Netflix Gaming Service on iOS Likely to Offer Individual Games Through the App Store

[Juicy Box]

I wonder if Netflix would also bring it to the tvOS App Store as well?

Probably wishful thinking. The Apple TV and tvOS App Store is basically dying.

Gaming developers are leaving tvOS in droves, while still supporting iOS version of apps.

I doubt it will happen, but maybe Netflix launching their gaming service on tvOS could bring some attention to the neglected Apple TV.

 

[Rogifan]

If this is a subscription service why wouldn’t work the same as the current Netflix app? Apple doesn’t require every TV show or movie Netflix offers to be an individual app download in the App Store. Why would a game be different than Bandersnatch?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

No actually you've to goto system preferences and then privacy to manually allow an untrusted app. It's pretty rare because Apple has a pretty large database of trustworthy sources. My point is there's nothing stopping Apple to allow the same for iOS except their sheer greed to keep their control over the market.

You’re correct, but if going into System Preferences isn’t something you think you should do OR if you haven’t been provided admin access, then there’s another human brain you’d need to call on, thus forcing you to understand MORE about what you’re doing before you do it.

Plus, if we only consider the “happy path”, then we fail to account for when the source ISN’T trustworthy. Those sources will then have a VERY easy way to get their malware onto iOS devices. iOS currently effectively removes the largest vector of potential malware on iOS devices.

 

[CarlJ]

It's pretty rare because Apple has a pretty large database of trustworthy sources.

Apple doesn't keep "a pretty large database of trustworthy sources", rather, developers can digitally sign their apps with their developer key that they've received from Apple. If an app is signed like this, then macOS will let it load. There's a cryptographically secure way to tie the app back to the developer, so they know who is responsible, and, as well, they can shut off the app in an emergency (if it's found to be doing actively hostile things, like stealing data or attacking other systems), by adding the signature of the app or developer to their XProtect system. These days, one can also have each individual release of an app notarized by Apple ahead of releasing it (this is entirely separate from the Mac App Store), to strengthen the process. But, to be clear, it isn't a matter of downloading from a trustworthy source (though that is always a good idea), it's a matter of the signing/notarization of the app itself.

 

[CarlJ]

If this is a subscription service why wouldn’t work the same as the current Netflix app? Apple doesn’t require every TV show or movie Netflix offers to be an individual app download in the App Store. Why would a game be different than Bandersnatch?

I'm going to guess it's because a movie or show on Netflix boils down to being an mp4 data stream, which... just gets streamed, while an app is executable code, which could in theory do all sorts of things. I've heard of Bandersnatch, it was a special case, but probably involved very little in the way of additional code, and they likely incorporated it into the main Netflix app.

 

[DFZD]

You’re correct, but if going into System Preferences isn’t something you think you should do OR if you haven’t been provided admin access, then there’s another human brain you’d need to call on, thus forcing you to understand MORE about what you’re doing before you do it.

Plus, if we only consider the “happy path”, then we fail to account for when the source ISN’T trustworthy. Those sources will then have a VERY easy way to get their malware onto iOS devices. iOS currently effectively removes the largest vector of potential malware on iOS devices.

Well why do iOS devices get access to such military grade security and not Mac OS devices? I mean what exactly do we do on iOS that warrants such restrictions and not our Macs? IMHO Apple should just come out and say it like it is, that they do it for the monies. That's all it is at the moment. A Multi Trillion dollar company that verifies every app install can also build a system to disable such malware infected apps, and it's not like 0 click tools like Pegasus don't exist in the world we live in.

 

[subi257]

Ah the good ole days of $100k Workstations for N64.

Wow an SGI workstation....our edit systems at work used to run on a SGI Onyx

 

[Rogifan]

I'm going to guess it's because a movie or show on Netflix boils down to being an mp4 data stream, which... just gets streamed, while an app is executable code, which could in theory do all sorts of things. I've heard of Bandersnatch, it was a special case, but probably involved very little in the way of additional code, and they likely incorporated it into the main Netflix app.

What code is being executed on device?

 

[Rogifan]

Well why do iOS devices get access to such military grade security and not Mac OS devices? I mean what exactly do we do on iOS that warrants such restrictions and not our Macs? IMHO Apple should just come out and say it like it is, that they do it for the monies. That's all it is at the moment. A Multi Trillion dollar company that verifies every app install can also build a system to disable such malware infected apps, and it's not like 0 click tools like Pegasus don't exist in the world we live in.

