All it does is force "choice" onto users further down the stack - users that don't know what they might be giving up when they install a third-party app store when trying to install "Fortnite" or even "Fortnite VBucks Generator Free iOS".
And they will have a vastly reduced set of people willing to use their software as a result. Other than a few key things, that's probably more trouble than it's worth for a lot of people, and the requisite "Warning: This app store is handled by someone else to make absolutely sure you trust the company running it" will scare a bunch more off, if it's something new.
If, on the other hand, it's Steam, or Epic, or some other super well known steward of content that has a well known name and reputation, then maybe if users are also lured by lower prices, they might consider it.
You know, exactly the same way you might feel a lot more comfortable buying that watch or toy you really want if it's from your local target and not some random guy with a table on the street.
They will just (effectively) all move over and (effectively) none of them will read any warning text.
God only knows what companies like 100% Tencent owned Riot Games will have running on millions of Americans' phones once they get the elevated access an app store requires.
Of course, the app can refuse to function if you deny it...
I feel like "do you want to give this app your phone number?" falls under the former, though. Right there along with "do you want to give this app your location?", which is of course already something users have to allow.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...
From here[1]:
> Remote control security risks
> XcodeGhost can be remotely controlled via commands sent by an attacker from a Command and control server through HTTP. This data is encrypted using the DES algorithm in ECB mode. Not only is this encryption mode known to be weak, the encryption keys can also be found using reverse engineering. An attacker could perform a man in the middle attack and transmit fake HTTP traffic to the device (to open a dialog box or open specific app for example).
> Read and write from clipboard
> XcodeGhost is also able, each time an infected app is launched, to store the data written in the iOS clipboard. The malware is also able to modify this data. This can be particularly dangerous if the user uses a password management app.
> Hijack opening specific URLs
> XcodeGhost is also able to open specific URLs when the infected app is launched. Since Apple iOS and OS X work with Inter-App Communication URL mechanism (e.g. 'whatsapp://', 'Facebook://', 'iTunes://'), the attacker can open any apps installed on the compromised phone or computer, in the case of an infected macOS application. Such mechanism could be harmful with password management apps or even on phishing websites.
> Stealing user device information
> When the infected app is launched, either by using an iPhone or the simulator inside Xcode, XcodeGhost will automatically collect device information.*
> Then the malware will encrypt those data and send it to a command and control server. The server differs from version to version of XcodeGhost; Palo Alto Networks was able to find three server URLs:
> http://init.crash-analytics.com, http://init.icloud-diagnostics.com, http://init.icloud-analysis.com
> The last domain was also used in the iOS malware KeyRaider.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XcodeGhost#Behavior_on_infecte...
[2] https://blog.lookout.com/blog/2015/09/20/xcodeghost
[3] http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2015/09/malware-x...
[4] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/apple...
[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/20/us-apple-china-mal...
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/apple-confirms-di...
And the 'remotely controlled via commands' section is meaningless - apps can't JIT so such C&C was simply turning flags on-and-off to go on different code paths.
Legislation like this forces Apple to actually maintain a good OS lest it be riddled with malware. They seem to be doing fine on macOS they can do the same for iOS.
0: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/19/apples-head-of-software-says...
https://support.apple.com/guide/mdm/security-privacy-payload...
(It's funny, because this just feels like an echo of the 90s, when Microsoft killed Netscape in no small part by bundling Internet Explorer as the default for new OS installs.)
So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever.
But Apple can’t effectively play Big Brother in that role and protect me from all the other bad actors, if they are forced to allow alternative app stores and sideloading.
It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not. Or Pregnancy. You are either pregnant or not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, or have crypto that is only a little bit broken.
You can not use alternatives.
It's like pregnancy, if you wear protection, you can have safe sex. If you're scared protection isn't enough, you can not have sex and you won't get pregnant.
Ok wait that's a weird example that isn't supposed to be preachy but the point is you can always not use non-apple app stores and apple can still protect you.
If Zuck’s money is behind this, it’s a really good checkmate.
Where are the real journalists when you need them? We need a list of whoever is funding these lobbyists.
So, I pay my money, and I get Apple to be my Big Brother who protects me from the bad actors. And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever.
