Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple

Apple CEO Criticizes European Law That Would Break App Store Hold (cnbc.com) 215

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
Apple CEO Tim Cook said that he believes a proposed European law known as DMA would "not be in the best interest of users," signaling the iPhone maker's opposition to European legislation that would force it to allow users to install software outside of Apple's App Store. From a report: "I look at the tech regulation that's being discussed, I think there are good parts of it. And I think there are parts of it that are not in the best interests of the user," Cook said on Wednesday through videoconference at the Viva Tech conference in France. The European Union proposed two laws regulating big tech companies, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act, earlier this year. The DSA focuses on the online ad industry, but the DMA focuses on companies with large numbers of customers -- like Apple, Google and Amazon -- and sets rules requiring them to open up their platforms to competitors.

One of Cook's issues with the law is that it would force Apple to permit sideloading apps on the iPhone, which is manually installing software from the internet or a file instead of through an app store. Currently, Apple's App Store is the only way to install apps on an iPhone, which has made it the focus of lawsuits and regulators around the world. Apple has claimed that its control over the App Store ensures high-quality apps and helps prevent malware. Cook noted that the iPhone's market share in France is only 23% and said that permitting sideloading on iPhones would damage both the privacy and security of users, citing increased malware on Android phones versus iPhones. Google's Android allows sideloading. "If you take an example of where I don't think it's in the best interest, that the current DMA language that is being discussed, would force sideloading on the iPhone," Cook said. "And so this would be an alternate way of getting apps onto the iPhone, as we look at that, that would destroy the security of the iPhone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple CEO Criticizes European Law That Would Break App Store Hold More

Apple CEO Criticizes European Law That Would Break App Store Hold

Comments Filter:

  • duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:23PM (#61493324)

    Of course Apple thinks this. Anything that keeps them away from their cut is inherently dangerous for their poor users.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
      This is a tough one. I have an iPhone that I paid cash for, so I would think it's my phone. Apple tries to keep the platform more secure (or more likely, they're protecting a nice revenue stream through their exclusive store), so they limit what I can do on "their" device.
      If they could come to an agreement that incentivizes users to keep using just the apple app store, but make other stores accessible, they might have a slightly better system. Maybe an extra year of warranty coverage if you don't install

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Maybe an extra year of warranty coverage if you don't install an additional store.
        Um.. I imagine if they are forced to allow it -- it will still void your Apple warranty if you choose to go through whatever unlocking steps Apple will require, before you may install an additional store; just like rooting an Android device voids the warranty.

        You may be able to force Apple to allow for the 3rd party loading, But it's not within reason nor within this world expect them to warrant that as well -- you can bet

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
          I'm with ya. I was meaning that this would be a situation where they are ordered to make it available.

        • Re:duh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @02:20PM (#61493718)

          Maybe an extra year of warranty coverage if you don't install an additional store.
          Um.. I imagine if they are forced to allow it -- it will still void your Apple warranty if you choose to go through whatever unlocking steps Apple will require, before you may install an additional store; just like rooting an Android device voids the warranty.

          You may be able to force Apple to allow for the 3rd party loading, But it's not within reason nor within this world expect them to warrant that as well -- you can bet they would disavow warranty to the device and 100% blame the 3rd party store should anything happen to be phone software-wise, but a Smartphone is 99% the software.

          Except this is within EU only. They *can't* void the warranty because they feel like it. There are actually laws that protect consumers over there.

          • This sounds like "you are forced to sell guns, but you're also forced to pay for accidental deaths caused by the guns you sell". Pure EU nonsense as usual.

            • "you are allowed to sell guns, but you're also forced to pay for accidental deaths caused by the guns you sell"

              FIFY

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              This sounds like "you are forced to sell guns, but you're also forced to pay for accidental deaths caused by the guns you sell". Pure EU nonsense as usual.

              No. You can "side load" applications on a mac and that doesn't void the warranty.

              Is it just people who have only ever known smartphones that this concept is foreign to? That can't seem to understand how one could possibly allow the user to decide what programs they want to run and still offer a warranty on the device? You really need to educate yourself on why those 2 are not mutually exclusive.

            • You might think that, but it's not. If Apple could prove that installing the sideloaded app caused the damage, then they might legally be able to deny the claim (might, because in this case it's a pretty big stretch to say that's the software's fault, and not Apple's*). But they can't just deny a claim that is unrelated to whatever they are saying voids the warranty.

