Apple Shouldn't Use Privacy and Security To Stave Off Competition, Warns EU Antitrust Head (appleinsider.com) 57
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: Responding to comments made by Apple CEO Tim Cook in June, European Union competition chief Margrethe Vestager said that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security concerns to stifle competition on the App Store. Vestager, the European Commission's executive vice president, has proposed regulations that could force Apple to allow alternate app stores. Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out against the proposal, stating that they could threaten the privacy and security of iOS.
In an interview with Reuters, Vestager agreed with Cook that privacy and security are important factors for consumers, but warned the Cupertino tech giant against using concerns about them to fend off competition. "I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Vestager added that she was open to changes in her proposals, which need input from EU member states and lawmakers before it can become law. "I think that it is possible to find solutions to this," Vestager said.
The EU competition chief told Reuters that recent privacy changes to iOS, including App Tracking Transparency, aren't currently an antitrust target. In fact, she praised Apple's new privacy controls. "As I have said, I think actually several times, that it is a good thing when providers give us the service that we can easily set our preferences if we want to be tracked outside the use of an app or not as long as it's the same condition for everyone," Vestager added. "So far, we have no reason to believe that this is not the case for Apple."
In an interview with Reuters, Vestager agreed with Cook that privacy and security are important factors for consumers, but warned the Cupertino tech giant against using concerns about them to fend off competition. "I think privacy and security is of paramount importance to everyone," Vestager said. "The important thing here is, of course, that it's not a shield against competition, because I think customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload." Vestager added that she was open to changes in her proposals, which need input from EU member states and lawmakers before it can become law. "I think that it is possible to find solutions to this," Vestager said.
The EU competition chief told Reuters that recent privacy changes to iOS, including App Tracking Transparency, aren't currently an antitrust target. In fact, she praised Apple's new privacy controls. "As I have said, I think actually several times, that it is a good thing when providers give us the service that we can easily set our preferences if we want to be tracked outside the use of an app or not as long as it's the same condition for everyone," Vestager added. "So far, we have no reason to believe that this is not the case for Apple."
What a breath of fresh air (Score:3)
Now, can we tell them that, "think of the kids," is verboten?
We are al fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
When the heads of governments are telling device makers to toss security out the window in favor on convenience, I guess the war to protect the non-technical users is utterly lost, and humanity is basically left to the whims of cybercriminals for decades to come.
Understandable though, when these days there is vanishingly small space between a cybercriminal, and the intelligence agencies of most governments...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When non-technical users like yourself think that preventing sideloading affects the security of other users' devices, they wind up enabling Apple's anticompetitive behavior by giving them money for abuse. Why not just pay a dominatrix? It will be much more rewarding than paying Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's look at the numbers:
Try again.
Also, you're making
Re: (Score:3)
When non-technical users like yourself think that preventing sideloading affects the security of other users' devices, they wind up enabling Apple's anticompetitive behavior by giving them money for abuse.
I guess it depends on what you define as effecting the security. If a malicious app could access contacts and send out texts with links to phishing sites it could. While such an app could make it into the app store, and malicious apps have, sideloading with fewer checks would make it easier to do. Of course, Apple could allow sideloading but still require a certificate and charge significantly for issuing one to non-app store apps. I'm sure Apple will find a way to get a cut on any app that goes onto the
Re: (Score:2)
Another option is to disable sideloading by default, which would probably result in few users enabling it. Of course, third party stores would howl at that much like FB et. al. are over privacy controls.
Android still disables sideloading by default. You have to turn it on for each app that you want to be able to install apps from, too. And even then you get asked for confirmation unless you have a rootable device and can run Magisk, and install an install helper. I have installed one which lets F-Droid install and update without confirmations, but nothing else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You just described capitalism in general. "Fuck you, where's my money!"
Re: (Score:2)
You miss the point here. The competition authority defines the market on which corporations may compete. They are not on the same level. Either Apple complies or it leaves the market .
A sentence like "Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke out against the proposal, stating that they could threaten the privacy and security of iOS." shows the uttewr disrespect to a competition authority.
Re: (Score:2)
You're one of those people who frame "Pro Choice" people as not wanting people to have a choice, but as people wanting everyone to have forced abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
When the heads of governments are telling device makers to toss security out the window in favor on convenience,
This is not about security-vs-convenience. That is exactly the strawman that Tim Cook is using to make it look like Apple is a benevolent dictator just trying to protect its poor citizens. This is about vendor lock-in -vs- open market.