That's quite a Stockholm syndrome-y view. What protects users, first and foremost, are users themselves.
Take the imaginary scenario of "WhatsApp requiring constant location data".
On an open platform, other users will provide you tools to defeat these requirements, either by modifying the app code itself, adding code around it to provide it fake data, or simply not allow these APIs in the first place.
If WhatsApp is really clever about it and detects all attempts at thwarting the surveillance, then users will develop and distribute an alternative messaging service (see Signal gaining serious traction after a way milder anti-user update by WhatsApp a few months ago).
It's only in the context of a lack of competition that such bad behavior is tolerated by users.
"big" is not the deciding factor. Amazon and Microsoft are also big. They do not decide what's on your phone. Apple's and Google's stores are big by default because Apple and Google have control of the platform. It's not the other way around. It's also not binary. If the store is decoupled, they will have less control, but not no control. Influence is weighted by user-base.
> Sure, their interests may not always be aligned with mine, but we are much more likely to be aligned than mine with the bad actors
Their interests are more aligned because they sell you the platform. They have many more ways to do this that aren't dependent on a quality app store. A store that survives on just the store is even more aligned to maximizing loyalty and trust in that store.
> And if I decide that I no longer want Apple to play that role, then I can go buy an Andoproid device, or whatever
Maybe you can, but for most people in the world, a phone is a significant investment and not a choice you can easily switch when you've already spent significant money in the ecosystem.
> It’s like cryptography. Either it’s broken, or it’s not
It's not. Even now, there are practical limits to what Apple can demand of its developers. Less control means less power, not no power. A store filled with bad apps is not a store most people will willingly buy from, unless there is external pressure forcing them. I don't think there's really much of an argument there. What this discussion is really about is the Facebooks of the world that have tremendous influence and also do shady things. Already, we see that Facebook plays by different rules with different stores, with greater tracking on Google platforms. This wouldn't change if Apple's store were still big enough to matter, but if Apple's power were weakened there's a risk that Facebook (for example) might have enough power to not care. So, this is what it's really about: some people trust Apple more than Facebook and want Apple to have total power in that relationship by being bigger than Facebook. This necessarily piggybacks off of the power given by people who do not care about or trust Apple, gained by means that are not the quality of the store. These people will likely stay with Apple regardless of how much Apple abuses its trust, but yet the people that do trust Apple think their trust matters.
I agree with your point, but just want to point out that Microsoft does similar things on Windows with Defender that Apple does on macOS with Gatekeeper, and both can be described as the companies deciding what does or doesn't get to run on your computers.
Both companies require you to buy certificates and remain in good standing with them if you want your software to run on Windows or macOS without a problem. Microsoft and Apple can revoke certificates whenever they want for any reason they want, and after doing so, Defender and Gatekeeper will prevent apps signed with those certificates from running on either OS.
macOS treats unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and hides the ability to run them from the user. The switch to the M1 platform brought a new requirement that all apps must be signed as unsigned binaries won't run on M1 Macs. Windows Defender will also treat unsigned apps as if they're radioactive, and prevents users from running them initially.
If you want your apps to actually run on modern macOS or Windows systems without users thinking they're either broken or malicious, you need to pay for certificates and remain in good standing with both companies. Apple goes one step further and requires all apps to be Notarized, which involves uploading the app to Apple's server so it can analyze and approve it to run on macOS.
We see this even in the PC space: people will refuse to buy games not on Steam and many of the stores that sprung up a few years ago (Origin and UPlay) have since conceded and narrowed in scope.
Some apps will bypass the Apple/Google store, advertise themselves, and supply their own infrastructure for distribution. When that happens, Apple and Google will no longer have control. Implicit in the argument that they should have control is the assumption that these two companies are the only two enforcement bodies that can be trusted. As should be evident by now, you do not control Apple or Google and have no recourse if they break your trust. These companies care, first and foremost about their profit margin. It is naïve to think that consumer choice reflects Apple's or Google's stewardship of the store. Not everyone buys a phone because they like the walled garden.
I used to think sideloading was/third-party stores were a problem because of what you describe, but I've come to believe that it's the most free-market solution available to curtail some of the excesses of these gatekeepers while minimizing design-by-government.