The headline is editorialized, which isn't surprising considering the biased news source. You can see in the body of the article, Apple is _stifling_ competition, which is what the antitrust is about. The headline reduces it to "stave off" to make it appear harmless.
I'm glad this is being pointed out, as Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. The main aim has not been privacy, it has always been to lock users into their ecosystem with carefully controlled images, misleading advertising campaigns, PR spins, and their analogues/equivalents to "think of the children".
Realistically, I do not have any hope of anything being done as there is far too much support for, and normalization of, the current jail. This isn't the same landscape that punished MS many years ago - who have been relatively harmless when compared to FB, Apple and Google - these three companies have been playing a slightly more clever game with their EU ties and I fully expect them to get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, while relaxing in their tax haven.
> …Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy.
If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data.
Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?
Apple gives your emails to the US Government (PRISM) then runs ads for Privacy.
Apple products are exploited near weekly, then run ads for Security.
Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different"
Apple runs on doublethink, merging the latest psychology tricks with their marketing department so their product departments can cut corners. Accounting and Finance departments love it.
> Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different"
Ironically, in the case of web engines specifically, mandatory WebKit on iOS is the only remaining substantial resistance against a Chromium monopoly. Safari/WebKit sits at ~18% while Firefox/Gecko has dwindled to ~3%[0]. If third party web engines were allowed on iOS, WebKit's share would almost certainly plummet to match that of Firefox with Chrome and other forms of reskinned Chromium taking its place.
PRISM is an endpoint for companies to upload legally-mandated data demands from the government. They can either join PRISM or pull that data by hand; the data is going to USG either way.
Given how Apple allows side-loading on Mac and obviously the 2 other dominant consumer platforms (Android & Windows) do as well with no significant consequences, it's pretty disingenuous for Apple to engage in these privacy/security scare tactics to maintain platform control and profits.
Add to this the fact that they only really started this campaign more than a decade after they launched the iPhone just compounds Apple's loss of credibility on this.
Bryan Lunduke recently made some good points about sideloading[1,2].
It's difficult to rationalize Apple's stance on this as anything but anti-competitive. They invented a new term they can use in their scare tactics that would obscure their goal of being the only company to profit from software sales on their platform.
Apple loves to market the iPad as the "modern computer", yet the ecosystem is so controlled and locked down that it can barely function as anything other than a media consumption device.
Personal computers aren’t nearly as personal as our smartphones. My laptop has no clue about my heart rate, exercise level, how much I’m spending at the grocery store, where I am any time I leave the house, etc.
It’s not unreasonable to argue that a smartphone requires more security than a laptop.
Apple allows sideloading on computers because that’s how computers have always been. Introducing a Computer back then that had no means of getting needed software would be suicide for any computer. It had to open because computers for the most part were always open and Apple didn’t have the leverage or starting position like they did with the iPhone.
Something like a Chromebook would have absolutely failed decades ago. A lot of things done today would have failed decades ago and vice versa.
I don't think sideloading in itself is necessarily a threat to privacy. It's unquestionably a downgrade in security thanks to the existence of social engineering, but that might be something we just have to live with.
Where the real threat, in my opinion, lies is with third party app stores. It's easy to imagine Facebook for example launching its own app store where rules for information gathering are lax or nonexistent and then forcing its success by making the powerhouse apps it controls exclusive to it - a lot of people wouldn't think twice about installing a questionable app store if that were the only way they could get Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc. There's also no shortage of unscrupulous developers who would jump aboard their platform for the anything goes policies.
One could argue that users have a choice in that situation, but that's not really true, particularly where network effects are concerned. Most people are not going to switch to Signal for example if WhatsApp becomes a Facebook Store exclusive - they're just going to install the Facebook Store and get on with life, because the energy involved in getting entire social groups moved over just isn't there.
Technical solutions to this privacy problem like sandboxing sound good on paper, but there will always be holes, and if the gatekeeper is happy to look the other way when developers use said holes (as Facebook themselves have in the past), those protections may as well not exist. Even if Apple puts maximum effort into closing off these holes, it'll be an endless cat and mouse game with user information dripping out the whole way.
Some will point out that third party app stores and sideloading have been possible on Android since forever and the above described outcome hasn't occurred, but the incentives are quite different in the case of iOS/App Store, both financially (iOS user eyeballs are worth a lot more) and from a policy standpoint (the App Store, historically, has been much more strict than the Play Store). It could also still happen in the case of Android, and is perhaps even likely given how Google has been tightening the bolts on the Play Store's policies.
