Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 77
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,404member
    To put this in terms even the most poorly-informed Epic paid ”expert” can understand:

    MalwareBytes makes a version for Windows, Android, and Mac. And I’ve used it to find malware on all three platforms.

    MalwareBytes does not make a version for iOS, even though millions would buy it out of fear if they offered it.

    Conclusion: iOS is significantly MORE secure than macOS precisely because it is significantly more “locked down” by default.:
    qwerty52thtj2fusionaderutterbaconstangjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 77
    BombdoeBombdoe Posts: 54member
    Putting aside what the Epic Games witness has said, the fact is Apple does allow third-party app access for the Mac.  

    The question is why.   You'd expect Apple's lawyers to call witnesses (Apple staff ??) who can clarify to the judge why they allow this for macOS and not iOS. What the relevant differences are that would make this a bad process for iOS devices.  Apple is in the best position to explain the thinking for this.
     
    edited May 15
  • Reply 23 of 77
    Fidonet127Fidonet127 Posts: 300member
    Sure you can put malware scanning on iOS. The problem is the increased CPU usage is going to slow things down and decrease battery life. I can imagine all the complaints after malware scanning is added about throttling and how the battery life sucks. Then complaints about how much their iOS device sucks when malware does hit despite the scanning. iOS will get hit hard by malware. Developers will get less promotion of their apps. I want switches to prohibit outside app stores and links to outside app stores. Epic’s experts got paid well for untruthfulness. 
    Gabywatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 77
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 334member
    What Apple is doing with macOS and iOS it is nobody else, but Apple’s business. Stay out of it!
    Ridiculous!
    Is this trial about giving Apple instructions and orders about what Apple MUST do to satisfy all Epic’s wishes, so Epic could make more money?
    Bombdoej2fusionaderutterbaconstangjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 77
    ppietrappietra Posts: 278member
    Aren’t people forbidden from lying in court? At the very least he is blatantly trying to deceive the judge...
    He says that review is not necessary because of iOS's built-in defences like sandboxing, and then goes on to say that the Mac is as secure as iOS.
     Guess what, SANDBOXING is not enforced on the Mac, like many other security features that he says are what makes iOS secure, are not enforced on the Mac. So clearly the Mac is not as secure as iOS using this supposed expert own criteria for security... Which 
    makes his all argument that iOS could be like the Mac so false!!!!!
    aderutterbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 77
    Apple should allow alternative App Stores, so it's the user who decides from where to download software.
    I believe that 90% of the software would be exactly the same (3rd party vs Apple App Store) but maybe cheaper when bought not from Apple.
    The remaining 10% may provide (legal) content that Apple does not like.
    Remember: protection from viruses does not come from the App Store but from iOS itself - so it is possible to integrate 3rd party stores in a way that apps installed from there follow the same technical restrictions (for security) as apps installed from Apple's App Store.
    edited May 15 williamlondondarkvader
  • Reply 27 of 77
    Whether or not iOS could be as secure as macOS is irrelevant if Epic can't prove that Apple is being competitively abusive with the iOS model of distribution. Epic claiming that "computing devices" should be running a Windows style distribution system has no legal precedent. There are no prior rulings to cite in that regard. And their attempts at showing that Apple is abusive with iOS are quite flimsy: commissions are standard in the industry for e-stores, anti-steering is standard in the industry for e-stores, Apple has proof that a significant percentage of iOS Fortnite players had access to other devices to play the game, Epic's own numbers show mobile was Fortnite's smallest market for revenue...there's very little substance when it comes to abusive practices. 
    aderutterbaconstangFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 77
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 110member
    Xed said:
    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.

    Oftentimes when I buy a product from a store I will receive a registration card with the product I can return to the manufacturer. They can send me details of offers and discounts for future products, and details of warranty or support for my purchase. This doesn’t seem to be an issue for the store where I bought the item. When I buy from Apple’s store, the developer can’t opt me in to receive any communication from them, or send offers through the app itself.
    darkvader
  • Reply 29 of 77
    The 1st thing that easily introduces the ability to bypass sandboxing is a concept called method sizzling which is an artifact of having a dynamic runtime language built into core aspects of the OS (aka objective c). App reviews scan for this behavior and Flagg it up. Side stores will not. The security risk of opening up stores without Apples sign off is insanely obvious and stupid when you know these interfaces. 
    baconstangFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 77
    genovelle said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?
    I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point. 

    But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous. 

    But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc. 
    The problem with you analogy is that the app is built within apple’s store and its Apple’s advertising that got them there in the first place. If the developer has its own database of customers signing up with them directly in the first place because they did the work to attract them, Apple makes nothing on it. Remember 90% of Spotify’s subscribers are outside of iOS and pay Apple nothing. Almost all of the 10 Spotify pays only 15% to Apple on. That means they are just being greedy. 
    But Apple allows this business model. Spotify and Netflix are not restricted from opting to not allow in app purchases. But both developers do pay Apple a developer fee, so Apple earns some revenue, albeit not as much as they would via their 30 percent cut.  

