4 ms·

The rules aren't really strict enough it seems. The gatekeeper should not be able to have any control over app distribution at all. Notarization and other forms

The rules aren't really strict enough it seems. The gatekeeper should not be able to have any control over app distribution at all. Notarization and other forms of code signing must be possible to turn off and should not place the gatekeeper in a privileged position (for example, it should be possible to enroll other certificates).

EMIRELADERO 3y ago
The DMA says this about it: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  That is to say, they are allowed to provide certain mandatory security services where justified for free.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    Exactly, plus the fact that Android seems to manage just fine without the notarization requirement would suggest that too could be invalidated by the Commission.
    - stirlo 3y ago
      I'm not supportive of Apple at all in this but to say that Android works "fine" without notarisation is a stretch[1]. Apple already has already implemented a perfectly functional balance between security and developers rights on the Mac, they just need to adopt that model on iPhone. [1]https://www.police.gov.sg/Media-Room/News/20230920_police_advisory_on_new_variant_of_malware_scams https://www.police.gov.sg/Media-Room/News/20230920_police_ad...
      - idle_zealot 3y ago
        If they follow the Mac model of non-notarized app packages being installable with a warning (which can he disabled system-wide with a hidden setting) then that's basically equivalent to the Android model, which requires jumping through extra hoops to enable third-party app installs as well. People will be tricked into jumping through all of those hoops to install malware on their phones, but people are already tricked into harming themselves via their phones all the time on iOS and Android alike. People are ticked into using their (legit) bank apps to send money to fraudsters, into downloading (from the App Store) NFT scam apps, into downloading (from the App Store) scammy and predatory apps disguised as free colorful puzzle games. What does this proposed malware do? Surreptitiously record location data? Trick the user into parting from their money? Pop up unexpected ads and redirects? Apple's blessed apps already do all of that. What bad behavior is possible in from within an app sandbox that isn't common practice on the App Store? The only thing that comes to mind is location recording and sending of that information to the attacker, ie a spying GPS app installed by an abuser. The platform-level way to fix that would be to allow users to provide apps spoofed locations without informing the app that the location isn't real, which Apple won't do because... it would harm Netflix and Niantic's business model, I guess?
      - duped 3y ago
        > Apple already has already implemented a perfectly functional balance between security and developers rights on the Mac They really haven't - some APIs are locked behind entitlements that you can only get by paying the developer fee and requesting it specially from Apple. Among other nuisances.
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    Read recital 62 on page 16 of the DMA. Then read Article 6(4) on page 35. Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is fairly applied. That includes charging money for access to the platform and to install software. Article 6(7) on page 36, says that once software is installed, access to the system services, APIs and ABIs must be free of charge. BUT THAT IS ONLY AFTER THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED. You are conflating two different things.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      That applies to software application stores (AKA the App Store), OSes (AKA iOS) are notably absent from that recital. Artivle 6(7) also does not make any distinctions about "once software is installed".
      - Kon-Peki 3y ago
        The second paragraph of 6(7) certainly allows the gatekeeper to prevent any access to system services/ABIs/APIs except from installed software.
        EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It allows for security measures, that's the only justification for restricting interoperability at all. The "free of charge" for when it's allowed still stands.
        Kon-Peki 3y ago
        Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. My best guess is that you are either confused as to what "installed" means, or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. If you want to make a complaint that access to the system services are supposed to be free of charge but aren't, the EC is just going to throw your complaint in the trash. If you want to make a complaint that the Core Technology Fee is an unfair general access condition, you might actually get somewhere :)

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

The DMA says this about it: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. > Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.

arghwhat 3y ago
That is to say, they are allowed to provide certain mandatory security services where justified for free.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Exactly, plus the fact that Android seems to manage just fine without the notarization requirement would suggest that too could be invalidated by the Commission.
  - stirlo 3y ago
    I'm not supportive of Apple at all in this but to say that Android works "fine" without notarisation is a stretch[1]. Apple already has already implemented a perfectly functional balance between security and developers rights on the Mac, they just need to adopt that model on iPhone. [1]https://www.police.gov.sg/Media-Room/News/20230920_police_advisory_on_new_variant_of_malware_scams https://www.police.gov.sg/Media-Room/News/20230920_police_ad...
    - idle_zealot 3y ago
      If they follow the Mac model of non-notarized app packages being installable with a warning (which can he disabled system-wide with a hidden setting) then that's basically equivalent to the Android model, which requires jumping through extra hoops to enable third-party app installs as well. People will be tricked into jumping through all of those hoops to install malware on their phones, but people are already tricked into harming themselves via their phones all the time on iOS and Android alike. People are ticked into using their (legit) bank apps to send money to fraudsters, into downloading (from the App Store) NFT scam apps, into downloading (from the App Store) scammy and predatory apps disguised as free colorful puzzle games. What does this proposed malware do? Surreptitiously record location data? Trick the user into parting from their money? Pop up unexpected ads and redirects? Apple's blessed apps already do all of that. What bad behavior is possible in from within an app sandbox that isn't common practice on the App Store? The only thing that comes to mind is location recording and sending of that information to the attacker, ie a spying GPS app installed by an abuser. The platform-level way to fix that would be to allow users to provide apps spoofed locations without informing the app that the location isn't real, which Apple won't do because... it would harm Netflix and Niantic's business model, I guess?
    - duped 3y ago
      > Apple already has already implemented a perfectly functional balance between security and developers rights on the Mac They really haven't - some APIs are locked behind entitlements that you can only get by paying the developer fee and requesting it specially from Apple. Among other nuisances.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  Read recital 62 on page 16 of the DMA. Then read Article 6(4) on page 35. Gatekeepers are allowed to gatekeep as long as it is fairly applied. That includes charging money for access to the platform and to install software. Article 6(7) on page 36, says that once software is installed, access to the system services, APIs and ABIs must be free of charge. BUT THAT IS ONLY AFTER THE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED. You are conflating two different things.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    That applies to software application stores (AKA the App Store), OSes (AKA iOS) are notably absent from that recital. Artivle 6(7) also does not make any distinctions about "once software is installed".
    - Kon-Peki 3y ago
      The second paragraph of 6(7) certainly allows the gatekeeper to prevent any access to system services/ABIs/APIs except from installed software.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        It allows for security measures, that's the only justification for restricting interoperability at all. The "free of charge" for when it's allowed still stands.
        Kon-Peki 3y ago
        Security is a really good reason to restrict access to the system from anything other than installed software. My best guess is that you are either confused as to what "installed" means, or you want the DMA to be more than it can be, and are so angry that Apple is flaunting its limitations that you aren't thinking rationally. If you want to make a complaint that access to the system services are supposed to be free of charge but aren't, the EC is just going to throw your complaint in the trash. If you want to make a complaint that the Core Technology Fee is an unfair general access condition, you might actually get somewhere :)