That third party app stores are subject to review by apple is a problem in itself.
That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.
That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained. AKA, the biggest players who are capable of advertising their own store without visibility from the default mode of purchase.
I'm sure eventually we'll get FDroid equivalents on IOS, but Apple is still playing coy as of now. So nothing but the deepest pockets will challenge them.
That’s factually incorrect and a completely absurd figure. The make way more money from device sales
70% of Apples app store revenue comes from game MTX. This is pretty much public record thanks to Apple v. Epic.
I completely get why they are in their death thoes, but as you said: they have other lucrative revenue streams anyway. So I hope the EU keeps slamming down on them.
It's more of a choice between Apple, or Apple + third-party gatekeeper. Well, at least now – I fully expect this to be investigated by the EU.
Apple had no qualms about Fortnites monetization model when it was in the App Store either, other than the fact that Epic tried to cut them out of the payment loop.
Those are also the only guys who have enough money to compete with Apple's lawyers.
Most interesting is this section:
> Fortnite’s counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the press of a single button.
Apple is also taking aim at Epic here for using buttons and labels identical to the ones that they use - I’m curious to actually see these buttons, and I wonder if they are being used intentionally.
The game is very successful and well-made. It is AAA-quality. An AAA price for that kind of content would be $60 minimum, more likely $80-100. Anything under that price and you’re playing the game at a steep discount, compared to what the games market offers.
As for kids getting confused — yeah. That happens a lot, on the internet and outside the internet. Kids are confused about so many things. In fact, that is why they need to be parented. I feel like some parents should try and do that instead of waving fists at every tech/game company.
This reminds me a bit about the outrage GTA used to cause. Just don’t buy it for your kid if you think it’s too violent for them, you know? It’s not hard. Don’t give your kid access to Fortnite if they will be confused. Or use a bank with spending limits. Or just give your kid gift cards. There are so many options in the world for parents other than child-proofing the world itself.
Very, very many parents get this right. And it only takes 10 minutes to put some restrictions in place — bare minimum for parenting. Some others have the “government should do it for me” complex. Actions beget consequences. Neither Epic Games nor governments can fix bad parenting.
So is paying less for a game than it’s worth really predatory? Alternatively, if kids get confused by something made for a broad audience, is that predatory? I don’t know, it’s grey area at best for me. You could make a claim that marketing in Fortnite is predatory but it’s the same marketing psychology that’s used elsewhere. Is marketing predatory then?
Tencent didn't get all their investment money from Gacha in the asian market?
And please don't tell me Tencent is a minority investor or that there are non predatory IAPs or I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Got some, but thinking Tencent got all their money from Gacha is like saying Google got all its money from Search. Tencent's reach is in nearly every industry in China.
>And please don't tell me Tencent is a minority investor or that there are non predatory IAPs
I won't, but do you really believe all add-ons are predatory?
This attitude is exactly why you can't make premium mobile anymore. No one wants to pay, and the minority that do will pay a lot. "Piracy is a service problem" is a very common thing touted in argument against such tactics, but when you can sell your service for "free" to get people in the door, that argument falls apart quickly.
Premium? Freemium? The few mobile apps that I bought since i got a smart phone are all pay once and most of them cost more than 0.99.
However, for example, I do not even bother to look at mobile games any more because I "know" they'll be an IAP crapfest.
And if i look at applications, it's because they have been mentioned and deemed useful by a third party i trust.
- ad supported, pay once to remove ads
- subscription model. Get basic features and maybe ads, pay some 2-5 dollars a month for premium features. These may or may not have a "lifetime" option which is basically pay once.
- the dying breed of "demo mode". You play X levels and then you pay once for a "full game".
- and then freemium models which is basically a free game with small and large tricks to encourage spending over time.This is probably where you are.
But outside of that, yes. There are still premium games you buy like a console game (they are often ports of console games). But it's a niche because they are competing against a sea of "free" games. And many mobile gamers do just want 10-20 minutes of a quick fix, not even long enough to get past tutorials in larger games.
All gaming IAP that are not full on expansions (not skins, not standalone characters, etc.hm) are predatory
Seems like a pretty blurry line in the sand. Even blurrier when price 100% has an impact on perception. Skins are an exception but if I told you some skins are $60, would that be predatory?
