The reviewing process done by apple still applies to them.

The reviewing process that no one is asking Apple to do. What a racket this whole thing this is.

I absolutely am.

Part of the appeal about iOS for me is that apps are reviewed for quality and don't have obvious scams or spywear inside.

I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it. Compare this to the constant education and guidance I need to provide about websites, phone calls, text messages etc. The amount of targeted scams and spam we receive nowadays is excessive.

I think this is the problem: people want access to the 'app store' while forgetting/ignoring that the tight security and rigid processes are a feature, not a liability.

Then stick to the official app store and don't install a third party store?

That doesn't work if core apps start moving to third party app stores.

That didn’t happen on Android, why would it happen now?

The problem is that big publishers have different rules than the smaller ones. As a small company you an risk losing everything. Big publishers have private accountmanagers working at Apple. There are literally 1000 stories of this.

> I'm happy to guide my parents to use and download apps from the app store without worrying about it.

You shouldn't be. There have been plenty of scams in the App Store.

Many users, myself included, choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware - that is the benefit of the review process. If you don’t want that, you can use Android.

Their review process is historically flawed.

And where did you heard iOS is free from viruses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

From the top of my head there's also AdThief and AceDeceiver.

Not only that but App store is full of Anti-virus offerings.

If you don't want viruses, don't use non-App Store apps? Why is this not an option?

And let's not pretend that IOS hasn't been jailbroken for 15 years and there aren't already spy/malware apps.

I think you are missing the point that they want to impose this reviewing process on the off-brand App Store too

The regulation allows for apple to still do malware scanning and blocking on apps installed even by third party stores. Google also does the same thing, this point is a nothingburger. The human review part of the app store review does nothing to catch viruses.

> Google does the same thing

They don't block, and you can disable scanning fully.

> choose iOS because it’s free of viruses and malware

It's not.

Just let me install my own app ok? No need for review.

Would you be OK with that if it voided your warranty?

Quality and good engineering is one of the main reason you people cite for buying Apple in this very thread.

Now you're suggesting that there ought to be a "warranty void if app is installed" sticker on Apple's supposedly premium hardware which is running Apple's supposedly hyper-secure operating system, otherwise some unwashed piece of software is going to damage it?

No such requirement exist on macOS, for obvious reasons. The double-think in these threads is astounding, repent.

I don’t have any skin in the game as far as Apple’s security reputation goes. No technically competent person would believe that malicious code running on a machine can be contained.

I don't believe there's such a thing as perfect security, I'm just astounded that someone who's not (1) a senile lawmaker being influenced by lobbyists, or (2) holding significant shares of AAPL; would even suggest that voiding warranty is a reasonable course of action if third-party software is installed on a general-purpose computing device.

Furthermore, claiming that Apple's review or signing processes are effective measures for preventing malware has no basis in reality. Apple has reviewed, approved and signed malware before, and they'll do it again because detecting malware is borderline impossible.

They do not possess magic powers that can suss out malware any better than industry average because (1) automated virus scanning is almost entirely ineffective against new malware and (2) they're not paying a team of specialists to reverse engineer and analyze app updates.

As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to be covering, sure.

Plenty of viruses cover their tracks, and it is impossible realistically to protect a computer from malicious code that is run locally.

No, for the same reason why I wouldn't be okay with a car manufacturer voiding the warranty due to use of third-party gasoline.

Gasoline quality standards are regulated (in the US at least). Also, nobody designs malicious gasoline to intentionally attack your car.

I get the thrust of your argument but I don't think that's a good analogy. Bad fuel can cause physical (including catastrophic) damage to the engine. Bad software cannot do something similar to the phone. At worst you will have to reinstall the OS.

Now I do agree that bad software can wipe all your data or hold it hostage, but Apple currently provides no such guarantees that software downloaded from the App Store won't do that.

How would that void a warranty? By the way those stupid stickers they put over screws also don’t void warranties either. Just because a corporation says something doesn’t make it true.

They used to, or perhaps there used to be a case. Thankfully right to repair laws prevailed over those silly notions.

In the US, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 prevailed over those silly notions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty...

The spirit (someone else may fill in with the letter) of the DMA is that this can not be enforced by Apple.

A review process which the DMA does not require.

what review? of the app on the alternative appstores? and per install? come on...

All of the developer tools and SDKs have value and are used regardless of distribution channel. Those haven't been free, they've just been included in the App Store commission structure. Developers pay for those based on the value they generate (i.e. revenue). If you want out of the App Store as a distribution channel, Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.

Okay. So... charge more for the tools and SDK's. If you never launch an app or launch a completely free app, you still gotta pay apple. if those tools are more expensive, just push the cost where it belongs. Developers pay for being hosted on the app store on top of the tools and SDKs they access, it doesn't feel like a proper value to still be charged for that indirectly just because you don't want to be trapped in their walled garden.

>Apple still expects to be compensated for the value it's developer tools and platform is providing to developers, and the €0.50 per install fee is how they are choosing to charge for those services.

Well I wish them the best of luck in their future fights with the EU. Glad some government seems to not be thinking of the trillionaires first.

Developers pay for those when they pay for their dev license.

(if they don't, then what is it for?)

Previously the "developer licence" was $100/yr + an opaque revenue share that was bundled with distribution and payment processing services.

Based on their new alternative business terms, we can better describe what that bundled deal includes (which is still available):

• 15% tier (first $1mil/yr revenue and subscriptions after the first year):

- 10% distribution

- 2% developer platform

- 3% payment processing

• 30% tier (all other revenue):

- 17% distribution

- 10% developer platform

- 3% payment processing