14 ms·

EU antitrust: Apple shouldn't use privacy and security to stave off competition

173 points by webmobdev 5y ago

webmobdev 5y ago
"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Spot on! There is a point of no return for us consumers too when the manufacturers use the argument of "security and privacy" to take so much control away from us. At that certain point, can you really say that you own the device you have paid for?
- nobodyshere 5y ago
  Well they use the "save the kids" argument pretty often in the US to take away what's left of the privacy out there.
  - alpaca128 5y ago
    In the US? Everywhere. Also popular: "but terrorists could use this encryption thing"
- contravariant 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure we already passed that point when we accepted the argument that users need to be protected against themselves. Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves. And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
  - dageshi 5y ago
    I would feel fairly confident in saying the majority of the iphone install base is both incapable and completely disinterested in making an informed decision in these matters. They don't care how it works really, so long as it works, whichever product "just works" is the one they will buy. Power users like the majority of HN users are different, but they're not the majority of the market.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      I agree with this but must add that laws aren't made to force what the majority knows (or in this case doesn't know) down the throat of everyone. This is why we have people like Vestager to counter what Apple does.
- graeme 5y ago
  She isn’t making a sensible assessment of tradeoffs though. You do take a security hit from sideloading. There’s no way around that. Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.
  - realusername 5y ago
    That's debatable, you don't have any more control as a user on apps downloaded from the appstore compared to a sideloaded app. They are running in the exact same security sandbox and the lack of insights on what the app is doing is there in both cases. For me the most secure medium right now is the web (much more than any appstore) and it's designed to run code on demand.
    - Retric 5y ago
      You’re assuming that App Stores have no influence. Not enough people make choices based on privacy to offset the profits from violating people’s privacy, however gatekeeping App stores have real leverage. What they use that leverage for is a real question. We have plenty of examples where opening things up caused issues. For example the minimum quality of NES games massively declined after Nintendo opened the floodgates.
      - realusername 5y ago
        I can agree that having the appstore does maintain some quality standards, however it does not guarantee any security, that's not really a good argument considering that their security model still needs to catch up to reach something as good as the web which is completely opened.
        Jcowell 5y ago
        It’s never been about it the guarantee of security. There is no such thing and never will be. It’s about the degree of security and having a Single App Store has a degree of security that multiple does not.
- type0 5y ago
  Just for the record MS stated that they don't support older CPUs in Windows 11 because "security"; mind you not your security but security for the media companies that can feel safe with the new DRM being stronger.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    another example of bad amoral behavior doesn't make this example any less significant (whataboutism?)
    - tryingtogetback 5y ago
      test
rank0 5y ago
We’re witnessing the death of general purpose computing
- smoldesu 5y ago
  s/death/commercialization
  - anoncake 5y ago
    What? Computers have been made commercially for decades.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Apple has abused their position as a market leader for years. I'll burn karma if it bears repeating, but their unrivaled hostility has kinda destroyed the technology sector.
      - xbar 5y ago
        I won't downvote, but you need to clarify. Are you talking only about iPhone?
      - anoncake 5y ago
        I can't argue with that, but if you kill something, calling the result death seems more appropriate.
freddealmeida 5y ago
well that is an unexpected twist.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  Someone had to look at the world's most profitable company and wonder where all that money came from.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Lariscus 5y ago
I expected the worst when reading the headline but this is great news. If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone.
- mistersquid 5y ago
  > If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone. This will result in different phones for different markets. For example, iPhone in Japan must play a sound when the camera takes a picture. This is not true of iPhones sold in the US. iPhones in some markets also are not allowed to have active 5G modems while, obviously, iPhones in the US are. I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches. We’ll have to wait and see.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    > I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches. Security and flexibility are always at odd with each other. But for side loading, I'm not really worried. Users that are susceptible to security problems don't have the technical know-how to even do something as simple as sideloading. Those who are technical enough usually are not the entry point for malware.
    - srtjstjsj 5y ago
      This is not true. Thanks to friendly YouTube and web tutorials, non- technical users are great at hacking themselves: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-XSS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-XSS
    - spideymans 5y ago
