What's malicious about that? That the warning is designed to be ignored? If they deleted the warning, would that be much different?
And mobile phones are perfect spying devices too. So the security question is more delicate
Maybe this is changing for young people, but on my parents hard drive (for example) there is 30+ years of all sort of personal data, documents of every kind, emails, documents, etc. Not counting all the password and access saved in the browser itself.
If we talk about businesses, public administrations, hospitals basically everything is inside computers, including very sensitive data.
These are population level decisions which require you to think about mainstream use. For example, you probably have been safe because you know what to look for. This is not true of the general public and there are millions of people who _thought_ they were making a safe choice and only realized later that the polite person in the call center was not actually trying to help them, etc.
Bad analogy. A better analogy is: I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I still need Toyota's permission to drive?
I'm absolutely in favor of "seatbelts" for computers, but that means sandboxing, not censorship or rent seeking. It also means you can remove the "seatbelt" when you need to.
Which things, exactly?
Not exactly blocking immediately are they.
Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your device, your choices (here we are already very far from apple mindset). Why the obsessive need to push this on literally everybody and not even giving the choice? Maybe you have some serious impulse control issues, but most of us don't.
It can even be part of purchase process - choose ultra secure more locked down model, or on-your-risk more free.
But we all know all this is just about 1 singular thing - revenue via customer/market capture. Oracle stuff indeed.
It keeps software and service vendors from going around security and privacy protections. Folks don’t always have a choice of what they have to install, so “just don’t install their stuff if you don’t like it” isn’t sufficient to achieve the same results, even if we ignore the inherent difference in UX between “100% of the software for this goes through the App Store” and “some software is not on the App Store”.
Doesn’t mean you have to agree that path is better, of course, but it’s also definitely not so easily dismissed as ridiculous.
Either those protections are technological, baked into the OS, and therefore apply equally to all installation sources, or they don't exist. There's no in between.
That doesn’t reflect my experience submitting apps, nor as a user of Apple devices. It’s certainly imperfect, but it achieves a lot more than if they simply stopped doing it.
[edit] and in fact, some of the automated checks wouldn’t be practical to run on a user’s device—are those also totally ineffective?
They're intentionally conflating these objectives to give themselves an excuse for maintaining their stranglehold on users and developers alike. They need to give up some ground if their security concerns are to be taken seriously.
I'm sure all the smart people in Cupertino (and elsewhere) can figure out some really great solutions for protecting users in an honest manner, if only their leadership didn't instruct them otherwise.
Overuse of analogies is one of the worst things the internet has done to discussion in general.
Read through what’s actually happening:
https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/
> Apps offered through Web Distribution must meet Notarization requirements to protect platform integrity, like all iOS apps, and can only be installed from a website domain that the developer has registered in App Store Connect.
If you can’t see a safety benefit, go look at the Windows or Chrome extension malware industry and the billions of dollars it costs people every year. You don’t have to like Apple or agree with everything they’re doing to understand that there is a real problem here.
iOS apps already work like that. Why does Apple have so little trust in their own security model?
The problem exists in the Apple app store. So why behave as if it is an issue unique to windows and android?
The apple situation makes it worse, people now expect the app store to be a safe place to download from and perhaps do less due diligence because they assume apple are doing the heavy lifting, mainly because Apple keep telling us they are doing the heavy lifting to protect us.
The usual line after this is "then just don't use Apple," and you'll be happy to learn that I don't and probably never will regardless of what changes they make. I am just baffled by the comments in here defending their behavior. Why subject yourself to this? Of all the brands to get attached to, why the one that makes it so obvious that they're milking you for every dollar they can get? If that answer is that you genuinely can't avoid getting malware unless you are physically prevented from doing so preemptively, then so be it, but I don't get it otherwise.
Making a safe choice by downloading an app from the app store where Apple reviews all apps for user safety and security.
And yet the ChromeOS platform still supports putting hardware into developer mode.
Apple's policy is about protecting profits.
Laptop sales decline every year. People are giving up the idea of keyboards and big screens to avoid Windows laptops. Copying and monetizing the open source repo idea is the smartest thing smartphone manufacturers did.
Hmm somehow I can go to any website in a browser and be just fine hmmmm