9 ms·

Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can

by mil22 3y ago

Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. Most consumers understand those concepts and fear those things. Most understand nothing about the economic impact of monopolies and anti-competitive business behavior and the harms they cause consumers in the form of higher prices, lack of innovation, reduced choice, and poorer quality products and services. So Apple plays off those fears by using language consumers understand, making them actually want the very monopoly that is being forced on them and actually harming them while making billions for Apple. It's unethical behavior, no more defensible than Sam Bankman-Fried's effective altruism, a.k.a. "mostly a front." This is all right out of Apple's standard playbook.

DeathArrow 3y ago
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. When someone claims he's the only one who can protect the public I immediately see some question marks.
- porsager 3y ago
  You're talking about the EU and states alike - right?
  - niclo 3y ago
    Or like the United States with their military operations protecting w̶e̶a̶k̶ a̶n̶d̶ o̶p̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶d̶ p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ their interests around the world ?
  - oblio 3y ago
    You do know that except for arguably Hungary (and even that's slowly being worked on... it's just really hard), all EU members are democracies and the EU itself is a democratic institution?
- oneplane 3y ago
  Technically it's true that if you were to equate influence to the ability to protect, that when you lose that influence you also lose the ability to protect. So far, it's all been speculation, even drawing parallels with Android or Windows doesn't help because it's not similar enough. I would expect a broader ecosystem or additional facets to an existing ecosystem to also cause an expansion of questionable quality and practises, but that applies to everything, not just mobile phones.
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  You mean the EU/ECJ?
- sotix 3y ago
  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C.S. Lewis
- gwright 3y ago
  FWIW, my observation of Google's app store policies over the last 8 years or so is that they simply trail behind Apple's policies by a couple of years. Google is constantly expanding their store policies in order to better vet who is distributing apps, restricting the behavior of apps, etc. and they almost always mirror what Apple has already put in place. I would agree with you that Apple isn't the only entity that can provide that type of vetting process but it also seems clear to me that a vetting process is actually a useful and desirable service.
  - lukeschlather 3y ago
    F-Droid does a better job than either of them for my purposes and it's just like one guy.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
I mean to be fair, we criticize google for the opposite with their extensions and app store. And now they cracked down on small developers to revert that. So it's not a totally invalid point from Apple.
fennecfoxy 3y ago
Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. But tbf, even though I can install APKs on Android I don't really do that as there's still the fear of bad actors; maybe the Android sandbox is safe & secure but I don't _know_ that, they haven't _told_ me explicitly about it. And if it's not safe for Android too, then why not?
- hk__2 3y ago
  > Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. > What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. That’s not really the point. On the Web you have a single google.com, and on the AppStore you have a single "Google" app. If you allow multiple sources for apps you break this idea of a unique registry and allow anyone to create an app named "Google" or any other well-known brand. There’s no way of ensuring the "Google" app you’re looking at is the genuine one anymore.
  - fennecfoxy 3y ago
    I mean surely that's solvable in a similar way that it was for websites, ie SSL+certs registered to domain x. Can the OS (Android, iOS) not have a provision to show who any app is really from in the same way that I can see right now that: "Y Combinator Management, LLC. issued by Digicert"? Unfortunately it's not really perfect solution for the web either as plenty of people still get scammed by fake urls + not bothering to check who the cert is for/from...
- chiefstorm 3y ago
  > Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. > What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. Or maybe just because designing a good sandbox is really hard. Look at snap packages on linux. They're one of the most common way of sandboxing linux apps and come with significant limitations compared to unsandboxed software.
curt15 3y ago
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. It's the same sales pitch that Canonical is using to justify its centralized snap store.
- toyg 3y ago
  Absolutely. Shuttleworth has always been the little wannabe apprentice to Jobs' dark arts.
Libcat99 3y ago
Sounds like apple should be liable for any damages from malware or malicious software that does make it on their platform.
mrkramer 3y ago
>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. Tim Cook is parroting Steve Jobs when he says that Apple deeply cares about users' privacy and security. Jobs was smart enough to realize that emphasising security and privacy protections would increase sales because Apple is a company which sells computer products instead of advertising solutions and services like Google and others(although Apple is increasingly thinking about how to monetize their Big Data).
- toyg 3y ago
  Jobs knew his audience: people who buy computers as appliances for specific tasks, and don't want to (or can't) understand anything about how computers actually work. To these folks, computing is basically magic; so it's easy to put a bit of fear into them to make them more faithful to the shaman.
  - seec 3y ago