              *If installing some sideloaded software can break your iPhone, then they've done an INCREDIBLY shitty job, given that they control the hardware

            • Ah those pesky Europeans, eh? Not immediately thinking of a gun analogy.

          • We have a law over here in the USA to protect consumers from this, it was called the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and it prohibits manufacturers from voiding a warranty for use of compatible third-party supplies or accessories. And the burden of proof is supposedly on the manufacturer, although you know, US legal system blah blah blah

        • Well, in the EU they are required by law to provide some warranty and they can't just claim that whatever problem you have was caused by you but they might have to actually proof theit claim.
          Consumer protection in the EU isn't perfect, but it's a lot more than empty words.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 )

          No it wouldn't. You're allowed to install software on your devices without voiding the warranty on the hardware. Federal law doesn't allow it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            You're allowed to install software on your devices without voiding the warranty

            This is not about installing software: it is about unlocking an iPhone so it can run programs not approved by Apple; it opens the possibility that nefarious apps will run and modify the hardware -- If you create this risk, and Apple has advised you against it, then they are not Responsible for you taking this risk, And it is a business necessity they ensure They don't actually have to prove that it was malware, So they can ga

            • Tim Cook is talking about a law proposed in the EU. So the applicable law would not be (US) federal law but the laws of the members of the EU.
              And those state that you cannot sign away certain rights with a contract. There is a mandatory warranty that all companies have to adhere to.
              So yes, for Apple to deny claims under the mandatory warranty they would have to prove that some problem was caused by the actions of the user (like installing malware) and not by the Apple product itself.

        • Re:duh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by countach ( 534280 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @09:45PM (#61495054)

          If it's anti trust to not allow other stores, it's anti trust to cancel your warranty. Can you imagine the outrage if Ford canceled your warranty if you didn't get it serviced at Ford?

        • You may be able to force Apple to allow for the 3rd party loading, But it's not within reason nor within this world expect them to warrant that as well -- you can bet they would disavow warranty to the device and 100% blame the 3rd party store should anything happen to be phone software-wise, but a Smartphone is 99% the software.
          If the 3rd party software is to blame, it is to blame.
          What that has to do with warranty is beyond me.

          Factory reset: reinstall the "working software" should always work. If it does n

      • Nothing to do with security, and everything to do with a cash grab. Being forced to allow sideloading would put a big downward pressure on their 30% cut.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edis ( 266347 )

          Nothing to do with security

          You are certainly exaggerating. It has to do with both: letting out control over security, yet also of their firm cut. Still, delegation of the choice to the customer is nothing wrong fundamentally. Progressive mocking of the customer into the preferences of the maker, that is troublesome.

          Go, liberate, Europe.

          • It it had to do with security, Apple would also lock-down Mac OS the same way, not allowing sideloads. Why would you want to install something not approved by Apple anyways?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by edis ( 266347 )

              It it had to do with security, Apple would also lock-down Mac OS the same way, not allowing sideloads. Why would you want to install something not approved by Apple anyways?

              Say, just because of a disagreement with the Apple's policy of cut?

            • There's a clear difference. iOS is a mobile phone platform, locked and restricted in use and function from the start. Mac is a computing platform, broader in use and historically more open.

              That said, I would not be surprised to see the latter converge with the former. The long term wish of corporate America seems to be that we consume, creating only within permitted constraints.

              • There's a clear difference. iOS is a mobile phone platform, locked and restricted in use and function from the start. Mac is a computing platform, broader in use and historically more open.

                So is the Mac platform a security nightmare that is infested with malicious software?

                • No more so than any pre-mobile computing platform. It's more in the sense that alcohol would be made illegal if it were a new drug and not something already firmly entrenched in many societies.

                  Imagine if we had only invented cars in 2021. Do you think the idea of regular people driving 1.5 tons of car would be a simply accepted? No, and it's why if we ever get flying cars they will be computer-controlled. Inertia is a big factor.

                  • So is the Mac platform a security nightmare that is infested with malicious software?

                    No more so than any pre-mobile computing platform.

                    So, yes?

                    That's the argument here, that the iPad, for example, with the same SoC, with a keyboard, trackpad and screen just like Macbook, would be an unacceptable risk and riddled with malicious software were it to be unrestricted like the Macbook.

