7 ms·

Has the US and EU just given up on anti-trust at this point? What Apple and Google are doing here is racketeering. There's no inherent NEED for app stores. T

Has the US and EU just given up on anti-trust at this point? What Apple and Google are doing here is racketeering. There's no inherent NEED for app stores. The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly. Apple disabling 3rd party downloads on their phones is just creating an artificial market that wouldn't exist normally - AKA the literal definition of racketeering. We're about to release an app on iOS and Google and we'll probably just have to yield to their rules but we're going to really make a stink over this and write letters to congress and the EU saying we believe this should be illegal.

judge2020 6y ago
> The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly. Only after you bought your antivirus from your local best buy valid for 3 years. Even now, Windows might as well be an app store but blacklist-based instead of whitelist-based since MSFT can effectively kill any app they want by adding it to their smartscreen filters.
- nitinreddy88 6y ago
  This is a pretty bad comparison logic. Windows allows you to disable anything through settings and registry keys which doesnt require any rooting/violation of support terms, which is never ever supported in Android/Apple.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Android and iOS are inherently more secure at the OS level. Sideloading a 3rd party iOS app would not expose your password for your bank app. It may contain adult content in adverts or expose your card details you type in to it but it will never require windows style anti virus programs.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Are you also saying sideloading an Android app wouldn’t cause a security issue? Maybe if you just sideloaded from a trusted source? https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/just-as-critics-feared-...
    - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
      I have read this a few times and its still not clear what the issue was. There are a lot of vague statements like "sneakily replace the real Fortnite app with a fake one after security checks were already complete" What "security check" is this talking about. My best guess is this, Epic app installer downloads an apk to the disk, malware app already installed swaps the apk with its own while its on disk, epic installer uses android system prompt to install the swapped apk. From what I can see, this doesn't give any extra permissions that a normal sideloaded app would not have access to. The worst I can see is that the swapped apk grabs your payment details you enter in the app which was always possible as I pointed out.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        The actual security issue with a proof of concept explanation. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336
        Polylactic_acid 6y ago
        Ok thats a little more enlightening. It seems my initial guess was mostly correct. The bypassed "security" features means bypassing epics installer verification and not any android security features and the comments on the android permissions point to api version 22. Api version 23 added a new permissions model where instead of an app asking at install time what permissions are needed, a modal would show when the permission was used. So there is nothing particularly horrible going on. Androids security and permission model was never broken. The user would see a modal at install time with all the permissions requested so there is no bypass of this. In the end the data and integrity of your other apps is still protected and the worst case is you installed a malware app which can read your photos and capture your input while using the app. But since you required a malware app already installed to pull this off then this is a double low risk issue. Its good that it was reported and fixed but it says nothing about the security of Android.
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    Not so sure about that. The truth is most users cannot be trusted to make good informed security decisions for themselves. As technical people we are instinctively infuriated when we aren't given a choice but for most users that's the best option. That's why the iPhone has a much smaller history of apps (and their installed base) that steal user data than Android's. Because too many users see some shiny exciting app description and click OK when the system asks them "are you sure to install this app? it's going to read your contacts, access storage, make phone calls and send SMS, etc".
thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
Do you remember having to download software from cnet or download.com or some other shareware site? It was not a great experience and much, much worse than the current app stores.
a_imho 6y ago
Yes, the powers which could regulate do not have any interest to do so.
parasubvert 6y ago
You have it completely backwards. Mobile phones rarely had 3rd party downloads until Apple created that market through the App Store. It’s a retail markup with retailer restrictions for a captive market, which isn’t exactly new. It is a very well known and practiced economic model for 40+ years. You’re free to try to declare it illegal (I think this would be a disaster) but thankfully I think the congress and EU might have bigger fish to fry.

judge2020 6y ago

> The world worked JUST FINE before app stores when people downloaded apps and installed them directly. Only after you bought your antivirus from your local best buy valid for 3 years. Even now, Windows might as well be an app store but blacklist-based instead of whitelist-based since MSFT can effectively kill any app they want by adding it to their smartscreen filters.

nitinreddy88 6y ago
This is a pretty bad comparison logic. Windows allows you to disable anything through settings and registry keys which doesnt require any rooting/violation of support terms, which is never ever supported in Android/Apple.
Polylactic_acid 6y ago
Android and iOS are inherently more secure at the OS level. Sideloading a 3rd party iOS app would not expose your password for your bank app. It may contain adult content in adverts or expose your card details you type in to it but it will never require windows style anti virus programs.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Are you also saying sideloading an Android app wouldn’t cause a security issue? Maybe if you just sideloaded from a trusted source? https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/just-as-critics-feared-...
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    I have read this a few times and its still not clear what the issue was. There are a lot of vague statements like "sneakily replace the real Fortnite app with a fake one after security checks were already complete" What "security check" is this talking about. My best guess is this, Epic app installer downloads an apk to the disk, malware app already installed swaps the apk with its own while its on disk, epic installer uses android system prompt to install the swapped apk. From what I can see, this doesn't give any extra permissions that a normal sideloaded app would not have access to. The worst I can see is that the swapped apk grabs your payment details you enter in the app which was always possible as I pointed out.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      The actual security issue with a proof of concept explanation. https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336
      - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
        Ok thats a little more enlightening. It seems my initial guess was mostly correct. The bypassed "security" features means bypassing epics installer verification and not any android security features and the comments on the android permissions point to api version 22. Api version 23 added a new permissions model where instead of an app asking at install time what permissions are needed, a modal would show when the permission was used. So there is nothing particularly horrible going on. Androids security and permission model was never broken. The user would see a modal at install time with all the permissions requested so there is no bypass of this. In the end the data and integrity of your other apps is still protected and the worst case is you installed a malware app which can read your photos and capture your input while using the app. But since you required a malware app already installed to pull this off then this is a double low risk issue. Its good that it was reported and fixed but it says nothing about the security of Android.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  Not so sure about that. The truth is most users cannot be trusted to make good informed security decisions for themselves. As technical people we are instinctively infuriated when we aren't given a choice but for most users that's the best option. That's why the iPhone has a much smaller history of apps (and their installed base) that steal user data than Android's. Because too many users see some shiny exciting app description and click OK when the system asks them "are you sure to install this app? it's going to read your contacts, access storage, make phone calls and send SMS, etc".

thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago

Do you remember having to download software from cnet or download.com or some other shareware site? It was not a great experience and much, much worse than the current app stores.

a_imho 6y ago

Yes, the powers which could regulate do not have any interest to do so.

parasubvert 6y ago

You have it completely backwards. Mobile phones rarely had 3rd party downloads until Apple created that market through the App Store. It’s a retail markup with retailer restrictions for a captive market, which isn’t exactly new. It is a very well known and practiced economic model for 40+ years. You’re free to try to declare it illegal (I think this would be a disaster) but thankfully I think the congress and EU might have bigger fish to fry.