4 ms·

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) wo

by 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
- netsharc 1y ago
  It's tragic, the amount of babysitting supposed adults need... (I'm not totally against it, the mythical grandma would otherwise lose all her savings because of an animated dancing monkey exe)
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    Unfortunately, said grandma isn't all that mythical. Scams of all kinds cost US citizens alone 158 billion dollars a year [1]. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-states-scams-cost-us-consumers-1583b-one-year-roger-grimes-219ye https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-states-scams-cost-us-cons...
    - const_cast 1y ago
      This granny is mythical - granny isn't installing unsigned binaries off an alternative app store. Let's not argue dishonestly - we both know how scams actually happen. That statistic is less than worthless in this context.
      - cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Protecting grandma from scams by blocking a torrent app on her phone is rich. Getting a phone call is how grandma is going to get scammed.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Telling these people about threat modeling completely destroys their arguments. The arguments are lazy, a thin veneer for corporate profiteering, rent seeking, and restrictive behavior. Youre right - granny isn't installing unsigned binaries and anyone proclaiming otherwise is just bullshitting you. The reality is that there is no security here. We have massive, glaring holes in the systems we use. Adding a door lock when there's a giant hole in the wall next to it does nothing. Granny is being scammed via phone, but nobody wants to fix that. I wonder why? Hm, maybe money has something to do with it.
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
Because they want to cripple alt stores and ignore the DMA for as long as they can to protect the 30% extortionate rate their position as the sole provider allows them to force on developers.
- fwn 1y ago
  The deliberate crippling of third-party stores is a clear example of malicious compliance, something Apple is well known for when facing regulatory pressure. It's neither new nor surprising. Think about it: the Netherlands' dating app payment pricing trick, South Korea's alternative billing law, the US anti-steering injunction in Epic v. Apple, the Core Technology Fee for the EU's DMA, their ridiculous 'right to repair' process, etc. What’s striking is how often parts of the discussion around Apple completely ignore this known pattern, instead leaning on apologetic corporate narratives about safety, integrity, privacy, or the environment. I am against most of the (current!) regulatory pressure on Apple, but regardless of whether one supports these regulations, we can talk honestly about this practices of malicious compliance or even corporate disobedience. They exists in the world regardless of our personal stance on regulation (or Apple). Generally speaking: If a tech giant does something and there are several possible motives, one of which is profit or power consolidation, and the others are different things, it is always profit/power. They did not start out a giant after all.
rickdeckard 1y ago
Because Apple is not allowed to discourage the use of other distribution methods, and such a popup implies that an app provided via other channels is "less safe" than an app provided by Apple. > Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android. This is not the same. Windows states that they cannot verify the origin of the app because its not signed. In the current state Apple thoroughly verified the origin of the app, and the app is also signed. Imagine a guy standing in front of your grocery store telling you that "the food in this store did not pass quality control of Walmart, so we can't guarantee that it's safe"
- franga2000 1y ago
  I still don't see the problem. Apple can say this app wasn't verified for safety by Apple because...it wasn't. I see an argument for them having to have a setting to disable the nag screen, but it's just stating a fact, just like Windows says "this app is not signed, you can't verify it comes from the correct publisher". The walmart comparison makes no sense. A better comparison is the operator of a mall putting up a sign saying the products the stores in there sell are not verified by them. Often a store chain also owns malls, so Walmart saying "the things in the Walmart in the WalmartMall are ours and we vouch for their quality, but the other stores in the mall are independent and not vetted by Walmart. It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall. But apparently people expect different for phones, which does make sense given Apple hasn't allowed third parties until now.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    > I still don't see the problem. Apple can say this app wasn't verified for safety by Apple because...it wasn't. In the context of this popup, Apple is not just the manufacturer of the device, it is the operator of a competing marketplace. The fact that they suddenly present themselves and state that they did NOT verify this app implies that the quality of the products offered in that market are somewhat inferior to what Apple themselves are offering. <-- This is anti-competitive behavior > It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall. No, it's weird because Walmart has no business telling customers of OTHER markets that THEY don't vouch for its quality. In this Metaphor Walmart was already caught and ordered to stop hindering other players from competing on equal grounds, so naturally Walmart cannot put someone in front of every competing store to cast doubt on their offering.
Someone 1y ago
I think that’s because of the last phrase in this provision in the DMA (article 13.4 in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...): “The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.”