The owner of a game doesn't dictate whether the game is predatory or not, the behavior of the game does.
The free to play model isn't inherently predatory, either, although certain companies certainly are. Call of Duty seems especially predatory.
They design the game to not only fleece you for money, but to waste your time until you do.
They're right, some free to play models are predatory and some of them aren't.
Free to play doesn't imply whales, either.
There's a big difference between free to play and using as many dirty tricks as they can to fleece as much info as possible (and/or being pay to win), and a company that genuinely makes a free to play game and makes money off skins, because it made better business sense than charging $50 up front.
See below.
> genuinely makes a free to play game [...] because it made better business sense than charging $50 up front.
So the free to play model fleeces you for more money. It's not predatory. At all. Honest.
See above.
> So the free to play model fleeces you for more money. It's not predatory. At all. Honest.
Ah, I see the cause of the misunderstanding. You're assuming the free to play model fleeces people for more money always when that simply isn't true. It's obviously true when companies are playing dirty, but not all companies do. Consider little indie studios, for example.
Quite often, free to play can end up costing people less money. Case in point, I played CSGO for 10+ years and spent less than $5 on it. If I had bought the game when it came out it would have cost $20 or so.
The little indie studios that I buy my games from are all pay once?
> Quite often, free to play can end up costing people less money. Case in point, I played CSGO for 10+ years and spent less than $5 on it. If I had bought the game when it came out it would have cost $20 or so.
Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.
And the game design and development effort went towards making those hats so the whales can buy them.
Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.
Why are you going out of your way to disingenuously interpret comments? It's strangely super-defensive, your comment history shows it isn't a rare occurrence.
No, maybe not the little indie studios you specifically buy your games from, but plenty of indie studios offer free to play games.
Go browse Steam or something before commenting more on this subject please.
> Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.
Because they probably had disposable income and wanted to. It doesn't mean they are being fleeced, anymore than Balanciaga is 'fleecing' people here.
I take 'fleecing' here to mean conning, and there is no con happening. It's an honest transaction that people can take if they want to.
> Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.
No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.
I don't look at free games, I'm not that rich.
> No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.
But they are. And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.
Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing? Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?
Jesus christ lol. So, you're just confirming here you had no clue what you were talking about. You get that, right?
You're making very bold claims based on assumptions and misunderstanding, for something you don't even browser or participate in. Your initials aren't DK by any chance, are they?
> And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.
Sure, anyone that can afford it and wants it will. Most people might just pay for a few $20 hats though, and get more enjoyment out of it than say 3 of their $8 cups of coffee.
> Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing?
I mean, that'ss true in some cases, and I'd say that's true of the biggest free to play games pushed by the buggest companies with a history of being shady, but again (and this is key): that doesn't describe all free to play games.
You're doing the equivilant of insisting all operating systems must be unstable and crash because Windows used to.
> Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?
I play free to play games to jump on and have a break. I'v played FPS games since I was a kid and find it a good way to destress. I see no problem in doing something I enjoy and would hardly call that a waste of time.
With exclusions that suit them. As you say, the wind is blowing the right way, it would be nice to see but console games get the same treatment.
Excuse them because they want their own rules and regulations on their territory and not the default US rules that ship with Google and Apple devices.
That would be like Budweiser selling their beer in Europe with the condition you have to be 21 to drink it because that's how it is where they're from.
what's the appeal? consoles at best last 8 years before the new generation. These stores probably take 2-4 years to prepare properly. A dev won't use half their generation to get around a 30% fee.
I think one understated part of the consoles is that that 30% does go into proper support, compared to apple/google that act more as gatekeepers. Larger studios knowing they can get on-site console developers to help debug, optimize, and maybe even fix API issues is well worth such a cut.
Consoles remain alive way longer in poorer regions of the world. The lock-in from console manufacturers is designed to artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence.
I don't want a single CPU in my home that I don't have the right to reprogram as I see fit. There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception.
The 1st world customers wants to keep advancing to the next generation. 3rd parties want to make money and mostly get it from 1st world countries.