      >Users that are susceptible to security problems don't have the technical know-how to even do something as simple as sideloading. Those who are technical enough usually are not the entry point for malware. If sideloading is made too difficult for average users, it would totally negate the anti-trust (competitive) benefits of forcing the platform open in the first place. Either governments make sideloading easy and approachable to the masses, and accept the UX/security/privacy risks involved, or they make it cumbersome, and accept the continuation of the App Store monopoly.
chomp 5y ago
So where can I go if I want a device that does not allow sideloading? I want a device that has a single trusted root that takes a hard stance on all apps to make sure they’re not abusing privileges, and signs the apps that are validated. Is that going to be gone now? Should I just go to a feature phone?
- bobviolier 5y ago
  I mean, you don't _have_ to install another marketplace for apps.
  - chomp 5y ago
    I do not want the option to install other apps, because it gives me plausible deniability when my employer or someone is like “install this app or you’re fired”. Or if someone gets a hold of my phone and now I have a brand new app with all permissions installed. Having the ability to side load gives the ability to people to coerce you into installing things that wouldn’t fly under a single root model. I do not feel that computing is headed to a good place in terms of privacy and I feel like giving the Googles, Facebooks, and spyware companies more levers to pull is going in the wrong direction. (Well, maybe the right direction under normal circumstances if the tech industry was more ethical)
    - marderfarker2 5y ago
      Just recently my company’s HR forced us to download a payroll vendor’s app on our phones. The app was downloaded from the App Store.
      - extra88 5y ago
        Because it’s from the Apple App Store, you can be reasonably sure it does what it says and isn’t monitoring your communications. You can also use permissions to deny it things like background app refresh or location data.
        5y ago
politelemon 5y ago
The headline is editorialized, which isn't surprising considering the biased news source. You can see in the body of the article, Apple is _stifling_ competition, which is what the antitrust is about. The headline reduces it to "stave off" to make it appear harmless. I'm glad this is being pointed out, as Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. The main aim has not been privacy, it has always been to lock users into their ecosystem with carefully controlled images, misleading advertising campaigns, PR spins, and their analogues/equivalents to "think of the children". Realistically, I do not have any hope of anything being done as there is far too much support for, and normalization of, the current jail. This isn't the same landscape that punished MS many years ago - who have been relatively harmless when compared to FB, Apple and Google - these three companies have been playing a slightly more clever game with their EU ties and I fully expect them to get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, while relaxing in their tax haven.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > …Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Of course Apple doesn't say that explicitly. That stance in implicit in Apples refusal to users to install without Apple's knowledge (i.e. use other app storea) and their many measure to force apple product users to pay for amy software features or services outside Apple's ecosystem.
  - ampdepolymerase 5y ago
    They pretend to care about consumer privacy by only encrypting on device and at the same time hand data over to governments through unencrypted iCloud backups.
doobeeus 5y ago
Given how Apple allows side-loading on Mac and obviously the 2 other dominant consumer platforms (Android & Windows) do as well with no significant consequences, it's pretty disingenuous for Apple to engage in these privacy/security scare tactics to maintain platform control and profits. Add to this the fact that they only really started this campaign more than a decade after they launched the iPhone just compounds Apple's loss of credibility on this.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  Apple allows sideloading on computers because that’s how computers have always been. Introducing a Computer back then that had no means of getting needed software would be suicide for any computer. It had to open because computers for the most part were always open and Apple didn’t have the leverage or starting position like they did with the iPhone. Something like a Chromebook would have absolutely failed decades ago. A lot of things done today would have failed decades ago and vice versa.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Most (modern) Chromebooks allow you to run any linux software you want. Just because you have the ecosystem lock-in to force something new down the throats of users doesn't justify doing it.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Yes but we’re not talking about us we’re talking about general consumers and the useful of a tool for general consumers. The general consumers is not is talking Linux or using Linux app. The closest they’ll ever touch to Linux is Unix via MacOS. We can write 100 things for Linux but it means Jack nothing to a consumer who will never do that to the Chromebooks. I.e School IT’s for student use.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        I'm not really clear what your point is. Sideloading apps on MacOS, Android and ChromeOS all require taking a few additional steps. It's unlikely that most average consumer will ever take these steps, but it is easily doable for those consumers if you follow online instructions (and so some do.) iOS really is unique in the level of difficulty involved in sideloading apps.
kitsunesoba 5y ago
