davidw

The thing is that Apple was accused of violating CA Unfair Competition Law and not any of CA or US anti-trust laws. How is it that Apple must abide by or force to abide by, CA laws in all States? Is it because they are HQ in CA? Or because the trial took place in CA? Seems that Apple should only have to abide by Judge Gonzales ruling in CA (and other States with such laws.). But it still might be too much trouble logistically or even impossible, for Apple to apply different App Store rules for each State. 

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/court-issues-mixed-ruling-in-epic-v-3215543/

>The court found that Apple was not in violation of antitrust laws, but it did find Apple had violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court ordered Apple to allow apps to link to payment mechanisms outside of Apple’s in-app payment system (where Apple collects a 30% commission on every sale). ..........

Due to its lack of monopoly power and the absence of anticompetitive effects that outweighed procompetitive benefits, the court concluded that Apple was not in violation of U.S. or California antitrust laws, and it is not required to allow Epic or other developers to open competing game stores on iOS.

Unfair Competition Claim

While the court declined to find antitrust violations, it did hold that Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California's Unfair Competition Law. As discussed above, Apple’s anti-steering provisions restrict developers’ ability to tell customers about payment methods outside of Apple’s in-app payment system. The court concluded that the provisions were unfair because they prevented users from making an informed choice. Thus, the court issued a nationwide (but not global) injunction enjoining Apple from: (i) prohibiting apps and their metadata from containing “buttons, external links, or other calls to actions that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to [in-app payment]”; and (ii) prohibiting developers from “[c]ommunicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.”<

verne arase said:

tylersdad said:

newisneverenough said:

How Apple didn’t see these privacy and security threats to their users and to society is mind boggling. 

Plenty of people on Apple Insider didn't see this as a privacy or security threat. 

Absolutely mind boggling. 

I believe Apple wanted to do it on device because they intended to have images on their servers fully encrypted - which would make scanning there impossible.

That way, even if someone could break into Sally's iCloud storage, he couldn't view images Sally sent in confidence to her boyfriend.

Are you talking about this Apple, that was planning to encrypt iPhones backups in the iCloud? 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT

Don't hold your breath. 

lam92103 said:

But didn't Tim come out and tell everyone that iOS is secure due to it's AppStore & locked down, just a few weeks ago? Remotely gaining root access doesn't sound all that secure to me. Specially when it's the latest flagship device on the latest iOS

>According to the contest website, teams had to allow the iPhone 13 Pro to browse a remote URL, to allow the contestants a chance to "control the phone system." As part of the challenge, contestants had to bypass "PAC mitigation," with additional prizes offered for a sandbox escape or a jailbreak. <

Just where did you get the idea that that this hacked gained access to an iPhone that was locked down? One have to install a special remote URL in their iPhone, in order to allow this hack to gain remote access. This can only be done if you have a iOS developers license or an app with the remote URL link somehow got passed Apple App Store security.  

hackintoisier said:

Quick! And yet the Apple elite will claim that ios is super secure and alternative app stores will destroy the security model. Even while locked down, it’s clear the iOS kernel isn’t impenetrable. 

And then we have people that will cry like a baby that they can't install any app they want on ....... "MY DEVICE". Well, nearly every version of iOS has a jailbreak and once jailbroken, you can install any app you want and from a number of third party app stores.  These people need to install the jailbreak and quit their crying. No excuse for not being able to a jailbreak and visit a third party app store to install any app they want on ......."MY DEVICE".

Even if Apple might patch the security bug that allowed the jailbreak, it's not patched unless one updates iOS. So jailbreakers know not to update iOS until there's a jailbreak available for the newer versions.  

And no, the iPhone 13 Pro was not locked down when it was remotely jailbreak. In order for the jailbreak to install, the iPhone user had to click on a remote URL that opens a Safari browser that logs on to the site where the jailbreak software can install.  That is something that can not be done on a locked down iPhone in the hands of the average consumers. In order to do this, one has to first install the remote URL link into the iPhone and this can only be done by a developer with a license or the remote URL link is in an App that somehow got passed Apple App Store security. This was not done using a link in the Safari browser.

According to the contest website, teams had to allow the iPhone 13 Pro to browse a remote URL, to allow the contestants a chance to "control the phone system." As part of the challenge, contestants had to bypass "PAC mitigation," with additional prizes offered for a sandbox escape or a jailbreak. 

But the jailbreak is real, even if the remote part might only work under a controlled situation. And that's the real benefit of this hack, it shows another way that iOS 15 can be jailbreak. 

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

These issues have a simple solution: If the users chooses to enable side loading they lose certain iOS features like access to iCloud or the App Store. A user must first reset and wipe their iPhones of all existing apps and data before it can be put into open or side loading mode. In that mode users can do all kinds of potentially dangerous things with the devices they own including installing third party app stores and side loading potentially dangerous apps. In this open mode, iOS would work just like MacOS and Windows and every other computer going back to the days of the Apple II which all allowed users to load any app they desired. Obviously this is not the mode you would want to use with your main iPhone but that one you put in the draw last year would be perfect.

Any extra steps required or features removed, in order to side load, will be seen as Apple using the dominate power they have with their App Store, to be anti-completive. And the developers will sue.

Epic lawsuit against Google includes a claim that Google is behaving like an illegal monopolist with their Google Play Store, even though Android allows side loading and third party app stores. That's because Google puts up barriers to side loading. When side loading on Android, Google puts up various warnings, alerting the user to the danger of side loading. (Plus a few extra steps that might be scary or difficult to understand for some.) Even if one is side loading from a trusted site like Epic's website. Epic claims that this is anti-completive by discouraging users from side loading and puts developers that don't want to use the Google Play Store, at a disadvantage.

Developers would never allow Apple to get away with (specially in the EU) having iOS users that wants to side load apps, (even if it's just one app), give up some of the features in their devices, features that iOS users that will never side load apps on to their devices, gets to keep and use. if only a small percentage of iOS users would even consider side loading and put their devices in "side loading mode", then developers would lose easy access all the other iOS users not in "side loading mode". The big developers will not stand for this and won't quit crying about the users rights to side load until is just as easy and convenient to side load an app, as it is to load an app from the App Store. And to them, it's not about the rights of iOS users, but about their "rights" to not have to pay Apple a commission for making money using Apple IP.