5 ms·

To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all devices, regardless of how they got installed. A

To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all devices, regardless of how they got installed. A consequence of that is that they cannot answer government requests to kill apps with “I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that”. Was that the right trade-off? I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.

ruszki 1y ago
> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps This feature is part of antivirus solutions for ages.
- can16358p 1y ago
  If an OS needs antivirus for this, that OS has been designed wrong (excluding Linux, FreeBSD etc as the target audience isn't regular end users) in the first place. An OS should NOT need antivirus, it needs proper sandbox and containerization.
  - Someone 1y ago
    - defense in depth means adding such an extra layer is a good idea - an app can 100% stay within its sandbox and still be nefarious. For example, a password manager could secretly send all your passwords to Mr(s) Evil.
    - gkbrk 1y ago
      With a proper sandbox, a password manager won't have internet access.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        It also wouldn't have a competitive feature set if that were the case -- syncing across devices is a bog standard feature for password managers. Also, the possibilities for nefarious apps that aren't thwarted by sandboxes are endless: social engineering and phishing are very common and effective.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ruszki 1y ago
    There is no OS sandboxing and containerization which would prevent an internet facing software, like browsers, to be part of bot networks. These are good to have, just like how it's good to have an antivirus. In some cases. Most of the people download things which were checked before with an antivirus (like Play Store, App Store, GMail), or they don't really download anything outside of browsers (e.g. on desktop), so most of the people (almost everybody in case of percentage) don't need that much protection than 20 years ago. I also don't need neither OS level sandboxing, containerization, nor antivirus by default, because I know how to prevent compromise even without those. I, of course, use those when they are needed, when for example I install or browse something risky. But then I use a full blown VM, or an ultra sandboxed browser, and I know the risk, that there is nothing I can really do, if they use a vulnerability of my hardware for example.
rickdeckard 1y ago
In this case they didn't remove the app from the users' devices, they “removed Alternative Distribution functionality from iTorrent’s Developer Portal without any warning.” So they revoked the right of the developer to publish on other stores, and don't allow publishing that app on their own store. Beside of those apparent "government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions" cited as reason by Apple (whatever that means), they now demonstrated that they still have indirect control over the offering of ALL digital markets. So regardless in which market you want to publish, you still need to remain in good standing with Apple. Combining that with Apple's ability to observe the install-base of iOS-devices it's quite a conflict of interest. (The least nefarious being Apple courting successful apps from other stores to come over to Apple)
- nazgu1 1y ago
  I would say they have direct control, as they have to bless app before even it can be published on other stores and can revoke this blessing anytime.
  - reactordev 1y ago
    So you never really own an Apple device.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      This seems more like a case of: you don't own other people's web servers.
      - reactordev 1y ago
        No, more like you don’t own your OS. I definitely have physical ownership of their “server”.
        kube-system 1y ago
        No, you definitely don't own Apple's developer portal or any related infrastructure. If you did, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about, you could just fix it. And of course you don't own iOS -- were you under any impression otherwise? I don't really understand this culture of buyers remorse. If you don't buy FOSS, you don't get FOSS.
rjh29 1y ago
> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all device And yet if you refund an app it's not automatically removed from your device. Always thought that was weird.
franga2000 1y ago
Why can't they add a "this app is not verified by apple, we can't guarantee it's safe" popup? Making people jump through ridiculous hoops (like jailbreaking) would violate the DMA, but surely not a simple matter-of-fact warning? Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android.
- klausa 1y ago
  Because people don't read and scammers would just teach people how to click through that.
  - franga2000 1y ago
    That's not "Apple is not allowed to", that's "they don't because they think it's ineffective".
    - klausa 1y ago
      Did anybody in this comment chain ever suggested otherwise?
      - franga2000 1y ago
        Yes, the person I was replying to... > I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
        klausa 1y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant "why couldn't they have done so in the first place, without ever giving themselves the ability to killswitch any apps at all, and just show a scary looking message?".
    - happyopossum 1y ago
      No, they are literally prohibited from doing that - they tried and were shut down by the eu
reactordev 1y ago
It wasn’t their choice to make. The user purposefully installed the app from a 3rd party store. That sounds like user intent. If Apple cared about their users, they would allow a user to use without caveat. Including installing whatever software they wish so long as it worked on the platform. This is right to repair. This is ownership. When you buy some hardware, you should be allowed to install any software you wish, provided it works and you have the technical know how to do so.
SirMaster 1y ago
>they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all devices, regardless of how they got installed. Huh, I sideload some pretty nefarious apps all the time on my iPhone and have been doing so for about a decade, and they have never got remotely killed or removed.