>artificially shorten console lifecycles by cutting off supply of newly-manufactured older consoles and new games for those consoles. It's textbook planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence isn't to stop producing a product you no longer want to sell. If there's one thing consoles are good at, it's supporting repairs well after the next gen rolls end. Nintendo just stopped supporting the Wii U (their worst selling console) repairs due to a lack of supplies, and that is about 6 years after they EOL'd it in terms of software support. Phone/PC manufacturers should take notes.
Meanwhile, hardcore gamers have been complaining about the switch performance for years. They are disappointed there was no mid gen refresh. Consumer demand very much wants companies to keep making better hardware.
>There's no reason for gaming consoles to be an exception.
Personally, I just don't see gaming consoles as general computing devices. They could be, but they way they are presented/marketed aren't. So I have about as much desire to reprogram on my PS4 as I do my smart fridge (which probably is running some variant of Linux underneath, albeit embedded).
After a court order they will know exactly where the limits are and tiptoe them as much as possible. If they proactively try to be "overcompliant" they might loose more money in the long run.
It's messed up to be honest. I would prefer harsher punishments, but on the other hand if companies are scared all the time it might have a chilling economic effect so there is a balance to strike as well.
This is it. The law is ambiguous, and until someone specifies the line it makes no sense for either side to concede. Both Epic and Apple are multi-billion dollar companies taking maximalist positions.
There is also the shadow component of it being an open question—given the present state of European politics—as to which will outlast the other, Cupertino or Brussels.
To be fair, the EU is being a bit ridiculous sometimes. Apple decided not to compete in the EU because of the restrictions, and the EU seemingly wanted to penalize that decision also.
This doesn’t exempt them from the law. Apple is never giving up the EU.
Sure it does. If they leave the EU market and have no presence, then EU laws can't reach them.
> Apple is never giving up the EU.
I would normally agree, but if EU fines surpass the profit Apple can make in the EU, they might.
Selling your product in the EU means having an EU presence. Like, I can’t just ship heroin to Europe from abroad and claim I’m immune.
Ehhhhhh. Kind of. Maybe. Certainly not always.
I mean, if there is some shitty little porn company in say, California, and they make porn that say, caters to a fetish that is legal in California but illegal in the EU, well, what then?
The porn company isn't doing anything wrong, and EU laws are irrelevant. At this point they can try to firewall off the company, punish ISPs, maybe punish citizens who do business with that company, because it isn't breaking any EU laws, and has no EU presence that can be fined, sieved, etc.
This is very normal, this is the way international laws work barring treaties or other agreements to have a special arrangement outside of that.
So, if Apple pulls out of the EU, maybe they can no longer ship mail to the EU, I'm doubtful of that but let's just say. Well, there are plenty of non EU countries close by, including the UK. Not really a problem for EU citizens to get one at all, so again, the EU can only punish people, not the company.
> Like, I can’t just ship heroin to Europe from abroad and claim I’m immune.
If it was legal to do so in the sending country, sure you could. That isn't true for any country though, so it's not a great analogy.
Why? Apple has Customs pulling (ironically, actually genuine) Apple parts being shipped.
Customs is built around this whole model, unless what, you propose that Apple starts selling commercial quantities of iPhones by disposable drop shippers?
Imagine the amount of people wanking through the 'nothing to declare' exit after coming back from pretty much any other country and buying an iphone.
Sure, but this is not punishing the company in any way which was the other posters point. If the EU was blocking payments to Apple after Apple withdrew from the EU, they are not punishing Apple or holding them accountable to EU law (specifically in the context of complying with competition guidelines and DMA type stuff).
> Avoiding the block would be money laundering, which is also illegal in California.
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure about that. If the EU barred payments to Apple, that block would be on banks and payment processors, not people. If someone goes to the US and buys an iPhone in this new world, they are not committing a crime unless the EU passes a law prohibiting its citizens to buy iPhones.
> The EU (or it's constituent countries - not sure) also controls imports, and could seize and destroy illegally purchased iPhones at the border. Every one of my international purchases is already stopped and processed by customs to evaluate import taxes. It would be quite easy for them to simply say "you can't import this."
Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with Apple, and it isn't the EU punishing Apple, it's Apple punishing people or organizations.
