Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Apple

Epic Strikes Back At Apple's iOS 'Security' Defense In Appeals Court (arstechnica.com) 98

Posted by BeauHD from the walled-garden dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: It has been over a year now since a US District Court ruled that Apple did not violate antitrust law by forcing iOS developers (like plaintiff and Fortnite-maker Epic Games) to use its App Store and in-app payments systems. But that doesn't mean the case is settled, as both sides demonstrated Monday during oral arguments in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing was full of arcane discussion of legal standards and procedures for reviewing the case and its precedents, as well as input from state and federal governments on how the relevant laws should be interpreted. In the end, though, the core arguments before the appeals court once again centered on issues of walled gardens, user lock-in, and security versus openness in platform design.

In defending Apple's position, counsel Mark Perry argued that the company's restraints on iOS app distribution were put in place from the beginning to protect iPhone users. Based on its experience managing software security and privacy on Macs, Apple decided it "did not want the phone to be like a computer. Computers are buggy, they crash, they have problems. They wanted the phone to be better." If the Mac App Store was the equivalent of a lap belt, the iOS App Store, with its costly human review system, is "a six-point racing harness," Perry said. "It's safer. They're both safe, but it's safer." While Epic argued that the iPhone's walled garden "only keeps out competition," Perry shot back that "what's kept out by walled gardens is fraudsters and pornsters and hackers and malware and spyware and foreign governments..." Providing superior user safety, Perry said, is a key "non-price feature" that helps set the iPhone apart from its Android-based competition. Users who want the more open system that Epic is fighting for can already buy an Android phone and choose from a variety of App Stores, Perry said. By doing so, though, those users "open themselves up to more intrusion" compared to an iPhone, he argued. Those kinds of "pro-competitive" security features Apple offers with its App Store restrictions legally outweigh the "minor anti-competitive effects" iOS app developers face on the platform, Perry said.

[...] Apple's Perry argued that Epic presented "no data or empirical evidence" to show that users felt locked in to Apple's app ecosystem. Epic failed to commission the usual survey that would show users were worried about switching costs or information costs in a case like this, Perry said, a "failure of proof" that he said obviates all other technical legal claims. At the same time, Perry said Epic carefully "crafted a market definition only fitting Google and Apple" in arguing its case and has not been able to bring in other developers to support a class action. Epic "didn't want to pick a fight with the consoles, didn't want to pick a fight with Microsoft," he said, despite similarities in the "walled garden" approaches in those markets. The three-judge appeals panel betrayed little as to which arguments it favored during Monday's hearing, offering pointed questions for both sides. A ruling in the appeals case is expected sometime next year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic Strikes Back At Apple's iOS 'Security' Defense In Appeals Court More

Epic Strikes Back At Apple's iOS 'Security' Defense In Appeals Court

Comments Filter:

  • I feel locked in. Makes me happy. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @05:22PM (#63054181)

    I love having a walled garden iPhone and iPad. My odds of getting malware and other junk are greatly reduced.

    I also have a MacBook Pro and a windows pc and a FreeBSD server and a Linux virtual host or three. And an android.

    I don't use the android. I don't like it. I don't want to know or care about alternative stores. The google store is already a filthy pit of malware. No thanks.

    Second after apple is forced to allow alternative stores, various required apps from governments and sleazy malware shit from fraudsters pretending to be useful software and other assorted scumbags will pop up with their own stores and that'll be the end of having a phone that just works. Every company and scumbag, but I am being redundant, will require you to download from their store to interact with them.

    iPhone: for people who want a phone that's also a computer
    Android: for people who want a computer that's also a phone

    Don't take away my choice.

    • various required apps from governments are there now

      • Like Russia and China. It's kind of funny because I'm trading barbs with a Russian on Reddit, and he makes almost exactly this same argument for why he thinks censorship is needed, and also claims that he's not missing anything because they filter out the "fraudsters" from NATO that are just trying to harm Russia. Oh and he actually believes that most of Ukraine likes Russia.

