Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games to Bring Fortnite to iPad in EU After iPadOS 'Gatekeeper' Decision
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To claim it is a significant change (with regards to security) with regards to new code introducing exploitable loopholes is FUD.
Again:
- Allowing third-party app stores
- Allowing third-party apps downloaded ("sideloaded") from a website to install and run
It's been all possible for many years.
There was no "forced" code change to allow these things.
Did Apple change code? Yes - though they did not have to.
They changed code to restrict third-party app stores. And elicit FUD in end users.
There is no such change of "core philosophy" (with regards to security and particularly the code of iOS).
Allowing third-party apps to be sold by third-party - while still reviewing any of them does not change core philosophy.
Core philosophy is allowing third-party apps or not. Maybe even allowing third-party apps without review/notarisation vs. notarisation. Given that Apple has allowed third-party apps and will still review and notaries any apps (including alternative app store apps), there is no such change. Apple has allowed third-party apps containing third-party code to run natively since more than 15 years. They've also allowed third-party apps be trusted and running that were never reviewed by Apple for more than 10 years. It's only a change in regards to the commercial party you're dealing with. Not a change that's security-relevant in what code is allowed to run on devices.
Your earlier claim above about new (potentially exploitable) code needing to be introduced...
...is just wrong and disingenuous. And so is your claim about "core philosophy". The core security paradigm hasn't changed.
I'm not going to deny that allowing and using third-party app stores poses some (new) risks.
Could an alternative app store provider „go rogue“ and approve apps that they know aren’t allowed by Apple? Yes, conceivably. Is that a new or additional risk? Sure. But that‘s just increased probability - not a fundamental change.
👉 If you don't like it, don't use it. And using a Mac certainly indicates that the risk is manageable.
Last edited:
People who say “don’t use it (alt app stores)” don’t get the universal code exists to allow use of alt app stores.
That’s the weak point.
Not whether you use it or not.
The door to use it is in every installed version of iOS 17.4+ even in countries where the EU rule doesn’t apply.
That’s it. Full stop.
That’s the weak point.
Not whether you use it or not.
The door to use it is in every installed version of iOS 17.4+ even in countries where the EU rule doesn’t apply.
That’s it. Full stop.
You don't open private/internal code and API to the world and hope it can't be compromised and mis-used. They certainly re-created a whole new public API.
And even if there wasn't any new code, more open APIs will increase cyber security issues.
If you don't mind having to install a store every time an app is not on the App Store, well good times ahead for you.
Many choose to have an iPhone because of its simplicity. I did. And being forced to download an entire new store for an app is ruining that. I am afraid it will happen. Either my bank's app, my kid's school app or some app I must have will end up on a store I never wanted to install.
And I would even argue that the iPhone is successful BECAUSE of that simplicity, not IN SPITE of it.
Comparing to Mac and PCs ? There's a reason why most work IT dpt. won't allow installing apps on their users machines. There is reason why so many services are ran through a web browser instead of a native an app. A part of that is because it's too complex and risky to install apps.
It's not all black and white of course. Certainly some good will come from these new App Stores. But some of us will miss the simplicity of the iPhone.
Surely, Nintendo could make all the games available for low prices and sell the games themselves.
Of course they could… but I think they like to keep ROMs in house and sell hardware too.
It’s probably a missed opportunity to make money if they don’t.
People will always find a way to share ROMs.
Doing it officially would bring in bucks.
If games aren't available on the newest system, why shouldn't they sell what could be popular? I know that it's difficult to secure software and keep it functional, but I would hope that people would have enough respect that they could make some money and make people happy.