nodamage

37 ms·

361.
by nodamage 6y ago
> So not a literal monopoly. You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required
362.
by nodamage 6y ago
There's a just single agreement that covers development for all Apple products (iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS).
363.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer That's highly debatable. If Epic really had their consumers best interests in mind they would cure the breach and put Fortnite ba
364.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others. Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal
365.
by nodamage 6y ago
> So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". That's because they did . Apple's developer agreement (like most
366.
by nodamage 6y ago
> - Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer-agreement infringing version of Fortnite I think it's possible that the judge allows Apple to ban Epic SARL based on this alone. The original justification
367.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into
368.
by nodamage 6y ago
> But legally, the iOS and the Mac developer agreements are separate contracts. This might have been true in the past but I don't believe it's true anymore. The two have been combined into a single program governed by the Apple
369.
by nodamage 6y ago
It's worth noting that Apple in their latest legal filing ( https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265... ) has made a fairly aggressive argument asking the judge to allow them to terminate Epic&#x
370.
by nodamage 6y ago
> These measures are always marketed as being for security from hackers and more recently also in the name of privacy That's because they are . The reality is the existence of side-loading and third-party stores on Android contri
371.
by nodamage 6y ago
I've seen an increasing trend of sites showing modal popups immediately upon page load asking for permission to send notifications. This type of behavior is extremely obnoxious. Being able to approve or reject notifications is not enou
372.
by nodamage 6y ago
I've seen this quoted a lot lately but saying that a literal monopoly (as in, a single company with 100% market share) is not required doesn't really say much about what is required, which depends on the specific violation bei
373.
by nodamage 6y ago
Mystery partially solved: Google's security report is based on the data from Google Play Protect, which apparently has the worst performance among malware detection tools in the industry ( https://www.tomsguide.com/revie
374.
by nodamage 6y ago
Yes. The fact that you manage the LLC from within California constitutes "doing business in California". See the examples on this page: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/misc/3556.html#Doing-Business-i... Pa
375.
by nodamage 6y ago
I've been trying to figure out these Google numbers and they just don't make sense to me. In August 2019 a cluster of apps in the Google Play Store with over 100 million total installs were discovered to contain a trojan ( https:&
376.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The Google numbers I list are not monthly rolling measures, they're for the entirety of 2018. Fair enough, I was referring to the "average monthly infection rate" from the text you quoted. However, I am having trouble re
377.
by nodamage 6y ago
> We're talking about a reduction of <0.5% of current devices. You're trying to use this number to downplay the severity of the malware problem on Android, but you need to be careful with the interpretation of this number. I
378.
by nodamage 6y ago
I suppose that depends on how exactly you define side-loading. I'll go ahead and clarify that I meant having a platform-sanctioned method of bypassing the default app store and instead downloading and installing third-party apps from t
379.
by nodamage 6y ago
Fair enough, but that doesn't really explain the difference. (5x as many devices but 47x as many malware incidents.)
380.
by nodamage 6y ago
Linux as a consumer-level operating system has basically zero market share, nothing about it will be widespread. If you add in consumer devices with a Linux kernel (i.e. Android devices) then yes, it has had widespread malware problems.
381.
by nodamage 6y ago
No, it's a benefit of the fact that side-loading (the most common malware attack vector on Android devices) is not possible on iOS.
382.
by nodamage 6y ago
No platform is perfectly secure and every single piece of software is potentially vulnerable to zero-day exploits. The important question, as the previous commenter said, is what is the security record of each platform? And iOS is miles a
383.
by nodamage 6y ago
> But in my mind, the point of bringing up individual malware examples is not to say that all regulation is worthless, it's to drive home that perfect security doesn't exist, that we shouldn't be striving for perfect secur
384.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not sure I would consider a handful of examples of developers sneaking apps past the review team evidence of a "spotty record of stopping malware". Yes, you can trivially sneak things past app review by temporarily disabl
385.
by nodamage 6y ago
> My feeling is that a different analogy would better suit your argument. Feel free to pick whatever example you'd like, the underlying point is the same: just because some bad actors will ignore the regulations anyways doesn't
386.
by nodamage 6y ago
> first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone Can you elaborate on this with more detail about what you're specifically referring to?
387.
by nodamage 6y ago
> They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security. That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors also sometimes enforce control unre
388.
by nodamage 6y ago
> For others, their mobile is the most important, likely because that's where all their messages, contacts, location history, and more, resides. Indeed. And some of those people value the security and privacy of that data and want t
389.
by nodamage 6y ago
In real life we also have murders and kidnappings, that just means no system is perfect. It certainly doesn't mean there's no point in having law enforcement.
390.
by nodamage 6y ago
Fair enough, but the claim is that "security and privacy aren't really protected", which I strongly disagree with and don't believe the author has presented anything justify such a strong claim.

More ›