Apple claps back at UK report it claims would force it to 'redesign the iPhone'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.

    The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.

    Apple isn’t allowed to make money??



    gatorguy said:
    I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.

    The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
    Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
    Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.

    Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact.  But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.

    Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not.  Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading. 

    Apple isn’t allowed to make money?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 53
    Apple proudly boasts how it has redesigned the iPhone every year both physically and with the release of the next version of iOS. I don't see a problem.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    seankillseankill Posts: 559member
    Apple: “We want big government”
    also Apple: “We don’t want it for us, we are excluded. We want big government for everyone else.”
    designr
  • Reply 24 of 53
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,646member
    I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.

    The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
    By default, all of Apple iOS iDevice users have a "switch" that will allow them access to third party app stores and side loading. It's known as the switch to Android.  
    tommikeleradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 53
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 590member
    mcdave said:
    They seem to be taking the de facto stance that choice is automatically beneficial with actually qualifying the benefit. This is a problem the world over, people crave choice but when you challenge why, the conversation turns irrational pretty quickly.
    I am a big supporter of Apple on this issue, but ...

    You are taking the exact same stance in defense of Apple that you criticize in your first sentence.

    You sound just a wee bit like Putin or Xi defending their totalitarian regimes. Choice? You don't need choice. We will decide for you because we know better. You aren't saying anything much different than the CMA is. You're just standing on the other side of the road when you say it.

    No, the conversation does not turn irrational. Consumers do not need to defend to you or anyone else their desire for choice in the marketplace. Nor is it up to you to decide if any reason they offer for wanting choice meets your standard of rationality. The free market, when unencumbered by unnecessary regulation, makes the choices. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 26 of 53
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 590member
    Apple proudly boasts how it has redesigned the iPhone every year both physically and with the release of the next version of iOS. I don't see a problem.
    You must need glasses.

    Your user name destroys your credibility very quickly.
    williamlondonwatto_cobraDogperson
  • Reply 27 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    How much of a redesign can it be when Apple has supported sideloading apps from enterprise stores for years?  They have trust verification and management already set up.

    Apple don't make themselves look good with this transparently fake whining.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    The quotes in the article are not imaginary. They are referring to the exact wording in the document they are referencing and there is nothing wrong with using quotes. The reason for using quotes is just to let people know that the wording is not made up by the writer but came from a different source.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 53
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,646member
    gatorguy said:
    I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.

    The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
    Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
    Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.

    Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact.  But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.

    Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not.  Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading. 
    If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"?  Why do Google recommend users to not turn off  "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"?  Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading.  Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary? 

    Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be  just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and be more secure than Android. 

    So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".

     
    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 53
    The quotes in the article are not imaginary. They are referring to the exact wording in the document they are referencing and there is nothing wrong with using quotes. The reason for using quotes is just to let people know that the wording is not made up by the writer but came from a different source.
    Is it possible for you to advise which article the quotes come from.

    I assume we are referring to the following.

    "Apple: “We want big government”
    also Apple: “We don’t want it for us, we are excluded. We want big government for everyone else.”"
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 53
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,646member
    crowley said:
    How much of a redesign can it be when Apple has supported sideloading apps from enterprise stores for years?  They have trust verification and management already set up.

    Apple don't make themselves look good with this transparently fake whining.
    Any developer with a $99 developer license can "side load". In fact, one can sign up for a free Apple developer account and "side load". (but with the free account, the app only last 7 days, before having to reload it again). The problem is not with developers "side loading" their own apps or other apps, into their own iDevices. They usually know what they are doing. Plus, when a developer or enterprise "side load" an app into a device, that device gets registered in the developer's account. The security/privacy issue comes into play when any iOS user can side load any app into their iDevice, just by going to a website or clicking on an email link. Most of the times, these user might not be fully aware of what they are doing. There's a difference in security/privacy issues when a developer "side load" and when a user side load. 

    The security/privacy issue comes into play for iOS users and Apple must redesign iOS to protect the less tech savvy users, that might, can and will be scammed into side loading an app with malware. Apple don't need to protect the developers and users that knows what they're doing when "side loading". They want/have to protect the users that might not know what they are doing. 

    No one is saying that Apple have to redesign iOS in order for it to side load. I have a jailbroken iPad and iPod Touch from years ago. Both no longer receives updates or upgrades, but both can side load and access third party app stores. Plus they are still fully functional with the all the Apple App Store downloaded apps still working and still have access to the Apple App Store and iTunes. But no way is my jailbroken iDevces as secure as they were before the jailbreak. No way is Apple scanning for malware on any of the apps i installed from third party app stores or side load. That's why I don't keep any personal info on these devices or use them for any personal business. This is where Apple have to redesign iOS, from a security/privacy standpoint, if they were to allow third party app stores and side loading on the users side. But you'll never see me making some irrelevant comment about how iOS don't need much redesigning, to be able to use third party app stores or side load.

        
    williamlondonradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 53
    xbitxbit Posts: 361member
    I'd hate to see Epic do to the Apple ecosystem what it's done to PC gaming.