        Apple fans are pretty much the same way. They listen only to whatever narrative apple wants to promote, so they think iOS never gets h

        • Re: various required apps from governments are the (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2022 @07:14AM (#63055254)

          Apple fans are pretty much the same way. They listen only to whatever narrative apple wants to promote

          Could your brush be any broader?!?

          To attempt to characterize a globally-distributed group of BEELIONS of people, whose only commonality is their preference for Apple in at least some relevant tech-purchases, is beyond ridiculous.

          What are you, Twelve?

          • But he didn't. He's not talking the casual Apple user. He's talking about the fanatics, a much smaller subset... and by-and-large, he's right. The fanatics who post that Apple's perfectly peachy (even calling it a walled garden, when it's not a garden -- see my malware post above), asking for security vulnerabilites and calling that a feature (see Jailbreaks)... those are the people he's talking about. The casual user might say "i understand that and accept it", but the fanatics will argue tooth and

            • But he didn't. He's not talking the casual Apple user. He's talking about the fanatics, a much smaller subset... and by-and-large, he's right. The fanatics who post that Apple's perfectly peachy (even calling it a walled garden, when it's not a garden -- see my malware post above), asking for security vulnerabilites and calling that a feature (see Jailbreaks)... those are the people he's talking about. The casual user might say "i understand that and accept it", but the fanatics will argue tooth and nail that it's fake news. So he's right, as it's a cyclical definition.

              You're trying to clean up his clearly faulty statement.

              Pretty sad, really.

        • Can you prove you don't have malware on your idevices? You can't. Massive malware exploits (see china API malware), smaller white hat hackers, and "features" that were initially prohibited from idevices (see flashlight tethering apps) lived for a long time on the app store until the feature got super popular, white hats revealed what they were doing, etc. Even the "Privacy Labels" have been demonstrated to be a farce. So if you think Google Play -- where security researchers can actually scan user devic

    • Re:I feel locked in. Makes me happy. (Score:4, Informative)

      by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @05:38PM (#63054227)

      It is very puzzling how many people think that allowing somebody else to install non-Apple-approved software on their iPhone somehow causes your iPhone to be magically hacked.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khchung ( 462899 )

        It is very puzzling how many people think that allowing somebody else to install non-Apple-approved software on their iPhone somehow causes your iPhone to be magically hacked.

        Perhaps actually READING the OP would help?

        "Second after apple is forced to allow alternative stores, various required apps from governments and sleazy malware shit from fraudsters pretending to be useful software and other assorted scumbags will pop up with their own stores and that'll be the end of having a phone that just works. Every company and scumbag, but I am being redundant, will require you to download from their store to interact with them."

        I play games on a PS5, I already have a PSN account, yet

        • There are two critical differences here.

          The first is the market scale, and this is why defining the market has always been critical here. Apple wants to define the market as broadly as possible, that the iPhone is a single player in a broad ecosystem of mobile phones, game consoles, and other devices. Epic sees the market as Apple in itself. At some point their app store became a market in itself, which is something that actually happens under the law. There is an undefined point (determined by a judge) w

          • Re:I feel locked in. Makes me happy. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @09:25PM (#63054585)

            I agree with your general premise all the way through. I believe the market is the entire phone/device market. It is silly to say apple has a 100% monopoly on the apple market. Of course they do! They did since the first app was released on the bend new App Store. The apple App Store. And thank god. Because there is a real alternative that the majority of the planet has chosen which has total freedom. 20% or so of the planet had -chosen- the be locked in. If I can't play epic games on my apple devices, so what? I'll somehow suffer through the tragic loss.

            I hope epic gets demolished on this.

            • I hope epic gets demolished on this.

              Fortunately, they already have. At Trial.

              Barring Judicial Misconduct (always a possibility these days!), there is nearly zero chance of this being Overturned, Vacated, Reversed, nor Remanded upon Appeal

              There was no Obvious Judicial Bias. There was no Judicial Abuse Of Discretion.

              Therefore, the Trial Court's Opinion must Stand.

              • Weird shit can happen in court so fingers crossed.

                • Weird shit can happen in court so fingers crossed.

                  Unlikely. This is Appellate Court. The Rules are quite Different. That's why the Oral Arguments were (paraphrasing) 'Dry and Technical'. That's really all they can be.

