4 ms·

If this was actually about security instead of control, Apple could compromise: Allow third party app stores to exist, but Apple gets to sign the third party st

If this was actually about security instead of control, Apple could compromise: Allow third party app stores to exist, but Apple gets to sign the third party store app itself (and can set minimum requirements like app review). It may sound counter-intuitive, but the whole issue here is that Apple is using their store for anti-competitive things (e.g. blocking/slowing competitors, requiring the use of Apple's payment infrastructure, Apple's ads, etc). If third party stores could exist, you wouldn't need side loading, and security isn't completely compromised as hopefully the third party store provides some level of assurance (Vs. essentially none with side loading). This of course won't happen because it is absolutely about control. Apple may one day allow side loading but will make the process incredibly unpleasant citing For Security Reasons™ as their justification.

sudhirj 5y ago
Yup. Trying to solve security and control with the same hammer is going to get them in trouble. If I make a calculator app, it’s fine to review it and make sure it’s secure, but to tell me that there’s too many calculator apps (or worse reject for a bullshit reason and make their own) is going to get them in trouble. Security checks are fine, choosing who gets to enter is not.
woah 5y ago
What would be the point of that?
- Someone1234 5y ago
  > It may sound counter-intuitive, but the whole issue here is that Apple is using their store for anti-competitive things (e.g. blocking/slowing competitors, requiring the use of Apple's payment infrastructure, Apple's ads, etc). To solve those?
judge2020 5y ago
The reason nobody wants this is that is barely moves the needle. Apple is still the de-facto "gatekeeper" if they set the rules for running a third-party app store like app review and what specifically has to be reviewed (which they need if they don't want the 3p dumbing down the review process to something like just verifying the name matches the app functionality). I don't think many developers interested in a new app store would take it if Apple randomly blocking them for not having stringent-enough app review is a possibility.
zepto 5y ago
That wouldn’t be a compromise at all. Once a store was established Apple wouldn’t be able to close it because of anti-trust issues. Facebook would start a store, data gathering would be built into every app that store sold. Apple would not be able to reject the store itself because Facebook would sue them for anti-competitive behavior.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mthoms 5y ago
I've thought about this too. Here's how my (admittedly half-baked) idea might work: 1. All apps are reviewed and hosted by Apple. 2. Third party app stores act as a layer on top. They pay a commission to Apple on sales (lets say 5-8%) to cover their review and hosting costs plus provide some profit. 3. The app stores set (and compete with) their own prices and services on top of that. 4. Apple maintains its own App store as well. Here are the key bits: A. Apple must review Apps for security and privacy issues. They can choose not to sell it in their store if they find it morally objectionable but they cannot restrict other App stores in what they sell (assuming its legal, and passes security/privacy checks). B. Third party stores can sell whatever they want from the list of apps having been security reviewed by Apple. You'd end up with some cool niche app stores (imagine one with impartial game reviews, or one that only lists non-subscription apps, or one that serves [insert your favorite niche here]). Benefits: 1. For users who like Apple's current model, nothing changes. However, they benefit from increased competition and (likely) better pricing. 2. Apple cannot block apps from being available in third party stores just because it doesn't like them, but it doesn't have to sell apps on its own store that it doesn't want to. Win/win. Unanswered questions: 1. Who will handle refunds/complaints/etc? A: I'm not sure, I'd have to give that more thought. 2. How would the fees work exactly? A: Again, I'm not sure... it might require a fee per app review instead of the current model. (Otherwise Apple would be flooded with Apps to review that have no intention of appearing on Apple's store). In summary: The security threat model is unchanged, users enjoy better selection of Apps and better pricing (and other innovative features) from stores. Yes, it's a half baked idea but there could be the basis for a really good compromise in this sort of arrangement. One that ultimately benefits consumers first.
015a 5y ago
This wouldn't work; Apple's entire argument is that their standards for application review are "baseline", so to speak; they're not overbearing, and are minimally necessary for a store to have high security. (We all know this isn't true, but this is their argument). So, they allow alternate storefronts. Assumedly, these storefronts are allowed to enforce different rules, right? Are the storefronts allowed to distribute porn? This literally came up in the Epic v Apple case, when Apple argued that Epic's distribution of the Itch.io game store was tantamount to Epic's implicit approval of everything Itch.io distributed, including some pretty graphic pornography. Epic argued that this wasn't the case, and they only approved of Itch.io's governance process, not all of the content. In other words, Apple has already argued in court that there's a transitive nature to approved policies of stores-within-stores. I agree with Apple on this one! A situation with Apple approving stores-within-stores would only lead to one of two outcomes: Either these stores have to abide by the same policies the app store enforces, so there's no buff to user/developer freedom but a big debuff to user UX, or, they're allowed to make their own policies, in which case Apple is transitively forced to distribute porn (and violent content, and third party payment processors, and video game streaming services, and everything else in the area between "legal" and "Apple refuses to distribute" today). This doesn't seem fair either, does it? To some degree, to me, it feels like forcing Disney to produce NC-17 gorey horror movies. But, the situation is not identical, because Disney is not the only producer of movies for half of the US population. The better solution is not to force this through the App Store, and instead force what Android does; distribution over the internet (of either individual applications or entire stores, both should be allowed). This is fundamentally less secure, but its also how every other general purpose computing platform works. Apple shouldn't be forced to carry and distribute any and all kinds of applications, but iOS itself should be open to run any and all kinds of applications. Let the open internet handle the distribution.

