A 3 Trillion dollar company? Come on, they're practically sleeping on the streets! ?
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.
U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. As much as I dislike walled gardens, there isn’t enough time in the day to be worried about the security of another device.
You're making my point for me. Why should I have to worry that clicking on a link in a browser will destroy my personal device? Am I not allowed to live in a world where that cant happen? Its amazing how much 'Stockholm syndrome' windows and intel have brought to computing. As if we HAVE to be prisoners to this concept, and then love it too!
The issue with security is that all doors need locks and therefore keys. But if a door exists there is a way in, either getting the key or breaking down the door. Thats why if you have a wall no one can get through. The less doors and keys the less issues that can happen. Thats why there is a walled garden. Its by design. And it works. Look at the number of security exploits on iOS vs Android over the years, or any other system. Its not even in the same ball park.
It maybe anti-trust in terms of how it benefits businesses in the market but I dont believe reducing choice actually benefits consumers. What is actually happening is that the govt is saying you CANNOT produce and OS that is secured by not allowing 3rd party distribution. Even though allowing 3rd party distribution is an attack vector for malicious files. They are therefore also saying console OS's should not exist either as its the same model. How is that helping consumers? They are reducing choice in favour of 3rd party businesses who want to make money off consumers. That is perverse.
AT&T had a monopoly. Apple dont have a monopoly in the mobile space. Apple's OS is not physically entrenched like phone lines! Its easy for them to lose their position (ask Nokia, Blackberry etc..). Money doesnt mean you win (ask Windows Phone).
What the govt is saying that a company cannot make a system and provide updates for that system. That is a lot of businesses (Canon printers.. ice cream machines etc...). There are a lot of legal precedents being made where people do not understand their consequences.
Nobody here can build their own smartphone, it's not something an individual can do.
Market cap means nothing and we should all learn to stop talking about it. These "market caps" disintegrated in just a few weeks when the first virus wave came.
That can happen on an Apple phone now, there will always be exploits, whether you're using the Apple App store or something else. If you aren't worrying about it at least a little, that's not healthy for your device.
It's best to see this attempt to break into iOS as a manifestation of the ugly side of neo-liberal economics.
They come to your door promising freedom and equality and opportunity, but once they are inside they loot everything and run away with everything that is yours.
That's how colonialism worked. You had your safe society and they came by force, demanded that you open up your society and then they plundered.
Study how the Empires opened up Japan in the 19th century. Then you understand what they want from your devices today. Your data is gold for them today. It's the valuable resource that they desperately must have.
Maybe, maybe not. After all, it's the patent system and its, supposedly limited, granted monopolies is what allowed him to do that. I'd say some reform needs to happen with that too...
The point is people want government to force Apple to do business the way they want. That’s the purpose of voting with your dollars. This Bill should end up in the wood pile. And while I can only vote in the booth, we’ll see where this ends up.
Fine by me when someone is abusing a monopoly position -- there's no other way to fix something like that.
If any business is big enough to dictate the way they do business in spite of market forces, they're not acting in the interest of their customers. That's the justification for anti-trust laws and thank heavens we have them. We'd have been slaves to corporations of several industries over the centuries without them.
That's the problem, see the sentence just above. Market forces don't work when someone has monopoly.
There's no reason these laws open things up more for everyone, as Apple can still set the same exact defaults as they have now. It just gives others the choice if they want it.
It devalues, imo, the entire ecosystem. Those who want a closed ecosystem no longer have one.
I would agree if that were the case. In Epic vs Apple the judge didn't find that Apple was operating a monopoly as claimed. So therefore there is nothing to legally fix.
Sure if we are discussing consumer focused businesses and not business that fall under legal/regulatory like energy or financials. This is where vote with your dollars comes in.
I agree. But legally Apple has not run afoul of anti-trust laws.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly, or maybe I missed the court case where it was deemed they do.
I don't see why you don't think it wont be a closed ecosystem to you on your device -- like I said, choice is good. As for dictating it to others, there you have a problem.
Sorry, no, monopolies can and do happen outside that sector and it's just as bad. Once something is a monopoly, voting with dollars can't work.
You might want to google "Apple anti-trust settlements"
They certainly do in the Apple device app distribution/sales. That was the main settlement that you would see if you did the google I suggested. The precedent is set and making laws to head off anything similar before it gets to that point is definitely the job of a government.
I have many Apple devices already, and no choice for any apps outside the store. I can't retroactively get refunds on all my Apple devices, though I'm getting to the point that I would like that even if it wont happen.
Except Apple isn't an illegal monopoly. If it is, please point me to the source.
Is this the "once a felon, always a felon" thinking?
I missed that ruling. Please point me to it.
Apple is not an illegal monopoly within the app store.
We disagree.
I already did. (the google...)
Felon <> antitrust violator. Civil cases are different than criminal cases. It just makes it easier to prosecute a second+ civil case.
lol! So picky with the language, as if that makes any difference at all. You don't think they are, I do, big whup. But anyway, Apple always settles outside of court, just so people can say they are not a monopoly.
Incorrect.
Obviously.
This is trolling now. Telling me to "google" something is not the same a providing a citation; which is based on the MacRumors rules.
No, you are equating some prior judgement with today's environment, which essentially is a false equivalency.
Being precise counts for a lot in an online forum.