The other posters point was that if Apple withdraws from the EU, EU law wouldn't apply (in the sense they wouldn't need to allow any 3rd party app store, period), and people could still buy iPhones and Apple products outside of it. It's on the EU to try and deal with that.
Certainly always, in the case of companies like Apple. They either lose > 95% of their sales in the EU or comply with their regulations.
> porn
Is not sold on physical media these days.
No, lol. If Apple pulls out of the EU, they won't have any official presence, period.
> They either lose > 95% of their sales in the EU or comply with their regulations.
Or bypass them by pulling out.
> Is not sold on physical media these days.
Yeah, that was the point. Re-read the comment in context.
So they’d lose 20% of their global revenue just out of spite? Can you name a single rational reason why’d they do that?
> Or bypass
How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU customers…
> Re-read the comment in context.
It just doesn’t make any sense. Apple wouldn’t be able to sell to clients in the EU on a large scale. It just wouldn’t work due to perfectly obvious reasons.
If EU fines exceed EU revenue.
> How? They won’t be able to sell directly to EU customers…
The EU would have to police its own citizens from going outsize their walls and buying iPhones from literally any other country.
> It just doesn’t make any sense. Apple wouldn’t be able to sell to clients in the EU on a large scale.
So it made sense, and you understood fine, you just disagreed and decided to be obtuse about it. Sigh.
The point was simply that the EU can't touch a company in another country with no presence in the EU, even if EU citizens are buying from it.
All they can do is try and block payments to it, firewall it off, and similar things.
So sure, the EU could police its citizens buying iPhones online, but that's going to be an awful lot of work considering all the third party sellers, and I don't think it would be terribly successful. Not without enforcement which would be extremely unpopular.
They won’t. Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulant, because if not it should be “if the cost of compliance with EU regulations exceeds their EU revenue/net income” which isn’t going to be even remotely true.
> obtuse about it
Not at all. It’s just that this seems fairly obvious to me:
A very small fraction of people buying iPhones in Europe now would buy them if they had to ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support.
So sure it won’t be 100%, just 80-90% which doesn’t change anything
You're awfully cocksure with nothing to back it up.
Apple's global revenue in 2023 was about 120 billion. EU revenue was 24 billion. DMA allows fines up to 10% of global revenue. Two max fines under the DMA is already more than their EU profit.
> Also you’re assuming that Apple’s management is irrational and petulantv
I'm not the one making an assumption here. I'm saying if x then y which is perfectly reasonable. You're saying x would *NEVER* happen, which I would consider foolish.
I think Apple will comply with the EU to a point, I agree they are not trying to leave the EU at all. But ultimately they are still a US company and follow US leadership, who may want to do things or try and circumvent EU policies in a way they think are fine, but the EU doesn't.
I mean, there was already a clash with their first fine, it won't be surprising if more come.
I also really think you are being dismissive and downplaying their decision to not enter the AI market in the EU.
> It’s just that this seems fairly obvious to me:
> A very small fraction of people buying iPhones in Europe now would buy them if they had to ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support.
> So sure it won’t be 100%, just 80-90% which doesn’t change anything
I'm so confused at what point you are making here. You're saying EU citizens, if Apple left the EU, would just, and to quote "ship them from outside the EU, pay the VAT themselves and have no warranty/support."
Is this correct? Because that has been specifically the point I was making. Jesus. My point though, to clarify again, is if they do that, Apple won't be subject to any EU rules. All those iPhones bought outside the EU won't have 3rd party app stores, for example, and the EU would be powerless to enforce that. Seriously. That's the point I made several comments ago that you decided to dispute. Which now you are making yourself?
Let’s not get silly and totally absurd. Also it’s the cost of compliance that has to surpass their profit not the fines which are entirely optional.
In any case Apple is still making a lot of money from selling the devices themselves and much more than from the app store.
Sure, like let's not be silly and absurd and refuse to consider the possibility Apple might leave the EU?
> Also it’s the cost of compliance that has to surpass their profit
Right, but the fines the EU issues are from their global revenue. While I think this is reasonable, for the same reasons it's a problem that the rich can speed and not care about a fine, but it could well be enough for Apple to withdraw.
Where are you getting that 2% figure from? The entire issue is that EU fines take from global revenue, not EU revenue.
