Was that the right trade-off? I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
Was that the right trade-off? I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
So they revoked the right of the developer to publish on other stores, and don't allow publishing that app on their own store.
Beside of those apparent "government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions" cited as reason by Apple (whatever that means), they now demonstrated that they still have indirect control over the offering of ALL digital markets.
So regardless in which market you want to publish, you still need to remain in good standing with Apple.
Combining that with Apple's ability to observe the install-base of iOS-devices it's quite a conflict of interest. (The least nefarious being Apple courting successful apps from other stores to come over to Apple)
And of course you don't own iOS -- were you under any impression otherwise?
I don't really understand this culture of buyers remorse. If you don't buy FOSS, you don't get FOSS.
This is what it is. I own this device in my pocket. I should be able to install, tinker, take apart, said device - granted voiding its warranty - without a company bricking the device intentionally or removing software from the device simply because I chose a p2p network over a centralized one.
Stop defending this. Once you sell something, it’s sold. It’s no longer yours. You may have made it, you may support it, but it’s no longer yours.
If you don't like the software that they do or don't deliver to you over the internet, that is something entirely different.
If you don't like that the phone connects to Apple's servers and uses the data delivered, then you shouldn't have bought a product that works that way. Or alternatively, you can take it apart and change it. Nobody is stopping you.
But Apple doesn't owe you an ongoing service that works exactly the way you like just because you bought one of their devices.
If unlocking an iPhone and running e.g. AOSP on it were feasible, people would be doing it. And you know that. Your argument is disingenuous.
Equating something like this to closed source software is why some people don’t take FOSS seriously.
You might think I was being facetious, but I’m being completely serious: the only way for FOSS to compete is by producing good products and bringing them to market. If FOSS advocates keep trying to fight some software licensing culture war instead of producing good technology, they’re not going to change anyone’s mind. 99.999% of people do not give two shits about a software license, they just want to use a damn phone.
And I'm not a foss advocate, I just want to be able to run software of my choosing and without spyware, as has been the case since the advent of personal computing.
As a side note, legality seems irrelevant to your position. What if a world government mandated optional sideloading + unlocking? Wouldn't you then argue against that law?
I also want to run the software of my choosing. But there’s not a single phone you can completely do that with. Some of this is due to design decisions, some of it is due to corporate lock-in, and some of it is due to regulatory requirements.
I wouldn’t be against a law requiring side loading and unlocking, I would be in favor of it. This only addresses part of the software on a phone, though. There’s a lot of software on a phone beyond user space applications.
But I do think it would be reasonable to put some hurdles to make it difficult to do. There are completely valid reasons to protect the average user from being scammed by malicious software.
To your other point, firmware is another battle entirely and currently has less practical value.
It would be great if vendors would be mandated to clearly separate communication about the product and the services on top, so they would have to compete again on actual product functionality, but so far it's not the case...
> I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
I thought you meant "why couldn't they have done so in the first place, without ever giving themselves the ability to killswitch any apps at all, and just show a scary looking message?".
(I'm not totally against it, the mythical grandma would otherwise lose all her savings because of an animated dancing monkey exe)
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-states-scams-cost-us-cons...
Youre right - granny isn't installing unsigned binaries and anyone proclaiming otherwise is just bullshitting you.
The reality is that there is no security here. We have massive, glaring holes in the systems we use. Adding a door lock when there's a giant hole in the wall next to it does nothing.
Granny is being scammed via phone, but nobody wants to fix that. I wonder why? Hm, maybe money has something to do with it.
It's neither new nor surprising. Think about it: the Netherlands' dating app payment pricing trick, South Korea's alternative billing law, the US anti-steering injunction in Epic v. Apple, the Core Technology Fee for the EU's DMA, their ridiculous 'right to repair' process, etc.
What’s striking is how often parts of the discussion around Apple completely ignore this known pattern, instead leaning on apologetic corporate narratives about safety, integrity, privacy, or the environment.
I am against most of the (current!) regulatory pressure on Apple, but regardless of whether one supports these regulations, we can talk honestly about this practices of malicious compliance or even corporate disobedience. They exists in the world regardless of our personal stance on regulation (or Apple).
Generally speaking: If a tech giant does something and there are several possible motives, one of which is profit or power consolidation, and the others are different things, it is always profit/power. They did not start out a giant after all.
> Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android.
This is not the same. Windows states that they cannot verify the origin of the app because its not signed. In the current state Apple thoroughly verified the origin of the app, and the app is also signed.
Imagine a guy standing in front of your grocery store telling you that "the food in this store did not pass quality control of Walmart, so we can't guarantee that it's safe"
The walmart comparison makes no sense. A better comparison is the operator of a mall putting up a sign saying the products the stores in there sell are not verified by them. Often a store chain also owns malls, so Walmart saying "the things in the Walmart in the WalmartMall are ours and we vouch for their quality, but the other stores in the mall are independent and not vetted by Walmart.
It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall. But apparently people expect different for phones, which does make sense given Apple hasn't allowed third parties until now.
In the context of this popup, Apple is not just the manufacturer of the device, it is the operator of a competing marketplace. The fact that they suddenly present themselves and state that they did NOT verify this app implies that the quality of the products offered in that market are somewhat inferior to what Apple themselves are offering. <-- This is anti-competitive behavior
> It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall.
No, it's weird because Walmart has no business telling customers of OTHER markets that THEY don't vouch for its quality.
In this Metaphor Walmart was already caught and ordered to stop hindering other players from competing on equal grounds, so naturally Walmart cannot put someone in front of every competing store to cast doubt on their offering.
“The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.”
This feature is part of antivirus solutions for ages.
An OS should NOT need antivirus, it needs proper sandbox and containerization.
- an app can 100% stay within its sandbox and still be nefarious. For example, a password manager could secretly send all your passwords to Mr(s) Evil.
Also, the possibilities for nefarious apps that aren't thwarted by sandboxes are endless: social engineering and phishing are very common and effective.
These are good to have, just like how it's good to have an antivirus. In some cases.
Most of the people download things which were checked before with an antivirus (like Play Store, App Store, GMail), or they don't really download anything outside of browsers (e.g. on desktop), so most of the people (almost everybody in case of percentage) don't need that much protection than 20 years ago. I also don't need neither OS level sandboxing, containerization, nor antivirus by default, because I know how to prevent compromise even without those. I, of course, use those when they are needed, when for example I install or browse something risky. But then I use a full blown VM, or an ultra sandboxed browser, and I know the risk, that there is nothing I can really do, if they use a vulnerability of my hardware for example.
This is right to repair. This is ownership. When you buy some hardware, you should be allowed to install any software you wish, provided it works and you have the technical know how to do so.
Huh, I sideload some pretty nefarious apps all the time on my iPhone and have been doing so for about a decade, and they have never got remotely killed or removed.
And yet if you refund an app it's not automatically removed from your device. Always thought that was weird.