                  And a point that almost everyone without legal experience gets wrong: Arguments are not Evidence. HUGE Difference!

                  Further, Unless you see the Magic Phrase "De Novo", since this is now an Appellate Case, Epic (and Apple) are limited to technical, legalistic Arguments; no new Evidence can be Entered by the Appellate Court; no new Testimony can b

              • That's not the standard of review. Errors of law are reviewed de novo (from the beginning). Abuse of discretion review is for procedural matters, and clear and convincing evidence is for factual errors. If the appeals court says the application of the law to the facts was wrong, it can simply reverse. Also abuse of discretion is easier to meet than it sounds, it just means that the court made a mistake, as the 11th circuit put it, "abuse of discretion occurs if the district court makes an error of law".

                • That's not the standard of review. Errors of law are reviewed de novo (from the beginning). Abuse of discretion review is for procedural matters, and clear and convincing evidence is for factual errors. If the appeals court says the application of the law to the facts was wrong, it can simply reverse. Also abuse of discretion is easier to meet than it sounds, it just means that the court made a mistake, as the 11th circuit put it, "abuse of discretion occurs if the district court makes an error of law".

                  Ok, your explanation is more complete than mine. But remember, unless an legal theory is Unique, review is not de novo; but rather, guided by Precedent (except in Dobbs!), and most always considered in a manner most favorable to the Judgment .

                  However, it is unlikely that Epic will be able to prevail in any of that.

                  Unless you can provide examples where "A putative consumer always has the Ultimate, Informed, Choice" is not the overarching principle. Especially not when Apple even allows a generous, Post-Sales

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              It's one thing to choose to only get apps from Apple, and another to not even have the option. Maybe you are locked in to iOS because you spent money on peripherals and apps, but would like to have more freedom if possible.

              There's also the fact that Apple is fear-mongering about security, to trick people into willingly entering its walled garden where it can farm them into a revenue stream.

              • It isn't that I do t wa t the option.

                It is that I do t want the world's scum to have the option to force me to use their store instead of apple's.

                Do you see the differences?

                I am 100% free. I have -chosen- a device that can only use the Apple Store. Chose it. Because I -want- that.

                I also currently own a droid and have owned 2 in the past. Do -not- like. Do -not- want. By -choice-.

                My iPhone has a very limited set of options, controls, widgets, and apps compared to android. They can only come via Apple.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Is your keyboard broken or are you just typing on an Apple device? Zing.

                  Anyway, nobody can force you to use a third party store. Also if you look at Android there is often a version on F-Droid with extra features, and a cut down version on Google Play that meets their requirements.

                  • You can be "highly encouraged" to use a third party, as described already.

                    My keyboard is ok. My typing sucks. It is a poor carpenter who blames his tools.

                    Sometimes I review and edit out the typos before submitting but usually don't bother unless the meaning is different or completely meaningless.

                    So, your example, why are there 2 versions? How many will be tempted to install the version with more features but not vetted by a third party? I suspect a lot. Generalize that to all apps and all devs, good an

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      In other words, even though they could try to force you to use an app, they don't because strangely enough they like having customers and probably think that a privacy raping banking app would be bad for business.

                      There are two versions because Google Play has certain rules, like you can't download YouTube videos. So a YouTube client that has a download feature can be on F-Droid, but the version on Play has to disable that feature.

                    • In other words, no, nothing like that at all. Good effort though. Maybe next time you'll reply instead of play rhetorical word games.

                      So back to the point. iPhone users are perfectly aware there's one store and Apple controls it. They've consciously chosen that. Why do you want to take away that choice and force them into the same style system android has?

                      If multiple stores was important to iPhone users they'd be android users, but as you say, that would be bad for business so iPhone doesn't do that.

      • It's very puzzling how a minority of people think that Apple refusing to waste resources on something that the majority of their customers don't want prevents them from buying an Android phone.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fj3k ( 993224 )

      This is like if someone publicly asked for a green iPhone, and you complain that you don't want Apple to make green iPhones because you don't like green and don't want to be forced to have a green phone.