This is very simple. If EU fines are greater than EU revenue, it would be absurd for Apple not to leave.
It’s a rough not very educated estimate of what proportion of their global revenue Apple might lose by complying with the regulations ( I’d personally bet it’s significantly less than that). Do you have a better figure?
Yes, clearly, and I mentioned it numerous times.
Once again, you're just making assumptions. So, all this time you've just assuming the max fines won't apply - that's the entire crux of your argument, right?
As where I've been talking about a situation where the max fines are being imposed.
I really don't think you're reading or keeping the context of the discussion in mind when replying. I have no other explanation for you assuming 2% and asking if I have a better figure in spite of me specifically citing the max fine number as a prerequisite for my scenario numerous times.
If Apple pulled out of the EU, which isn’t even all of the European continent much less the “Europe” reporting region, they would probably take less than a 10% hit. Significant, but not a showstopper. I don’t know where everyone gets this idea that pulling out of the EU would kill Apple.
It wouldn’t. It would still be an immensely absurd thing to do. I assume Apple is not run by 12-year olds, why would they lose 15-20% (probably closer to 20%, EMEA seems to be ~27% and besides Britain the EU would be the overwhelming majority of what’s left) of their revenue out of spite when realistically they are only risking 1-2% by staying?
They are just trying to find the “optimal” way of complying with the regulations while maximizing their income.
This such an obvious fact that anyone even mildly interested in the topic (i.e. commenting here and making such strong, yet silly, claims) surely must know..
If you were honest, you would read Apple’s SEC filing, which show that (globally) about 43% of Apple’s profits come from Services, while 57% comes from hardware. You could just admit that you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit. I’m sure you’ll move the goalposts and claim that’s “significantly” more.
The EU wants to zero out Services revenue, while simultaneously removing Apple’s brand value (a curated “walled garden”, where app developers can’t take too much advantage of customers).
The alt stores in the EU will be a race to the bottom of which one allows developers to abuse customers the most. Why would any app stay on Apple’s store when alt stores allow more invasive privacy violations? And then when the app ecosystem on iOS looks like Android, what possible reason could you have to buy an iPhone?
So, yes, the EU very much wants Apple to be a non-profit.
They are just searching for the optimal way of complying with the regulations while maximizing their income .
you do have a valid point about services being a larger % of their net income than I implied but that includes Apple Care, iCloud, the estimated $20(?) billion from Google that’s basically pure profit and is massively inflating the services segment’s margins? What proportion is left to the App Store? Who cares let’s just ignore that I guess..
> You could just admit that you don’t understand the difference between revenue and profit
Ok, that’s that, you’re either being obtuse or worse. Either way no point in continuing this silly discussion. But no, most of what you’re saying makes very little sense
In any case (not quite the same but gives a glimpse into their mindset) they have zero issues with kowtowing to authoritarian regimes like those in Russia or China
They would directly lose ~40% of profit. Additionally, there’s no reason to buy an iPhone if it just works like an Android, so Apple would be competing with Samsung hardware on price instead of on having a superior customer experience. So there go the other ~60% of profits.
So, yes, pulling out of the market completely starts to look like a rational business decision.
How did you come to that conclusion. Doesn’t “services” include the $20 billion get from Google per year which is basically pure profit? Also Apple care, icloud etc etc. how would that be impacted?
> Additionally, there’s no reason to buy an iPhone if it just works like an Android
Why would it work the same as an Android? Most people don’t use third party appstores or side loading anyway…
> So, yes, pulling out of the market completely starts to look like a rational business decision.
An utterly ridiculously absurd thing to say..
Not sure where you're pulling that 5% figure from, but the EU wants to fine companies like Apple a much larger percentage of their global revenue, not just EU revenue.
If the fines the EU wants to impose are greater than Apple's profit in the EU, indeed it would be a smart business decision to pull out.
> In any case (not quite the same but gives a glimpse into their mindset) they have zero issues with kowtowing to authoritarian regimes like those in Russia or China
Well, duh. Apple are not concerned with a government abusing its own people, they are concerned with a government taking 10% of their global revenue.
> EU wants to fine companies like Apple a much larger percentage
They could do that, that in no way means that they are planning to
Source? Which of the fines so far have been negotiated down?