I don't think sideloading in itself is necessarily a threat to privacy. It's unquestionably a downgrade in security thanks to the existence of social engineering, but that might be something we just have to live with. Where the real threat, in my opinion, lies is with third party app stores. It's easy to imagine Facebook for example launching its own app store where rules for information gathering are lax or nonexistent and then forcing its success by making the powerhouse apps it controls exclusive to it - a lot of people wouldn't think twice about installing a questionable app store if that were the only way they could get Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc. There's also no shortage of unscrupulous developers who would jump aboard their platform for the anything goes policies. One could argue that users have a choice in that situation, but that's not really true, particularly where network effects are concerned. Most people are not going to switch to Signal for example if WhatsApp becomes a Facebook Store exclusive - they're just going to install the Facebook Store and get on with life, because the energy involved in getting entire social groups moved over just isn't there. Technical solutions to this privacy problem like sandboxing sound good on paper, but there will always be holes, and if the gatekeeper is happy to look the other way when developers use said holes (as Facebook themselves have in the past), those protections may as well not exist. Even if Apple puts maximum effort into closing off these holes, it'll be an endless cat and mouse game with user information dripping out the whole way. Some will point out that third party app stores and sideloading have been possible on Android since forever and the above described outcome hasn't occurred, but the incentives are quite different in the case of iOS/App Store, both financially (iOS user eyeballs are worth a lot more) and from a policy standpoint (the App Store, historically, has been much more strict than the Play Store). It could also still happen in the case of Android, and is perhaps even likely given how Google has been tightening the bolts on the Play Store's policies. So, my thought is that any legislation that forces the ability to sideload and install third party app stores must be accompanied by parallel legislation that effectively takes the App Store's privacy policies and codifies them as law, and potentially even criminalizes abuse of platforms to gain personal information without the user's explicit consent.
- danaris 5y ago
  Sideloading is a threat to privacy because it allows apps to ignore the consent requirements the App Store enforces. As it stands, if any app wants access to your contacts, your camera, your microphone, your photos, etc, it must ask first. Allowing sideloading removes this protection, and apps installed that way could simply siphon all your data silently. You even describe how that can be the case, but you couch it as being with third-party app stores. While what you say is not false, it is also not limited to that case: the removal of both privacy and security protections happens as soon as you stop having the App Store be the sole source for iOS software. Yes, of course, a hypothetical "Facebook App Store" with all Facebook apps being exclusive to it would have a higher chance of getting nefarious data-siphoning apps onto users' iPhones than any old random sideloaded app, but it's hardly a necessary part of the threat to privacy. It's just a way of guaranteeing much more widespread compromises of privacy.
deregulateMed 5y ago
Apple gives your emails to the US Government (PRISM) then runs ads for Privacy. Apple products are exploited near weekly, then run ads for Security. Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different" Apple runs on doublethink, merging the latest psychology tricks with their marketing department so their product departments can cut corners. Accounting and Finance departments love it.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  > Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different" Ironically, in the case of web engines specifically, mandatory WebKit on iOS is the only remaining substantial resistance against a Chromium monopoly. Safari/WebKit sits at ~18% while Firefox/Gecko has dwindled to ~3%[0]. If third party web engines were allowed on iOS, WebKit's share would almost certainly plummet to match that of Firefox with Chrome and other forms of reskinned Chromium taking its place. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
  - techrat 5y ago
    Yet Chromium's Blink engine is a fork of WebCore from WebKit and it's still open source. (LGPL and BSD Licenses) It gets contributions from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Opera Software, Adobe, Intel, IBM, Samsung, etc... It is not controlled by one company. So, not nearly the "browser monopoly" as it was with Internet Explorer at the time. Blink didn't become a "monopoly" because of pressure from Google... as it was pressure from Microsoft with IE. It became widely adopted because it's actually the superior engine. I hope you're not trying to drawl parallels with what happened with Microsoft by calling it a "Chromium monopoly." I'd argue it'd be disingenuous to do so. If the only thing keeping Apple's spin of Webkit alive is its own anti-consumer practices of keeping it as the only option within its own walled garden, that's hardly a statement of confidence for the engine itself. Perhaps it should die.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
Jap2-0 5y ago
Source article from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-warns-apple-against-using-privacy-security-limit-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa...
pabs3 5y ago
I wonder if Apple would leave the EU if forced to do this.
nuker 5y ago
> Vestager said "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Horseshit. Consumers will install anything from anywhere, all the time.
musicale 5y ago
> I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload. (Emphasis mine) Confusing phrasing, but would I agree that security and privacy could in fact be reduced by using another app store or sideloading. Consider an app that is removed from Apple's app store for violating Apple's privacy and/or security requirements (for example refusing to report, or inaccurately reporting, collection of personal information). There is no guarantee that the app would also be removed from third-party app stores, or that it could not be sideloaded.
beebeepka 5y ago
Unbiasedreviews.mom