sudhirj 5y ago

Yup. Trying to solve security and control with the same hammer is going to get them in trouble. If I make a calculator app, it’s fine to review it and make sure it’s secure, but to tell me that there’s too many calculator apps (or worse reject for a bullshit reason and make their own) is going to get them in trouble. Security checks are fine, choosing who gets to enter is not.

woah 5y ago

What would be the point of that?

Someone1234 5y ago
> It may sound counter-intuitive, but the whole issue here is that Apple is using their store for anti-competitive things (e.g. blocking/slowing competitors, requiring the use of Apple's payment infrastructure, Apple's ads, etc). To solve those?

judge2020 5y ago

The reason nobody wants this is that is barely moves the needle. Apple is still the de-facto "gatekeeper" if they set the rules for running a third-party app store like app review and what specifically has to be reviewed (which they need if they don't want the 3p dumbing down the review process to something like just verifying the name matches the app functionality). I don't think many developers interested in a new app store would take it if Apple randomly blocking them for not having stringent-enough app review is a possibility.

zepto 5y ago

That wouldn’t be a compromise at all. Once a store was established Apple wouldn’t be able to close it because of anti-trust issues. Facebook would start a store, data gathering would be built into every app that store sold. Apple would not be able to reject the store itself because Facebook would sue them for anti-competitive behavior.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mthoms 5y ago

I've thought about this too. Here's how my (admittedly half-baked) idea might work: 1. All apps are reviewed and hosted by Apple. 2. Third party app stores act as a layer on top. They pay a commission to Apple on sales (lets say 5-8%) to cover their review and hosting costs plus provide some profit. 3. The app stores set (and compete with) their own prices and services on top of that. 4. Apple maintains its own App store as well. Here are the key bits: A. Apple must review Apps for security and privacy issues. They can choose not to sell it in their store if they find it morally objectionable but they cannot restrict other App stores in what they sell (assuming its legal, and passes security/privacy checks). B. Third party stores can sell whatever they want from the list of apps having been security reviewed by Apple. You'd end up with some cool niche app stores (imagine one with impartial game reviews, or one that only lists non-subscription apps, or one that serves [insert your favorite niche here]). Benefits: 1. For users who like Apple's current model, nothing changes. However, they benefit from increased competition and (likely) better pricing. 2. Apple cannot block apps from being available in third party stores just because it doesn't like them, but it doesn't have to sell apps on its own store that it doesn't want to. Win/win. Unanswered questions: 1. Who will handle refunds/complaints/etc? A: I'm not sure, I'd have to give that more thought. 2. How would the fees work exactly? A: Again, I'm not sure... it might require a fee per app review instead of the current model. (Otherwise Apple would be flooded with Apps to review that have no intention of appearing on Apple's store). In summary: The security threat model is unchanged, users enjoy better selection of Apps and better pricing (and other innovative features) from stores. Yes, it's a half baked idea but there could be the basis for a really good compromise in this sort of arrangement. One that ultimately benefits consumers first.

015a 5y ago

This wouldn't work; Apple's entire argument is that their standards for application review are "baseline", so to speak; they're not overbearing, and are minimally necessary for a store to have high security. (We all know this isn't true, but this is their argument). So, they allow alternate storefronts. Assumedly, these storefronts are allowed to enforce different rules, right? Are the storefronts allowed to distribute porn? This literally came up in the Epic v Apple case, when Apple argued that Epic's distribution of the Itch.io game store was tantamount to Epic's implicit approval of everything Itch.io distributed, including some pretty graphic pornography. Epic argued that this wasn't the case, and they only approved of Itch.io's governance process, not all of the content. In other words, Apple has already argued in court that there's a transitive nature to approved policies of stores-within-stores. I agree with Apple on this one! A situation with Apple approving stores-within-stores would only lead to one of two outcomes: Either these stores have to abide by the same policies the app store enforces, so there's no buff to user/developer freedom but a big debuff to user UX, or, they're allowed to make their own policies, in which case Apple is transitively forced to distribute porn (and violent content, and third party payment processors, and video game streaming services, and everything else in the area between "legal" and "Apple refuses to distribute" today). This doesn't seem fair either, does it? To some degree, to me, it feels like forcing Disney to produce NC-17 gorey horror movies. But, the situation is not identical, because Disney is not the only producer of movies for half of the US population. The better solution is not to force this through the App Store, and instead force what Android does; distribution over the internet (of either individual applications or entire stores, both should be allowed). This is fundamentally less secure, but its also how every other general purpose computing platform works. Apple shouldn't be forced to carry and distribute any and all kinds of applications, but iOS itself should be open to run any and all kinds of applications. Let the open internet handle the distribution.