                    • I might consider Apple if they made a 10" macos tablet outputting to a 4K desktop monitor over USB 4 with a full iPadOS runtime. c.f. the Linux and Android environments on Chrome OS and fresh rumours of Windows 11 officially supporting Android apps via the Windows Store (Project Latte).

                      But that would take 'courage', I guess. And fanboi cult members tell me no one would ever want that.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • A few more or less random points:
          - Agreed, most malware on Android comes from the official app store (as does most malware on iOS).
          - Sideloading apps on Android doesn't disable the "permissions" system that monitors what parts of the system the app has access to. It needn't do that on iOS either. This is better security than the 5 minute approval process the app store does.
          - Most alternative apps stores (Amazon, Samsung, Lenovo, etc) on Android aren't used by very many people, not because they are dangero

          • Phone specific stores don't serve much purpose than creating lock-in to a certain phone brand. Samsung exclusive content, yeah nah.

            But the 'other' category is things like f-droid. (a) because foss developers want to upload to a repository for auditable foss only code (b) they cover utilities Google don't want to allow such as alternative front ends to youtube.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I wonder if their hardware could get damaged. There was an issue with some... I think it was Dell laptops, where certain sounds would trash the speakers. They were trying to deny warranty claims if VLC was installed because it lets you crank the volume to distortion levels.

          Obviously that's crap hardware design and no excuse.

          • So I'm writing this on Opera, under Android emulation on Sailfish. Google Playstore obviously spies on what apps you install so few Sailfish users install it. All the other stores rely on available or rebuilt APKs.

            Emulating Android is relatively easy because it's open source. Google Play Services isn't though. That's been reverse-engineered. But nobody would even try to emulate iOS because Apple controls the apps.

      • Maybe an extra year of warranty coverage if you don't install an additional store.

        A better incentive would be to have the best, most secure apps at the cheapest prices. You know, good old free-market competition.

    • That's their right to think that. Users know what restrictions come with having in iPhone. People are smart enough to make a decision when they buy their phone (or when they decide it's time for a new one). No one is forcing people to buy iPhones. The government's job isn't to protect people from their own decisions. At most, the EU should require full disclosure from Apple to help people make informed decisions when purchasing. Forcing a different ecosystem on Apple is not their place.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        This is the part that really confuses me about the consumer end argument (as opposed to companies who want access to consumers).. if one wants the ability to side load, buy a phone that has that ability. There isn't really any unique capabilities that the iPhone has which others do not which would render it a consumer's only option.

        I really wish regulators would focus on things where consumers really are locked in like local broadband (ah, remember back when you could select an ISP separately from whoever

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by vyvepe ( 809573 )

          What if you change your mind later and decide that you would like to side load an app? It may be prohibited by default but users should be able to side load. But I bet Apple internal reasoning is something along the lines: "If we allow to side load applications then companies can avoid our App store fee."

          Security argument is only a distraction for lawmakers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The unique feature that only an iPhone has is the ability to run all the apps the buyer already invested in, integrate with the iCloud account that already has all their stuff in it, work with the Lightning peripherals they already own etc.

          Apple loves lock-in.

        • This is the part that really confuses me about the consumer end argument (as opposed to companies who want access to consumers).. if one wants the ability to side load, buy a phone that has that ability.

          The problem is the lack of options. Say you want a phone that has side-loading, but also has a good camera. There are only two options, Android and iPhone. You have to decide which is more important to you, side-loading or a good camera.

    • Yeah, that explains all those free Apps.

    • Just because one thing is true does not mean the other thing is not.

      It would both cut into Apple's profits and lower iOS security.

  • Remember iPhone Users (Score:5, Insightful)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:29PM (#61493334)
    Remember iPhone users: freedom is slavery and choice is a burden. Let Uncle Tim decide what's allowed or not allowed on your device and reject everything that empowers you to make your own decisions about such matters.

    • I own an iPhone. One of its attractive features is the security. I would never consider sideloading an app.
      I am quite comfortable to buy what Tim tells me to buy.

      • I own an iPhone. One of its attractive features is the security.

        That's a lie someone told you.

        would never consider sideloading an app.

        Good for you. But you shouldn't think that only downloading apps from the Apple store means your phone is secure. It's not.

  • Alternative source is not evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:43PM (#61493394) Homepage

    If you trust Apple and want to use only there stuff, then you can choose to only use the Apple store.

    If you trust other people, then you can choose to totally avoid the apple store and instead sideload everything.

