Through the same system APIs that exist right now. Why would that change?
> Who would verify them against malware
The distributor of the app, most likely. If you downloaded a game though Steam for iOS or whatever, and it had malware, that's Valve's fault.
If you went to virus.com and downloaded a virus, that's your problem.
> or ensure they didn’t violate security constraints?
You mean ensure they don't violate one of the operating system's security protections? That's called finding an exploit, and it's the developer of the operating system's responsibility. Exploits for iOS exist today, and they'll continue to exist in the future.
> It’s not like Apple could disavow all responsibility for any data leaked from the system, a lot of users simply wouldn’t see it that way
Of course not. A "leak" due to an exploit/vulnerability in iOS that Apple failed to patch would be their fault.
A third party app leaking personal info online would be the third party developer's fault. People didn't get pissed at Apple when Facebook leaked all that data a ~week ago.
> There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.
It's their job to get it fixed. It's been their job for over 13 years, and they've failed at it again and again. It's about time they're fired.
But instead of gaslighting us, Apple could let us sideload notarized apps. This means:
- Automated scan for malware
- Remote kill switch, just in case
They already do this for macOS [1]:
> “Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly.”
They could give users a choice, much like they're doing with the new App Tracking Transparency prompt. But when pressed on why Apple should have control, Cook said "Somebody has to."
That's… not a very convincing argument.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...
It’s never been a serious target.
I think you know this.
https://www.howtogeek.com/281849/dont-be-fooled-the-mac-app-...
Fortunately iOS users don’t have those problems because of the security model that you are so quick to dismiss.
Hard to see how you think such links support your argument for dismissing the security model.
Also of note - the central App Store was used to fix these problems.
I do not view opening up the platform to third party stores or sideloading to be an excessive security risk, because having studied iOS's security model, it seems to be reasonably hardened (at least compared to Android) and I believe that Apple can manage the existence of other app sources well enough to prevent them from becoming significant malware vectors. The fact that those malware links are neither ransomware nor botnets proves how inherently secure iOS is, and thus protections are built into the operating system level, thus making the existence of third party stores irrelevant to its security.
This, I agree with.
> and/or open up the platform to third party stores, and thus competition
This I disagree with. As stated elsewhere, I simply don’t think security will be the basis for such competition because it relies on end users to be able to make that a priority over just running the apps they want.
I think if Apple is unable to maintain the security of the platform, competition is the answer, but in the form of other platforms, not Apple being forced to allow alternative stores.
One Tenth. Or 100M+ User with lots of room to grow.
I wouldn't use tiny to describe it, even in comparative sense.
Because that user base are worth more than per user than the others?
There’s a lot wrong with the current state of apps in the App Store, but right now at least I know who’s job it is to get it fixed.