173 points by webmobdev 5y ago

"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Spot on! There is a point of no return for us consumers too when the manufacturers use the argument of "security and privacy" to take so much control away from us. At that certain point, can you really say that you own the device you have paid for?

nobodyshere 5y ago
Well they use the "save the kids" argument pretty often in the US to take away what's left of the privacy out there.
- alpaca128 5y ago
  In the US? Everywhere. Also popular: "but terrorists could use this encryption thing"
contravariant 5y ago
I'm pretty sure we already passed that point when we accepted the argument that users need to be protected against themselves. Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves. And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
- dageshi 5y ago
  I would feel fairly confident in saying the majority of the iphone install base is both incapable and completely disinterested in making an informed decision in these matters. They don't care how it works really, so long as it works, whichever product "just works" is the one they will buy. Power users like the majority of HN users are different, but they're not the majority of the market.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    I agree with this but must add that laws aren't made to force what the majority knows (or in this case doesn't know) down the throat of everyone. This is why we have people like Vestager to counter what Apple does.
graeme 5y ago
She isn’t making a sensible assessment of tradeoffs though. You do take a security hit from sideloading. There’s no way around that. Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.
- realusername 5y ago
  That's debatable, you don't have any more control as a user on apps downloaded from the appstore compared to a sideloaded app. They are running in the exact same security sandbox and the lack of insights on what the app is doing is there in both cases. For me the most secure medium right now is the web (much more than any appstore) and it's designed to run code on demand.
  - Retric 5y ago
    You’re assuming that App Stores have no influence. Not enough people make choices based on privacy to offset the profits from violating people’s privacy, however gatekeeping App stores have real leverage. What they use that leverage for is a real question. We have plenty of examples where opening things up caused issues. For example the minimum quality of NES games massively declined after Nintendo opened the floodgates.
    - realusername 5y ago
      I can agree that having the appstore does maintain some quality standards, however it does not guarantee any security, that's not really a good argument considering that their security model still needs to catch up to reach something as good as the web which is completely opened.
      - Jcowell 5y ago
        It’s never been about it the guarantee of security. There is no such thing and never will be. It’s about the degree of security and having a Single App Store has a degree of security that multiple does not.
type0 5y ago
Just for the record MS stated that they don't support older CPUs in Windows 11 because "security"; mind you not your security but security for the media companies that can feel safe with the new DRM being stronger.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  another example of bad amoral behavior doesn't make this example any less significant (whataboutism?)
  - tryingtogetback 5y ago
    test

rank0 5y ago

We’re witnessing the death of general purpose computing

smoldesu 5y ago
s/death/commercialization
- anoncake 5y ago
  What? Computers have been made commercially for decades.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Apple has abused their position as a market leader for years. I'll burn karma if it bears repeating, but their unrivaled hostility has kinda destroyed the technology sector.
    - xbar 5y ago
      I won't downvote, but you need to clarify. Are you talking only about iPhone?
    - anoncake 5y ago
      I can't argue with that, but if you kill something, calling the result death seems more appropriate.

freddealmeida 5y ago

well that is an unexpected twist.

smoldesu 5y ago
Someone had to look at the world's most profitable company and wonder where all that money came from.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Lariscus 5y ago

I expected the worst when reading the headline but this is great news. If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone.

mistersquid 5y ago
> If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone. This will result in different phones for different markets. For example, iPhone in Japan must play a sound when the camera takes a picture. This is not true of iPhones sold in the US. iPhones in some markets also are not allowed to have active 5G modems while, obviously, iPhones in the US are. I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches. We’ll have to wait and see.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  > I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches. Security and flexibility are always at odd with each other. But for side loading, I'm not really worried. Users that are susceptible to security problems don't have the technical know-how to even do something as simple as sideloading. Those who are technical enough usually are not the entry point for malware.
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    This is not true. Thanks to friendly YouTube and web tutorials, non- technical users are great at hacking themselves: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-XSS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-XSS
  - spideymans 5y ago
    >Users that are susceptible to security problems don't have the technical know-how to even do something as simple as sideloading. Those who are technical enough usually are not the entry point for malware. If sideloading is made too difficult for average users, it would totally negate the anti-trust (competitive) benefits of forcing the platform open in the first place. Either governments make sideloading easy and approachable to the masses, and accept the UX/security/privacy risks involved, or they make it cumbersome, and accept the continuation of the App Store monopoly.