I agree though I’m sure Apple would argue the iOS install base is much greater and if they had the opportunity to start macOS off from scratch they’d do it differently.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Well why do iOS devices get access to such military grade security and not Mac OS devices?

MacOS devices were built, from the start, with the understanding that it’s users are more knowledgeable about what they’re doing. The progressive “locking down” of macOS is primarily making the system safer for more people. There was a time when .kext’s were a thing and many developers used them extensively. However, allowing beneficial .kext’s also means you’re providing an avenue for malicious .kext’s. So, while it means that some products are no longer a thing, or users have to go through more work to install it, .kext’s are deprecated. It’s a downside for all users but it’s also better for the enormous number of people who no longer have to worry as much about installing malicious .kext’s.

iOS was built, from the start, to be easy enough for a regular everyday user to use without worrying as much about making themselves less secure. As a result, it’s VERY hard for your average user to make themselves less secure. I mean, even jailbreaking it requires more effort and skill than your average person has, so they’re by default more secure as a result.

Allowing sideloading on iOS is similar to re-enabling .kext’s on macOS. Both yield systems that are inherently less secure because they allow people that don’t know what they’re doing to do bad things to themselves.

 

[metapunk2077fail]

This is no secret to gamers and crypto nerds because they are often targets and victims of scams and viruses.

Here's an example of how children and gamers are targeted by infected and fake gaming apps.

Discord is often used to infect computers and steal private and financial data. Sideloading on phones would increase this on a huge global level because kids and pirates and frankly gullible.

 

[Jeaz]

It would work the same way as downloading a film for offline viewing.

Basically, the list of available games are all visible on Netflix, but you’d have to download a title in order to play it.

But that’s a lot easier for a movie than never changes. A game gets updates and bug fixes with code that might effect other parts of the app. Maybe manageable when you have a handful games but I’m sure Netflix would want lots of the there and don’t see it as a sustainable model to have them all in one app.

 

[DFZD]

MacOS devices were built, from the start, with the understanding that it’s users are more knowledgeable about what they’re doing. The progressive “locking down” of macOS is primarily making the system safer for more people. There was a time when .kext’s were a thing and many developers used them extensively. However, allowing beneficial .kext’s also means you’re providing an avenue for malicious .kext’s. So, while it means that some products are no longer a thing, or users have to go through more work to install it, .kext’s are deprecated. It’s a downside for all users but it’s also better for the enormous number of people who no longer have to worry as much about installing malicious .kext’s.

iOS was built, from the start, to be easy enough for a regular everyday user to use without worrying as much about making themselves less secure. As a result, it’s VERY hard for your average user to make themselves less secure. I mean, even jailbreaking it requires more effort and skill than your average person has, so they’re by default more secure as a result.

Allowing sideloading on iOS is similar to re-enabling .kext’s on macOS. Both yield systems that are inherently less secure because they allow people that don’t know what they’re doing to do bad things to themselves.

So in theory a developer/power mode could solve this. With this mode you can choose to take a risk to side load apps or even tweaks like through cydia. If I am consenting Apple to allow me to take this risk, it's really not Apple's worry any more.

Would you then be in support of this special access for power users or developers? I mean there's already side loading through other ways.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

So in theory a developer/power mode could solve this. With this mode you can choose to take a risk to side load apps or even tweaks like through cydia. If I am consenting Apple to allow me to take this risk, it's really not Apple's worry any more.

Would you then be in support of this special access for power users or developers? I mean there's already side loading through other ways.

Yes, and it already exists. If you’re a developer with a Mac and Xcode, you can install whatever you want on your own device(s).

Can a developer with malicious intent still get their malicious code onto a user’s device? Yes, if the target has a Mac (or can be fooled into buying one), Xcode installed on that Mac (or can be fooled into installing it) and to be talked through the steps of downloading compiling and installing the malicious code on their device. Which, again, just proves that the most reliably insecure part of any system is the person that has admin access to the system.

Actually, I think TestFlight would be a vector, too, but requires more up front work by the malicious developer.

 

[hans1972]

Apple the control freak company, restricting innovation to be only the one it allows, with an ever growing list of arbitrary rules.
These clowns surely would never have never invented the open Web. The sole reason there is Safari on iOS is a concession for people to not massively revolt and because the Web predates iOS...

In early 2007 the App Store and the app ecosystem didn't exist.

Today, it's so successful that companies are using governments and courts to get into it.

 

[hans1972]

So in theory a developer/power mode could solve this. With this mode you can choose to take a risk to side load apps or even tweaks like through cydia. If I am consenting Apple to allow me to take this risk, it's really not Apple's worry any more.