    While he was certainly targeting that kind of audience it is extremely shortsighted to think that it was Job's primary target. In fact, if you have enough knowledge about everything he has said and done, it's easy to argue that he was in fact targeting very competent peoples, that were quite knowledgeable about technology and that wanted shit to just work precisely for those reason. Because when you know how things work and what they are capable of, the last thing you want to do is fight with them so that they work. At least, someone who doesn't know better cares much less because he is clueless about the existence of a better way. Jobs was in the business of selling bicycles for the mind, not dumb consumption machines. The latter development of basic consumer focused products is just after the success of the iPhone and happened basically precisely when he left (while officially he was still managing apple, it's pretty clear that after the launch of the first iPad, jobs didn't have a lot of impact at Apple his health condition not allowing). It also made sense because before Apple was something to exhibit to display wealth nobody that wasn't competent enough with technology would have spent so much money on it. Which is exactly why current Apple offering is absolutely terrible for its price. Most of the crap told on Apple nowadays are complete memes from the second wave of Apple cultist (most of them arriving with the iPhone) that completely ignore the true history of Apple and how it got to launch such successful products.
tshaddox 3y ago
I’m not convinced that it’s a “trick.” Do you genuinely believe that iPhone customer satisfaction will not go down if sideloading and/or third party app stores are supported? For me, it’s impossible to imagine that this is the case.
- soylentcola 3y ago
  I'd imagine that for the vast majority (>99%) of users, it would stay exactly the same. You can download installers (a la any desktop/laptop) or go through a repo/store of your choice on Android and very, very few outside of tinkerers or techie types bother. Out of all my friends and family, I've yet to find a single other person with F-Droid installed or who downloaded an APK direct from a developer's website or github.
intelVISA 3y ago
> a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware That playbook really gets around huh.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  [flagged]
heavyset_go 3y ago
> Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. Which is ironic, considering that the App Store is likely one of the largest malware distribution vectors on the planet. Looking at one virus alone, the App Store distributed half of a billion copies of it to iPhones and iPads[1]. Similarly, there are multimillion dollar scams on the App Store, as well[2]. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is-exposing-details-about-the-biggest-iphone-hack-of-all-time https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-scams-ios-fraud-reviews-ratings-flicktype https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
- jerbear4328 3y ago
  That one virus on the App Store was one of, if not the biggest known instance of a virus on the App Store, and your article gives a number four times smaller than half a billion. From your [1]: > But now, thanks to emails published as part of Apple's trial against Epic Games, we finally know how many iPhone users were impacted: 128 million in total, of which 18 million were in the US. > "In total, 128M customers have downloaded the 2500+ apps that were affected LTD. Those customers drove 203M downloads of the 2500+ affected apps LTD," Dale Bagwell, who was Apple's manager of iTunes customer experience at the time, wrote in one of the emails. > Apple also disclosed the apps that included the malicious code, some incredibly popular such as WeChat and the Chinese version of Angry Birds 2. Still a huge deal, particularly in China, but considering all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks) (and maybe it was able to open URLs and popups on command)[1] and it was the biggest virus on the App Store ever (that I can find), maybe not as awful as you suggest. The scams on the App Store, yeah that's pretty bad. Though, can you point me at a marketplace as big as the App Store without loads of scams? [1]: https://www.lookout.com/blog/xcodeghost#what-does-it-do https://www.lookout.com/blog/xcodeghost#what-does-it-do
  - pjerem 3y ago
    > all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks) Nah, that would mean that what really protects iOS users from malwares is just a good sandboxing mechanism and not the "human" control of the App Store. That would also mean that bypassing the App Store shouldn’t be a real security issue.
extraduder_ire 3y ago
I did get kind of annoyed at the very specific wording they used throughout the article. Especially the constant mentioning of the "EU" when this applies to the EEA, leaving out two entire countries. I hope they actually realize this internally.
- throwawaytemp29 3y ago
  Three whole countries. You left out one. Everyone makes mistakes. :)
  - toyg 3y ago
    But only some (PR writers) are actually paid to not make them.
riwsky 3y ago
Apple’s App Store has more choice, quality, and innovation than Android does; yeah, there are other factors at play there—but it’s a bit brash to accuse people of understanding nothing when, in the case of mobile app stores, you’re arguing from imaginary evidence.
- Jean-Papoulos 3y ago
  >Apple’s App Store has more choice, quality, and innovation than Android does >you’re arguing from imaginary evidence Thanks for the laugh.
- kelnos 3y ago
  So what? That's entirely irrelevant to the point being made.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  That’s literally because Apple won’t let apps compete. If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no.
  - asp_hornet 3y ago
    Apple has more choice because it won't let apps compete? > If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no. search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you force people to differentiate to compete, then there will be more innovation and diversity. That also means there’s less incentive to create “yet another journaling app” because you don’t know what is “too similar” for the reviewer. (Real example: “you can’t list this because it has a similar feature to X” rebuttal: “X has many features, but we are focusing on simplicity and this feature is our only feature we intend to support. For privacy, we won’t sync or do any of the other fancy things X does.” Their final response: “it’s still too similar” — all paraphrases). In order to compete in established verticals, your app has to be nearly feature complete and “different enough” as well as be completely polished. This is quite a gamble when starting out. > search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to. I don’t know how old the rules are for this. I just know it currently exists. Also, it’s possible that a number of them were submitted at the exact same time and there was a race condition allowing the market to be flooded.