    It used to be that Steam was the one-stop shop for all games. Prices are fair and Steam's software is excellent. Then Epic comes along, uses its wealth from Fortnite to sign a bunch of exclusivity deals and now PC gamers are forced to install Epic's game launcher as well if they want to play the latest games. And Epic's game launcher is terrible.

    On the surface, competition is good - but the likes of Epic aren't interested in fair competition. They'll use their weight to game the system and the experience will be worse for everyone.
    Beatsradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 53
    rob53 said:
    Let's see. Why isn't the UK going after big oil? It stifles competition but governments don't seem to care. Same with automobile dealerships. These are worse because stupid legislatures have put this monopoly into law. Apple makes a great product, has a very good ecosystem and is something people actually are willing to buy. People make the decision on what products to buy. Forcing Apple to degrade their product in the bogus name of competition is simply a money grab by governments. Apple products cost more than others but people buy them so how is Apple stopping competition? This is all a distraction, especially in the US, to not go after the actual criminals in this country and around the world.
    Grea$e is the word. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,363member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    How much of a redesign can it be when Apple has supported sideloading apps from enterprise stores for years?  They have trust verification and management already set up.

    Apple don't make themselves look good with this transparently fake whining.
    Any developer with a $99 developer license can "side load". In fact, one can sign up for a free Apple developer account and "side load". (but with the free account, the app only last 7 days, before having to reload it again). The problem is not with developers "side loading" their own apps or other apps, into their own iDevices. They usually know what they are doing. Plus, when a developer or enterprise "side load" an app into a device, that device gets registered in the developer's account. The security/privacy issue comes into play when any iOS user can side load any app into their iDevice, just by going to a website or clicking on an email link. Most of the times, these user might not be fully aware of what they are doing. There's a difference in security/privacy issues when a developer "side load" and when a user side load. 

    The security/privacy issue comes into play for iOS users and Apple must redesign iOS to protect the less tech savvy users, that might, can and will be scammed into side loading an app with malware. Apple don't need to protect the developers and users that knows what they're doing when "side loading". They want/have to protect the users that might not know what they are doing. 

    No one is saying that Apple have to redesign iOS in order for it to side load. I have a jailbroken iPad and iPod Touch from years ago. Both no longer receives updates or upgrades, but both can side load and access third party app stores. Plus they are still fully functional with the all the Apple App Store downloaded apps still working and still have access to the Apple App Store and iTunes. But no way is my jailbroken iDevces as secure as they were before the jailbreak. No way is Apple scanning for malware on any of the apps i installed from third party app stores or side load. That's why I don't keep any personal info on these devices or use them for any personal business. This is where Apple have to redesign iOS, from a security/privacy standpoint, if they were to allow third party app stores and side loading on the users side. But you'll never see me making some irrelevant comment about how iOS don't need much redesigning, to be able to use third party app stores or side load.
    Ok bro. No one is paying you for word count.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    The quotes in the article are not imaginary. They are referring to the exact wording in the document they are referencing and there is nothing wrong with using quotes. The reason for using quotes is just to let people know that the wording is not made up by the writer but came from a different source.
    Is it possible for you to advise which article the quotes come from.

    I assume we are referring to the following.

    "Apple: “We want big government”
    also Apple: “We don’t want it for us, we are excluded. We want big government for everyone else.”"
    No. I had no idea where those quotes are coming from. Tommikele commented on imaginary quotes and didn’t provide any context. I didn’t see the quotes from SeanKill until later. Maybe the quotes from SeanKill are imaginary. I have no idea. I guess it’s hard for me to understand why someone would use imaginary quotes. It would never in a million years occur to me to do something like that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 53
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 922member
    Maybe what Apple should do is have two versions of each iPhone they sell, the duplicate models will have the exact same features except one will be labeled “Open” and will have a version of iOS that is able to have an alternative App Store, while the other is closed and the way things are now. This way, users can choose how they prefer to use their phone. When this backfires on the user and they get spam, viruses, hacked, etc, Apple could make that into a special use case in court showing why they did not want to go down this route to begin with. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 53
    The quotes in the article are not imaginary. They are referring to the exact wording in the document they are referencing and there is nothing wrong with using quotes. The reason for using quotes is just to let people know that the wording is not made up by the writer but came from a different source.
    Is it possible for you to advise which article the quotes come from.

    I assume we are referring to the following.

    "Apple: “We want big government”
    also Apple: “We don’t want it for us, we are excluded. We want big government for everyone else.”"
    No. I had no idea where those quotes are coming from. Tommikele commented on imaginary quotes and didn’t provide any context. I didn’t see the quotes from SeanKill until later. Maybe the quotes from SeanKill are imaginary. I have no idea. I guess it’s hard for me to understand why someone would use imaginary quotes. It would never in a million years occur to me to do something like that.
    Thanks, so I suppose it's really a sort of written slander and maybe not wise to do it too much.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 53
    The quotes in the article are not imaginary. They are referring to the exact wording in the document they are referencing and there is nothing wrong with using quotes. The reason for using quotes is just to let people know that the wording is not made up by the writer but came from a different source.
    Is it possible for you to advise which article the quotes come from.