    If your customers choose to side load that is a problem for YOU, not your customers.

  • an attempt to level-set (Score:5, Insightful)

    by david.emery ( 127135 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:59PM (#61493440)

    1. Curation by Apple has kept a lot of crap out of the store and by extension out of user devices.
    2. But Apple's curation has not been an uniform success (even ignoring the business problems of the Apple store rules.)
    3. Side-loading clearly means breaking the -single chain of trust- that Apple has built. That could be A Good Thing or A Bad Thing, but it is certainly A Thing.
    4. It's questionable whether a third-party store can achieve substantially better curation than Apple. Maybe so, but I haven't seen any assertions of that, let alone proof.
    5. So the trust for a 3rd party store is no better, and likely to be worse, than the single Apple closed store.
    6. Most end users are not in a good position technically to evaluate the trust credentials for 3rd party stores.
    7. There's probably a range of rules that could be instituted for side-loading/3rd party stores, including (a) a few alternative vested sources, where there is the ability to establish review and trust for those alternative stores, (b) free-for-all where anything can be loaded. And probably a range between those two.
    8. The risk from exposing content on a phone is substantially higher than desktops. (That's based both on the kinds of things kept on phones and from the mobility of phones that provide more data such as location, images, etc.)
    9. The state of practice is such that malware penetration of mobile devices, even iOS, is still pretty high. (iOS has a relatively strong track record, but not one that is 100% secure.)
    10. The Nut Behind The Keyboard remains the largest potential vulnerability, and anything that increases the attack surface to that Nut has a significant negative assurance impact.

    I welcome debate/criticisms on each of these.

    • Re:an attempt to level-set (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @01:23PM (#61493536)

      3. Side-loading clearly means breaking the -single chain of trust- that Apple has built. That could be A Good Thing or A Bad Thing, but it is certainly A Thing.

      If it's not a good thing for you, then just don't enable it. It doesn't have to be enabled by default. It default to off on Mac OS and the EU doesn't complain.
      And nobody is crying because Mac OS breaks the single chain of trust or whatever other BS. Nobody wants a computer OS where you can't sideload. It should be the same for mobile phone OS.

      • It's interesting how you presume to speak for "everyone" when you say "Nobody wants a computer OS where you can't sideload."

        • You'd like one?

          As I said before, If you don't want to side load, don't enable the option to side load. Don't worry, you are not going to click on it by accident, it's hidden deep enough in the parameters.

        • It's interesting how you presume to speak for "everyone" when you say "Nobody wants a computer OS where you can't sideload."

          Is it really though? Even if you parse it literally is it really that interesting? Typically in this context 'nobody' means 'the overwhelming majority' which is probably true.

      • I'm on board with that, although I know it will end badly fir done people. For example, I recall early OS X days where people who vaguely knew something about the terminal would do stupid things, like using the root user on account if it being more powerful, having fewer restrictions.

        • I'm pretty sure the su or sudo commands still work on Mac OS and it's a good thing.
          But that's not what we are talking about, but the ability to install software from outside Apple's store. That should be possible without using the terminal.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      So I agree with your points on side-loading, but at the end of the day it should be up to the device owner. Apple should give a big ol' warning but allow the user to unlock the capability. I don't think there should be a limit on the source of the app other than requiring it to be signed. That should help some (not a huge barrier but some) with piracy/malware.

      My concern here, and one I'm not seeing brought up much, is I can see the app store splintering like we are seeing with streaming services right now

    • 10. The Nut Behind The Keyboard remains the largest potential vulnerability, and anything that increases the attack surface to that Nut has a significant negative assurance impact.

      I can't believe I have to say this after all this time but I AM NOT A NUT! I am a legume. ;)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      re 4)

      I have 4 stores on my android.
      1) Samsung's store. Rarely use it. Curation seems fine.
      2) Google's store. Curation is reportedly not as good as Apple but in the ballpark.
      3) FDroid - curation, to my knowledge has not had any issues.
      4) HumbleBundle - curation to my knowledge has not had any issues.

      Other app stores not on mobile like Steam, and GoG for example etc seem to be pretty good too; I'd take GoG's curation over apple's any time.

      re 5) I personally trust both the Frdroid and humble stores more than a

  • Freedom is one vendor exercising total control over everything allowed to execute on your pocket sized computer.

