7 ms·

Reading her stuff, it seems like proposals to separate Apple from the App store indicate a total lack of awareness about InfoSec, and at best a poorly researche

Reading her stuff, it seems like proposals to separate Apple from the App store indicate a total lack of awareness about InfoSec, and at best a poorly researched policy proposal from a technical standpoint. The only reason the App Store isn't a simmering cesspool of malware is that Apple heavily moderates what gets on there, and Google does somewhat the same. That doesn't mean that there perhaps isn't a less MSFT + IE type of solution, and I don't necessarily disagree with her, but her not mentioning that sort of nuance at all makes it rather clear the policy doesn't extend too far into anything more than populism.

chj 8y ago
There are quite some shady stuff going on in the App Store. People have to live with that, because there is no alternative. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-plaguing-the-app-store/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-p...
- jmrobertson 8y ago
  Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store. Like the world _just_ got past learning not to click 'download here!' on a browser, and that was after 20 years of the internet. I'd be open to alternative proposals, but separating the App Store with no replacement is not a secure solution by any means and causes more problems than it solves, assuming a secure app store is the most important trait of an app store.
  - phillmv 8y ago
    I don't understand why people should not be permitted to go to netflix.com to install the netflix app, or to twitter.com etc etc
    - hopler 8y ago
      Because then they'd install a fake Netflix malware from getnetflix.com
    - scarface74 8y ago
      You obviously have never had to clean malware from people’s computers because they installed what they thought was a legitimate app or printer driver.
    - jmrobertson 8y ago
      that gets into interesting Human-Comp Interaction discussions, but a good place to start is that the HCI dynamic of mobile/tablet platforms is totally different (deliberately) from that traditional approach to browsers. So I guess it could be done, but relying on that approach undermines a lot of what make mobile platforms 'mobile platforms.'
      - basch 8y ago
        its not about workflow, its about not allowing sideloaded apps. the question is whether it is pro or anti consumer? does it hurt the consumer to pay 30% apple tax for netflix, or does the walled garden benefit the consumer by protecting them?
        jmrobertson 8y ago
        I obviously have the view that the walled garden benefits consumers, so my bias shows. And, I think there's a lot of wiggle room on the cost to host in the App store. However, US monopoly law is based on consumer harm, so... I think on a mobile platform, with plenty of competition to not buy an iOS-based phone, a walled garden absolutely benefits consumers more than it hurts. There is so much PII on phones now. Given the total lack of InfoSec knowledge, especially at the mobile-user level, a walled garden is crucial: see every Google Store vuln that hasn't hit Apple.
        basch 8y ago
        Theres a pretty good argument to be made that it nearly eliminates piracy, and is good for business too.
        phillmv 8y ago
        my dudes: charge yearly $$ to get a cert that allows you to request permissions higher than "access {camera, location while in use, microphone}" and most of the truly harsh PII issues go away afaict the harm isn't consumer oriented, since it's somewhat diffuse, it's about concentration of market power in the industry. we could live in a world where you target one distribution platform, and phone vendors compete to police malware, but instead we have walled gardens that police content & economically lock you to their environments and don't even do a good job about malware
  - treis 8y ago
    >Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store That's not the point. The point is that Netflix, HBO, Spotify, et. al. have to pay the 30% Apple/Google tax while the movie, music, etc. products from Apple/Google don't. Warren's proposed rule is, effectively, you can produce something or you can sell something, but not both. Apple would need to decide if they want to be an app maker or an app seller.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    You can make and distribute your own app on Android and totally bypass Google Play already. Also - having a security policy is different than taking a 30% cut of all commercial activity on the platform.
yathaid 8y ago
It's not Apple's oversight of the app store that is the problem Warren is targeting, it is the participation. Apple can either take 30% from Spotify or have iTunes, not both. Similar argument for Amazon and Amazon Basics. The article does raise an interesting point though about not thinking of these companies as "tech"; the Amazon argument can be applied to any private label I guess, hence the point about unintended consequences. It is an interesting concept though, almost like the logical extension of the net neutrality argument. DirecTV, HBO and ATT merging would be something that directly runs foul of this. You either get to provide the platform (be an ISP) or be a content producer, not both.
- scarface74 8y ago
  So is she going to break up the PlayStation, XBox, Nintendo, and Kindle Stores from their platforms? Is she going to stop physical retailers from having store brands that “compete unfairly”?
  - 0xffff2 8y ago
    I think she's saying that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shouldn't be game developers or publishers and that Amazon shouldn't be a book publisher.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      And it’s amazing that software developers are okay with the government telling companies how software should be sold and produced.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      And Tesla shouldn’t be a car dealership. But going direct to consumer was the best thing for consumers imo. Why would I want to deal with economically inefficient middlemen? The new laws could create digital versions of car dealerships
      - jmrobertson 8y ago
vharuck 8y ago
So nobody but Apple and Google can handle security? The first days of free-for-all would be rough, but there'd eventually be a lineup of safe marketplaces. Hardware is a key part of security, too, but Intel doesn't have to run the marketplace.
- jmrobertson 8y ago
  Well, Intel and AMD have had the run of the marketplace (and ARM indirectly) since the beginning, but there's reasons for that both security and other so not exactly a good comparison.
opportune 8y ago
If Apple releases a secure mobile operating system then allowing apps to be used outside of the official app store is no different from me being able to install whatever software I want on my mac

chj 8y ago

There are quite some shady stuff going on in the App Store. People have to live with that, because there is no alternative. https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-plaguing-the-app-store/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/15/sneaky-subscriptions-are-p...