chomp 5y ago

So where can I go if I want a device that does not allow sideloading? I want a device that has a single trusted root that takes a hard stance on all apps to make sure they’re not abusing privileges, and signs the apps that are validated. Is that going to be gone now? Should I just go to a feature phone?

bobviolier 5y ago
I mean, you don't _have_ to install another marketplace for apps.
- chomp 5y ago
  I do not want the option to install other apps, because it gives me plausible deniability when my employer or someone is like “install this app or you’re fired”. Or if someone gets a hold of my phone and now I have a brand new app with all permissions installed. Having the ability to side load gives the ability to people to coerce you into installing things that wouldn’t fly under a single root model. I do not feel that computing is headed to a good place in terms of privacy and I feel like giving the Googles, Facebooks, and spyware companies more levers to pull is going in the wrong direction. (Well, maybe the right direction under normal circumstances if the tech industry was more ethical)
  - marderfarker2 5y ago
    Just recently my company’s HR forced us to download a payroll vendor’s app on our phones. The app was downloaded from the App Store.
    - extra88 5y ago
      Because it’s from the Apple App Store, you can be reasonably sure it does what it says and isn’t monitoring your communications. You can also use permissions to deny it things like background app refresh or location data.
      - 5y ago

politelemon 5y ago

The headline is editorialized, which isn't surprising considering the biased news source. You can see in the body of the article, Apple is _stifling_ competition, which is what the antitrust is about. The headline reduces it to "stave off" to make it appear harmless. I'm glad this is being pointed out, as Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. The main aim has not been privacy, it has always been to lock users into their ecosystem with carefully controlled images, misleading advertising campaigns, PR spins, and their analogues/equivalents to "think of the children". Realistically, I do not have any hope of anything being done as there is far too much support for, and normalization of, the current jail. This isn't the same landscape that punished MS many years ago - who have been relatively harmless when compared to FB, Apple and Google - these three companies have been playing a slightly more clever game with their EU ties and I fully expect them to get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, while relaxing in their tax haven.

CharlesW 5y ago
> …Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data. Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Of course Apple doesn't say that explicitly. That stance in implicit in Apples refusal to users to install without Apple's knowledge (i.e. use other app storea) and their many measure to force apple product users to pay for amy software features or services outside Apple's ecosystem.
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  They pretend to care about consumer privacy by only encrypting on device and at the same time hand data over to governments through unencrypted iCloud backups.

doobeeus 5y ago

Given how Apple allows side-loading on Mac and obviously the 2 other dominant consumer platforms (Android & Windows) do as well with no significant consequences, it's pretty disingenuous for Apple to engage in these privacy/security scare tactics to maintain platform control and profits. Add to this the fact that they only really started this campaign more than a decade after they launched the iPhone just compounds Apple's loss of credibility on this.

Jcowell 5y ago
Apple allows sideloading on computers because that’s how computers have always been. Introducing a Computer back then that had no means of getting needed software would be suicide for any computer. It had to open because computers for the most part were always open and Apple didn’t have the leverage or starting position like they did with the iPhone. Something like a Chromebook would have absolutely failed decades ago. A lot of things done today would have failed decades ago and vice versa.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Most (modern) Chromebooks allow you to run any linux software you want. Just because you have the ecosystem lock-in to force something new down the throats of users doesn't justify doing it.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Yes but we’re not talking about us we’re talking about general consumers and the useful of a tool for general consumers. The general consumers is not is talking Linux or using Linux app. The closest they’ll ever touch to Linux is Unix via MacOS. We can write 100 things for Linux but it means Jack nothing to a consumer who will never do that to the Chromebooks. I.e School IT’s for student use.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I'm not really clear what your point is. Sideloading apps on MacOS, Android and ChromeOS all require taking a few additional steps. It's unlikely that most average consumer will ever take these steps, but it is easily doable for those consumers if you follow online instructions (and so some do.) iOS really is unique in the level of difficulty involved in sideloading apps.