So, my thought is that any legislation that forces the ability to sideload and install third party app stores must be accompanied by parallel legislation that effectively takes the App Store's privacy policies and codifies them as law, and potentially even criminalizes abuse of platforms to gain personal information without the user's explicit consent.
> Where the real threat, in my opinion, lies is with third party app stores. It's easy to imagine Facebook for example launching its own app store where rules for information gathering are lax or nonexistent and then forcing its success by making the powerhouse apps it controls exclusive to it - a lot of people wouldn't think twice about installing a questionable app store if that were the only way they could get Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc. There's also no shortage of unscrupulous developers who would jump aboard their platform for the anything goes policies.
You make a very good point.
And that point is exactly why apple shouldn't be allowed to editorialize their app store byond security and privacy controls. Blocking apps that compete with their pre-installed apps, blocking apps that don't allow apple to make money off of them, blocking apps that apple disagrees with morally (adult/porn apps, forcing discord to block joining adult servers on ios) etc.
Apple really fucked themselves here and they will lose this battle for side loading because they weren't good custodians of the app store platform, and it's a battle they didn't have to lose.
Your last paragraph would be great, but I doubt we will see that.
What I personally think is a good way forward is to allow side-loading individual apps, but disallow them from managing other applications natively — that way apple’s precious walled garden will remain, while tech enthusiasts can use their devices to the fullest.
Your last para is the key - unfortunately, the legislative process is so slow in most democracies that it might take a decade or more for most countries to setup such regulators.
Sideloading is a threat to privacy because it allows apps to ignore the consent requirements the App Store enforces.
As it stands, if any app wants access to your contacts, your camera, your microphone, your photos, etc, it must ask first. Allowing sideloading removes this protection, and apps installed that way could simply siphon all your data silently.
You even describe how that can be the case, but you couch it as being with third-party app stores. While what you say is not false, it is also not limited to that case: the removal of both privacy and security protections happens as soon as you stop having the App Store be the sole source for iOS software.
Yes, of course, a hypothetical "Facebook App Store" with all Facebook apps being exclusive to it would have a higher chance of getting nefarious data-siphoning apps onto users' iPhones than any old random sideloaded app, but it's hardly a necessary part of the threat to privacy. It's just a way of guaranteeing much more widespread compromises of privacy.
I expected the worst when reading the headline but this is great news. If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone.
> If the EU forces Apple to allow side-loading apps I might actually buy an Apple smartphone.
This will result in different phones for different markets. For example, iPhone in Japan must play a sound when the camera takes a picture. This is not true of iPhones sold in the US. iPhones in some markets also are not allowed to have active 5G modems while, obviously, iPhones in the US are.
I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches.
> I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload. (Emphasis mine)
Confusing phrasing, but would I agree that security and privacy could in fact be reduced by using another app store or sideloading.
Consider an app that is removed from Apple's app store for violating Apple's privacy and/or security requirements (for example refusing to report, or inaccurately reporting, collection of personal information). There is no guarantee that the app would also be removed from third-party app stores, or that it could not be sideloaded.
So where can I go if I want a device that does not allow sideloading? I want a device that has a single trusted root that takes a hard stance on all apps to make sure they’re not abusing privileges, and signs the apps that are validated. Is that going to be gone now? Should I just go to a feature phone?
Apple does not actually "take a hard stance on all apps to make sure they're not abusing privileges" though they say that they do in their advertising.
What you are asking can be implemented in the phone OS. Apple's macOS shows one way to do it - System Integrity Protection - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Integrity_Protection ... you need to disable it in macOS to make any system changes, like installing a Kernel Extension. Another way is how you have to jump through some hoops to enable root or unlock the bootloader in some phones.
Maybe don't blindly trust a corporate entity that doesnt have your interests at heart snd had been oroven before to be cooperating with the NSA and foreign state entities
"I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload."
Spot on! There is a point of no return for us consumers too when the manufacturers use the argument of "security and privacy" to take so much control away from us. At that certain point, can you really say that you own the device you have paid for?
I'm pretty sure we already passed that point when we accepted the argument that users need to be protected against themselves.
Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves.