Would you then be in support of this special access for power users or developers? I mean there's already side loading through other ways.

No, because the maker of the software should be the one making the decisions.
Power users and developers should be treated like second-class citizens by Apple together with enterprise users.

 

[hans1972]

Reading some comments here, it's pretty obvious a lot of these people have never used Windows or Android and have no idea that Third party Game/App Stores exist almost every where except on iOS. Heck even Mac OS allows side loading and it's actually preferred by open source companies as well.

We know but we don't think its better.

Having one store for every applications is what we want. Unfortunately, iOS is the only platform which comes close.

 

[hans1972]

No actually you've to goto system preferences and then privacy to manually allow an untrusted app. It's pretty rare because Apple has a pretty large database of trustworthy sources. My point is there's nothing stopping Apple to allow the same for iOS except their sheer greed to keep their control over the market.

No, you can just use control-click the application in Finder to open it.

It's a good thing that all developers are known to Apple and there should be even more requirements for being known to Apple.

 

[hans1972]

Well why do iOS devices get access to such military grade security and not Mac OS devices? I mean what exactly do we do on iOS that warrants such restrictions and not our Macs? IMHO Apple should just come out and say it like it is, that they do it for the monies. That's all it is at the moment. A Multi Trillion dollar company that verifies every app install can also build a system to disable such malware infected apps, and it's not like 0 click tools like Pegasus don't exist in the world we live in.

They do it also for the hundreds of millions of users who don't know what they're doing. They just want to use their devices and not really care about security and privacy.

You can be pretty reckless in your behaviour on iOS and still be pretty safe.

If you think the security model for Windows and macOS is great, why have we had malware problems since the 90ties? Why do Windows and Android have to come with built-in anti-virus scanners?

Why do we see ransom malware on Windows and even on macOS but not really on iOS?

You should ask the opposite question: Why do Microsoft and Apple allow installation from other sources on their desktop operating systems?

 

[CarlJ]

We know but we don't think its better.

Having one store for every applications is what we want. Unfortunately, iOS is the only platform which comes close.

People arguing that Apple must open up their walled garden ecosystem (which we chose with intent, knowing how it differs from Android), to be like everyone else, is like people arguing that Tesla must put gasoline engines in their cars, to make them be like all other car companies - I mean, the majority of cars on the planet use gas, so clearly it’s the natural order of things and everyone must be made to conform, right? Right?

 

[DFZD]

You can be pretty reckless in your behaviour on iOS and still be pretty safe.

Tell that to Jeff Bezos and thousands of journalists and other targets that Pegasus has been used to snoop on.

 

[DFZD]

People arguing that Apple must open up their walled garden ecosystem (which we chose with intent, knowing how it differs from Android), to be like everyone else, is like people arguing that Tesla must put gasoline engines in their cars, to make them be like all other car companies - I mean, the majority of cars on the planet use gas, so clearly it’s the natural order of things and everyone must be made to conform, right? Right?

Actually no. The analogy is just wrong on so many levels.

The right analogy is like this. Imagine you buy a Tesla car, and now Tesla tells you can only charge it using their own power stations or from power stations that are approved by Tesla, but the approval process is unfair to a lot of other power station companies, and they are unable to provide you their service, so you are left out from a lot of power station points close to your home or workplace.

Sideloading still exists and Apple is pretty okay with it if you are a developer. All we are asking here is for Apple to loosen it's grip, so both developers and users have a choice. Just like it is on Mac OS.

All this BS about security is a smokescreen to hide the real reason that opening this up would hurt the bottomline for Apple.

And we do realise very well that most people here defending Apple's thuggery also own APPL stock.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

All this BS about security is a smokescreen to hide the real reason that opening this up would hurt the bottomline for Apple.

They both can be true. Opening it up would hurt Apple’s bottomline AND allowing an easy way for average folks to critically reduce the security of their system would absolutely allow for endless amounts of malware to exist where none does currently.

 

[CarlJ]

And we do realise very well that most people here defending Apple's thuggery also own APPL stock.

Good for you at making assumptions - I don't own any Apple stock. And I wouldn't characterize it as thuggery.

 

[DFZD]

They both can be true. Opening it up would hurt Apple’s bottomline AND allowing an easy way for average folks to critically reduce the security of their system would absolutely allow for endless amounts of malware to exist where none does currently.

And what about allowing third party mechanisms to make in app payments?

Or even allowing companies like Spotify or Netflix to add a link to their website to buy subscriptions?

I guess that would also reduce the security of the entire Apple Mother Cloud.