Beats

tshapi said:

I think the mini business will shift into the SE business. 

When Apple releases the next version of the SE. it will be with the notch, since apple will have killed the notch by then. 

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

bloggerblog said:

shareef777 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. 

What a stupid argument. At first it was “unfair” that Apple invented the iPhone so there should be “choice” by allowing knockoffs to flood the market that do the exact same thing.


wow look at that CHOICE!

Now the only “choice” you’re gonna get with knockoff App Stores is duplicate apps and apps that would have appeared on the App Store ANYWAY are now exclusive to a 3rd party store.

Why do I want this illusions of “choice” to download Candy Crush on the Epic Store instead of the App Store and download a new game on the Disney Store that would have been on the App Store but now is exclusive?

wow, what choices I have!

And why is it a problem that “greedy Apple” benefits economically from iPhone and the App Store but then it’s ok for other companies to benefit economically by stealing from Apple? Why is no one calling Epic “greedy” for taking Apple to court to benefit economically from 3rd party stores?

Why should Apple’s product belong to anyone themselves? Fu** your choice! If you don’t want Apple products, choose to  buy a flip phone.

In the end this whole thing can be summed up in one sentence:
“We’re mad Apple won’t share their money with us!!!!!”
-Imaginary quote 

JinTech said:

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. 

shareef777 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.