3 ms·

Apple will 100% require notarization. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if installing anything from a third-party AppStore would disable a bunch of sensitive functi

Apple will 100% require notarization. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if installing anything from a third-party AppStore would disable a bunch of sensitive functionality, like ApplePay, FaceID, Find My, etc. with a nice alert that says: "Sorry, your device might be compromised due to unsafe apps. In order to use ApplePay / FaceID / etc. you need to restore your phone to factory settings first. Would you like to continue?".

judge2020 4y ago
But even being jailbroken doesn't affect Apple Pay, their own Apple Card service, or FairPlay[0] (which is the most surprising to me). Maybe it's sent as a heuristic / weak fraud signal for Apple Pay, but no functionality is removed in the OS, so I don't see why a notarization-approved third party app would trigger any other broken functionality. 0: https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/ https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/
- vermilingua 4y ago
  Or maybe a large part of the jailbreak process is blocking Apple from detecting that a device is jailbroken.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    No, even regular apps have a multitude of tools they can use to detect a jailbroken state, given that there are paid jailbreak tweaks that hide the jailbroken status from apps. Even then, there are complaints about mobile apps like Pokémon Go, Pokémon Unite, and some bank apps[0] still detecting your jailbreak. Most likely Apple just doesn't see it as a threat/doesn't want to draw attention to the practice. 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/gr15mom/ https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/g...
ThatPlayer 4y ago
The "unsafe app" thing may be against the new law. The text of the law is "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products [...] at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper" Keyword being conditions. Having a third-party app store disable a bunch of functionality would be different conditions than a first-party app store.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Not sure what you're saying here? A third party store could offer itself and turn off certain security features. I'm not sure that would be against the law. In fact, I'm certain it would not even be against the law for Apple to say, "Hey, your app store turned off security, so we will no longer give you our users' credit card numbers." (In fact, that's what policymakers hope for. The goal is nothing going through Apple. Least of all payments.) If people are expecting the law to allow low security payments, then they are in for a rude awakening. For one, no one has taken leave of their senses here. Secondly, the credit card companies have in no way given Apple permission to allow access to their payment system under terms of reduced security. (In fact, they haven't given permission for Apple to offer access to their payment systems under any modified terms at all. Security or otherwise.) Now what lawmakers are saying is that Apple should allow different app stores to participate on their platform. But yes, the vision, and hope, is that those app stores will have their own arrangements with the credit card companies. But some app stores will probably just keep Apple security protections in place and use Apple's services. There's nothing that precludes that either. (But that would be disappointing in the sense that everything would still be going through Apple.)
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    What security features are you talking about? Third party stores will only have the API features as Apple adds them, and the law only forces the same feature access as their own first party store. Does Apple's own App Store allow you to turn off security features?
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  There's nothing stopping you implementing your own contactless payments, you just can't use Apple pay.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    The problem isn't that you can't use Apple Pay, but you can't release an app that works like Apple Pay because of features Apple do not allow others to use. Quick look at the docs, Apple only allows apps to read NFC tags, not host card emulation to use for contactless payments the same way your credit card or Apple Pay works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_card_emulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_card_emulation
bamboozled 4y ago
What could possibly go wrong? Now it's illegal for the device manufacturer to provide warnings?
- zamadatix 4y ago
  I don't think any legislature or courts would have problems with genuine warnings and if they did it'd likely require additional laws. Favoring the built in store so heavily by disabling more functionality than strictly required might be taken as going against the law already going into effect or be seen as overly anticompetitive in general though. The same might be said for overly aggressive/false warnings.
heavyset_go 4y ago
That sounds like illegal anticompetitive behavior to me.
permo-w 4y ago
yeah and then they’ll be slapped with a fucking huge fine by the EU. the Digital Markets Act is pretty comprehensive and has shockingly large fines

judge2020 4y ago

But even being jailbroken doesn't affect Apple Pay, their own Apple Card service, or FairPlay[0] (which is the most surprising to me). Maybe it's sent as a heuristic / weak fraud signal for Apple Pay, but no functionality is removed in the OS, so I don't see why a notarization-approved third party app would trigger any other broken functionality. 0: https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/ https://developer.apple.com/streaming/fps/

vermilingua 4y ago
Or maybe a large part of the jailbreak process is blocking Apple from detecting that a device is jailbroken.
- judge2020 4y ago
  No, even regular apps have a multitude of tools they can use to detect a jailbroken state, given that there are paid jailbreak tweaks that hide the jailbroken status from apps. Even then, there are complaints about mobile apps like Pokémon Go, Pokémon Unite, and some bank apps[0] still detecting your jailbreak. Most likely Apple just doesn't see it as a threat/doesn't want to draw attention to the practice. 0: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/gr15mom/ https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/m5p7ae/comment/g...

ThatPlayer 4y ago

The "unsafe app" thing may be against the new law. The text of the law is "The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products [...] at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper" Keyword being conditions. Having a third-party app store disable a bunch of functionality would be different conditions than a first-party app store.

bilbo0s 4y ago
Not sure what you're saying here? A third party store could offer itself and turn off certain security features. I'm not sure that would be against the law. In fact, I'm certain it would not even be against the law for Apple to say, "Hey, your app store turned off security, so we will no longer give you our users' credit card numbers." (In fact, that's what policymakers hope for. The goal is nothing going through Apple. Least of all payments.) If people are expecting the law to allow low security payments, then they are in for a rude awakening. For one, no one has taken leave of their senses here. Secondly, the credit card companies have in no way given Apple permission to allow access to their payment system under terms of reduced security. (In fact, they haven't given permission for Apple to offer access to their payment systems under any modified terms at all. Security or otherwise.) Now what lawmakers are saying is that Apple should allow different app stores to participate on their platform. But yes, the vision, and hope, is that those app stores will have their own arrangements with the credit card companies. But some app stores will probably just keep Apple security protections in place and use Apple's services. There's nothing that precludes that either. (But that would be disappointing in the sense that everything would still be going through Apple.)
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  What security features are you talking about? Third party stores will only have the API features as Apple adds them, and the law only forces the same feature access as their own first party store. Does Apple's own App Store allow you to turn off security features?
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
There's nothing stopping you implementing your own contactless payments, you just can't use Apple pay.
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  The problem isn't that you can't use Apple Pay, but you can't release an app that works like Apple Pay because of features Apple do not allow others to use. Quick look at the docs, Apple only allows apps to read NFC tags, not host card emulation to use for contactless payments the same way your credit card or Apple Pay works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_card_emulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_card_emulation

bamboozled 4y ago

What could possibly go wrong? Now it's illegal for the device manufacturer to provide warnings?

zamadatix 4y ago
I don't think any legislature or courts would have problems with genuine warnings and if they did it'd likely require additional laws. Favoring the built in store so heavily by disabling more functionality than strictly required might be taken as going against the law already going into effect or be seen as overly anticompetitive in general though. The same might be said for overly aggressive/false warnings.

heavyset_go 4y ago

That sounds like illegal anticompetitive behavior to me.

permo-w 4y ago

yeah and then they’ll be slapped with a fucking huge fine by the EU. the Digital Markets Act is pretty comprehensive and has shockingly large fines