      The only way this could take away your choice is if Apple does a terrible job of implementing it.

      The only way things could be as bad as you say is if we lived in the world of your imagination.

      • That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is that Apple owns a shopping mall with vetted merchants and security guards so shoppers can let their guard down and relax, and you and Epic want them to open up a big hole in the wall to the adjacent unregulated open-air market. But you're completely missing the point... it doesn't matter if their walled garden is actually secure or bullshit or if the adjacent market is safe or not. Because Apple isn't selling a phone they're selling image, lifestyle, and the A

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is that Apple owns a shopping mall with vetted merchants and security guards

          ... and then makes it so that your Apple Car will only let you shop at the Apple Mall.

          FTFY.

          • So what? You need a Tesla to use a supercharger. I pay a membership fee to shop at Costco. I pay an annual fee for Amazon Prime. My gym has a salon, spa, juice bar and an actual bar; all available only to members. Back east, I was once a member of a "bottle club" so I could stay out past the state's last call hour. It's a well-established business model practiced by plenty of companies besides Apple.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Entrope ( 68843 )

              Not a single one of this is remotely analogous to Apple saying that the only way to put software on your (Apple) phone is to pay Apple a 30% tax.

              • There's another option. Buy an android.

                No one is forced to buy an iPhone. We are not victims.

                You keep your android. You have your root and multiple stores and zillions of mods and the rest.

                Leave me alone in my walled garden. I am -happy- here. I -chose- this.

                I have an android now and owned 2 in the past. Do not like. I want an iPhone -exactly- as it is now. Boring, mostly safe store with 30% markup and no other options.

    • Same here. I just don't fathom how some people can't comprehend that I want different things out of my phone versus my computer. I'd be one of the first to scream bloody murder if Apple locked Macs to App Store only delivery. But likewise, if the "walled garden" for my phone bothered me, I'd switch to Android.

      And I remember well the festering cesspool of malware, bloatware, adware, and just plain crap that was Cydia. I do NOT want that experience back. Epic can go die in a fire.

    • The google store is already a filthy pit of malware. No thanks.

      I'm curious about your use case for your phone. Do you download every shit app that takes your fancy? Malware on Google is like manually installing software on a PC. If you go to https://www.debian.org/ [debian.org] and download something you're fine, if you go to http://totallylegit.downlaods-... [downlaods-r-u280fs.ru] and have to read past the sign saying "disable your antivirus or you'll get a false positive, pinkysware" before clicking download you're going to have a bad day.

      My odds of getting malware and other junk are greatly reduced.

      By what? Researchers find malware in Apple apps all the time. Ev

      • I was careful to say my odds are reduced. I work 24x7 public facing SaaS security. I know the only safe computer is one that's been melted to slag. But there are degrees.

        Which is safer on average? An app that had to be submitted to Apple for their one stone which goes through some basic vetting or an app that's tossed out there without first being vetted by a third party who has financial incentive to filter malware?

        I'll take the vetted app over the unvetted, thanks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I find the opposite is true. There is so much malware on iOS. When you search the App Store for stuff you get bombarded with it. Thousands of clone apps and trivial stuff like flashlights that steal your data and spy on you. It's an absolute mess, and always has been.

      Apple used to boast about how many apps they had, as if the 90s shovelware era when CD-ROM took off was something to strive for. The simple fact is that 99.999% of them are just scams.

      Play has plenty of clone apps and crapware too, but the sear

      • No one was talking about clone flashlight apps. Talking about shit like governments and big companies forcing you to use their app to interact with them in a reasonable way.

        For example, I had an issue with amex about 5 years ago. My options were: fax them or suck it up. If they had a store my options could be fax or install their random ass unvetted app. Which will most people do? Now apply that concept more broadly across all daily life functions such as paying taxes, paying bills, ordering food, onli

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          So tell us, why hasn't that already happened with Android? Why is my bank's app on Google Play and not a direct download from their website?

          For that matter, why does my bank offer a website and not just force me to install a Windows application (Linux users are SOL)?