Citation please, or just say it is your opinion.
Yup.
One question -- just how do I install an app on my iPhone without paying the 30% Apple tax? Not to mention the apps Apple wont allow in their store? (like VM stuff)
No trolling. If you think it's so please report.
I'm asking you to provide citations for those ideas presented as facts. If you would like to clarify that some of the above is opinion, I'm totally fine with that. But in the context of this discussion, where this bill ultimately ends up obviously is not in my (or our) control, however, the ios app store is not found to be an illegal monopoly. That is completely different than your opinion that the ios app store, should be an illegal monopoly. And Apple specifically with the ios app store has not run afoul of anti-trust regulations. If it has, please provide a citation.
This sort of legislation does not fit my definition of anti-trust. As I recall, anti-trust was initiated, at least in part, over monopolization of essential goods and services. Yeah, yeah, gasoline used to be thrown away as a waste product from making lamp oil, and electricity was once an urban luxury, and telephones (like computers) were considered strictly business-class. It took years of profitable industrialization to MAKE these, and dozens more commodities, essential. But this is now, whence gas, electricity telephones and dozens more commodities are indisputably essential.
But sideloading apps? That hardly qualifies as a life-supporting essential service. And most legislators are barely tech literate enough to recharge a device, let alone understand the subtleties of programming (though they do understand dark campaign money very, very well. And most users don't understand the differences between Privacy, Security and Anonymity, let alone perform code reviews for vulnerabilities.
There's only a debate here because spoiled brats always believe the "Grass is Greener". Seems petty, right? Because it is. Robot and Fruit developers are just jealous of each others' market saturation, and protective of their own ad revenue, because that's money for nothing - they don't actually WORK for ad money, in the traditional sense of building cool **** worth buying. Advertising is just an endless, circular shell game.
Sure, there might be a buck or two that a clever programmer might harvest by sideloading, but neither Robot nor Fruit deserves to claim genuine superiority. We don't need to mention The Redmond Gang, because, pfft.
Meanwhile, in the background, law enforcement organizations (LEO) find themselves blocked out of actionable chains of evidence because by the actual security of encryption. There's never been funding to put a cop on every corner, duh, and no one would support a police state, except maybe in Texas. Yet, LEOs need to do something to bridge the gap until quantum computing matures out of the lab (making encryption as we know it today useless). So what's a needy LEO to do? Well, disrupting the advancement of security-minded business is a start.
Perhaps Fruit should superficially capitulate. Then they should employ a type-2 hypervisor for sandboxed VMs to contain anything not signed by the app store. Key VMs to the device TPM so they can't be exfil'd. Settings at the hypervisor can govern permissions to native resources, cpu and RAM and storage and bandwidth throttling, and VM persistence. This would keep the garden walled, but let the neighbor's wild kids at least play in the driveway. Anti-trust resolved.
And if LEOs exploit their way into a VM, who cares? And if a rogue grid crypto miner drains the battery, who cares? And if an MFA app gets redirected, who cares? And if the app for a smart insulin pump gets pwned, who cares? Not the government. Not Robots. Not Fruit. Just little ol' users, and users don't actually matter in the trill'n-dolla 'quation. Or do we?
There are days I miss my StarTac. Get off my lawn.
But sideloading apps? That hardly qualifies as a life-supporting essential service. And most legislators are barely tech literate enough to recharge a device, let alone understand the subtleties of programming (though they do understand dark campaign money very, very well. And most users don't understand the differences between Privacy, Security and Anonymity, let alone perform code reviews for vulnerabilities.
There's only a debate here because spoiled brats always believe the "Grass is Greener". Seems petty, right? Because it is. Robot and Fruit developers are just jealous of each others' market saturation, and protective of their own ad revenue, because that's money for nothing - they don't actually WORK for ad money, in the traditional sense of building cool **** worth buying. Advertising is just an endless, circular shell game.
Sure, there might be a buck or two that a clever programmer might harvest by sideloading, but neither Robot nor Fruit deserves to claim genuine superiority. We don't need to mention The Redmond Gang, because, pfft.
Meanwhile, in the background, law enforcement organizations (LEO) find themselves blocked out of actionable chains of evidence because by the actual security of encryption. There's never been funding to put a cop on every corner, duh, and no one would support a police state, except maybe in Texas. Yet, LEOs need to do something to bridge the gap until quantum computing matures out of the lab (making encryption as we know it today useless). So what's a needy LEO to do? Well, disrupting the advancement of security-minded business is a start.
Perhaps Fruit should superficially capitulate. Then they should employ a type-2 hypervisor for sandboxed VMs to contain anything not signed by the app store. Key VMs to the device TPM so they can't be exfil'd. Settings at the hypervisor can govern permissions to native resources, cpu and RAM and storage and bandwidth throttling, and VM persistence. This would keep the garden walled, but let the neighbor's wild kids at least play in the driveway. Anti-trust resolved.
And if LEOs exploit their way into a VM, who cares? And if a rogue grid crypto miner drains the battery, who cares? And if an MFA app gets redirected, who cares? And if the app for a smart insulin pump gets pwned, who cares? Not the government. Not Robots. Not Fruit. Just little ol' users, and users don't actually matter in the trill'n-dolla 'quation. Or do we?
There are days I miss my StarTac. Get off my lawn.