Proposed Law Against Apple's 'Walled Garden' Software Approach Sparks Fears of iPhone Ban in Italy

[abhibeckert]

Well I'm not an developer so I can't speak on "weaken defenses".
If you have technical knowledge of how the defenses would be weakened would you care to share them?

There are two defences at risk:

1. Apps uploaded to the App Store are inspected and certain behaviour will see the app blocked. Some of these rules are for security - for example downloading code from a remote server and executing it is not allowed (even if the app developer is trusted, this can be used by third party criminals to compromise the device. While others are to protect privacy - accessing the GPS location in a mapping app is allowed - but try that in a Tetris game and Apple will refuse to distribute the app.

2. If a developer bypasses these restrictions (only some can be bypassed), Apple can revoke the certificate and it will no-longer execute on any device with it installed. To date, they have never used this kill switch. But it is available and will be used if serious malware ever gets into the App Store.

Both of these protections, which aren't perfect but have proven adequate so far, would not be allowed if this bill passes.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

"Mr. Cook, tear down this wall!"

iMessage, Facetime I'm talking to you in particular.

Not a great analogy. Walls can serve to keep the citizenry imprisoned (keep them from emigrating or traveling, which is what Ronald Reagan was addressing), or they can defend the citizenry from outside threats (real or imagined - castle keep-style, or Donald Trump-style). To those that want the walled garden, it's the external threats that matter more. They've chosen to live within the walls. One could almost consider those who want "freedom" to be infiltrators, intent on weakening the city's defenses for their own selfish purposes.

Someone chafing at the restrictions of their own country may choose to emigrate. Emigration may not be easy - finding new employment, leaving friends and family... there are often sacrifices and trade-offs to be made. However, it's no more difficult to leave Applevania than it is to exit Androidland. Further, citizens of either are free to choose services that are available cross-border (WhatsApp, Facebook, Gmail, Spotify, DropBox, Netflix, Skype, etc.) in order to minimize the disruption of relocation.

As to iMessage and FaceTime - would you be willing to pay a fee to Apple, if you wanted to use those services while living in Androidland? (It's not likely Apple would start inserting advertisements into either platform.) The only reason they are free services is because their cost is built into Apple's hardware pricing.That's what "product differentiation" is all about - you buy the product that offers the features you want. It shouldn't matter whether those features are in hardware, software, or services. Even if Apple opened the platform, they can't force the other device makers to adopt the platform - there's no assurance that the default messaging app on an Android phone would be configurable for iMessage - it would likely be the same situation we see currently, where competing messaging platforms each require a dedicated app.

 

[danckwerts]

Typical dumb politicians

 

[KiwiAdventure]

Apple says no so why do people buy an iPhone only to complain.
[doublepost=1498298281][/doublepost]

It's quite amazing that some alleged democratic governments are acting more like socialist than some of the major communist countries in the world. First the proposed banning of encryption, and then now they want to dictate how the iPhone should work. Amazing.

Italy is socialist

 

[borgqueenx]

Sigh i just wish apple would allow emulators tbh.

 

[0098386]

This post is groan-worthy too...

What I mean is that it's APPLE'S CHOICE, since they make their product, and you know it when you buy it, that there is a certain way of putting software on it.

To give an extreme example, your toaster has software on it. Can you make software for your toaster, and easily load it? No. The manufacturer decided that you can't. You have to live with it that way.

Most phones pre-Apple were the same way. Software could only be updated by the manufacturer. Why are phones all of a sudden 'different' now? Because one manufacturer decides that you're allowed to, now all manufacturers must? That makes no sense.

If you make the argument that a phone is 'just a computer'. Are you up in arms that you can't replace the software on your car easily? Why not? It's just a computer too.

You mean Java software on old phones that was easily swapped out between multiple devices and platforms?

You really don't have to jump to extremes. You could just keep discussion normal and avoid fallacies. It sounds like you don't like what these courts want. Maybe you should take up your arguments with them. Tell them about cars and toasters too.
[doublepost=1498303494][/doublepost]

It's quite amazing that some alleged democratic governments are acting more like socialist than some of the major communist countries in the world. First the proposed banning of encryption, and then now they want to dictate how the iPhone should work. Amazing.