Vestager is half-right and half-wrong:
privacy and security ... that it's not a shield against competition
He is right here: It is not valid to say "I don't allow competition because it would be bad for the privacy and security of our users." It would be valid to say "Users, I strongly recommend that you use the apps that are vetted in our s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really (Score:2)
Would you say a non-technical users could not install remote control software on a PC?
Because tens of thousands of people are guided through that process by scam callers who then rip them off.
Scam caller to have you install an alternate App Store and then an "updated" version of your bank app that you feed all credentials... that sounds pretty plausible, indeed likely to me.
A non technical user can be instructed to install almost anything harmful. But the platform has to allow installing from untrusted sou
Re: Oh really (Score:2)
To be fair, Apple would also allow apps to be installed from MORE trusted sources as well. An F-Droid for iOS would be amazing for the community.
There is going to be a lot of ways Apple will "water-down" this sideloading experience. I'm betting Apple will still have the power to remove malware apps from executing.
Bad Bet (Score:1)
I'm betting Apple will still have the power to remove malware apps from executing.
Sounds to me like something totally unacceptable to the EU, just sayin'.
If Apple has that much control over it, why even allow third party stores at all?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting Apple will still have the power to remove malware apps from executing.
Sounds to me like something totally unacceptable to the EU, just sayin'.
If Apple has that much control over it, why even allow third party stores at all?
They already have that power in MacOS - and every antivirus program on every platform is doing something very similar: Checking the contents on a device against known threats in order to prevent it from causing damage. Apple would not get in trouble at all for things like that. The problem with these measures is that they are reactive, rather than preventive.
Re: (Score:2)
Enough people jailbroke their iPhones back in the day to run FREE pirated apps. Enough that there was a virus that spread by simply SSH'ing from iPhone to iPhone because guess what? Those guides offering FREE apps failed to mention you should change the root password.
You can get non-technical users to do anything you want. Even if it involves tricky things like installing SSH and running command line progra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We are al fucked (Score:2)
That is very much NOT what she said.
Apple should not use security as a means to keep out competition. So, make sure the platform is secure AND allow more competition. Which is perfectly feasible.
It is Apple themselves that are trying to fend off competition by arguing âthe App Storeâ(TM) fables.
It is an incredibly stupid tactic, because anyone can see that it is perfectly possible to change the stupid Apple subscription tax to something else that is ALSO secure.
But because this affects Appleâ
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. If you want the security and privacy provided by apple, keep using their app store. For some of us who like iOS but want more options, there shouldn't be a monopoly preventing that.
Re: (Score:2)
When the heads of governments are telling device makers to toss security out the window in favor on convenience
Then we really know that SuperKendall has no idea what is being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
When the heads of governments are telling device makers to toss security out the window in favor on convenience, I guess the war to protect the non-technical users is utterly lost, and humanity is basically left to the whims of cybercriminals for decades to come.
Understandable though, when these days there is vanishingly small space between a cybercriminal, and the intelligence agencies of most governments...
Fuck them. If they can't keep their devices clean of malware and scamware then tough shit, that is their fault not mine and not Apple's. We've been dumbing down technology for decades and it's time to stop. If someone wants to sideload a "1000 Free TV Channels" app on their device while smoking and soaked in gas, well it's their phone, gas, and cigarettes, and no phone maker should be able to block them, just like Exxon shouldn't be allowed to block them from soaking themselves in Exxon gasoline, and Camel
privacy & security (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if i have a banking/financial app and info in my phone i dont want lax security and datamining/spyware ridden apps in the app store that users like me could download
Bad news, that's the phone you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is the whole reason why i bought an iphone, if i have a banking/financial app and info in my phone i dont want lax security and datamining/spyware ridden apps in the app store that users like me could download, privacy & security is a good reason to keep a sharp eye on apps on the app store and to prevent side-loading apps on iphones too, sometimes users need to be protected from themselves too, i am on Apple's side on this argument, the EU can take a slow boat to china and buy some android phones if they want a toy phone to play on
There is no reason whatsoever why your banking/financial app would have any less security due to installation of other apps and/or app stores.