    Security is tens of millions being owned by malware and scams making it thru Apples "robust" vetting process and thousands of security vulnerabilities https://www.cvedetails.com/pro... [cvedetails.com]

    Choice is evil and wrong because people can elect to buy the "wrong" thing. This is why all physical stores except Walmart must be torn down immediately because people may choose to buy dangerous goods from dangerou

  • "One of Cook's issues with the law is that it would force Apple to permit sideloading apps on the iPhone, which is manually installing software from the internet or a file instead of through an app store... 'an alternate way of getting apps onto the iPhone, as we look at that, that would destroy the security of the iPhone.'"

    The best solution for customers would be not to mandate that iOS allows side loading but to mandate that it allows alternative app stores not affiliated with Apple. One reason for that is the legitimate role for app stores to vett apps. Cook is also partly self-serving in his defense of the Apple App Store; Apple benefits from large commissions with monopoly pricing.

    There are several reasons why competition between app stores would be the better choice for customers. First, Apple would not likely make si

  • BS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @01:52PM (#61493642) Homepage
    Oh Tim Cook, stop talking bullocks about safety, there have been malware in the appstore already, and all Cook cares about is holding the reign so they can get more money as sideloading would also mean possibilities of third party appstores..

    • And how many malware apps is that? Compared to a total of how many apps? And how does that compare with Android? It's not about "zero malware or anything goes", it's about having the least malware.

      • Let's see. Example XcodeGhost: https://www.securityweek.com/x... [securityweek.com]
        An iOS malware, was distributed through 4000 Apple app store apps and affected 128 million users.

        With numbers like these it hardly matters if there are more cases on Android or not. The impact of even one such case is enormous.

  • If France wants this then modify the OS so that only phones with a French region code could do it. Then add a feature to the OS so that the phone would only work in France. Then sit back and watch as the French people bitch about getting hacked all the time.

  • Would I really have a choice? (Score:3)

    by dbu ( 256902 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @02:54PM (#61493846)

    Today it’s more difficult for developers to get apps into the App Store. That’s because the review process is more stringent. Because of this, it’s less likely for a malicious app to sneak into Apple’s store. https://us.norton.com/internet... [norton.com]

    Which makes me think that Tim Cook has a point, this may be good for my wallet but it will be also a nail in the coffin of the iPhone as a more secure platform. With another store selling apps at a lower margin than Apple, I'll never know if the app I really want is *only* on that store because the app owner wanted to maximize his profit or because it's a rogue app.

    And it won't be like I have much choice. Because soon I'll be kind of forced to use multiple stores, because I won't find the apps I want on the App Store anymore.

    One solution would be to be able to configure iOS to only accept to install apps that Apple has validated through its current security processes, but then allow the app owner to sell it through a third-party store.

    • If Apple allowed alternate app stores, someone could create a "secure" app store, where apps that were allowed had to go through an even more stringent code review than Apple's process. There is no reason an alternate app store needs to be less secure than Apple's.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pieroxy ( 222434 )

        If Apple allowed alternate app stores, someone could create a "secure" app store, where apps that were allowed had to go through an even more stringent code review than Apple's process.

        And take 45% of the sales instead of the 30% Apple does, removing all incentive for devs to go to this store. Stringent code review costs a lots of money.

  • Because then he would be consistent. Using Apple (or anyone else's) products should be like bondage and discipline, with some S&M on the side. When that gets too intense or overbearing you should be able to say "Tubalcain", or whatever, and have it stop. Same thing with your Apple device, you should be able to choose which app is going to provide you your torture. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fict... [freemasonry.bcy.ca]

  • Damn, I bought a PlayStation but it can't run Xbox games!
    Help me, EU lawmakers!

    • Yes, you should be able to install your own apps on consoles, too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fazig ( 2909523 )
      Well, perhaps not Xbox games, but people used to be able to run their own stuff on PlayStation through an officially supported feature that was called OtherOS, allowed you to run your own Linux or FreeBSD on the PlayStation 3.

      That's one of the reasons those PS3 consoles, with their vector processors, have been used for computer clusters. However at some point Sony put a stop to it for "Security Reasons".
      Of course people sued and eventually settled on a payout to the affected classes instead of reinstatin
  • Would be to suggest to EU that they lower their fees to say 15 % which any developer should be ok with, and keep one app store so they can continue to give optimal customer experience, privacy and security (imperfect, I know, but vastly better for the average consumer than allowing side loading )

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close