Huh. Do you know what a democracy is?

 

[rp2011]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

Or business, or capitalism...

 

[gnasher729]

Apple should consider a developers or pro mode that allows people the freedom to install what they want.

iOS users can only install software vetted by Apple (with the exception of enterprise software, where a company with an enterprise license can install their software on all their phones). Since they could have bought an Android phone and didn't, apparently that's what they want. They don't want software that hasn't been vetted.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

So what?
If you like Apple's filtering nobody is forcing you to side-load things.

The approach on Android is a good solution.
Standard setting is to only allow the store. If you want to you can disable it and install other apps at your own risk.

You know, just because you want the protection of the walled garden doesn't mean you have to subject everyone else to your restrictions. There no reason there couldn't be a preference that allow apps to be loaded easily from other sources, or restricted to just the Apple App Store. Apple could even have this preference turned on by default, but still have it available for users to turn off if they want. Then, the only way to get infected by these malicious third-party apps would be to if you actively decided to turn off this protection. You, personally, could just not do this on your own iPhone.

Oh, wait. That's exactly how this is handled on Android.

Sounds like Android is the best solution for both of you.

 

[wigby]

All iPhone would need to do is use the Android approach: You can download anything from the official app store, if you download from other stores, a warning appears saying something to the effect that this is from an untrusted source, if you install this things may not work properly. They could even add in a clause that says if you need warranty service you have to uninstall all apps from untrusted sources first.

This would actually be a reasonable balance between the two positions.
[doublepost=1498231951][/doublepost]
Not really, Android allows for it and has found a way to do so as safely as possible, so it CAN be done.

Using any Android approach would relegate the iPhone to malware numbers matching or exceeding Android. No one wants that except for a handful of users who will probably go over to Android anyway and slimy developers looking to cash in.

 

[Substance90]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

In which part exactly are they failing to understand how anything works? They basically propose to have mobile OSes work like desktop OSes (macOS, Windows and Linux).

Tbh, I'm sure that if Apple said "sure we'll pull out of Italy" Italy would be mourning the tax losses before Apple misses the revenue.

Except Apple doesn't pay taxes in Italy. If you're referring to VAT, that's a tax on the consumer, not on the corporation.

 

[nia820]

iOS users can only install software vetted by Apple (with the exception of enterprise software, where a company with an enterprise license can install their software on all their phones). Since they could have bought an Android phone and didn't, apparently that's what they want. They don't want software that hasn't been vetted.

Umm no. I am a iOS user and I don't like being walled in. You can't get in the mind of every ios user.

 

[Thunderhawks]

From my perspective, there are no perfectly good phones, as they are all severely flawed. I used Android for many years, until I got tired of manufacturers abandoning their phones regarding updates after a year. Instead they release bigger and bigger phones, there is hardly anything available in the 4-inch class. So now I use an iPhone SE, which I hope to be good for another four years or so. In the meantime I will have to suffer restrictions, lack of storage, iTunes, and an OS that is not nearly as elegant and intuitive as Mr Ive may think, but at least I have working apps in a small package with a headphone jack. Hopefully that outweighs the flaws, but I will stilll complain about them.

Once the SE's time is up, I will see what is available. Maybe Apple has become more flexible. Maybe Google has solved the Android update problem. Maybe a third OS has become less bad than Android and iOS. I have no brand loyalty, and I do my best not to get locked into any "ecosystem".

I feel for your "suffering" and having to use "severely flawed" products.

How about just appreciating that this amazing technology (iOS and Android) is around and has made our lives much more easy. (I won't say better, as there are too many addicted smombies around)

Life will never be perfect, but to be able to walk around with a computer in your pocket is just awesome.

Maybe you are too young to realize how just a short while ago it wasn't even possible to take a phone with you.

So, pick what works for you, appreciate it and stop complaining!

Plan B would be to develop your own perfect phone.

If you can't do that, time to let go..............

 

[StephenDaedelus]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

Indeed, dumb politicians. One of the most stupid ideas once could imagine. I'm flabbergasted!

 

[macduke]

Ehm, that's exactly the Android way as well.

I know. My point was that Apple has been doing this already for many years. It's not some new idea to them. The Mac App Store has been around since late 2010, I think.