And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
She isn’t making a sensible assessment of tradeoffs though. You do take a security hit from sideloading. There’s no way around that.
Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.
Just for the record MS stated that they don't support older CPUs in Windows 11 because "security"; mind you not your security but security for the media companies that can feel safe with the new DRM being stronger.
[+] [-] politelemon|4 years ago|reply
I'm glad this is being pointed out, as Apple has long subverted (and done damage to, IMO) the privacy conversation by telling users that privacy can be obtained by giving up their privacy. The main aim has not been privacy, it has always been to lock users into their ecosystem with carefully controlled images, misleading advertising campaigns, PR spins, and their analogues/equivalents to "think of the children".
Realistically, I do not have any hope of anything being done as there is far too much support for, and normalization of, the current jail. This isn't the same landscape that punished MS many years ago - who have been relatively harmless when compared to FB, Apple and Google - these three companies have been playing a slightly more clever game with their EU ties and I fully expect them to get away with little more than a slap on the wrist, while relaxing in their tax haven.
[+] [-] CharlesW|4 years ago|reply
If you listen to the interview, the actual message from Cook is "privacy and security go hand-in-hand", which is plainly obvious and supported by history and data.
Maybe I'm missing something from a different source. Where has Apple said, "privacy can be obtained by giving up privacy"?
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purpmint008|4 years ago|reply
When are they going to allow us to opt out of the baseline telemetry that we cannot opt out of as per their EULAs?
When are they going to make their own ad targeting network opt-in instead of opt-out?
When are they going to give us the option of full E2EE for our iCloud data?
[+] [-] deregulateMed|4 years ago|reply
Apple products are exploited near weekly, then run ads for Security.
Apple makes everyone use the same app store and web browser, then run ads saying "Think Different"
Apple runs on doublethink, merging the latest psychology tricks with their marketing department so their product departments can cut corners. Accounting and Finance departments love it.
[+] [-] kitsunesoba|4 years ago|reply
Ironically, in the case of web engines specifically, mandatory WebKit on iOS is the only remaining substantial resistance against a Chromium monopoly. Safari/WebKit sits at ~18% while Firefox/Gecko has dwindled to ~3%[0]. If third party web engines were allowed on iOS, WebKit's share would almost certainly plummet to match that of Firefox with Chrome and other forms of reskinned Chromium taking its place.
[0]: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
[+] [-] kaba0|4 years ago|reply
Citation needed?
[+] [-] Karunamon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doobeeus|4 years ago|reply
Add to this the fact that they only really started this campaign more than a decade after they launched the iPhone just compounds Apple's loss of credibility on this.
[+] [-] imiric|4 years ago|reply
It's difficult to rationalize Apple's stance on this as anything but anti-competitive. They invented a new term they can use in their scare tactics that would obscure their goal of being the only company to profit from software sales on their platform.
Apple loves to market the iPad as the "modern computer", yet the ecosystem is so controlled and locked down that it can barely function as anything other than a media consumption device.
Good on the EU for pushing back on this.
[1]: https://www.lunduke.com/2021/06/apple-sideloading-is-the-dev...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mXExBK0SnQ
[+] [-] macintux|4 years ago|reply
It’s not unreasonable to argue that a smartphone requires more security than a laptop.
[+] [-] Jcowell|4 years ago|reply
Something like a Chromebook would have absolutely failed decades ago. A lot of things done today would have failed decades ago and vice versa.
[+] [-] kitsunesoba|4 years ago|reply
Where the real threat, in my opinion, lies is with third party app stores. It's easy to imagine Facebook for example launching its own app store where rules for information gathering are lax or nonexistent and then forcing its success by making the powerhouse apps it controls exclusive to it - a lot of people wouldn't think twice about installing a questionable app store if that were the only way they could get Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc. There's also no shortage of unscrupulous developers who would jump aboard their platform for the anything goes policies.
One could argue that users have a choice in that situation, but that's not really true, particularly where network effects are concerned. Most people are not going to switch to Signal for example if WhatsApp becomes a Facebook Store exclusive - they're just going to install the Facebook Store and get on with life, because the energy involved in getting entire social groups moved over just isn't there.
Technical solutions to this privacy problem like sandboxing sound good on paper, but there will always be holes, and if the gatekeeper is happy to look the other way when developers use said holes (as Facebook themselves have in the past), those protections may as well not exist. Even if Apple puts maximum effort into closing off these holes, it'll be an endless cat and mouse game with user information dripping out the whole way.
