3 ms·

The comment literally says "It's not about security like they've been lying about", when the opposite is actually true. They were implying that Web Distribution

The comment literally says "It's not about security like they've been lying about", when the opposite is actually true. They were implying that Web Distribution was a way to get around security of a Marketplace, which is not possible. Without a kill switch, gatekeepers would lose control over apps, making them "strictly necessary." Most interpretations of the DMA agree.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The comment literally says "It's not about security like they've been lying about" The comment literally says: "All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. It's not about security like they've been lying about; it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly." There is no reason for the security measures to be more onerous for the competing thing if they were sufficient for Apple's thing, unless the purpose of the security measures is to prevent competition. > Without a kill switch, gatekeepers would lose control over apps, making them "strictly necessary." Gatekeepers having control over apps isn't necessary for security. The device's owner having control over apps is. They can opt into a particular gatekeeper's control if they choose to. How is it "strictly necessary" for the gatekeeper to force them to use one provider of vetting services over another? Isn't the point of the act to enable competition?
- willseth 3y ago
  > There is no reason for the security measures to be more onerous for the competing thing if they were sufficient for Apple's thing, unless the purpose of the security measures is to prevent competition. Web Distribution means Apple is handing over responsibilities previously handled by the Marketplace directly to the developer. Allowing developers to police themselves is obviously riskier. > The device's owner having control over apps is. This is simply not true. Device owners are hopeless at maintaining the security of their devices. > How is it "strictly necessary" for the gatekeeper to force them to use one provider of vetting services over another? There are 2 tiers of "vetting services": 1. Marketplaces determine the appropriate content or type of apps allowed in their listings, 2. Apple determines if an app, developer, or marketplace is an outright threat, e.g. if an app turns out to be a scam, or if a bug in an app exposes an exploit, it is "strictly necessary" for Apple to be able to yank the app immediately.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Web Distribution means Apple is handing over responsibilities previously handled by the Marketplace directly to the developer. Allowing developers to police themselves is obviously riskier. Doesn't that depend on who the developer is? Certainly it isn't the case that no one exists who the user might trust at least as much as Apple. > This is simply not true. Device owners are hopeless at maintaining the security of their devices. "Device owners" includes substantially all people. Many of them are not hopeless and are entitled to make their own decisions. Some of them are even more qualified to do it than the people Apple has reviewing apps. The hopeless people may be better off sticking to trusted stores, but they can do that without prohibiting others from doing otherwise. > There are 2 tiers of "vetting services": 1. Marketplaces determine the appropriate content or type of apps allowed in their listings, 2. Apple determines if an app, developer, or marketplace is an outright threat, e.g. if an app turns out to be a scam, or if a bug in an app exposes an exploit, it is "strictly necessary" for Apple to be able to yank the app immediately. That doesn't change the question. How is it "strictly necessary" for Apple to do that, rather than whoever the owner of the device chooses to do it? It would obviously be possible for a third party like Symantec, Malwarebytes or the makers of uBlock to do the same thing.
    - willseth 3y ago
      > Doesn't that depend on who the developer is? Sure, the amount risk probably varies, but you are talking about going from a Marketplace that implements some level of app review to no-review. It's more risk. > Many of them are not hopeless ... Exactly, and "many" is not enough. It's not possible to design a special switch only for those qualified "many" - and only them. Platform owners and the EU insist on protecting the unqualified everyone else too. > How is it "strictly necessary" for Apple to do that, rather than whoever the owner of the device chooses to do it? It's not in the sense that someone else could do it, but the DMA doesn't require it, so obviously no gatekeeper will. Also, it's a terrible idea because there's no market for it. Everyone already expects it to be free.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
toyg 3y ago
I love how a never-used-by-courts-before regulation would supposedly already have "most interpretations" with any sort of authoritative value. I can probably walk into a pub tonight and get 27 other "interpretations", they will have the same value of yours. Technically speaking, even the Commissioner's own interpretation might well be flawed - we won't know until a court spends some time on it. I would humbly suggest, though, that when the very same lawmaker who wrote the law is publicly pulling your ears in public on related matters, your interpretations are probably not the right ones. Apple pay enough real lawyers to defend them, they really don't need pro-bono amateurs.
- willseth 3y ago
  It's not my interpretation, self-proclaimed humble person. Educated people have been discussing this ad nauseam for months. I would not-humbly suggest you actually read up on topics before breathlessly dismissing them deep down an HN comment thread.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The comment literally says "It's not about security like they've been lying about" The comment literally says: "All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. It's not about security like they've been lying about; it's all about maintaining their app store monopoly." There is no reason for the security measures to be more onerous for the competing thing if they were sufficient for Apple's thing, unless the purpose of the security measures is to prevent competition. > Without a kill switch, gatekeepers would lose control over apps, making them "strictly necessary." Gatekeepers having control over apps isn't necessary for security. The device's owner having control over apps is. They can opt into a particular gatekeeper's control if they choose to. How is it "strictly necessary" for the gatekeeper to force them to use one provider of vetting services over another? Isn't the point of the act to enable competition?