 

[mumpitz77]

It's not old. In the long run, market share leads to profits. Ask Adobe why they prioritize Windows software over Mac software.

iOS is targeted first, because its user are more likely to spend money. Even with the 30% margin Apple asks for, it is still the more profitable option. So it may be because iOS users are wealthier, less cost concious or because they feel secure doing so. I think that Apple IS winning where it counts.

As for Adobe. They used to release Mac first, when Macs were far superior for creative needs and therefor more potential customers were using Macs (even when MSDos/windows had the greater market share). But Windows has caught up on the needs of creatives/designers and Windows hardware tends to be more affordable. Adobe makes professional software, an businesses factor total costs. The switch of customer base was driven by costs and Adobes focus followed the the potential customers, not solely the market share. BTW, Adobes way of using their de facto monopoly as industry standard to force their customers into a subscription based model is by far more questionable than Apples walled garden, because Apple has neither a monopoly in smartphones nor tablets.

As a user, I couldn't care less about "increasing iPhone sales". I want to run the software I want on my device.

Your choice is that you can buy it or not. It's fair.

There are so many options to run whatever Apps on a device, but why would you force this on iOS? At the time you bought your iPhone 5s you knew about pros and contras of Apples approach and other options for smart phones were available. Maybe you made a wrong descision or your needs changed.
I chose this walled garden. If it will open up, a lot of paid Apps would wander off for higher margins. So to maintain my experience of a walled garden, I'd have to live with fewer Apps or follow those Apps and leave the walls. Both options would alter the product experience I made without me changing my needs.

 

[Grey Area]

I feel for your "suffering" and having to use "severely flawed" products.

How about just appreciating that this amazing technology (iOS and Android) is around and has made our lives much more easy. (I won't say better, as there are too many addicted smombies around)

Life will never be perfect, but to be able to walk around with a computer in your pocket is just awesome.

Maybe you are too young to realize how just a short while ago it wasn't even possible to take a phone with you.

So, pick what works for you, appreciate it and stop complaining!

Plan B would be to develop your own perfect phone.

If you can't do that, time to let go..............

Heh, just a week ago on a different forum I was defending the smartphone as one of the most comprehensive representations of human ingenuity. Maybe this posting here came off too negative, then, though I would have thought the fact that I still use a smartphone would show I am not a total hater.

Be that as it may. I am forty, I do remember when mobile phones were practically non-existent, and I appreciate the long way we have come since then. But I do not see why I should ignore their flaws. And I am usually not complaining about flaws that have no good solution - e.g. battery life: it is poor, but that is where battery technology is right now, so I accept that and hope one day someone figures out a better battery technology.

No, what irks me are flaws that result from bad decisions. In theory Android could have an update policy like Windows, i.e. independent of the hardware manufacturer. But it does not. And every year Google launches some new initiative to solve the update problem, but it never works out. And the flaws of the iPhone, those things are bad because Apple wants them to be bad, because they sat down and thought long and hard about how bad they could make them without driving away their customers. I have already paid them, I do not think I also have to smile and pretend everything is perfect.

 

[Ethosik]

The thing is, you are free to stay inside the walled garden. If Apple allowed side loading they would probably make users go far out of their way to do it. Which is fine; if us geeks want to play around with unvetted software and we are aware of the risks, why not?

Make it difficult enough to the average non-techie won't bother, but those of us who want to side load still can. This is already sort of the case with Xcode free provisioning, but they need to make the certificates last longer than a week.

Yes but if there is a way that iOS will allow non-signed Apps or non-approved Apps to be installed, that WILL become a security hole. So even if you are still in the walled garden, the fact that there is a way will make everyone at risk.
[doublepost=1498326912][/doublepost]

This is going to ban a lot more than just iPhones!

I can't run open-source games on my xbox, ps4 or Nintendo switch.

Tbh, I'm sure that if Apple said "sure we'll pull out of Italy" Italy would be mourning the tax losses before Apple misses the revenue.

I agree. I don't understand the issue here. Don't like how Apple does things? There is Android. Apple does not have a monopoly here. There are Android devices as an alternative.

 

[iPadLifes]

See, this is why us Brits voted out of the EU.

