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.
Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
May I present.... macOS.
And may I present ... no such grand security issues, whatsoever..
Folks -- Apple is gas lighting you with FUD about changes to iOS and wrapping it all in disconcerting terms like "security", "privacy" and "malware"
You would think. It's almost like S.2710 of the Open App Markets Act is a bad thing.
It literally says malware in the title and the most widespread economically crippling form of malware is ransomware.
Why would they open upp a new account on 10-100 stores? Do you do the same for games on your computer? Do you open up an account on every online store you visit?
Did you know they could use Apple Pay ?
The topic is 'malware, scams, data exploitation'. These three are perfectly represented by crypto and enabled by it.
You realise crypto bag holders are the most toxic group on the planet right now who turn a blind eye to every crypto crime and are manipulated by millionaires and billionaires to hand over their money to a rigged market place?
If you're gaslighting me when I have not said anything to you personally it's because you're offended by someone who points out how toxic the crypto community are.
No, just a Silicon Valley billionaire who probably has enough insights from his network about when to dump the bags and get free money extracted from the public.
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will on Thursday consider the Open App Markets Act, an antitrust bill that would allow for sideloading and alternate app stores.
Ahead of the meeting, Apple's head of government affairs in the Americas Tim Powderly sent a letter to committee members, urging them to reject the bill, reports Bloomberg. Powderly repeated a privacy and security argument that Apple executives have made many times before about the dangers of sideloading.
He also said that Apple is "deeply concerned" that the legislation in its current form would also "make it easier for big social media platforms to avoid the pro-consumer practices of Apple's App Store."
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee already discussed the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, another antitrust bill introduced in June 2021, which Apple also spoke out against. Despite Apple's protests, the bill was approved and will move on to the Senate floor for a vote. It is likely that the Open App Markets Act will join it.
Article Link: Sideloading Bill Would Allow 'Malware, Scams and Data-Exploitation to Proliferate,' Says Apple
Apple should embrace a digital diversity and inclusion as it does for humans.
Source: https://www.apple.com/diversity/
Sorry to budge in …
Agreed. But the solution you propose, being able to use just one Merchant for everything, carries a lot of side effects that may institutionalise practices what in some contexts might be considered fraudulent.
I’m using the term “fraudulent” not in terms of criminal activity but more in its general sense: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Now there are indeed solutions that stick to solving your problem as stated. Take for instance PayPal, ApplePay, Square, Skrill, Amazon Pay and some others. You supply your payment info to one … and can use it to pay to any Merchant without providing your info.
Now the best solution would not even need to provide your payment info to any entity when buying online. That is coming. If you carry a device, say a smartphone, that can read your credit card info (NFC), and authorize a payment digitally, not even Apple would need your credit card info stored in their servers to process payments.
I think the controversial thought is your solution for the problem as stated. You seam to jump from stating the problem, a credit card safety / payment problem, to than provide a solution for the problem that goes way and way beyond the problem stated.
Also I’m not against using a cohesive ecosystem and its conveniences.
I am against the practice of Merchants / Stores charging for the sale of things that do not sell or distribute. I have the sense that somewhere the in the ecosystem build up a line was crossed from a fair and transparent practice to a fraudulent one. Again, not necessarily in the criminal sense. Not necessarily purposefully … but insisting on it might lead to other conclusions.
I mean, how is it possible a Store that does not sell say a Book, to mandatory being able to charge and bill the sale of the Book? How is it possible to charge say for the sale of an music album if it does not sell it? How is it possible to charge for a dating arrangement, a math tutoring lesson, a video conference call, potentially groceries, milk, insurance … whatever the Merchant pleases?
The reason why in my opinion crosses the line from deceptive to fraudulent starts with the name of the “front man” of this practice, or ”front mans”. Its called App Store, iPhone, iPad.
The first the name suggest that it sells software programs aka Apps, nothing more. But …
The second well its a Smartphone. A powerfull pocket computer, beautiful picture.
The third is a mobile computer, Tablet.
How is it justifiable a company being able to control a great chunk of the flux of money though the simple peoples use of smartphones? This never happened before I think. Came the wheel, cars, the railways, the planes, electricity, medical innovations, powe plants, water distribution, heck even computers, all this innovations never granted companies supplying these technologies such power. Why is than people standing while Apple heads on leveraging that way?
I’m not at all against your preference of using one Shop for all your needs. I just think that should be accomplished not at the expense of the Merchant being able to charge for things it does not effectively sell or distribute. Instead, compete for the ability to sell these products against others that can … why not even compete for providing their own products of the kinds they don’t sell or distribute at the moment. Supplying the computer should be NEVER be the necessary condition for competition in the digital service space for the future of a competitive digital economy.