    By not allowing Spotify or Netflix to tell users where/how to sign up for a subscription, what is really accomplished in the end, except for user confusion? 
  • Reply 31 of 77
    ppietrappietra Posts: 278member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    Apple should allow alternative App Stores, so it's the user who decides from where to download software.
    I believe that 90% of the software would be exactly the same (3rd party vs Apple App Store) but maybe cheaper when bought not from Apple.
    The remaining 10% may provide (legal) content that Apple does not like.
    Remember: protection from viruses does not come from the App Store but from iOS itself - so it is possible to integrate 3rd party stores in a way that apps installed from there follow the same technical restrictions (for security) as apps installed from Apple's App Store.
    That is not true! Malware Protection comes from different levels of security... Review of apps and developer scrutiny are some of those possible levels, just like not installing from untrusted sources or avoiding visiting untrusted websites is another level of security, preventing malware in the device! People saying that protection only comes from the iOS itself don’t know what they are saying or are being deceitful.
    edited May 15 thtFidonet127baconstangmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 77
    tedz98tedz98 Posts: 75member
    I can understand Apple charging a commission to sell an app throttle App Store to cover costs of running the online service and generate a profit. But why is Apple entitled to commissions from in app purchases once the app has been sold? I appreciate the vetting Apple does for security and privacy with apps they sell. But as I consumer I think they exert too much control over my options for acquiring an app. There is just one option. From an anti-trust perspective I think Apple behaves too much like a monopoly regarding the App Store.
  • Reply 33 of 77
    hackintoisier said: By not allowing Spotify or Netflix to tell users where/how to sign up for a subscription, what is really accomplished in the end, except for user confusion? 
    Apple accomplishes the same thing as other e-commerce companies that have anti-steering provisions: keeping customer focus on their store when they're using their store. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 77
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 952member
    Anything could be like anything else. 

    Zero point Epic. 

    All the shady people mad when someone steps up to make things better for consumers. 

    Apple did it right. Bad people mad because they can’t abuse the consumer anymore. 

    A laborer is worthy of their wages. 

    Apple created a demand in people who want quality, privacy, and security and requires a shelving fee if you want to access that customer base. Apple also makes sure you don’t do whatever the heck you want by giving consumers a consistent, secure, convenient, and clearly outlined payment model.

    spple has done so much to make it great. 

    Nobody on earth wants these nasty clowns to come and muck it up and bring back the early 2000s internet Wild West. 

     


    thtbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 77
    Sorry, you lost me at “Professor”…
    lkruppwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 77
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    tedz98 said:
    I can understand Apple charging a commission to sell an app throttle App Store to cover costs of running the online service and generate a profit. But why is Apple entitled to commissions from in app purchases once the app has been sold? I appreciate the vetting Apple does for security and privacy with apps they sell. But as I consumer I think they exert too much control over my options for acquiring an app. There is just one option. From an anti-trust perspective I think Apple behaves too much like a monopoly regarding the App Store.
    So riddle me this. How is Apple suppose to profit from the commission on free apps like the ones for Spotify, Netflix and Fortnight? When and how do Spotify, Netflix and Epic pay Apple for allowing them to have a free app for their account holders on iOS devices? You think it's OK for Epic to pay Apple nothing for hosting a free Fortnight app, while keeping all the money from Fortnight in-app purchases? The real question is ...... why is Epic entitled to not have to pay a commission to Apple on the tens of millions of dollars they make every month, from in-app purchases by Fortnight players on iOS? 

    From an anti-trust perspective, Apple do not behave any differently than Microsoft and Sony, when it comes to downloading games from the only store in an X-Box or Playstation. They control the only store in their game consoles and they collect the same commission on the sale of games and on in-app purchases, as Apple does.    
    aderutterbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 77
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member

    gc_uk said:
    Xed said:
    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.

    Oftentimes when I buy a product from a store I will receive a registration card with the product I can return to the manufacturer. They can send me details of offers and discounts for future products, and details of warranty or support for my purchase. This doesn’t seem to be an issue for the store where I bought the item. When I buy from Apple’s store, the developer can’t opt me in to receive any communication from them, or send offers through the app itself.
    It might be an issue for the store, if you were given the information on offers and where to get discounts, while in the store and before you bought the product from the store. 

    And remember, with developers like Spotify, Epic, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, WSJ,  etc., they don't and can't give you detail on where to get discounts because where ever they want to go to buy their products, it will cost you the same as making the purchase in the app. But they want to pay outside of the app so they can avoid the commission. What they save is not pass on to their customers. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 77
    XedXed Posts: 1,106member
    gc_uk said:
    Xed said:
    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.

    Oftentimes when I buy a product from a store I will receive a registration card with the product I can return to the manufacturer. They can send me details of offers and discounts for future products, and details of warranty or support for my purchase. This doesn’t seem to be an issue for the store where I bought the item. When I buy from Apple’s store, the developer can’t opt me in to receive any communication from them, or send offers through the app itself.
    A SW company advertising that they make other SW isn't the same as a SW company telling you to no longer buy SW from within the ecosystem in which you bought and are using that game.

    Have you ever bought something at Best Buy just to open up the box to have this "registration card" tell you that you have 14 days since you made your purchase to return it which will get you a small discount and then some more profit if you then turned around and bought it at Walmart? Of course not, because that's fucking stupid.
    edited May 15 thtbaconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,504member
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    darkvader
  • Reply 40 of 77
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,657member
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?
    Xedaderutterbaconstangwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.