I don't have it on iOS, personally I don't think I win if third party installs are allowed. If anything I lose the ability to choose a platform that enforces this.
that’s just objectively false. I hope your entire stance is not centered around this false premise
Right, so let me turn off the check on my device, and my device only. That doesn't weaken the mechinism on anyone else's device.
If Apple wanted to be really, insanely cautious, they could make it only possible to change this setting from DFU mode (so you'd plug the iPhone into a Mac and run Apple Configurator or some such), similar to how Apple Silicon Macs require booting to 1TR to change certain security policies. It's a pretty damn foolproof setup.
How is it objectively false? Right now, in order for an app to launch, it is run through a process to determine whether or not the app is permitted to execute. In order to allow third party apps to launch, Apple has to loosen that process. This means the ability that is currently limited to MDMs will be open to everyone, meaning at least one new attack vector.
The way people are talking here... Apple losing this case could force 3rd-party app stores onto the iPhone and could introduce a whole bunch of potential security problems...
So couldn't Apple just create a new lower tier of fees that would make Epic happier? To avoid lawsuits like this?
It does seem silly that Apple collects 30% every time someone wants to exchange real dollars for Epic's virtual currency. Apple isn't doing a lot of work there.
While Apple does human reviews for the apps themselves... I don't see why they need to collect 30% from every VBucks purchase.
Surely Apple and Epic could come to some kind of compromise. I'm not saying Apple should do it for free... but somewhere south of 30% would be nice.
We have to remember that the 30% rule was created in a time when people were just buying single apps. And developers actually loved the idea since it was better than the old methods of software sales and distribution.
But now we live in a world of in-app purchases, and Kindle books, and VBucks, etc. These are basically consumables. Digital consumables.
So I'm not sure that the flat 30% should apply to those types of purchases. Maybe it should be 10% or 5% ?
All that said... it's funny that Epic had no problem with the 30% for many years. And they made billions of dollars from the Apple App Store.
But then they pulled their little stunt and violated the terms and led people to an outside link to buy cheaper VBucks. I think it was wrong for Epic to do that.
However... maybe the entire digital purchasing system needs a re-evaluation.
So couldn't Apple just create a new lower tier of fees that would make Epic happier? To avoid lawsuits like this?
It does seem silly that Apple collects 30% every time someone wants to exchange real dollars for Epic's virtual currency. Apple isn't doing a lot of work there.
While Apple does human reviews for the apps themselves... I don't see why they need to collect 30% from every VBucks purchase.
Surely Apple and Epic could come to some kind of compromise. I'm not saying Apple should do it for free... but somewhere south of 30% would be nice.
We have to remember that the 30% rule was created in a time when people were just buying single apps. And developers actually loved the idea since it was better than the old methods of software sales and distribution.
But now we live in a world of in-app purchases, and Kindle books, and VBucks, etc. These are basically consumables. Digital consumables.
So I'm not sure that the flat 30% should apply to those types of purchases. Maybe it should be 10% or 5% ?
All that said... it's funny that Epic had no problem with the 30% for many years. And they made billions of dollars from the Apple App Store.
But then they pulled their little stunt and violated the terms and led people to an outside link to buy cheaper VBucks. I think it was wrong for Epic to do that.
However... maybe the entire digital purchasing system needs a re-evaluation.
Last edited:
A simple toggle like the one in the Mac security settings. You know which one I’m talking about. Lol
What Fortnite showed is that you could price addictive games like drugs, where the first hits are free, but where additional hits are up-charged.
In-app purchases are not some new benefit to the consumer but rather a business model to get the consumer locked into an ecosystem, through experiences and data, and then to bilk them at a later time for being naive or trusting enough to use their "free" product (beginning with you gmail, free email for life, and now everyone in cloud BS... )
So what you‘re saying is, you want to stifle competition and prohibit people unlike you from installing applications that are not sanctioned by your device’s manufacturer, because a situation that is considered the norm on other computiong platforms makes you personally uncomfortable, including the fact that what you are describing has not happened on the single other comparable platform, the Google Playstore.
How about an alternative V-bucks store outside of Epic ? Its not fair that you can only buy v-bucks from them to use in their game.