I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
Edit: grammar
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.
It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just run around the curation process.
You can create browser engines without this feature.
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser ballot as much as they do.
> Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
The problem isn't installing apps. It's installing app-stores: the programs we use for exploring and accessing apps.
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
In a way, they did. They made deals with OEMs to only ship PCs with Windows on them, and not, say, BeOS or Linux.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc
Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music
Books - Kindle.
Maps - Google Maps
Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail
...
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
I am so glad we have companies like Apple who actually take privacy and security seriously.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
So now it went from Apple “bans” apps to it has tighter security restrictions?
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
Here's an article that goes over some of it (although it oversells Apple's first party advantage I think)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app...
Apple also has a no Copy-Cats guideline that has been used to push out some apps, although maybe its not wide spread enough to be a concern.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...