> when apple starts complying with the regulations.
Heh. Or, Apple just starts withdrawing from spaces in the EU because they don't like the EU's behavior. For example, they are withdrawing from the AI space citing that exact reason.
If they are already pulling out of cashcows like AI, is it that much a stretch to think they could withdraw entirely?
Not to mention Apple consideres the regulations to be unclear given the the EC seem to want Apple to figure out the 'spirit' of the law and comply with that instead.
> They could do that, that in no way means that they are planning to
They already do that. Look at what the max fines for say DMA or GDPR allow for. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume all your previous replies are because you haven't actually done this yet.
Anybody speaking with certainty on these questions should be distrusted.
We don’t know. We now have a natural experiment between the EU and U.S. My suspicion is we’ll see Orwellian corporate surveillance through mandated alternative marketplaces, e.g. Facebook requiring an Eye of Sauron marketplace to get around Apple’s rules, but that’s just a hunch. We may instead see a Cambrian explosion of creativity in the EU.
The question is how long we wait to measure. I think the answer is about one VC fund cycle, or 3 to 7 years. I don’t know when to start the clock—my hunch is when the first alt app store actually launches.
We know:
https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/07/04/apple-bows-to-kr...
https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/15/app-store-lgbtq-censorship-co...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/19/tech/china-apple-whatspp-thre...
Anyone speaking with certainty against these examples should be distrusted. This is our reality. You cannot deny what Apple does.
It's easy for people to read the law — or worse, opinions about the law — and mistake this for knowledge. One of the benefits to me for ChatGPT is that it gives me a stick to measure against: I know it's flawed because of how it writes code, and I know it will be that level of wrong about law too, and I also know that it's wildly better about law than I am. This makes the degree of my own ignorance much more intuitive, and reminds me that I can't just look at the text of the law and go "ah-ha!"
While I suspect you're right that Facebook will attempt this, I suspect they are much like Apple when it comes to not really believing that the EU is serious, and it will explode in their faces — a few years back, Apple put in rules for advertising privacy ID, which (while acknowledging my ignorance above) didn't seem too different from what the law required, yet Facebook was very unhappy about this.
Not even the most brilliant hacker can say so. In other words: I don't agree. Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. I don't want the Windows virus disaster all over again, especially because this time the stakes are considerably higher.
You can disagree with the fees, but for the rest my opinion is: live with the pain.
Your point is misdirection.
And we know for a fact that Apple despite all their claims to the contrary cannot do that.
Apple's (flawed!) review process still catches a lot of bad actors. Not all, and it has false-positives. That doesn't mean it's useless.
The (legit) question is: is Apple also using security as an excuse to make more money at the expense of customer choice? Because Apple absolutely doesn't need to be the only entity performing this task — I don't trust Epic, I think their business model is predatory on gambling addiction, that doesn't mean they would be incapable of performing the same kinds of security review — and while Apple's smooshing of all the different expenses from API development to review and hosting and processing fees into a fixed sales percentage is convenient, it does make it harder for competitors to emerge for each of those separate tasks.
I think it goes both ways. Perfection is letting me control the hardware I bought and tweak the software to my liking. them throwing their hands up because of their motte argument of "security" doesn't resonate with me. Especially when the bailey argument is simply "we want to control everything you do". Here, it's "don't even try to achieve good, avoid bad at all costs".
In my mind it's like closing a store down due to excessive theft in an area. That doesnt fix theft, it just takes away service from the honest customers.
Yes, I lose the power to do things; in exchange, I genuinely gain the security of some measure of defence against other people doing things at my expense. I remember when we could actually read all the code on our computers — that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical.
Of course, corporations are not democracies, so the fight between Apple and Epic is to me as the fight between King John and his barons in 1215 A.D. — and my relative power compared to either corporation is as the power of a, I dunno, franklin or free peasants or something, as to the King and his barons.
Most of the security you gain is due to mechanisms built in the OS like sandboxing. Third-party appstores gain the same security by default.
I might agree that Epic should be prevented from publishing their apps, but by a Democratically elected government, not by a private warlord. If Epic is doing something wrong, that should be a matter of public law, not a matter for a king to decide.
