Apple wants lawmakers to know that sideloaded apps are dangerous. Okay, I guess that seems kinda reasonable. But, wait a minute …
Tim’s crew goes on to claim that alternative app stores are basically the same thing as sideloading. And that its droolingly dim customers can’t be trusted to make sensible decisions, unless they’re guided by—you guessed it—Apple and its walled garden.
And naturally, Apple’s “evidence” is a bunch of cherrypicked research that doesn’t really prove anything of the sort. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we follow the money.
Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Quentin Smirhes.
Cui Bono? Apple!
What’s the craic? Ian Sherr reports—“Apple again makes its case against sideloading apps”:
Giving access to sensitive parts”
Apple’s spent years marketing its iPhones and iPads as more secure and reliable than competing devices powered by Google’s Android software … where users can find and download apps from sources other than their device’s primary app store. … In particular, Apple said Android-powered devices have up to 47 times more malware infections than iPhones.
…
Apple defended its control [by] pointing to the array of sensors and personal data stored on our phones, making them appealing targets for hackers. … Apple added … case studies of real-life malware designed to trick people into giving access to sensitive parts of their phone.
Crikey! Catalin Cimpanu acts all agnostic—“Apple argues against allowing app sideloading”:
Antitrust investigation”
The company’s report comes as Apple is currently under an antitrust investigation in the EU for anti-competitive practices — namely for forcing app developers to use its proprietary App Store. … The company is also facing issues in the US, where two senators put forward a bill in August that would force the company to open its devices to sideloading.
…
Today’s 31-page report is the second iteration of the same report. With a first version being published back in June, shortly after EU authorities announced their investigation.
Ahhhh. That’s why. Thomas Claburn accuses Apple of conscious conflation—“An inconvenient truth”:
Not in the best interest of Apple”
There’s a major problem with Apple’s argument, however: Apple uses the term “sideloading” to refer both to third-party app stores and to direct app installation, suggesting the equivalency of two scenarios that are not the same. … Downloading an iOS app from someone’s website and installing it is not the same as downloading an iOS app from, say, an app store operated by Google, Epic Games, or Microsoft.
…
Apple implicitly denies the possibility that a third-party app store might offer better security and privacy than the App Store. And that is a possibility, given that Apple only spends about 12 minutes on average reviewing each iOS app.
…
Apple suggests Android has poor security because it supports sideloading. [But] Apple is cherry-picking third-party research from Nokia to support its claims without providing its own internal App Store data about the incidence of iOS malware. … Many of the security issues on Android are … a consequence of Android’s multi-vendor ecosystem rather than the perils of sideloading.
…
If customers … choose to look elsewhere for their iOS apps, they should have that freedom. … Users who choose to sideload iOS apps themselves have the opportunity to do as much research as they’d like and to make installation decisions based on their own risk tolerance. … There’s no reason any mandate to open the iOS ecosystem couldn’t balance legitimate security concerns with competitive concerns.
…
Apple says, “Sideloading is not in the best interest of users.” … Undoubtedly sideloading is not in the best interest of Apple.
Ouch. And jmull argues Apple’s apologia waxes weak: [You’re fired—Ed.]
Would lead to a lot of new great software”
Apple’s argument is basically, “It’ll be chaos!!!” But we don’t have to wonder what it would be like. There’s been mass use of platforms that allow “side loading” (AKA, just regular installing) and “third-party app stores” (AKA, just regular buying software) for decades.No, it hasn’t always been pretty. [But] the benefits have proven to be very substantial. There are incredible amounts of great software available that doesn’t fit in to Apple’s idea of what ought to be allowed.
And it’s not like you can download with confidence from the Apple App Store either. … There’s no question third-party app stores, or just direct side-loading would lead to a lot of new great software, without a ton more risk.
Interesting point. But bloodhawk is a little less polite:
I don't think you are fooling anyone”
Yeah right! … Seriously Apple—at least be ****ing honest.The reason is firstly and foremost profit. … Lockin does give the extra benefit of more security but I don’t think you are fooling anyone into believing that is your primary concern.
tl;dr? u/far-que summarizes thuswise:
Funnily enough they don’t mention the bank they make out of owning the only app conduit.
Is it time for a colorful metaphor? bazza certainly thinks so:
Cook … the man who killed Apple”
This is what happens when you dam the river and charge downstreamers an excessive amount for water. Sure, regulate the flow, do a useful service. But ratchet the price up to profiteering levels and people look back to the good old days of free water with the occasional flood.Profiteering … in the long run will earn them less money. Cook could go down in history as the man who killed Apple.
So what’s the solution? Someone1234 has a suggestion for Tim:
It is absolutely about control”
Apple could compromise: Allow third party app stores to exist, but Apple gets to sign the third party store app itself (and can set minimum requirements like app review). It may sound counter-intuitive, but the whole issue here is that Apple is using their store for anti-competitive things.
…
If third party stores could exist, you wouldn’t need side loading, and security isn’t completely compromised. … This of course won’t happen because it is absolutely about control.
Meanwhile, here’s Anonymouse Cowtard’s advice:
You purchase an iPhone but you do not own it. It’s that simple. If that is acceptable to you then good luck.
And Finally:
You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites … so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. E&OE. 30.
Image sauce: joyquality (cc:by-sa)
The State of Cloud Native Security 2020
"stupid" - Google News
October 15, 2021 at 12:05AM
https://ift.tt/3mR17m1
Apple Says iPhone Users are Stupid - Security Boulevard
"stupid" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3b2JB6q
https://ift.tt/3febf3M
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Apple Says iPhone Users are Stupid - Security Boulevard"
Post a Comment