  • Smartphones and tablets are people's main computing device.
    Now will you be ok with say apple or google takeing
    30% of your paycheck? (AFTER TAX)
    30% of your grocery store bill?
    30% of your utility bill?
    30% of your taxi ride + 30% of the tip?
    30% of you home or car mortgage (as an fee)
    30% of your doctor bill (added service fee)
    30% of the bill when you refill your car?
    30% of tolls (added on top the of the toll)
    etc?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Ah yes, because today we pay wholesale prices for all that stuff, the retailer doesn't mark it up at all, correct?

      • no apple takes there own 30% on top of that

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          No, they don't. Apple does not take a cut of anything you listed. They take a cut of app store sales and in app purchases. Nothing you listed falls under either of those.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      If they tried, that would just open up a market opportunity for someone else to fill.

  • Freedom from choice (Score:3, Informative)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @05:35PM (#63054215)

    is a line in a Devo song. It's meaningful. As an appliance I conduct a lot of critical things on like email, passwords, and text, all of which are used to demonstrate my identity to numerours financial and critical things I want it to be a no-brainer. I don't want to have to work through whether side loading this or that, or paying for an app in some different way opens me up to some attack I covile not perceive as a threat. I just want apple to pour the calgon into my bath. I know they can't protect me entirely, but lets not be coy and pretend that apple's protection is not worth having. I don't want options or user choice on this.

    If you let users choose to side load then what happens next is some critical app, say the next twit-book will only let users side load or only provide full access if the app is sideloaded. Then some people do this and pretty soon I have to if I want an app that has now become important to own.

    I like using Linux for my computer for exactly the flip side. There I do want to install cutting edge stuff, open up permissions, and control my code. That's the place to do that kind of thing.

    For everyone that feels different there's android.

    • What app is critical to own, if you don't want to side load don't. If the app is so critical they can just only release it on android and you will be forced to just buy another device.

      Why do you want to remove other peoples choice, their device, their choice.

      I have never side loaded any app on android (apart from ones I developed) and wouldn't because of security concerns, but that is my choice.

      I also think that putting a authentication payment method on a device that you can download and install onto softw

    • I've never needed to side load with any android phone I've ever owned. Ever. Google Play Store is the defacto standard that everyone will post their app in if they really want someone to find it.

      With that said, I still like that if I want to install an additional app store, I could. As it is, my phone has google play store and samsungs app store.

      I like options even if I don't need to utilize them.

      I do agree that Apple should be allowed to do as they are doing. Users want to accept that treatment, that's on

    • And don't forget the other line to that Devo song:

      Freedom Of Choice; that's what you've got.

      IOW, you DO have Freedom Of Choice... to buy Android!

      Jeebus, there be Idiots Here! (Not the Parent!)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If you let users choose to side load then what happens next is some critical app, say the next twit-book will only let users side load or only provide full access if the app is sideloaded. Then some people do this and pretty soon I have to if I want an app that has now become important to own.

      Oh noes, the shear horror of having to download an app from their official website!

      Just because you have an existential fear of maybe possibly wanting to use an app not in the App Store one day perhaps, which by the way would still be subject to all the standard iOS sandboxing and permission requests, doesn't mean that nobody else should have the choice. Maybe they like Apple hardware but don't want to pay the Apple tax on software.

      When you do that on Android the app still gets scanned for malware by Google

    • I know they can't protect me entirely, but lets not be coy and pretend that apple's protection is not worth having.

      The protection Apple provides is not worth having. It dumbs-down the user base so they don't critically think about what they're clicking, installing, or accessing. It actively decreases security of the platform. It lets users assume (incorrectly) they can offload their responsibility to browse safely to Apple, and leads to a *whole lot* of shocked Pikachu faces when it doesn't do that for them.

      Let's not pretend nobody ever created malware or scamware that made it through to the Apple app store, because

  • Why the Scare Quotes (Score:3)

    by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @05:36PM (#63054217)

    Nice Editorializing.

    There is a demonstrable greater level of Security in Apple's approach. Scare quotes reek of Yellow Journalism.

    • There's a greater offloading of responsibility from the user to Apple, but that's not security. That's just allowing yourself to be ignorant to your devices features, functions, and limitations.