The thing I'm referencing is Magna Carta, specifically where the conflict was over "can the King force me to use his own courts when I sue him?" — this didn't much affect the normal folk who never had to personally sue the king in his own personal courts.
Similarly, I:
(1) already had the ability to publish an app, and have done so on many occasions
(2) still don't have the means to start an entire app store because the obligations vastly exceed my competencies (and I don't have access to one million USD): https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-app-marketpl...
> I might agree that Epic should be prevented from publishing their apps, but by a Democratically elected government, not by a private warlord. If Epic is doing something wrong, that should be a matter of public law, not a matter for a king to decide.
Sure, but this is the kind of thing we could — and others have and will anyway even if we don't — spend lifetimes arguing over every single nuance and subtlely of, including the extent to which a corporation is allowed to have the freedom to decide its own rules for who it does business with e.g. all the things Apple is doing (and all that Apple wants to refuse to do), or if the owner of a cake shop can refuse to do business with customers whose morals it disagrees with, and so on.
The only thing I'm sure of, is that I can't see the consequences of applying my first principles as if they were universal truths.
If I need security, I buy anti-virus. But I can't opt out of Apples "security". I don't see that as a good thing. If apple wanted to offer that at checkout, I wouldn't mind at all.
Worst case scenario, I backup all my stuff. My phone exploding should not ruin any more of my livliehood than losing a few days of phone calls would. I can protect myself without some non-consentual agreement from a vendor whose relationship should end after the device ships to my address. that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical.
>that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical.
I'm not going to pretend I consult the AOSP everytime I hit an odd quirk on my android. But I like the ease of mind knowing I can take my ball and go home if Google goes rogue (and I can argue thst it has already done so, years ago).
I ultimate trust people mush smarter than me for that, but I like having more than one biased source to rely on. And heck, I might help contribute if angry enough. That's the power of open source. The best possible insurance when I go in loops under "official channels".
I can't opt out of the police.
I can opt out of Apple's security by using literally any other brand of phone.
> Worst case scenario, I backup all my stuff.
No, the worse-case scenario is that malware knows everything you look at and everything you type (like bank details), everything you're listening to in real life, your location, your health data, etc.… and can also be used to spy on you through all the phones of the people around you in much the same way even if you don't download any malware yourself.
(And how many of those things would Facebook like to do in the name of "improved advertisement targeting"? If they had full access to photo libraries rather than just what's uploaded to their servers, I'd expect them to try to analyse all my friend's photos that happen to include me for this exact reason, and I'd expect that data to be mis-used by malicious parties just like other ad data has reportedly been).
There's a lot of reason someone should be enforcing rules on this; not so much that it should be Apple doing it.
> whose relationship should end after the device ships to my address
So, not a fan of security patches? :P
> But I like the ease of mind knowing I can take my ball and go home if Google goes rogue (and I can argue thst it has already done so, years ago).
Given that Google has (arguably) already gone rogue, can you actually take your ball and go home? There's a whole subreddit for that, yet every time I've heard other people try, it turns out much harder than anticipated.
> That's the power of open source. The best possible insurance when I go in loops under "official channels".
I have no more reason to trust open source than closed source: underhanded-C contest; at least one example of a Linux distro doing exactly what I'd expect if they were under a secret government order; Reflections on Trusting Trust; the foot-gun nature of C++ combined with its popularity; the number of times someone else has told me to fix something in a PR or QA report where I never spotted the issue while writing the code myself; and the obvious motivations of intelligence agencies worldwide to insert backdoors.
Given my cultural history, I sure do wish I could.
Regardless, police have people holding them accountable some 20% of the time. No one's holding Apple accountable in the US, apparently.
>No, the worse-case scenario is
Okay... I'm a regular Joe. That sucks but let's not pretend I'm leaking government secrets even if all that happens. I see bad malware on phone (with my data backed up), I reset my phone. It's software, not a serial killer.
You can argue identity theft and all that, but that's not a unique feature to IOS/Android/Windows/Linux. So I don't count that as a bonus/demerit to any given platform.
>I have no more reason to trust open source than closed source
I already gave a reason. The ball is in my court and I can take it home. There are bad actors but also good actors when bad actors arise. Thars a better check and balance than some conglomerate who never had my best interests in mind.