Finally, as an avid Apple device user I find it very convenient to have a single place where I can go, download, install and update an software program in a OS. Probably has you do. But to have this, technically and financially don’t see the need at all for the practices described neither. Big Tech using the tactics described to leverage the practices above, already use if not provide similar services for other kinds of media but native apps. So even if regulators come to the same conclusion similar to mine, leading to regulations that block this anti-competitive practice, it does not necessarily mean that this convenience need to be taken out from smartphone and tablet users. That is a decision entirely down to the manufacturer.
Cheers.
Agreed. But the solution you propose, being able to use just one Merchant for everything, carries a lot of side effects that may institutionalise practices what in some contexts might be considered fraudulent.
I’m using the term “fraudulent” not in terms of criminal activity but more in its general sense: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Now there are indeed solutions that stick to solving your problem as stated. Take for instance PayPal, ApplePay, Square, Skrill, Amazon Pay and some others. You supply your payment info to one … and can use it to pay to any Merchant without providing your info.
Now the best solution would not even need to provide your payment info to any entity when buying online. That is coming. If you carry a device, say a smartphone, that can read your credit card info (NFC), and authorize a payment digitally, not even Apple would need your credit card info stored in their servers to process payments.
I think the controversial thought is your solution for the problem as stated. You seam to jump from stating the problem, a credit card safety / payment problem, to than provide a solution for the problem that goes way and way beyond the problem stated.
Also I’m not against using a cohesive ecosystem and its conveniences.
I am against the practice of Merchants / Stores charging for the sale of things that do not sell or distribute. I have the sense that somewhere the in the ecosystem build up a line was crossed from a fair and transparent practice to a fraudulent one. Again, not necessarily in the criminal sense. Not necessarily purposefully … but insisting on it might lead to other conclusions.
I mean, how is it possible a Store that does not sell say a Book, to mandatory being able to charge and bill the sale of the Book? How is it possible to charge say for the sale of an music album if it does not sell it? How is it possible to charge for a dating arrangement, a math tutoring lesson, a video conference call, potentially groceries, milk, insurance … whatever the Merchant pleases?
The reason why in my opinion crosses the line from deceptive to fraudulent starts with the name of the “front man” of this practice, or ”front mans”. Its called App Store, iPhone, iPad.
The first the name suggest that it sells software programs aka Apps, nothing more. But …
The second well its a Smartphone. A powerfull pocket computer, beautiful picture.
The third is a mobile computer, Tablet.
How is it justifiable a company being able to control a great chunk of the flux of money though the simple peoples use of smartphones? This never happened before I think. Came the wheel, cars, the railways, the planes, electricity, medical innovations, powe plants, water distribution, heck even computers, all this innovations never granted companies supplying these technologies such power. Why is than people standing while Apple heads on leveraging that way?
I’m not at all against your preference of using one Shop for all your needs. I just think that should be accomplished not at the expense of the Merchant being able to charge for things it does not effectively sell or distribute. Instead, compete for the ability to sell these products against others that can … why not even compete for providing their own products of the kinds they don’t sell or distribute at the moment. Supplying the computer should be NEVER be the necessary condition for competition in the digital service space for the future of a competitive digital economy.
Finally, as an avid Apple device user I find it very convenient to have a single place where I can go, download, install and update an software program in a OS. Probably has you do. But to have this, technically and financially don’t see the need at all for the practices described neither. Big Tech using the tactics described to leverage the practices above, already use if not provide similar services for other kinds of media but native apps. So even if regulators come to the same conclusion similar to mine, leading to regulations that block this anti-competitive practice, it does not necessarily mean that this convenience need to be taken out from smartphone and tablet users. That is a decision entirely down to the manufacturer.
Cheers.
Last edited:
I am not sure I understand you. If say Epic opens its own store on iOS, Apple will lose their 30% cut from that sale which they are now have a monopoly on in iOS AppStore.
Indeed. Because we come to some absurd logical conclusions if we run it down it’s logical path.
App Store= commission to apple
IAP in app from said store=commission to apple
So far so good as apple facilitated the original sale
Amazon sells iPhone=commission to Amazon
iPhone sell app in store=commission to Amazon?
IN app purchases = commission to Amazon?
Amazon did facilitate the original sale.
And now we get to the weirdest part.
Apple wants to take a commission for alternative payment solutions.
Does Amazon have a right to a commission on any sales on iPhones they sold?
Can target or any physical store do the same?
