4 ms·
The DOJ case is requesting the opposite of your proposal. Although the alternate app store angle is what has been featured in the headlines, the case also reque
by odyssey7 3y ago
The DOJ case is requesting the opposite of your proposal. Although the alternate app store angle is what has been featured in the headlines, the case also requests for Apple to make various private iOS APIs available to 3rd-party apps, so if the DOJ prevails then the judge’s ruling could make various forms of API access limits illegal for all impacted APIs.
- talldayo 3y agoThat part I agree with - If Apple is willing to create an API, they shouldn't be allowed to use it anticompetitively. Apple is just going to have to learn how to cope with third-parties having access to their APIs. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating a more secure runtime for iOS apps. They are doing it right now with MacOS; I haven't heard a single legitimate excuse as to why iOS is different. Apple could be (and frankly SHOULD be) building a comprehensive user-controlled security menu that even lets them protect against Apple themselves.
- odyssey7 3y agoThe root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.
- talldayo 3y agoIt's not a moot point at all actually, it's the only way you protect yourself from threat actors with more control than you have: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-secretly-giving-governments-push-notification-data/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
- odyssey7 3y agoIf it’s illegal then it’s moot.