      This is just "Macs don't get viruses" all over again, and it's still as bullshit as the first round of those claims. Except now Apple is charging both the users and developers exorbitant sums of money for the privilege to pretend you're immune to vulnerabilities.

      • There's a greater offloading of responsibility from the user to Apple, but that's not security. That's just allowing yourself to be ignorant to your devices features, functions, and limitations.

        This is just "Macs don't get viruses" all over again, and it's still as bullshit as the first round of those claims. Except now Apple is charging both the users and developers exorbitant sums of money for the privilege to pretend you're immune to vulnerabilities.

        And so your great solution is to have every Grandma to become (or hire) an Security Expert, everytime they contemplate Installing a new Mah Jongg or Recipe File App?

        Not every Granny has a "Computer Whiz Grandson" (and no Shade on Grannies; just an example!). And (here's a shocker!), not every Computer Whiz Grandson is nearly the Security Expert they think they are!

        So, for the 99.99999999997% of the entire population that is truly not a Cyber-Security Expert, I submit that Apple's approach is demonstrably an

        • So, for the 99.99999999997% of the entire population that is truly not a Cyber-Security Expert, I submit that Apple's approach is demonstrably and historically far superior.

          Pulling numbers out of your ass and making sweeping generalizations to defend your one anecdotal misapplication of what I said?

          Definitely an Apple user. Enjoy your expensive bullshit that won't run a lot of apps, lacks many features, which you're expected to replace at great cost far more often than other-brand devices, which has little to no additional security compared to other offerings, and which profits a ludicrously-wealthy non-tax-paying anti-consumer monopoly.

          • So, for the 99.99999999997% of the entire population that is truly not a Cyber-Security Expert, I submit that Apple's approach is demonstrably and historically far superior.

            Pulling numbers out of your ass and making sweeping generalizations to defend your one anecdotal misapplication of what I said?

            Definitely an Apple user. Enjoy your expensive bullshit that won't run a lot of apps, lacks many features, which you're expected to replace at great cost far more often than other-brand devices, which has little to no additional security compared to other offerings, and which profits a ludicrously-wealthy non-tax-paying anti-consumer monopoly.

            Too bad such a spectacular Username is wasted on such a small, uninformed mind.

            • Too bad people keep buying closed-source walled-garden planned-obsolescence bullshit from an evil corporation like Apple.

              Also too bad their drooling mouthbreather fanboys go around trying to convince people it's better when it's objectively not on many fronts.

              • Too bad people keep buying closed-source walled-garden planned-obsolescence bullshit from an evil corporation like Apple.

                Also too bad their drooling mouthbreather fanboys go around trying to convince people it's better when it's objectively not on many fronts.

                What are you? Eight years old; or ten?

                Forty years of Paid Embedded and Application software and hardware Development experience here. Highly unlikely to be drooling for at least another 30 years. How about you?

                • 30 years of software development, 20 of them on microcontrollers and ARM-based platforms as well. Heavily focusing on RTOS applications and development including medical and function-critical applications.

                  If you think your work experience means you're more qualified to determine what's a bad phone ecosystem, you're an arrogant and probably shitty developer who thinks their opinion outweighs facts when it comes to software or hardware choices. You don't have to be a chef to know when the food sucks.

                  And

  • All that Apple has to do is take an Android phone, modify for a different App Store which hosts malware and demonstrate.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by msauve ( 701917 )
      "Modify?" Android includes a setting which allows a user to _choose_ to allow installation of apps from other sources. And they warn users about the danger of doing so. They simply choose to force less lock-in than Apple. "Security" is a red herring - Apple wants the revenue. It's pure greed, although I have no problem with that. It's their platform and competition exists to allow the user other choices.

      • It sounds like you prefer the way Android does things. Good thing you have the choice to buy an Android. I prefer the way Apple does things, so I own an iPhone. Why would we want a judge to force one platform to be just like the other and take that choice away from us?

