I have my doubts. Do they even provide any support for apps on the app store? At the same time they’re paing truck load to lawyers and are about to fork off 10-20% of their global revenue for playing a subborn teenager.
Personally I think you can lower the cost by just making it difficult on the end-users side. If you put a scary pop up and require the password and bury it in the setting then boom, grandma who doesn't know the difference between wifi and the internet won't have issues.
(FYI you've submitted this comment twice about 1.5 minutes apart. I've voted for the older one rather than this one. Mods/dang: maybe the two reply sets should be merged?)
Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues, more users using tech support resources because a dodgy app downloaded from a 3rd party app store they installed broke their phone in odd ways and will likely increase expenses without increasing revenue.
Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search. If Chrome only allowed you to use Google Search as the search engine, most people wouldn't complain. This is the same. As long as they can download their [insert Big Tech Company here] walled garden app, most will not complain. But if their phone starts misbehaving because of a rogue app from a dodgy app store or phones suddenly get more expensive to compensate for higher costs incurred by Apple for their development and support of third party app stores and browsers most will complain.
UPDATE: getting downvoted for pointing out the reality. Most people are not hackers. They don't want customisation options. They are happy with a default store or browser as long as it is good enough. If you want options, Android is there
> Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues
This is a false argument because even the first party offerings have security and privacy issues. Apple has redefined what "privacy" and "security" means to imply "only things we make" as a sort of selling point. Yes, they make OK things, but who is to say someone can't make something better? Cooler? Funkier?
Also, what happens when the entire planet is vulnerable to the same flaws? It's rhetorical - you get security companies offering services to unlock and decrypt devices for anyone willing to pay them. And what happens when Apple decides to say... remove XX category of apps by a government request? You end up with people owning very expensive slabs of glass and titanium because they weren't allowed to look for apps elsewhere. Apple's way is not the way.
> Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search.
I think you should show more respect for your users. Walled garden should be an opt in/out. Not long ago most of the population didnt know how to use a PC beyond turning it on, and lots of people thought Windows 95/98/2000 as equivalent to their PC.
> Allowing alternative app stores and browsers is likely to lead to more security issues, more users using tech support resources because a dodgy app downloaded from a 3rd party app store they installed broke their phone in odd ways and will likely increase expenses without increasing revenue.
I commented this already, but I would expect iOS sandboxes apps in such a way that it doesn't have any impact on other parts of the phone even if the app is hacked for example.
> their tech support not being ready to face new problems.
One of the largest, most valuable companies on the planet which ships phones, computers, makes their own chips, operates their own cloud service, builds frontier tech devices, but their tech support can't handle some new problems? Does that really seem likely? Or a problem that they couldn't solve if they wanted to?
They are just trying to uphold their monopoly seriously.
Anyway, it will come the one or the other way — everywhere. It's just a matter of time, but on top people will fingerpoint even more at Apple, and it will have a much broader negative impact for Apple than simply by introducing it. With all their recent acting they are just confirming that's all about market power and greed.
All of these requirements look good for user security and privacy. I don't want apps to bring their own Blink or WebKit fork with all sandboxing and cross-site tracking protection disabled. I'm fine with apps bringing their own engine with the goal of performance or better user experience. These requirements enforce those expectations.
There seems to be a concern that Apple will use these requirements to ban every single alternative including Blink and Gecko. I doubt that is the case since the purpose of these changes is to allow reliable, responsible players to run their engines on iOS without giving the keys to the kingdom to every app that requests it. Banning Google or Mozilla would not satisfy the EU requirements. Banning BlinkButItAlsoMinesCrypto is fine.
The only additional thing I'd want as a user is transparency. I want to know if an app with a WebView is using WebKit, Blink, Gecko or EngineNobodyHasEverHeardOf.
> I don't want apps to bring their own Blink or WebKit fork with all sandboxing and cross-site tracking protection disabled
Facebook's apps happily do this with the built-in WKWebView and then injects its own malicious Javascript to ensure it spies on what's within the page. You do not need to run a separate browser engine to do this.
It's disappointing that the rhetoric about Apple's anti-competitive restrictions being for "security" still persists to this day especially on a technical forum.
Arnt|1 year ago
pointlessone|1 year ago
consteval|1 year ago
Aachen|1 year ago
netdevnet|1 year ago
Because let's be honest, most of the population does not even understand the idea of "app store" beyond THE app store the same way they don't understand the idea of "search engine" beyond Google Search. If Chrome only allowed you to use Google Search as the search engine, most people wouldn't complain. This is the same. As long as they can download their [insert Big Tech Company here] walled garden app, most will not complain. But if their phone starts misbehaving because of a rogue app from a dodgy app store or phones suddenly get more expensive to compensate for higher costs incurred by Apple for their development and support of third party app stores and browsers most will complain.
UPDATE: getting downvoted for pointing out the reality. Most people are not hackers. They don't want customisation options. They are happy with a default store or browser as long as it is good enough. If you want options, Android is there
isodev|1 year ago
This is a false argument because even the first party offerings have security and privacy issues. Apple has redefined what "privacy" and "security" means to imply "only things we make" as a sort of selling point. Yes, they make OK things, but who is to say someone can't make something better? Cooler? Funkier?
Also, what happens when the entire planet is vulnerable to the same flaws? It's rhetorical - you get security companies offering services to unlock and decrypt devices for anyone willing to pay them. And what happens when Apple decides to say... remove XX category of apps by a government request? You end up with people owning very expensive slabs of glass and titanium because they weren't allowed to look for apps elsewhere. Apple's way is not the way.
withinboredom|1 year ago
medo-bear|1 year ago
I think you should show more respect for your users. Walled garden should be an opt in/out. Not long ago most of the population didnt know how to use a PC beyond turning it on, and lots of people thought Windows 95/98/2000 as equivalent to their PC.
radiKal07|1 year ago
nolist_policy|1 year ago
I commented this already, but I would expect iOS sandboxes apps in such a way that it doesn't have any impact on other parts of the phone even if the app is hacked for example.
tetris11|1 year ago
Of course your local kiosk guy would have no issues.
danielbln|1 year ago
One of the largest, most valuable companies on the planet which ships phones, computers, makes their own chips, operates their own cloud service, builds frontier tech devices, but their tech support can't handle some new problems? Does that really seem likely? Or a problem that they couldn't solve if they wanted to?
wildredkraut|1 year ago
qwerty9001|1 year ago
I have used everything else (Symbian, Windows 8 phone, Windows 10 Phone, various Androids including pure Google Pixels).
They have all been tragically subpar compared to my experience with iPhone and iOS.
AndrewDucker|1 year ago
Other people want the choice. And they're getting it. But that doesn't affect you at all.
cjpearson|1 year ago
There seems to be a concern that Apple will use these requirements to ban every single alternative including Blink and Gecko. I doubt that is the case since the purpose of these changes is to allow reliable, responsible players to run their engines on iOS without giving the keys to the kingdom to every app that requests it. Banning Google or Mozilla would not satisfy the EU requirements. Banning BlinkButItAlsoMinesCrypto is fine.
The only additional thing I'd want as a user is transparency. I want to know if an app with a WebView is using WebKit, Blink, Gecko or EngineNobodyHasEverHeardOf.
Nextgrid|1 year ago
Facebook's apps happily do this with the built-in WKWebView and then injects its own malicious Javascript to ensure it spies on what's within the page. You do not need to run a separate browser engine to do this.
It's disappointing that the rhetoric about Apple's anti-competitive restrictions being for "security" still persists to this day especially on a technical forum.