4 ms·
You could say the same about software and app stores. If safety were the top priority, then the safest option is to say no apps, but that isn't competitive or l
by AndrewHart 2y ago
You could say the same about software and app stores. If safety were the top priority, then the safest option is to say no apps, but that isn't competitive or lucrative. Apple's approach is to create safe frameworks and a review process that allows the App Store to exist.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThey're likely to be regulated into allowing third party app stores with review processes that they don't control.
- gnopgnip 2y agoWhat third party apps can see notifications and send via iMessage?
- godelski 2y agoI just want to add that over the last few years Apple has also been teaching its users to ignore security warnings as they make it difficult to verify software and thus lots of stuff never does. Its why there's few free things in the App Store because Apple charges. You install things from GitHub and well you're gonna get that security warning.
- musicale 2y agoI assume you're talking about the Mac App Store since one can't easily install iOS software via github. It's a tricky situation. Windows Vista tried to improve security and then was criticized for having too many UAC pop-ups, and for breaking legacy drivers. I don't like Apple's syspolicyd, but it is also an attempt at improving security.
- saagarjha 2y agoPoor security implementations harm security, because they train users to click through them. It’s certainly an “attempt” but I wouldn’t say it improves security.
- godelski 2y agoI'm talking about MacBooks. Sure, this is about iPhones but it's also about a closed garden and other devices in that closed garden which are very likely to also be owned are teaching people a very specific lesson