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
netsharc 1y ago
It's tragic, the amount of babysitting supposed adults need... (I'm not totally against it, the mythical grandma would otherwise lose all her savings because of an animated dancing monkey exe)
- mschuster91 1y ago
  Unfortunately, said grandma isn't all that mythical. Scams of all kinds cost US citizens alone 158 billion dollars a year [1]. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-states-scams-cost-us-consumers-1583b-one-year-roger-grimes-219ye https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ftc-states-scams-cost-us-cons...
  - const_cast 1y ago
    This granny is mythical - granny isn't installing unsigned binaries off an alternative app store. Let's not argue dishonestly - we both know how scams actually happen. That statistic is less than worthless in this context.
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Protecting grandma from scams by blocking a torrent app on her phone is rich. Getting a phone call is how grandma is going to get scammed.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Telling these people about threat modeling completely destroys their arguments. The arguments are lazy, a thin veneer for corporate profiteering, rent seeking, and restrictive behavior. Youre right - granny isn't installing unsigned binaries and anyone proclaiming otherwise is just bullshitting you. The reality is that there is no security here. We have massive, glaring holes in the systems we use. Adding a door lock when there's a giant hole in the wall next to it does nothing. Granny is being scammed via phone, but nobody wants to fix that. I wonder why? Hm, maybe money has something to do with it.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago

Because they want to cripple alt stores and ignore the DMA for as long as they can to protect the 30% extortionate rate their position as the sole provider allows them to force on developers.

fwn 1y ago
The deliberate crippling of third-party stores is a clear example of malicious compliance, something Apple is well known for when facing regulatory pressure. It's neither new nor surprising. Think about it: the Netherlands' dating app payment pricing trick, South Korea's alternative billing law, the US anti-steering injunction in Epic v. Apple, the Core Technology Fee for the EU's DMA, their ridiculous 'right to repair' process, etc. What’s striking is how often parts of the discussion around Apple completely ignore this known pattern, instead leaning on apologetic corporate narratives about safety, integrity, privacy, or the environment. I am against most of the (current!) regulatory pressure on Apple, but regardless of whether one supports these regulations, we can talk honestly about this practices of malicious compliance or even corporate disobedience. They exists in the world regardless of our personal stance on regulation (or Apple). Generally speaking: If a tech giant does something and there are several possible motives, one of which is profit or power consolidation, and the others are different things, it is always profit/power. They did not start out a giant after all.

rickdeckard 1y ago

Because Apple is not allowed to discourage the use of other distribution methods, and such a popup implies that an app provided via other channels is "less safe" than an app provided by Apple. > Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android. This is not the same. Windows states that they cannot verify the origin of the app because its not signed. In the current state Apple thoroughly verified the origin of the app, and the app is also signed. Imagine a guy standing in front of your grocery store telling you that "the food in this store did not pass quality control of Walmart, so we can't guarantee that it's safe"

franga2000 1y ago
I still don't see the problem. Apple can say this app wasn't verified for safety by Apple because...it wasn't. I see an argument for them having to have a setting to disable the nag screen, but it's just stating a fact, just like Windows says "this app is not signed, you can't verify it comes from the correct publisher". The walmart comparison makes no sense. A better comparison is the operator of a mall putting up a sign saying the products the stores in there sell are not verified by them. Often a store chain also owns malls, so Walmart saying "the things in the Walmart in the WalmartMall are ours and we vouch for their quality, but the other stores in the mall are independent and not vetted by Walmart. It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall. But apparently people expect different for phones, which does make sense given Apple hasn't allowed third parties until now.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  > I still don't see the problem. Apple can say this app wasn't verified for safety by Apple because...it wasn't. In the context of this popup, Apple is not just the manufacturer of the device, it is the operator of a competing marketplace. The fact that they suddenly present themselves and state that they did NOT verify this app implies that the quality of the products offered in that market are somewhat inferior to what Apple themselves are offering. <-- This is anti-competitive behavior > It's only weird because it's so obvious nobody would think otherwise for a mall. No, it's weird because Walmart has no business telling customers of OTHER markets that THEY don't vouch for its quality. In this Metaphor Walmart was already caught and ordered to stop hindering other players from competing on equal grounds, so naturally Walmart cannot put someone in front of every competing store to cast doubt on their offering.

Someone 1y ago

I think that’s because of the last phrase in this provision in the DMA (article 13.4 in https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A265%3ATOC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...): “The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design.”