Now, this doesn't mean it you will get less privacy if this change occurs... but the changes will be more that you can't enforce privacy/prevent data leakages from individual apps (e.g. if people give apps permission to read your contacts, nothing will stop them from doing whatever) or that participating apps can track you across all of these apps. Think e.g. Fac
Privacy versus competition is the DRM problem (Score:2)
"Privacy is paramount, but we can't let it interfere with competition." Then privacy is not paramount. There will always be a balance between the two: isolating the codebase can help reduce the chance of zero-day exploits, as can refusing to publish the API to communicate with the software or cloud-based services. So can the requirement of robust, authenticated, hardware based tokens to access a service, and providing access to the locally managed data only from similarly authenticated software. That was wh
Re: (Score:2)
To quote from the summary:
"customers will not give up neither security nor privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload"
Re: (Score:2)
Note that if you read it very carefully, the summary got it correct. Notice the mishandled double negatives. With the double negatives canceled out, it says:
"customers will give up both security and privacy if they use another app store or if they sideload"
I'd agree with this statement.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By flooding their app store with malware-ladden free apps?
Huh? (Score:2)
The user has a clear choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Go with Android and all that it entails... slurping, spyware, fake apps that steal your passwords etc etc etc
Or go with Apple and get at least some security and privacy in your daily operations.
Apple is making a big play on the security front and that has politicians all over the world shitting themselves. Android is an open book to them and their security services. Apple is nowhere near as open. They actually have to work for their pay when Apple is involved.
TBH, they (Apple and Google) need each other. If Google cleaned up its act and got on the 'good guy' wagon then governments all over the world will come down on both of them like a ton of bricks.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making the claim that iPhones are more secure than Androids. They are not.
Apple has made it as difficult as possible for hackers to find exploits. This doesn't mean they aren't there, it means they are hard to find (and hackers still find them anyway).
Android has focused on improving the actual security of their system, and it has been effective. They have more work to do, but Android as a result is more secure than Apple.
Seriously (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile my android phone's flashlight app want's my email password. I got it at this kool site in North Korea. Take that, Apple snobs!
tired of the ballyhoo (Score:2)
Honestly though I support Apple on some of the merits of their position I think they should just preemptively take action that is at least reasonable and short-circuit things before idiots in the gov't and/or courts force them to do something stupid.
Just enable users to side load apps and put some kind of warning process around it. Make the user like double/triple confirm after clearly worded warnings on the risks, require their passcode, etc. Make it locked down by default on parental control and enterpr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly though I support Apple on some of the merits of their position I think they should just preemptively take action that is at least reasonable and short-circuit things before idiots in the gov't and/or courts force them to do something stupid.
Just enable users to side load apps and put some kind of warning process around it.
SNIP
They already do support it for enterprise app developers developing for their own organization.
Yea, and charge accordingly. $299 for in-house, $3000 or $30000 or more to distribute. I really don't see third party stores becoming big and charging less than Apple, especially if they handle currency conversions, tax compliance, etc. for developers. While developers could offer downloads on their own site, take payments and have it be a smaller percentage of sales, at some point the opportunity costs get to the point where it actually costs them more in terms of lost development time.
Cydia, probably
Re: (Score:2)
Apple’s binary scanner hosted on AppStore servers does protect against several old and new attacks(e.g. making sure apps don’t access protected CPU registers ala M1RACLES attack).
The Fortnight and Communist China situations point out some ugly things coming from Android side-loading. Fortnight wants every developer to be able to run their own “AppStore” and China forces Android users to use non-G
Almost off the front page... (Score:2)
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Guess this is the version that doesn't name names in the headline, to protect Vestager's privacy.
Competing App Stores? By who? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic for certain.
Microsoft might run one just to cost Apple money. They could have a certification program with enough up front fees to cover cost but no share of subscriptions and in app purchases ... basically the FUCK APPLE store for ios.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason I supported Biden: he was better than the alternative.
Apple prevents users from installing what they want on devices. That is unethical. Look up Freedom 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the stores would be competing for resources.
If Apple is forced to allow alternative appstores the big services which are now getting fucked by Apple twoways (by high fees on one side and by Apple services which can operate without paying those fees on the other) will want one big highly curated alternative appstore from a reliable and well known third party. They don't want fragmentation but they want to get out of the deathly embrace of Apple. Microsoft could be relied upon to run it less for
Quick fix (Score:1)