Some will point out that third party app stores and sideloading have been possible on Android since forever and the above described outcome hasn't occurred, but the incentives are quite different in the case of iOS/App Store, both financially (iOS user eyeballs are worth a lot more) and from a policy standpoint (the App Store, historically, has been much more strict than the Play Store). It could also still happen in the case of Android, and is perhaps even likely given how Google has been tightening the bolts on the Play Store's policies.
So, my thought is that any legislation that forces the ability to sideload and install third party app stores must be accompanied by parallel legislation that effectively takes the App Store's privacy policies and codifies them as law, and potentially even criminalizes abuse of platforms to gain personal information without the user's explicit consent.
[+] [-] MrStonedOne|4 years ago|reply
You make a very good point.
And that point is exactly why apple shouldn't be allowed to editorialize their app store byond security and privacy controls. Blocking apps that compete with their pre-installed apps, blocking apps that don't allow apple to make money off of them, blocking apps that apple disagrees with morally (adult/porn apps, forcing discord to block joining adult servers on ios) etc.
Apple really fucked themselves here and they will lose this battle for side loading because they weren't good custodians of the app store platform, and it's a battle they didn't have to lose.
[+] [-] kaba0|4 years ago|reply
What I personally think is a good way forward is to allow side-loading individual apps, but disallow them from managing other applications natively — that way apple’s precious walled garden will remain, while tech enthusiasts can use their devices to the fullest.
[+] [-] webmobdev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adammenges|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YmiYugy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purpmint008|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danaris|4 years ago|reply
As it stands, if any app wants access to your contacts, your camera, your microphone, your photos, etc, it must ask first. Allowing sideloading removes this protection, and apps installed that way could simply siphon all your data silently.
You even describe how that can be the case, but you couch it as being with third-party app stores. While what you say is not false, it is also not limited to that case: the removal of both privacy and security protections happens as soon as you stop having the App Store be the sole source for iOS software.
Yes, of course, a hypothetical "Facebook App Store" with all Facebook apps being exclusive to it would have a higher chance of getting nefarious data-siphoning apps onto users' iPhones than any old random sideloaded app, but it's hardly a necessary part of the threat to privacy. It's just a way of guaranteeing much more widespread compromises of privacy.
[+] [-] Lariscus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistersquid|4 years ago|reply
This will result in different phones for different markets. For example, iPhone in Japan must play a sound when the camera takes a picture. This is not true of iPhones sold in the US. iPhones in some markets also are not allowed to have active 5G modems while, obviously, iPhones in the US are.
I think splitting the market will be fine. However, I suspect many side-loading-capable iPhones are going to have many more security problems and privacy breaches.
We’ll have to wait and see.
[+] [-] musicale|4 years ago|reply
Confusing phrasing, but would I agree that security and privacy could in fact be reduced by using another app store or sideloading.
Consider an app that is removed from Apple's app store for violating Apple's privacy and/or security requirements (for example refusing to report, or inaccurately reporting, collection of personal information). There is no guarantee that the app would also be removed from third-party app stores, or that it could not be sideloaded.
[+] [-] rank0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoldesu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nuker|4 years ago|reply
Horseshit. Consumers will install anything from anywhere, all the time.
[+] [-] Jap2-0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pabs3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] beebeepka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freddealmeida|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoldesu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chomp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doobeeus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|4 years ago|reply
Every corporate IT department configures windows this way
[+] [-] bobviolier|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webmobdev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmz73|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stale2002|4 years ago|reply
It's pretty simple. Just don't sideload apps.
Or perhaps there could be a setting that you turn on, that disallows sideloading.
If you turn on a setting, that disallows sideloading, then in that case you would have a platform that does what you want.
[+] [-] webmobdev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contravariant|4 years ago|reply
Forced updates, walled gardens, mandatory online accounts, all of it has been pushed down the throat of users with the justification that it is necessary to protect users against themselves.
And in most cases it's pretty easy to see it wasn't primarily in the interest of those users, since they weren't given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
[+] [-] graeme|4 years ago|reply
Society may find that it is worth mandating sideloading nonetheless and that the competition gain is worse the privacy loss. But it is senseless to argue there is no tradeoff.
[+] [-] nobodyshere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] type0|4 years ago|reply