Back in the desktop days, Regular Joe had malware that they have no idea was on their system.
> (with my data backed up), I reset my phone. It's software, not a serial killer.
What it is, however, is a thief. Lots of people have juicy secrets, that's why privacy is important in the first place.
Malware is very good at keeping hidden these days, running unspotted for a long time.
Someone cleans out your bank account, or gets blackmail material on you, backup won't do jack. This is also why certain apps, including banking, include tests to make sure they're not on a rooted device.
> So I don't count that as a bonus/demerit to any given platform.
Sounds like you only accept silver bullet "solutions".
Scare quotes because nothing ever is.
The questions are "how often" and "where can be done about it", the answers are not "yes" and "turn it off and on again".
> I already gave a reason
And I showed why it wasn't sufficient.
If you think open source will keep you safe, you are treating it as the exact silver bullet you're criticising Apple for not being.
> Thars a better check and balance than some conglomerate who never had my best interests in mind.
There's no real balance, and the checks are insufficient — there are definitely bugs that only get spotted a decade later, there are definitely state-sponsored flaws in OSS code, definitely some cases of normal criminals buying off some projects, and definitely cases where we don't find out about these things until much later.
And of course, quite a lot of OSS projects are in fact directly funded and managed by a corporation — the cathedral and the bazaar have both blended into a metaphorical Amazon marketplace, complete with fake reviews for fake products.
macOS has implemented code signing and only allowing apps from the App Store or trusted developers as default for quite a while now but people still find a way to turn it off or bypass it and then get infected by malware/spyware/adware. Because it's expected that you can run any app on a desktop/laptop platform though, they can't just fully restrict it, and it shows.
To me, this is one of the main reasons to fight for an open iOS: if people get accustomed to corporations revoking access to their software for arbitrary reasons, and if the technology exists allowing them to easily do so, then the gradual introduction of these measures to PC platforms will be met with a collective shrug.
Without any intervention, it's a matter of when instead of if.
Or they leave it on, and install malware/spyware/adware anyways: https://www.pcmag.com/news/beware-theres-a-fake-lastpass-app...
So suffice to say, their whole security scheme leaves a bit to be desired.
Indeed, but always was it so, and always will it be.
Also, that story is exactly what I mean when I say that what Apple does is, despite the flaws, still better than nothing: you can't pull a fake app hosted on its own website — you might not even be able to go after the host or the domain registry without a court order, and even then the country in which they are based may not be on good terms with your own and may not care about that order.
The analogy here would be using a headline of the police arresting a criminal to say "this shows that the idea of using a police force to prevent crime leaves a bit to be desired". Yes, and?
You can stop signing it, or register the hash of the program as malware. There, that's two easy ways to stop end-users from consuming harmful software.
> The analogy here would be [...]
It's more like if the police was trying to rationalize some ridiculous security system (say, drones) that didn't help catch criminals in the first place.
The first requires them to be signed in the first place. That violates the prerequisite of your point because your words were "they leave it on, and install malware/spyware/adware anyways" — so that's not a way to actually stop end-users from consuming harmful software, by your own words.
The issues with the App Store are "Apple is a gatekeeper that gets to say no and we don't like the set of reasons they've given themselves to be allowed to do that" and "Apple is a gatekeeper that charges money and we don't like that charge".
The right to stop signing some app, the right to register a hash as malware, both have the exact same capacity for mis-use if you regard Apple themselves (or any other gatekeeper) as being a threat to your freedom. Unless you turn off "run only trusted apps", but again that violates the prerequisite of your point, because then "stop signing it" has no effect.
And come on, hashes? Self-modifying code was a thing when my compiler only output for 68k/System 7.
> It's more like if the police was trying to rationalize some ridiculous security system (say, drones) that didn't help catch criminals in the first place.
It's specifically an example of them catching a bad actor and stopping them. "Pulls" is right in the headline.
> and need to protected from harm
Yet Apple has no issue working for authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to protect those regimes and fuck over their users. Is that what you’re talking about? People are to dumb and stupid for democracy and therefore corporations like Apple need to prop up dictators to protect them?
I’m not even being facetious, looking at the actual facts and Apple’s behavior I don’t see how anyone can come to a different conclusion?