        • I just realized I wrote the above in a way that sounds like I disagree with your overall point. Clearly, that is not the case.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by msauve ( 701917 )
          But, what's the downside of giving users a choice? The only legitimate concern might be that some authority can then force installation of an objectionable app (spyware?). But, corporations can already push private apps to iOS devices. And, it works the other way, too - by denying the ability to install apps outside of the Apple store, users can't install apps their government won't allow in it (encrypted comms, vpn, etc.).

  • Perry shot back that "what's kept out by walled gardens is fraudsters and pornsters and hackers and malware and spyware and foreign governments..."

    So... it doesn't keep out local governments? And what's so bad about "pornsters" anyway?

  • apple is a greedy, sleazy company, but they do make nice products. That doesnâ(TM)t change my feelings about their greedy and sleazy . They are anti competitive and leaches and also have great lawyers and probably campaign contributions too. google is just as bad though. i wish there were a nice linux phone i could get to actually feel good about my phone.

  • It's about ownership.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xgerrit ( 2879313 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2022 @06:39PM (#63054359)
    If I spend $1500 to buy a phone I own it, right? So why the hell does Apple has any say over what I do with it once it's out of their store? Totally fine to make the walled garden something I can opt into, but it should also be totally fine for me to go buy some coins for Fortnite without Apple getting involved. That's between me and someone else. Apple's literally locking me out of my own property. Frankly, whether you believe in walled gardens or now, you should be able to get behind ownership of your stuff, and that's the crux of this whole thing plain and simple.

    • It's like asking why a hammer manufacturer has a say in you using one as a screwdriver.

      If it doesn't do what you want, it doesn't do what you want. What are you really asking for? It's not permission, it's for someone to make something different for you.

    • > If I spend $1500 to buy a phone I own it, right? So why the hell does Apple has any say over what I do with it once it's out of their store?

      Guess you just invalidated your own premise.

      • Nothing in that statement invalidated any other part of the statement. What are you smoking?

        If you buy a device, you own the device. You are permitted to do what you want with it, and Apple's monopolizing of the operating system to limit you to only their app store, where they get to charge people fees on things that cost them nothing, is no different than the Browser Bullshit that landed Microsoft in Antitrust hot water.

        I'm surprised the EU has not yet mandated that you have to be able to use alterna

    • If I spend $1500 to buy a phone I own it, right? So why the hell does Apple has any say over what I do with it once it's out of their store?

      Of course. You can do whatever you want with your phone. Hack it, modify it to your heart's content. But no one is talking about your phone. We're talking about Apple's Appstore service, and Apple's provided OS. The former is Apple's service, not something you own. The latter is a piece of software, and like any software you get it as is and as designed by the manufacturer.

      Go nuts. Do what you want with your device. Literally no one is stopping you. The walled garden isn't telling you what you can and can't

      • "The walled garden isn't telling you what you can and can't do with a device you bought."

        Actually they are. For example: Let's say I'm a happy iOS 15.1 user for two years. Suddenly something happens and the easiest thing to do is just reinstall everything. Fine, I have my flies backed up and a copy of iOS 15.1 on my computer, let's do it iTunes!"

        Apple: "Not so fast! We won't let you install iOS 15.1 anymore. You have to use iOS 16.1.1!"
        Me: "But I'm just fine on iOS 15.1. It's stable and won't have all the b

        • Suddenly something happens and the easiest thing to do is just reinstall everything.

          That's a choice you make not one which is forced on you. And you have this weird notion that everything will always work in perpetuity just because it's your device? Sorry electronics in general don't work like that. You're still free to do what you want with your device. What you're complaining about is not having features that aren't on offer. Again if those features were important to you you should have considered that when you went shopping. Apple owes you nothing more than you received when you bought

          • Since when is reinstalling an OS which came with the phone considered a "feature"?

            • Always has been. The ability to factory reset is a specific feature provided by the OS (incidentally you don't own the OS, this is something you appear to be struggling with). You are free to do whatever you want by the way on your device. Attempt to install Android on it (has been done). But you don't get to complain about a specific function from an OS you don't own and wasn't purchased by you.

  • I personally didn't know that I needed Apple to protect me from moral corruption like that. Maybe they are the One True Religion after all and should have more censorship powers than the Pope himself!

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close