by mil22 3y ago

DeathArrow 3y ago

porsager 3y ago
You're talking about the EU and states alike - right?
- niclo 3y ago
  Or like the United States with their military operations protecting w̶e̶a̶k̶ a̶n̶d̶ o̶p̶p̶r̶e̶s̶s̶e̶d̶ p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ their interests around the world ?
- oblio 3y ago
  You do know that except for arguably Hungary (and even that's slowly being worked on... it's just really hard), all EU members are democracies and the EU itself is a democratic institution?
oneplane 3y ago
Technically it's true that if you were to equate influence to the ability to protect, that when you lose that influence you also lose the ability to protect. So far, it's all been speculation, even drawing parallels with Android or Windows doesn't help because it's not similar enough. I would expect a broader ecosystem or additional facets to an existing ecosystem to also cause an expansion of questionable quality and practises, but that applies to everything, not just mobile phones.
sunshinerag 3y ago
You mean the EU/ECJ?
sotix 3y ago
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C.S. Lewis
gwright 3y ago
FWIW, my observation of Google's app store policies over the last 8 years or so is that they simply trail behind Apple's policies by a couple of years. Google is constantly expanding their store policies in order to better vet who is distributing apps, restricting the behavior of apps, etc. and they almost always mirror what Apple has already put in place. I would agree with you that Apple isn't the only entity that can provide that type of vetting process but it also seems clear to me that a vetting process is actually a useful and desirable service.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  F-Droid does a better job than either of them for my purposes and it's just like one guy.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago

I mean to be fair, we criticize google for the opposite with their extensions and app store. And now they cracked down on small developers to revert that. So it's not a totally invalid point from Apple.

fennecfoxy 3y ago

Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. But tbf, even though I can install APKs on Android I don't really do that as there's still the fear of bad actors; maybe the Android sandbox is safe & secure but I don't _know_ that, they haven't _told_ me explicitly about it. And if it's not safe for Android too, then why not?