kitsunesoba 5y ago

I don't think sideloading in itself is necessarily a threat to privacy. It's unquestionably a downgrade in security thanks to the existence of social engineering, but that might be something we just have to live with. Where the real threat, in my opinion, lies is with third party app stores. It's easy to imagine Facebook for example launching its own app store where rules for information gathering are lax or nonexistent and then forcing its success by making the powerhouse apps it controls exclusive to it - a lot of people wouldn't think twice about installing a questionable app store if that were the only way they could get Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc. There's also no shortage of unscrupulous developers who would jump aboard their platform for the anything goes policies. One could argue that users have a choice in that situation, but that's not really true, particularly where network effects are concerned. Most people are not going to switch to Signal for example if WhatsApp becomes a Facebook Store exclusive - they're just going to install the Facebook Store and get on with life, because the energy involved in getting entire social groups moved over just isn't there. Technical solutions to this privacy problem like sandboxing sound good on paper, but there will always be holes, and if the gatekeeper is happy to look the other way when developers use said holes (as Facebook themselves have in the past), those protections may as well not exist. Even if Apple puts maximum effort into closing off these holes, it'll be an endless cat and mouse game with user information dripping out the whole way. Some will point out that third party app stores and sideloading have been possible on Android since forever and the above described outcome hasn't occurred, but the incentives are quite different in the case of iOS/App Store, both financially (iOS user eyeballs are worth a lot more) and from a policy standpoint (the App Store, historically, has been much more strict than the Play Store). It could also still happen in the case of Android, and is perhaps even likely given how Google has been tightening the bolts on the Play Store's policies. So, my thought is that any legislation that forces the ability to sideload and install third party app stores must be accompanied by parallel legislation that effectively takes the App Store's privacy policies and codifies them as law, and potentially even criminalizes abuse of platforms to gain personal information without the user's explicit consent.

danaris 5y ago
Sideloading is a threat to privacy because it allows apps to ignore the consent requirements the App Store enforces. As it stands, if any app wants access to your contacts, your camera, your microphone, your photos, etc, it must ask first. Allowing sideloading removes this protection, and apps installed that way could simply siphon all your data silently. You even describe how that can be the case, but you couch it as being with third-party app stores. While what you say is not false, it is also not limited to that case: the removal of both privacy and security protections happens as soon as you stop having the App Store be the sole source for iOS software. Yes, of course, a hypothetical "Facebook App Store" with all Facebook apps being exclusive to it would have a higher chance of getting nefarious data-siphoning apps onto users' iPhones than any old random sideloaded app, but it's hardly a necessary part of the threat to privacy. It's just a way of guaranteeing much more widespread compromises of privacy.

deregulateMed 5y ago

Apple gives your emails to the US Government (PRISM) then runs ads for Privacy. Apple products are exploited near weekly, then run ads for Security. Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different" Apple runs on doublethink, merging the latest psychology tricks with their marketing department so their product departments can cut corners. Accounting and Finance departments love it.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
> Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different" Ironically, in the case of web engines specifically, mandatory WebKit on iOS is the only remaining substantial resistance against a Chromium monopoly. Safari/WebKit sits at ~18% while Firefox/Gecko has dwindled to ~3%[0]. If third party web engines were allowed on iOS, WebKit's share would almost certainly plummet to match that of Firefox with Chrome and other forms of reskinned Chromium taking its place. [0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
- techrat 5y ago
  Yet Chromium's Blink engine is a fork of WebCore from WebKit and it's still open source. (LGPL and BSD Licenses) It gets contributions from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Opera Software, Adobe, Intel, IBM, Samsung, etc... It is not controlled by one company. So, not nearly the "browser monopoly" as it was with Internet Explorer at the time. Blink didn't become a "monopoly" because of pressure from Google... as it was pressure from Microsoft with IE. It became widely adopted because it's actually the superior engine. I hope you're not trying to drawl parallels with what happened with Microsoft by calling it a "Chromium monopoly." I'd argue it'd be disingenuous to do so. If the only thing keeping Apple's spin of Webkit alive is its own anti-consumer practices of keeping it as the only option within its own walled garden, that's hardly a statement of confidence for the engine itself. Perhaps it should die.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago

Jap2-0 5y ago

Source article from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-warns-apple-against-using-privacy-security-limit-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa...

pabs3 5y ago

I wonder if Apple would leave the EU if forced to do this.

nuker 5y ago

> Vestager said "I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Horseshit. Consumers will install anything from anywhere, all the time.

musicale 5y ago

> I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload. (Emphasis mine) Confusing phrasing, but would I agree that security and privacy could in fact be reduced by using another app store or sideloading. Consider an app that is removed from Apple's app store for violating Apple's privacy and/or security requirements (for example refusing to report, or inaccurately reporting, collection of personal information). There is no guarantee that the app would also be removed from third-party app stores, or that it could not be sideloaded.

beebeepka 5y ago

Unbiasedreviews.mom