Imagine the US spending billions to be part of an organisation that worries more about Apple's business than the rising world problems we all face..

 

[Ethosik]

How what works? I think they have a very clear idea of how Apple prevents users from installing whatever they like.

And why does it matter? It is Apple's system. Do not like it? There is Android. Like someone mentioned, we should also complain about Xbox, PS4 and others that we cannot install whatever we want.
[doublepost=1498327649][/doublepost]

Difference is you can make any Xbox game without giving Microsoft a cut, so anyone can make stuff for them, it is not the same with Apple, either you pay the fee or you cannot run your app on the iPhone...

I mean I can sell an XBOX game online, on a store and I get to pick with store, I can buy an iPhone app only trought them, if this is not monopoly I don't know what is!

Uh no you can't. It is not free to develop an Xbox game. You do have to give Microsoft something.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id

There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform

I can't just develop a game, stick Microsoft's logo on it with their box design and sell it in stores WITHOUT Microsoft knowing about it. It is a closed system. They must support the game.

 

[8692574]

And why does it matter? It is Apple's system. Do not like it? There is Android. Like someone mentioned, we should also complain about Xbox, PS4 and others that we cannot install whatever we want.
[doublepost=1498327649][/doublepost]

Uh no you can't. It is not free to develop an Xbox game. You do have to give Microsoft something.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/id



I can't just develop a game, stick Microsoft's logo on it with their box design and sell it in stores WITHOUT Microsoft knowing about it. It is a closed system. They must support the game.

Yeah I worded it wrongly, yes you pay a cut to MS, but a fixed fee, not a % of what you sell...

If you sell online thought their store yes you also pay a cut for each unit sold, but if you sell a physical disk at Best Buy or Gamestop you don't.

 

[inkswamp]

All you have to have is Xcode. It's a free download from Apple. So I guess you also have to have a mac, but it is possible to sideload.

And a provisioning license and the knowledge about how to build the app properly and go through the process of setting up the license of the device and getting the binary to the device. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's not as easy as you make it sound.

I don't like laws that enforce this kind of thing but it's completely ridiculous that you can't just drag-and-drop and app onto the iPhone. I wrote and published an app 4 years ago (no longer in the App Store) and recently wanted to load an old copy of it back on to my newer iPhone to see if it would run. What about that kind of situation? I ended up figuring out how to do it using iTunes but only after jumping through a ridiculous number of hoops that an average user probably would have given up on. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

And here we have another example of politicians not understanding how anything works.

I think you mean here we have an example of someone (i.e. you) that thinks consumers shouldn't have rights at all and that companies should be allowed to do anything they want in society, especially ripping people off by purposely thwarting direct competition by monopolizing 100% of all software made for a given hardware platform.

I've been complaining about this for YEARS. It's violates US Antitrust Laws and the only reason Apple gets away with it is that the self-serving bastards in control of the government are on corporate sides (why mergers are always approved, utilities get any raise in basic price they ask for with no input from consumers what-so-ever and 20+ Million are about to lose their health care because POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR SCUMBAGS that represent the "rights" of big business and NOT the rights of the people that elected them. Sadly, some people (like you) appear to support consumers getting ripped off and screwed over and keep helping this cycle continue by preaching that companies should be allowed to do anything and everything in society with no restraints.

The Italians obviously DO GET IT and are are damn well doing something about it, by god. Good for them. Good for the European Union as a whole to demand rights for the citizens/people and not just for the top 1% money grubbing leaches (like Tim Cook). There's a society that isn't 100% bought and paid for (unlike most of the world), let alone how we in the US are letting Russia make our decisions for us these days. Maybe one day we'll take our country back by electing people that aren't just for the ultra-rich and put consumer rights front and forward as a priority once again. No robots that pay no taxes. No more tax dodger fat cats. No more job killing trade deals. The Law should not be only on the side of those that can afford millions to pay lawyers at $600 an hour. Justice should not mean you're rich enough to get away with it. No, clearly someone doesn't get it at all and that someone isn't Italy.

 

[fmillion]

The problem I have always seen with these sorts of issues is that "geeks" who "understand the risks" and are willing to accept them are, sadly, the minority. And the majority tends to win, because the majority is why millions of iPhones sell per year and why Apple has fat pockets.