jmrobertson 8y ago
Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store. Like the world _just_ got past learning not to click 'download here!' on a browser, and that was after 20 years of the internet. I'd be open to alternative proposals, but separating the App Store with no replacement is not a secure solution by any means and causes more problems than it solves, assuming a secure app store is the most important trait of an app store.
- phillmv 8y ago
  I don't understand why people should not be permitted to go to netflix.com to install the netflix app, or to twitter.com etc etc
  - hopler 8y ago
    Because then they'd install a fake Netflix malware from getnetflix.com
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You obviously have never had to clean malware from people’s computers because they installed what they thought was a legitimate app or printer driver.
  - jmrobertson 8y ago
    that gets into interesting Human-Comp Interaction discussions, but a good place to start is that the HCI dynamic of mobile/tablet platforms is totally different (deliberately) from that traditional approach to browsers. So I guess it could be done, but relying on that approach undermines a lot of what make mobile platforms 'mobile platforms.'
    - basch 8y ago
      its not about workflow, its about not allowing sideloaded apps. the question is whether it is pro or anti consumer? does it hurt the consumer to pay 30% apple tax for netflix, or does the walled garden benefit the consumer by protecting them?
      - jmrobertson 8y ago
        I obviously have the view that the walled garden benefits consumers, so my bias shows. And, I think there's a lot of wiggle room on the cost to host in the App store. However, US monopoly law is based on consumer harm, so... I think on a mobile platform, with plenty of competition to not buy an iOS-based phone, a walled garden absolutely benefits consumers more than it hurts. There is so much PII on phones now. Given the total lack of InfoSec knowledge, especially at the mobile-user level, a walled garden is crucial: see every Google Store vuln that hasn't hit Apple.
        basch 8y ago
        Theres a pretty good argument to be made that it nearly eliminates piracy, and is good for business too.
        phillmv 8y ago
        my dudes: charge yearly $$ to get a cert that allows you to request permissions higher than "access {camera, location while in use, microphone}" and most of the truly harsh PII issues go away afaict the harm isn't consumer oriented, since it's somewhat diffuse, it's about concentration of market power in the industry. we could live in a world where you target one distribution platform, and phone vendors compete to police malware, but instead we have walled gardens that police content & economically lock you to their environments and don't even do a good job about malware
- treis 8y ago
  >Right, so imagine separating Apple/Google totally from its current oversight position, and having a totally open app store That's not the point. The point is that Netflix, HBO, Spotify, et. al. have to pay the 30% Apple/Google tax while the movie, music, etc. products from Apple/Google don't. Warren's proposed rule is, effectively, you can produce something or you can sell something, but not both. Apple would need to decide if they want to be an app maker or an app seller.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  You can make and distribute your own app on Android and totally bypass Google Play already. Also - having a security policy is different than taking a 30% cut of all commercial activity on the platform.

yathaid 8y ago

It's not Apple's oversight of the app store that is the problem Warren is targeting, it is the participation. Apple can either take 30% from Spotify or have iTunes, not both. Similar argument for Amazon and Amazon Basics. The article does raise an interesting point though about not thinking of these companies as "tech"; the Amazon argument can be applied to any private label I guess, hence the point about unintended consequences. It is an interesting concept though, almost like the logical extension of the net neutrality argument. DirecTV, HBO and ATT merging would be something that directly runs foul of this. You either get to provide the platform (be an ISP) or be a content producer, not both.

scarface74 8y ago
So is she going to break up the PlayStation, XBox, Nintendo, and Kindle Stores from their platforms? Is she going to stop physical retailers from having store brands that “compete unfairly”?
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  I think she's saying that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo shouldn't be game developers or publishers and that Amazon shouldn't be a book publisher.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And it’s amazing that software developers are okay with the government telling companies how software should be sold and produced.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    And Tesla shouldn’t be a car dealership. But going direct to consumer was the best thing for consumers imo. Why would I want to deal with economically inefficient middlemen? The new laws could create digital versions of car dealerships
    - jmrobertson 8y ago

vharuck 8y ago

So nobody but Apple and Google can handle security? The first days of free-for-all would be rough, but there'd eventually be a lineup of safe marketplaces. Hardware is a key part of security, too, but Intel doesn't have to run the marketplace.

jmrobertson 8y ago
Well, Intel and AMD have had the run of the marketplace (and ARM indirectly) since the beginning, but there's reasons for that both security and other so not exactly a good comparison.

opportune 8y ago

If Apple releases a secure mobile operating system then allowing apps to be used outside of the official app store is no different from me being able to install whatever software I want on my mac