ruszki 1y ago

> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps This feature is part of antivirus solutions for ages.

can16358p 1y ago
If an OS needs antivirus for this, that OS has been designed wrong (excluding Linux, FreeBSD etc as the target audience isn't regular end users) in the first place. An OS should NOT need antivirus, it needs proper sandbox and containerization.
- Someone 1y ago
  - defense in depth means adding such an extra layer is a good idea - an app can 100% stay within its sandbox and still be nefarious. For example, a password manager could secretly send all your passwords to Mr(s) Evil.
  - gkbrk 1y ago
    With a proper sandbox, a password manager won't have internet access.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      It also wouldn't have a competitive feature set if that were the case -- syncing across devices is a bog standard feature for password managers. Also, the possibilities for nefarious apps that aren't thwarted by sandboxes are endless: social engineering and phishing are very common and effective.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ruszki 1y ago
  There is no OS sandboxing and containerization which would prevent an internet facing software, like browsers, to be part of bot networks. These are good to have, just like how it's good to have an antivirus. In some cases. Most of the people download things which were checked before with an antivirus (like Play Store, App Store, GMail), or they don't really download anything outside of browsers (e.g. on desktop), so most of the people (almost everybody in case of percentage) don't need that much protection than 20 years ago. I also don't need neither OS level sandboxing, containerization, nor antivirus by default, because I know how to prevent compromise even without those. I, of course, use those when they are needed, when for example I install or browse something risky. But then I use a full blown VM, or an ultra sandboxed browser, and I know the risk, that there is nothing I can really do, if they use a vulnerability of my hardware for example.

rickdeckard 1y ago

In this case they didn't remove the app from the users' devices, they “removed Alternative Distribution functionality from iTorrent’s Developer Portal without any warning.” So they revoked the right of the developer to publish on other stores, and don't allow publishing that app on their own store. Beside of those apparent "government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions" cited as reason by Apple (whatever that means), they now demonstrated that they still have indirect control over the offering of ALL digital markets. So regardless in which market you want to publish, you still need to remain in good standing with Apple. Combining that with Apple's ability to observe the install-base of iOS-devices it's quite a conflict of interest. (The least nefarious being Apple courting successful apps from other stores to come over to Apple)

nazgu1 1y ago
I would say they have direct control, as they have to bless app before even it can be published on other stores and can revoke this blessing anytime.
- reactordev 1y ago
  So you never really own an Apple device.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    This seems more like a case of: you don't own other people's web servers.
    - reactordev 1y ago
      No, more like you don’t own your OS. I definitely have physical ownership of their “server”.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        No, you definitely don't own Apple's developer portal or any related infrastructure. If you did, then you wouldn't have anything to complain about, you could just fix it. And of course you don't own iOS -- were you under any impression otherwise? I don't really understand this culture of buyers remorse. If you don't buy FOSS, you don't get FOSS.

rjh29 1y ago

> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all device And yet if you refund an app it's not automatically removed from your device. Always thought that was weird.

franga2000 1y ago

Why can't they add a "this app is not verified by apple, we can't guarantee it's safe" popup? Making people jump through ridiculous hoops (like jailbreaking) would violate the DMA, but surely not a simple matter-of-fact warning? Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android.

klausa 1y ago
Because people don't read and scammers would just teach people how to click through that.
- franga2000 1y ago
  That's not "Apple is not allowed to", that's "they don't because they think it's ineffective".
  - klausa 1y ago
    Did anybody in this comment chain ever suggested otherwise?
    - franga2000 1y ago
      Yes, the person I was replying to... > I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
      - klausa 1y ago
        Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant "why couldn't they have done so in the first place, without ever giving themselves the ability to killswitch any apps at all, and just show a scary looking message?".
  - happyopossum 1y ago
    No, they are literally prohibited from doing that - they tried and were shut down by the eu

reactordev 1y ago

It wasn’t their choice to make. The user purposefully installed the app from a 3rd party store. That sounds like user intent. If Apple cared about their users, they would allow a user to use without caveat. Including installing whatever software they wish so long as it worked on the platform. This is right to repair. This is ownership. When you buy some hardware, you should be allowed to install any software you wish, provided it works and you have the technical know how to do so.

SirMaster 1y ago

>they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all devices, regardless of how they got installed. Huh, I sideload some pretty nefarious apps all the time on my iPhone and have been doing so for about a decade, and they have never got remotely killed or removed.