Here's how I imagine Apple could offer an unlocked sideloading mode if they really wanted to. You do it similar to disabling Rootless on OS X. You would literally have to reboot the phone and do some sort of incantation to bring up an interface that harshly warns you about the risks of unlocking your device, makes you authenticate BOTH to the device AND to Apple (so they can log that you've done this on your device, possibly affecting the warranty, and also prevent someone else from unknowingly unlocking your phone), and in the end, simply allows sideloading of .ipa files. And after you've done this, the device always shows an "unlocked" icon on the status bar that can't be hidden. Tapping that icon lets you know your device is unlocked, could receive malware, and gives you an option to reboot the device and re-enable the lock, which will in turn disable any app that isn't from the app store.

Here's how this can still remain pretty safe. Let's keep it that all sideloaded apps MUST still be signed. So you still have to pay the $99 fee to Apple to be able to distribute apps. Apple can also revoke any dev cert at any time, meaning that someone who's releasing pirated repackages of apps or who's releasing malware will quickly have their apps disabled. (Apple could even potentially use this to block apps that they happen to discover are using private APIs?)

I'm all for the argument of higher security. But I also can't shake the feeling that their design is just as much a business decision as it is a security decision. The walled garden ensures they get their 30% cut of ALL app sales, period. Their strict rules about in-app purchases (again, taking 30% for basically processing a payment) have very little to do with security but everything to do with business. Apple has made the argument that the 30% cut is for hosting, review process, etc. Ok, if that's true, allow developers to host the files themselves. (This is why I am pretty sure it's about a LOT more than hosting and reviewing. An app that sells 5 million copies at $10 each makes 15M for Apple. That app was probably reviewed in a few hours by maybe a few people, and even the hosting can't cost $15,000,000. Yeah, it's definitely a business decision.) But either way, I feel like doing this would let Apple comply with these kinds of laws and still maintain the device security and even, to a certain degree, the walled garden. Remember, all I'm asking for is to be allowed to sideload .ipa files. Go ahead and charge those devs $99/year. Go ahead and take 30% of subscription costs. Just allow sideloading of *signed* .ipa files.

 

[wbeasley]

I think you mean here we have an example of someone (i.e. you) that thinks consumers shouldn't have rights at all and that companies should be allowed to do anything they want in society, especially ripping people off by purposely thwarting direct competition by monopolizing 100% of all software made for a given hardware platform.

I've been complaining about this for YEARS. It's violates US Antitrust Laws and the only reason Apple gets away with it is that the self-serving bastards in control of the government are on corporate sides (why mergers are always approved, utilities get any raise in basic price they ask for with no input from consumers what-so-ever and 20+ Million are about to lose their health care because POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR SCUMBAGS that represent the "rights" of big business and NOT the rights of the people that elected them. Sadly, some people (like you) appear to support consumers getting ripped off and screwed over and keep helping this cycle continue by preaching that companies should be allowed to do anything and everything in society with no restraints.

The Italians obviously DO GET IT and are are damn well doing something about it, by god. Good for them. Good for the European Union as a whole to demand rights for the citizens/people and not just for the top 1% money grubbing leaches (like Tim Cook). There's a society that isn't 100% bought and paid for (unlike most of the world), let alone how we in the US are letting Russia make our decisions for us these days. Maybe one day we'll take our country back by electing people that aren't just for the ultra-rich and put consumer rights front and forward as a priority once again. No robots that pay no taxes. No more tax dodger fat cats. No more job killing trade deals. The Law should not be only on the side of those that can afford millions to pay lawyers at $600 an hour. Justice should not mean you're rich enough to get away with it. No, clearly someone doesn't get it at all and that someone isn't Italy.

So if I like the Samsung TV remote but it won't work with my Sony TV, does that violate my consumer rights? I mean a remote is a remote.

If you don't like the Apple walled garden approach, no one is stopping you from using another type of phone. It's not like you are forced to use Apple. Only then would your free choice be violated. Currently it's just a preference whether you go Apple or Android or Windows Phone. Choice is good. The market will determine what they are happy with can vote with their wallets. If the Apple approach wasn't working for customers they wouldn't be making huge profits.