willseth 3y ago
> There is no reason for the security measures to be more onerous for the competing thing if they were sufficient for Apple's thing, unless the purpose of the security measures is to prevent competition. Web Distribution means Apple is handing over responsibilities previously handled by the Marketplace directly to the developer. Allowing developers to police themselves is obviously riskier. > The device's owner having control over apps is. This is simply not true. Device owners are hopeless at maintaining the security of their devices. > How is it "strictly necessary" for the gatekeeper to force them to use one provider of vetting services over another? There are 2 tiers of "vetting services": 1. Marketplaces determine the appropriate content or type of apps allowed in their listings, 2. Apple determines if an app, developer, or marketplace is an outright threat, e.g. if an app turns out to be a scam, or if a bug in an app exposes an exploit, it is "strictly necessary" for Apple to be able to yank the app immediately.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Web Distribution means Apple is handing over responsibilities previously handled by the Marketplace directly to the developer. Allowing developers to police themselves is obviously riskier. Doesn't that depend on who the developer is? Certainly it isn't the case that no one exists who the user might trust at least as much as Apple. > This is simply not true. Device owners are hopeless at maintaining the security of their devices. "Device owners" includes substantially all people. Many of them are not hopeless and are entitled to make their own decisions. Some of them are even more qualified to do it than the people Apple has reviewing apps. The hopeless people may be better off sticking to trusted stores, but they can do that without prohibiting others from doing otherwise. > There are 2 tiers of "vetting services": 1. Marketplaces determine the appropriate content or type of apps allowed in their listings, 2. Apple determines if an app, developer, or marketplace is an outright threat, e.g. if an app turns out to be a scam, or if a bug in an app exposes an exploit, it is "strictly necessary" for Apple to be able to yank the app immediately. That doesn't change the question. How is it "strictly necessary" for Apple to do that, rather than whoever the owner of the device chooses to do it? It would obviously be possible for a third party like Symantec, Malwarebytes or the makers of uBlock to do the same thing.
  - willseth 3y ago
    > Doesn't that depend on who the developer is? Sure, the amount risk probably varies, but you are talking about going from a Marketplace that implements some level of app review to no-review. It's more risk. > Many of them are not hopeless ... Exactly, and "many" is not enough. It's not possible to design a special switch only for those qualified "many" - and only them. Platform owners and the EU insist on protecting the unqualified everyone else too. > How is it "strictly necessary" for Apple to do that, rather than whoever the owner of the device chooses to do it? It's not in the sense that someone else could do it, but the DMA doesn't require it, so obviously no gatekeeper will. Also, it's a terrible idea because there's no market for it. Everyone already expects it to be free.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

toyg 3y ago

I love how a never-used-by-courts-before regulation would supposedly already have "most interpretations" with any sort of authoritative value. I can probably walk into a pub tonight and get 27 other "interpretations", they will have the same value of yours. Technically speaking, even the Commissioner's own interpretation might well be flawed - we won't know until a court spends some time on it. I would humbly suggest, though, that when the very same lawmaker who wrote the law is publicly pulling your ears in public on related matters, your interpretations are probably not the right ones. Apple pay enough real lawyers to defend them, they really don't need pro-bono amateurs.

willseth 3y ago
It's not my interpretation, self-proclaimed humble person. Educated people have been discussing this ad nauseam for months. I would not-humbly suggest you actually read up on topics before breathlessly dismissing them deep down an HN comment thread.