4 ms·

You don’t think the security/trust argument has any merit?

oauea 5y ago
I trust my own judgement, thank you very much. I don't need Big Daddy Apple making all my decisions for me. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or well, it should be.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or well, it should be. I find this sentiment interesting vs the juxtaposition that Netflix wanted off of IAP because Apple makes it too easy to cancel your subscription. I've always viewed the current tension over the App Store not to be Apple vs. Users, but Apple vs. Scumbag Developers
raiyu 5y ago
There is a definitely a benefit in terms of trust and security, though not fool proof. However, when you force companies to only signup and accept payment through your payment gateway instead of giving customers the option, and then unequally applying rules and colluding with other companies you start to get in trouble in regards to monopolistic practices.
- derefr 5y ago
  Nitpick: developers aren't required by Apple to restrict payment to only go through the App Store / Apple Pay. They're just required to take an equivalent App Store levy out of whatever gross they're making, regardless of what payment processor they use, and hand that levy to Apple. For example, there's no TOS requirement preventing Amazon from having been selling Kindle books through its iOS Kindle app this whole time, and charging those sales through the user's Amazon payment processing as per usual. The only TOS requirement is that they would have just had to take 30% off the top of those sales for Apple. Amazon doesn't want to do this (and perhaps would have negative margins if they did), so instead they have decided to not have any kind of store view in the iOS Kindle app, and instead to just tell iOS Kindle users to go to the Amazon website to shop for Kindle books.
echelon 5y ago
The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans (where "CSAM" means whatever any given nation's intelligence apparatus doesn't like). If you don't believe it, just look to what they've done to their customers in non-US regions. Or that Mac phones home about what programs you run. App review is meant to enforce Apple's payment rules as much as anything. They don't and can't catch everything. Strong sandboxing, granular permissions, and remote kill switch (that can be disabled) can do effectively the same job. It just won't earn Apple gobs of racketeering money.
- shadowfiend 5y ago
  > The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans It does not.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > It does not. Yet.
tombert 5y ago
Obviously not the OP, but figured I'll give my unsolicited opinion anyway. I think there's "merit" to it, in that the logic holds: if we restrict the apps in an app store to be selected by a trusted entity then we can more likely trust the app. This computes, I think it's reasonable enough logic, but we could extend this further to something farcical too: I could make my phone "unhackable" and "more secure" by throwing it into a wood chipper. It would be impossible to hack, there's virtually no chance of my personal details leaking because of it, but of course I lose access to features of the phone (or in this case the entire phone itself). A corporation (or any large entity) will always be able to justify a restriction as a means of "increased security". Security vulnerabilities will almost always come from being able to actually use a computer as a computer. This wouldn't inherently be a problem if it weren't for the fact that there are plenty of things things that are perfectly legal, but Apple won't approve, presumably out of fears of legal headaches, like video game console emulators. My "solution" to approximate something decent would be to do something more or less akin to what macOS does. By default, don't allow any sideloading and only allow things to be installed via the App Store. If one would like to install something outside of the app store, they must (on a per-app basis) go into the security settings and allow things. This would still give preferential treatment to the App Store, but would allow people who know what they're doing to go around this. NOTE: I'm aware of the self-signing AltStore thing, and it's definitely a step in the right direction, if still a bigger pain in the ass than it should be.
summerlight 5y ago
It has some merits, but not worth enough to justify 30% tax. Perhaps 10% would be acceptable. 5% can make a good case for Apple.
m463 5y ago
lip service. Trust and security don't mean much when apps have unfettered internet access. You cannot find who the app is contacting, how often and what is sent. You also have no ability to filter or block the contact. * * there are minor hacks.

I trust my own judgement, thank you very much. I don't need Big Daddy Apple making all my decisions for me. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or well, it should be.

nemothekid 5y ago
>Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or well, it should be. I find this sentiment interesting vs the juxtaposition that Netflix wanted off of IAP because Apple makes it too easy to cancel your subscription. I've always viewed the current tension over the App Store not to be Apple vs. Users, but Apple vs. Scumbag Developers

raiyu 5y ago

There is a definitely a benefit in terms of trust and security, though not fool proof. However, when you force companies to only signup and accept payment through your payment gateway instead of giving customers the option, and then unequally applying rules and colluding with other companies you start to get in trouble in regards to monopolistic practices.

derefr 5y ago
Nitpick: developers aren't required by Apple to restrict payment to only go through the App Store / Apple Pay. They're just required to take an equivalent App Store levy out of whatever gross they're making, regardless of what payment processor they use, and hand that levy to Apple. For example, there's no TOS requirement preventing Amazon from having been selling Kindle books through its iOS Kindle app this whole time, and charging those sales through the user's Amazon payment processing as per usual. The only TOS requirement is that they would have just had to take 30% off the top of those sales for Apple. Amazon doesn't want to do this (and perhaps would have negative margins if they did), so instead they have decided to not have any kind of store view in the iOS Kindle app, and instead to just tell iOS Kindle users to go to the Amazon website to shop for Kindle books.

echelon 5y ago

The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans (where "CSAM" means whatever any given nation's intelligence apparatus doesn't like). If you don't believe it, just look to what they've done to their customers in non-US regions. Or that Mac phones home about what programs you run. App review is meant to enforce Apple's payment rules as much as anything. They don't and can't catch everything. Strong sandboxing, granular permissions, and remote kill switch (that can be disabled) can do effectively the same job. It just won't earn Apple gobs of racketeering money.

shadowfiend 5y ago
> The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans It does not.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > It does not. Yet.

tombert 5y ago

Obviously not the OP, but figured I'll give my unsolicited opinion anyway. I think there's "merit" to it, in that the logic holds: if we restrict the apps in an app store to be selected by a trusted entity then we can more likely trust the app. This computes, I think it's reasonable enough logic, but we could extend this further to something farcical too: I could make my phone "unhackable" and "more secure" by throwing it into a wood chipper. It would be impossible to hack, there's virtually no chance of my personal details leaking because of it, but of course I lose access to features of the phone (or in this case the entire phone itself). A corporation (or any large entity) will always be able to justify a restriction as a means of "increased security". Security vulnerabilities will almost always come from being able to actually use a computer as a computer. This wouldn't inherently be a problem if it weren't for the fact that there are plenty of things things that are perfectly legal, but Apple won't approve, presumably out of fears of legal headaches, like video game console emulators. My "solution" to approximate something decent would be to do something more or less akin to what macOS does. By default, don't allow any sideloading and only allow things to be installed via the App Store. If one would like to install something outside of the app store, they must (on a per-app basis) go into the security settings and allow things. This would still give preferential treatment to the App Store, but would allow people who know what they're doing to go around this. NOTE: I'm aware of the self-signing AltStore thing, and it's definitely a step in the right direction, if still a bigger pain in the ass than it should be.

summerlight 5y ago

It has some merits, but not worth enough to justify 30% tax. Perhaps 10% would be acceptable. 5% can make a good case for Apple.

m463 5y ago

lip service. Trust and security don't mean much when apps have unfettered internet access. You cannot find who the app is contacting, how often and what is sent. You also have no ability to filter or block the contact. * * there are minor hacks.