3 ms·

1. They can use Facebook on desktop, or again, the mobile app. 2. Past misbehavior means greater scrutiny would be put upon Facebook, especially if they launch

1. They can use Facebook on desktop, or again, the mobile app. 2. Past misbehavior means greater scrutiny would be put upon Facebook, especially if they launch an unprecedented new product as high-profile as a competing Meta app store. 3. Regulators can and will act against Facebook for such restrictive behavior as well. People who want to use Reddit on mobile have the option of Apollo. 4. Apple still controls their devices from an OS level. They can enforce plenty of security and privacy features from there. On MacOS already, apps that aren't on the Mac App Store must still undergo notarization. Why do you doubt Apple's ability to execute? The App Store is not the final word on security.

dwaite 4y ago
I would agree in the sense that the only way this gatekeeper regulation works is if regulators set additional rules and regulatory scrutiny to all non-gatekeepers allowed to distribute applications outside the existing platform controls. The three concerns I have about that is: 1. I do not know if regulators are equipped to understand such technical details (see the rough parts of this legislation) 2. Abuses move at internet speed, while corrections will move at bureaucratic speed. 3. It is drastically harder to regulate businesses outside your country. A shady side-loaded app may not be something that can easily be blocked Notorization does not enforce security or privacy features on macOS. Security features are either enabled across the operating system or are opt-in based on the selected entitlements. A "gatekeeper" presumably will not be allowed broad limits entitlements on side-loaded apps or apps sold in a third party store. There are relatively few enforceable privacy features at the software level. Trying to create them is a cat-and-mouse game between the platform and developers. The way Apple platforms achieve privacy is a mix of technical measures and business measures - ignoring business requirements to gather user consent is a way to get your company banned from the App Store.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > A "gatekeeper" presumably will not be allowed broad limits entitlements on side-loaded apps or apps sold in a third party store. You're presuming that, but if Apple does indeed have valid privacy and security reasons for setting such limits, presumably they will also make the case to regulators. I suppose it all comes down to having faith in our democratic institutions will act on behalf of the public's interest. > There are relatively few enforceable privacy features at the software level. Then what is the point of App Store review if it can't even do that? Is Apple so powerless over its own platform that it can't harden its security model with further updates? No. I believe this whole debate makes assumptions about what Apple can and can't do, and it seems eminently foolhardy to believe that manual review is somehow the only way in which Apple can control its own operating system and provide security. > The way Apple platforms achieve privacy is a mix of technical measures And certainly, Apple is capable of far more technical measures than you and I can dream of.

dwaite 4y ago

I would agree in the sense that the only way this gatekeeper regulation works is if regulators set additional rules and regulatory scrutiny to all non-gatekeepers allowed to distribute applications outside the existing platform controls. The three concerns I have about that is: 1. I do not know if regulators are equipped to understand such technical details (see the rough parts of this legislation) 2. Abuses move at internet speed, while corrections will move at bureaucratic speed. 3. It is drastically harder to regulate businesses outside your country. A shady side-loaded app may not be something that can easily be blocked Notorization does not enforce security or privacy features on macOS. Security features are either enabled across the operating system or are opt-in based on the selected entitlements. A "gatekeeper" presumably will not be allowed broad limits entitlements on side-loaded apps or apps sold in a third party store. There are relatively few enforceable privacy features at the software level. Trying to create them is a cat-and-mouse game between the platform and developers. The way Apple platforms achieve privacy is a mix of technical measures and business measures - ignoring business requirements to gather user consent is a way to get your company banned from the App Store.

Apocryphon 4y ago
> A "gatekeeper" presumably will not be allowed broad limits entitlements on side-loaded apps or apps sold in a third party store. You're presuming that, but if Apple does indeed have valid privacy and security reasons for setting such limits, presumably they will also make the case to regulators. I suppose it all comes down to having faith in our democratic institutions will act on behalf of the public's interest. > There are relatively few enforceable privacy features at the software level. Then what is the point of App Store review if it can't even do that? Is Apple so powerless over its own platform that it can't harden its security model with further updates? No. I believe this whole debate makes assumptions about what Apple can and can't do, and it seems eminently foolhardy to believe that manual review is somehow the only way in which Apple can control its own operating system and provide security. > The way Apple platforms achieve privacy is a mix of technical measures And certainly, Apple is capable of far more technical measures than you and I can dream of.