CheeseFreeze
About
- Username
- CheeseFreeze
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,084
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,719
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,442
Reactions
-
Apple backs down on CSAM features, postpones launch
No, because;mr. h said:
All I can say about that is that the whole scheme would be totally pointless if they weren't going to encrypt the photos. Why go to all the effort of designing this enormously complicated system, calculating hashes on-device, doing the CSAM hash-matching in a "blind" way so even the device itself doesn't know if there's been a match, and then going to all the convoluted effort of generating doubly-encrypted "vouchers" and associated "image information", if the photo itself was uploaded to iCloud unencrypted?gatorguy said:
I get that you really REALLY want to paint a glowing picture of "gosh Apple is doing this for us", but is there any even circumstantial evidence Apple was ready to make everything end-to-end encrypted in a way they could not access any of your data even if they were ordered to? Not as far as I know. It's more of a hope and prayer since otherwise it's not for the betterment of us users.
Certainly, this system would enable the photos to be uploaded to iCloud encrypted, but I concede that as far as I know, Apple hasn't said that they would do that. It's just that, as I said, the whole scheme seems totally pointless if the photos are uploaded to the server in the clear anyway.
How about Apple just offers a toggle in iCloud photos settings? The two options would be:
1. Photos are CSAM-scanned and encrypted before being uploaded to iCloud.
2. Photos are not CSAM-scanned, but are uploaded to iCloud in the clear. The server then does the CSAM scan.
Would this solution make everyone happier?- option 1. is still a violation; technology is spying on your unencrypted media files and sending the output to Apple. Also, when Apple sees CSAM triggered for device X and photo Y, they wouldn't be able to enter step 2 of their process: manual review1 because their images cannot be EtE encrypted - they can't take a peek at the photo. Also, since Apple's original approach compares hashes anyway and not the image itself, your solution does not provide any practical added benefit.
- option 2. this requires the lack of true end-to-end encryption (which Apple still doesn't provide after the CIA complained). The server needs to be trusted by the consumer. If a government forces access to the server, you'll be exposed. If there's a leak, all user's unencrypted photos can be exposed
-
Apple backs down on CSAM features, postpones launch
Apple easily let go of end-to-end encryption that they already planned when the CIA complained, which proves further that their 'customer privacy comes first' vision can be bought for money.Illusive said:
My point exactly. Without CSAM, iCloud Photos will remain unencrypted - all courtesy of noobs talking nonsense on the Internet. I wish the latter were only accessible with a valid sanity certificate.Illusive said:
Just the opposite. I'm guessing this is a necessary prerequisite for Apple to put in place before it could ever go with end-to-end encryption and still remain compliant with authorities by not holding CSAM material on their cloud.Does anyone here realize THIS means iCloud Photos stay virtually unencrypted, just as they have been since at least 2020? That CSAM thingy was supposed to scan the pics on-device so that they could be uploaded securely to iCloud if they don't violate the policy.
-
Apple will let 'reader' apps link to websites for account setup & management
That’s still 25% they have to give to Apple for work Apple is doing nothing for, except offering to host a small binary executable file on their App ‘Store’.mubaili said:why not just lower the fees for those reader apps? I really don’t want to remember to go to each vendor to cancel my membership. This is a bad solution. How about just taking a 5% cut?The entire IT setup, security, account management, content hosting, legal, billing, content licensing, after-sales, marketing, development cost etcetera is to the app creator, not to Apple.Also, customer setup/financials through Apple means the app creator is never building a customer database and remain dependent on Apple on what customer information they share with the app builder, which I can tell you from experience, is almost nothing.
-
Apple agrees to make key App Store changes, create $100M fund to settle developer lawsuit
This isn’t going far enough.This is just a legal move to protect them from what’s coming, but it’s not enough by a long shot.
-
South Korea likely to pass prohibitive app store legislation on Wednesday, report says
lkrupp said:
Nope. Total loss for developers and customers. Less exposure and more marketing costs for developers as they find themselves responsible for their own promotion. No more free marketing provided by Apple. Developer’s apps will just exist on the app store with no promotion unless they pay for it. What do you think that 30% cut was for anyway? They must fend for themselves. No cut for Apple means developers will have to pay more upfront for being on the app store shelves. Free apps will suffer or disappear onto third party app stores.Plam92103 said:Finally!! A win for developers and customers
Higher prices, more confusion, and less security for customers as they are exposed to malware riddled third party app stores. Customers will buy an app on a third party app store only to find Apple will block it from running for security or privacy reasons. You think Apple is just going to roll over on this? If a third party app breaks Apple’s existing security/privacy rules do you really think they’ll let it run on iOS or iPad OS? That app will run for awhile and then suddenly break.
The only people who will benefit are the ones who don’t even know what the word ‘monopoly’ means. They’ll pay lip service to the ‘freedom’ they ‘won’ for themselves.You clearly have no idea about the industry and the current reality.As a founder and CEO of a mobile gaming company focused on licensing IP and developing games that I sold 3 years ago + having released over 20 iOS titles, I can tell you that the situation you are describing already is a fact, and it has been for years.
Apple is so big and there are so many developers, that you already have to spend millions on marketing to be seen. Apple is not helping you for the 30% cut. They do jack shit.
In fact the whole situation is corrupt and rigged.
Apple only gives you 1 day of exposure on their “release wall” on the App Store. Only when THEY decide to promote you, they’ll contact you and you’ll have a week or so of promotion.
Still, that doesn’t help. Only by spending long geo-betas on improving retention and user acquisition, and many dollars on advertisements (that will have to have extremely healthy ARPU and ARPDAU wise in their returns), you can keep a game alive.In fact we noticed the best one revenue wise were done through a publisher, but it leaves you with much less (luckily I spent 13 years to make 3 successful breakout titles and build tech IP value hence my company sale, NOT because of Apple!).
1. first you pay a minimum guarantee for the license and/or hundreds of thousands for development
2. 30% of a sale is taken by Apple (who does jackshit)
3. then the remainder is split between you, publisher (and license holder if applicable) at a tier basis often.
4. But the above: only net-of-advertisements (most of the time a negative end result, unless you break through the barrier with a hit).
5. And: net-of-maintenance (you have to maintain the game on a daily basis, sometimes more expensive than the actual initial development depending on genre)
6. Oh - and then you pay taxes. Considerable.
The App Store is not a store. It’s become the economy itself on one of just 2 platforms. It’s insane. It must be stopped.
So please stop having this discussion at a toddler level and think about the actual economics.