Google wants a commission too. Here's what they've proposed in South Korea:
15% commission if the developer uses the Google Play Store payment system
11% commission if the developer uses another payment system
I'm not saying it's right... but Google thinks they still deserve a cut even if someone else processes the payment.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks, mr ZuckerbergThanks!
Running out of arguments, Tim Cook?
Calling Apple a scammer is not an argument - without reasoning, it's just a label with no context.
Make an argument and I will reply in kind. Pinkie promise
Love,
Tim C.
Isn’t that commission on being in the play store though? Obviously they’ll take something for that - and that should be a right of whomever owns the store, to charge a commission on items distributed there. It’s not free to operate these things. In my business I need to pay a cut to use every aspect of each service I use, that’s how things work in the real world. I don’t think the digital world needs to operate any differently.
Good catch... all the previous comment said was "commission for alternative payment solutions"
They didn't say where those payments were taking place.
My bad.
You're right... if the entire process is handled completely outside the store... i.e. another store or downloaded from the web... the platforms shouldn't get any commission, right?
But the digital world does work differently.
What difference is there between an App Store and a physical store? Both deliver a goods. One digital one physical.
But only one get a cut on every transaction after it leaves the store
Obviously, I think. But then that’s already the case with the AppStore anyway. The dev don’t pay Apple for commission if you subscribe outside of the app, for example.
That’s not entirely a good analogy though.
Let’s look at a physical purchase which can mimic the continued ability to purchase over and over again within the original purchase first - then compare. But that comparison doesn’t really exist in the real world so we can’t. Therefore, it’s not really something that’s fair to compare.
I’m not saying this aspect is right or wrong, and we’re slightly on a tangent - but physical goods and digital goods are different- something which is acknowledged in the AppStore already.
Absolutely.
Just to make it clear. I'm not in favor or not of side loading as a solution to block this practice given its market fallacies of value. Don’t think it would be be effective for that measure. Alt App Stores could easily fall on doing the same given some power to do so.
I would favor a regulation that sticks with the point.
Case in case: Not allowing Merchants of any kind to use tangent leverages to impose mandatory charges and billing systems over the sale of products and services that do not sell and distribute. They may offer their own billing system and payment system, but then use of it to process the sale of these things should not be mandatory in any context.
The regulation should also cover aspects such as the Merchant demanding that digital things not software programs to be turned into one, again the "front man" approach diluting its actual digital nature, for the purpose of getting a fee regardless.
I believe that is all there is to it in my view.
As an example, under this light, case in case, say Epic, given that the App Store actually sells a kind of software progra called Games, would still need to pay a fee to Apple for the App Store sale of their games in the App Store. Now Epic could in this light sell their vbucks in-game to buy new content, power trips whatever that would not require a new App or App Update to unlock such thing ... not new software programs. Also Apple could still charge for distributing their software.
This means that in my view the App Store could indeed still be the one and only App Store in their OS, the software program store and charge for the things it actually sells, that is actually listed in their store for sale as units, software programs. No more, no less.
My concern with the App Store practices is not that it charges for the distribution and sale of software programs, but that it mandatory charges for much more than that.
Finally in the case of solo App Stores / OS, considering that it works on top of peoples properties, case in case their Smartphones, Tablets or whatever it may come, there should be something there to protect their owners from current and future anti-competitive discriminatory practices regarding the services that they use.
Let’s face it, today there is no need to prefix the word service with digital. All services have a digital venue, meaning will deploy or use an App / Software program for communication and service of things that aren’t Software Programs by any current definition. App Stores of all kinds currently are legally able to charge for the service or sale of such things by controlling the software distribution, it should be stopped in my view. If it wasn’t done before is because Apple was just the first having the courage to do it and the market strength to enforce/blur it, in my opinion abusively.
Last edited:
I was not aware this is true now.
My child has a Nintendo Switch, but it's been a while since we've used it. I recall when we set it up, like Apple, they had their own Nintendo store. I also remember that the Nintendo developer program was absolutely, insanely, prohibitively expensive to join. It's nice to know that anyone can create and sell our own games for Nintendo without having to pay them a commission. Definitely going to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
Likewise, with Sony Playstation, I'm probably a bit behind the times. I've now been waiting over 2 years for a PS5. Are you saying that there are multiple ways for developers to install and sell their games for the PS5 now? I've got a dusty old PS4, do I need an update? How can I install games on it from anyone and made by myself, AND by-pass the Sony App Store?
my friend you are miss-informed. i worked for apple i know some internal stuff todo with app-store.
My gripe with the App Store is censoring mostly. I would even be okay with sticking to one payment system but I can understand that this is not the best scenario for everyone.
I prefer to echo a voice I do not represent than to silence it down just because I am not part of that group.