hk__2 3y ago
> Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. > What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. That’s not really the point. On the Web you have a single google.com, and on the AppStore you have a single "Google" app. If you allow multiple sources for apps you break this idea of a unique registry and allow anyone to create an app named "Google" or any other well-known brand. There’s no way of ensuring the "Google" app you’re looking at is the genuine one anymore.
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  I mean surely that's solvable in a similar way that it was for websites, ie SSL+certs registered to domain x. Can the OS (Android, iOS) not have a provision to show who any app is really from in the same way that I can see right now that: "Y Combinator Management, LLC. issued by Digicert"? Unfortunately it's not really perfect solution for the web either as plenty of people still get scammed by fake urls + not bothering to check who the cert is for/from...
chiefstorm 3y ago
> Someone needs to ask Apple the same thing I've always been repeating: why can I visit pretty much any website with a recent browser and be safe, but can't run a native app in the same way? Hell browsers have bluetooth, USB, FS, etc access now as well. > What, their shitty app sandbox isn't all that good or something? Methinks the real reason is money. Or maybe just because designing a good sandbox is really hard. Look at snap packages on linux. They're one of the most common way of sandboxing linux apps and come with significant limitations compared to unsandboxed software.

curt15 3y ago

toyg 3y ago
Absolutely. Shuttleworth has always been the little wannabe apprentice to Jobs' dark arts.

Libcat99 3y ago

Sounds like apple should be liable for any damages from malware or malicious software that does make it on their platform.

mrkramer 3y ago

>Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. Tim Cook is parroting Steve Jobs when he says that Apple deeply cares about users' privacy and security. Jobs was smart enough to realize that emphasising security and privacy protections would increase sales because Apple is a company which sells computer products instead of advertising solutions and services like Google and others(although Apple is increasingly thinking about how to monetize their Big Data).

toyg 3y ago
Jobs knew his audience: people who buy computers as appliances for specific tasks, and don't want to (or can't) understand anything about how computers actually work. To these folks, computing is basically magic; so it's easy to put a bit of fear into them to make them more faithful to the shaman.
- seec 3y ago
  While he was certainly targeting that kind of audience it is extremely shortsighted to think that it was Job's primary target. In fact, if you have enough knowledge about everything he has said and done, it's easy to argue that he was in fact targeting very competent peoples, that were quite knowledgeable about technology and that wanted shit to just work precisely for those reason. Because when you know how things work and what they are capable of, the last thing you want to do is fight with them so that they work. At least, someone who doesn't know better cares much less because he is clueless about the existence of a better way. Jobs was in the business of selling bicycles for the mind, not dumb consumption machines. The latter development of basic consumer focused products is just after the success of the iPhone and happened basically precisely when he left (while officially he was still managing apple, it's pretty clear that after the launch of the first iPad, jobs didn't have a lot of impact at Apple his health condition not allowing). It also made sense because before Apple was something to exhibit to display wealth nobody that wasn't competent enough with technology would have spent so much money on it. Which is exactly why current Apple offering is absolutely terrible for its price. Most of the crap told on Apple nowadays are complete memes from the second wave of Apple cultist (most of them arriving with the iPhone) that completely ignore the true history of Apple and how it got to launch such successful products.

tshaddox 3y ago

I’m not convinced that it’s a “trick.” Do you genuinely believe that iPhone customer satisfaction will not go down if sideloading and/or third party app stores are supported? For me, it’s impossible to imagine that this is the case.

soylentcola 3y ago
I'd imagine that for the vast majority (>99%) of users, it would stay exactly the same. You can download installers (a la any desktop/laptop) or go through a repo/store of your choice on Android and very, very few outside of tinkerers or techie types bother. Out of all my friends and family, I've yet to find a single other person with F-Droid installed or who downloaded an APK direct from a developer's website or github.

intelVISA 3y ago

> a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware That playbook really gets around huh.

ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
[flagged]

heavyset_go 3y ago

> Yes, it's been Apple's modus operandi with the App Store from the start: trick consumers into thinking the App Store being a monopoly is the only thing that can protect them against malware, illicit and questionable app content, pirated software, scams, and fraud. Which is ironic, considering that the App Store is likely one of the largest malware distribution vectors on the planet. Looking at one virus alone, the App Store distributed half of a billion copies of it to iPhones and iPads[1]. Similarly, there are multimillion dollar scams on the App Store, as well[2]. [1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is-exposing-details-about-the-biggest-iphone-hack-of-all-time https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-scams-ios-fraud-reviews-ratings-flicktype https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...

jerbear4328 3y ago
That one virus on the App Store was one of, if not the biggest known instance of a virus on the App Store, and your article gives a number four times smaller than half a billion. From your [1]: > But now, thanks to emails published as part of Apple's trial against Epic Games, we finally know how many iPhone users were impacted: 128 million in total, of which 18 million were in the US. > "In total, 128M customers have downloaded the 2500+ apps that were affected LTD. Those customers drove 203M downloads of the 2500+ affected apps LTD," Dale Bagwell, who was Apple's manager of iTunes customer experience at the time, wrote in one of the emails. > Apple also disclosed the apps that included the malicious code, some incredibly popular such as WeChat and the Chinese version of Angry Birds 2. Still a huge deal, particularly in China, but considering all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks) (and maybe it was able to open URLs and popups on command)[1] and it was the biggest virus on the App Store ever (that I can find), maybe not as awful as you suggest. The scams on the App Store, yeah that's pretty bad. Though, can you point me at a marketplace as big as the App Store without loads of scams? [1]: https://www.lookout.com/blog/xcodeghost#what-does-it-do https://www.lookout.com/blog/xcodeghost#what-does-it-do
- pjerem 3y ago
  > all the virus really did was collect some device info (less information than most ad networks) Nah, that would mean that what really protects iOS users from malwares is just a good sandboxing mechanism and not the "human" control of the App Store. That would also mean that bypassing the App Store shouldn’t be a real security issue.

extraduder_ire 3y ago

I did get kind of annoyed at the very specific wording they used throughout the article. Especially the constant mentioning of the "EU" when this applies to the EEA, leaving out two entire countries. I hope they actually realize this internally.

throwawaytemp29 3y ago
Three whole countries. You left out one. Everyone makes mistakes. :)
- toyg 3y ago
  But only some (PR writers) are actually paid to not make them.

riwsky 3y ago

Apple’s App Store has more choice, quality, and innovation than Android does; yeah, there are other factors at play there—but it’s a bit brash to accuse people of understanding nothing when, in the case of mobile app stores, you’re arguing from imaginary evidence.

Jean-Papoulos 3y ago
>Apple’s App Store has more choice, quality, and innovation than Android does >you’re arguing from imaginary evidence Thanks for the laugh.
kelnos 3y ago
So what? That's entirely irrelevant to the point being made.
withinboredom 3y ago
That’s literally because Apple won’t let apps compete. If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no.
- asp_hornet 3y ago
  Apple has more choice because it won't let apps compete? > If someone posts an app before you that is to similar to what you post, they will tell you no. search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you force people to differentiate to compete, then there will be more innovation and diversity. That also means there’s less incentive to create “yet another journaling app” because you don’t know what is “too similar” for the reviewer. (Real example: “you can’t list this because it has a similar feature to X” rebuttal: “X has many features, but we are focusing on simplicity and this feature is our only feature we intend to support. For privacy, we won’t sync or do any of the other fancy things X does.” Their final response: “it’s still too similar” — all paraphrases). In order to compete in established verticals, your app has to be nearly feature complete and “different enough” as well as be completely polished. This is quite a gamble when starting out. > search "2048 game" and let me know how many similar games they said no to. I don’t know how old the rules are for this. I just know it currently exists. Also, it’s possible that a number of them were submitted at the exact same time and there was a race condition allowing the market to be flooded.