5 ms·
Why is this Apple telling to EU drop dead?
by Cupprum 3y ago
Why is this Apple telling to EU drop dead?
- adr1an 3y agoThey say that malware won't be prevented as best as possible, thanks to the new regulations.
- cybrox 3y agoBet your sweet bippy they won't hesitate a single second to elaborately point out any scam happening via apps in third party marketplaces.
- CharlesW 3y agoThat's just objectively true. https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosys...
- rakoo 3y agoA document from Apple is not as best an objective truth as possible.
- CharlesW 3y agoI couldn't find a better summary. You're right that readers should be cautious and assume bias, but judge it on the content.
- nickthegreek 3y agoCare to attack the claims made within the document or provide a link to the objective truth?
- realusername 3y agoThe document is a bunch of nonsense aggregating various android malware and saying its the fault of sideloading (why? who knows it's not stated but of course we know why Apple says that). Of course the document never mentioned that iOS has a bunch of malware on its own and the appstore doesn't seem to help any of that. You could add [citations needed] to pretty much every paragraph.
- nickthegreek 3y agoWithout taking Apple's side here and I want to assume good faith on your reply to me but... It is obvious how sideloading could directly lead to an increase in malware. It is obvious that the iOS/Android appstores help keep down malware. I am sure there are arguments that can be made to support your view. But these are not those.
- realusername 3y agoI don't see how it's obvious no, I don't believe the appstore could do anything to counter malware and so far I don't see anything leading me to think that's the case. Hiding malware from an appstore reviewer is trivial if you really want to.
- rakoo 3y agoMy claim is exactly that there is no objective truth. This truth is established under given constraints that can all change: the idea that only Apple can be trusted, for example, is false. The idea that people cannot learn how to detect crap is false, on top of being dystopian. The idea that Apple has to be this big and not be smaller, let competitors bloom, is false. Most importantly, the idea that the App Store in its current form is exempt of malware and the best possible security is completely ludicrous.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- realusername 3y agoYeah sure, we'll believe the only party which benefits financially from the statu quo to say that.
- smnrchrds 3y agoI wanted to joke that Apple should increase non-App Store fees to $1000 + 80% per app install to invest those fees into better malware protection, but I also don't want to give Apple any more ideas.
- cybrox 3y agoI'm pretty sure that would violate the clause that explicitly prevents them from working around the bill by making it absurdly inaccessible for the user. After the USB C debacle, the EU has learned to include such a clause pretty well, I guess.
- chx 3y agoYou are dead on, they introduced the same fees which landed Unity in hot water with their new optional scheme. So besides writing a snarky disdainful press release they made sure no one significant ever will use the scheme required by the EU because you'd need to pay through the nose for it.
- timeon 3y agoNot sure why Apple has problem with this. One can install anything on macOS.
- chomp 3y agoI also have this question. The core bits of the DMA is only like 6 pages of rules, and none of them mention what a gate keeper is allowed to charge. Which is likely intentional, because the DMA mentions fee caps (free of charge) in some of the data provisions elsewhere. It only mentions that it has to be “technically enabled” which is now true.