    I assume we are referring to the following.

    "Apple: “We want big government”
    also Apple: “We don’t want it for us, we are excluded. We want big government for everyone else.”"
    No. I had no idea where those quotes are coming from. Tommikele commented on imaginary quotes and didn’t provide any context. I didn’t see the quotes from SeanKill until later. Maybe the quotes from SeanKill are imaginary. I have no idea. I guess it’s hard for me to understand why someone would use imaginary quotes. It would never in a million years occur to me to do something like that.
    Thanks, so I suppose it's really a sort of written slander and maybe not wise to do it too much.
    Are you referring to Tommikele's comment or Seankill's comment? If they are if fact made up quotes then it would be bad to to it at all. I disagree with lying in this type of forum. But it's also a bad idea to jump to conclusions because sometimes assumptions can be incorrect.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 53
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,339member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    I don’t understand how allowing external app stores would impact Apple’s secure image. Simply don’t install the external App Store (simple default switch that prevents external app stores from being installed), users will remain secure.

    The only logical reason Apple is against this is the loss of income from said external app stores.
    Major corporations that don’t agree with Apple’s privacy standards and nutrition labels will start offering more features if they download outside the AppStore. Most users don’t know any better they just want Facebook, Spotify, Epic games. Those corporations will collude on make the AppStore inferior, devaluing the entire ecosystem.
    Do they collude now to make the Google Play Store inferior? So much handwringing over, in my opinion, an imaginary issue. Apple's objection is primarily economic and not security/privacy.

    Perception of course means something. I do understand Apple wanting to avoid any stories that might question the security and safety of their ecosystem, which could potentially affect sales. Blogs love to promote scareware stories with little basis in fact.  But that still doesn't make it an actual security problem. Yup, economic again, and with Apple's whole reason to exist being profit, then of course they'll blame their resistance on everything other than the money which doesn't make for a great excuse in the eyes of many users. But "OMG, Security!!" makes it sound like it's all about protecting us.

    Now I may be leaving the impression I endorse third-party stores. I do not.  Apple has a right to restrict their store until the law says they do not. If Google got a do-over I'm not sure they'd still make the same choice regarding side-loading. 
    If the security/privacy issue with apps from third party app stores and side loading are imaginary, then why do Google spend 10's of millions of dollars (most likely in the 100's) a year scanning every installed app on Android for malware, under their "Play Protection Program"?  Why do Google recommend users to not turn off  "Google Play Protection"? Why are there warnings to Android users about the danger of side loading an app, when the user enable .... "allow from unknown sources"?  Why do Google not allow side loading or installing apps from third party app stores (unless the apps are also available in the Google Play Store) for users signed up for their "Advance Protection Program"? With all the money spent on protecting users from malware, neither Apple nor Google, can stop all malware from being installed from their own app stores and Google has the extra cost of trying to stop malware from third party app stores and side loading.  Is all the 100's of millions of dollars that Google spends every year, on protecting Android users from the security/privacy danger of installing apps from third party app store and side loading, also imaginary? 

    Apple having to spend the money it would take to only be  just as secure as Android, by allowing third party app stores and side loading, is not the choice Apple should make. Apple choice should be to not have to spend that money by not allowing third party stores and side loading and be more secure than Android. 

    So I do agree with you in that Apple reason for not allowing third party stores and side loading is primarily economic. Apple do not want to have to spend all the money that Google is spending on keeping third party apps and side loading as secure as possible, for their users. You thinking that it has anything to do with Apple losing profits from the Apple App Store is what's .... "imaginary".

     
    You sidestep a major issue here. User choice. 

    One of the major concerns from almost all parties (and mentioned in the article) is the vice like grip on the industry that Apple and Google have. 

    When Apple speaks of 'unsubstantiated allegations and hypothetical concerns' it fails to see that those words are also applicable to what it is claiming as no third party app store is allowed on iOS devices. Users are denied choice, and that should be one of the key issues to look at here. Not security per se. 

    Are other app stores may even go further than Apple when it comes to security. 

    I agree that nothing connected to third party apps will probably ever offer bulletproof security but there is zero reason to believe that Apple's own gate is always better than the rest. 

    I also believe that Apple is definitely continously scanning  what apps do (even if only on a bank of Apple devices at Cupertino) in an effort to flag dubious usage. 

    Some third party appstores already do this on user devices via AI. 

    There is no harm in choice and adults should have that choice. Throw up all the warnings you feel necessary to warn of the risks of third party app stores or better still, make users aware of app store limitations and Apple's vice-like grip on app store policy before the purchaser hands over any money. 

    That would be the easiest and fairest way to put an end to this particular point. 

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 40 of 53
    Why have successive UK governments not taken action against Microsoft for its ubiquitous Office suite?
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.