Apple asks US Supreme Court to strike down Epic Games order : apple

[-] SVcross@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Cmon Apple, people just want to do with their devices as they want. I just can't believe I'm defending Epic.

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Epic is on the side that will result in a feature I actually want, so they have more support for once.

[-] SVcross@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if epic wins I'll be, can't believe I'm saying this, getting an iPhone.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Just be certain of that before supporting this. Be careful what you wish for because it seems like most people here don’t even understand what Epic is asking for and yet they are blindly supporting it simply because Apple is on the other side of this.

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I want the ability to side load. I doubt epic would end up coming preloaded on iphones. I just want to see a f-droid type Foss app repository on iOS.

[-] Willy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue. Apple's main objective is to maintain the security of its devices and the App Store. However, the company's strict policies can be a hindrance to some users who want more control over their devices. Allowing sideloading would permit advanced users to install any applications they want, but it would also increase the risk of security breaches.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If sideloading were legal, it would definitely solve the issue

It wouldn’t solve anything. It would allow for one thing while simultaneously introducing a host of entirely different problems.

Also, sideloading is already legal and Apple allows it. It’s how things like AltStore exist.

[-] KirbySSM@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

AltStore - 3 app limit (AltStore counts as an app), every app needs to be resigned once every week Requirement to bypass: $100/year (dev account)

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The majority of users do not and would not use sideloading so, although cumbersome, the limit is perfectly acceptable in 99.9% of cases.

[+] tst123@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don’t think that’s what they’re worried about. Apple has more money than any other company on the planet. They care about their brand perception and it’s obvious that this would hurt it in the same way that crappy, cheap parts would. Opening the iPhone up to other App Stores and payment systems would be a huge negative for that. In fact, one of the main reasons I like the iPhone and Apple’s ecosystem is that I don’t have to worry about vetting whether a purchase I’m making is secure or whether an app I’m downloading is potentially nefarious. I don’t want that. I just want it to work when I need it and to be able to find and pay for apps quickly and silently. Epic might be more trustworthy than some (I, personally, don’t trust them after their past behavior) but this isn’t just limited to Epic. It would mean that every app I download, potentially, would have their own launcher like on Steam and that situation fucking sucks despite how awesome Steam is.

[-] bamboo@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Nothing about allowing third party app stores would require you to change your usage patterns. Apple could keep all their current rules for the App Store exactly the same, and then also allow sideloading. If you want the pure apple experience as you described, all you have to do is only use their App Store. Then those who want to sideload (and companies looking to avoid paying apple fees) can do so through their own channels. Opt-in makes it a win-win for everyone, well except Apple who is currently enjoying a monopoly and charging the fees to match.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I wish I could believe that. But the second other app stores are allowed, apps you use today are going to migrate off of AppStore completely to protect their margins.

There’s no consumer benefit from that. More money goes to developers instead of Apple. Big benefit! At least a single, high quality app store has some consumer benefit.

[-] bamboo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I don’t think this will be the case. Android has always allowed sideloading, but how many apps are sideload only? It’s basically just Fortnite and a bunch of open source apps. No major apps require sideloading because google play is still where people will look for apps and trust apps. Some commercial apps allow you to sideload from their website, but it’s pretty uncommon still.

And for consumer benefit, if you believe in free markets, developers not having a 30% overhead might end up forwarding those savings on to the users. It’s pretty common for subscription services to charge more on the App Store than they do on their own websites. And for indie developers, I’d rather they get a bigger chunk of the pie than give the world’s highest valued company ever more money.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

developers not having a 30% overhead might end up forwarding those savings on to the users

Thanks for my LOL of the day!

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

They already allow side-loading (albeit, admittedly, via a cumbersome mechanism). That is not what Epic is asking for. You’re either ignorant of what changes Epic is demanding here or you’re being disingenuous in your argument.

[-] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Apple allows sideloading with a 7 day, 3 app limit via a cumbersome process. It’s intentionally limited to make it non-viable for most people. Epic wants to be able to publish their games without using Apple’s infrastructure or paying them huge fees. I have no love for Epic but what they want is entirely reasonable.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

without using Apple’s infrastructure

This is disingenuous. You can’t deliver an iOS app without Apple infrastructure. You don’t count XCode and iOS itself? You don’t think Apple will need to offer iOS settings and support for 3rd party stores? They absolutely will.

What Epic really want is to profit from Apple’s platform and marketplace without paying anything in return.

[-] bamboo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

No other general-purpose platform demands payment just to have basic access like iOS does. macOS doesn’t, windows doesn’t, android doesn’t, ChromeOS doesn’t, linux doesn’t. And yet, the companies making these systems are all quite profitable. What makes iOS so different that it can’t follow the basic rules established by its competitors? I personally don’t care that Epic themselves happen to be slimy, they just happen to be in the right this once.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

demands payment just to have basic access

This isn’t remotely what they do, and I think you know it.

They take a percentage of payment transactions only. You can have “basic access” without paying them a dime. I manage an app with 30 million monthly users and we pay Apple zero. Because we don’t transact inside our app.

So you want to show me a payments platform that doesn’t take a percentage of the business? I’ll wait.

What you’re doing here is shouting down eBay because they won’t let you sell products on their platform without taking a percentage. They’ve assembled a massive buyer market for you to tap into. They’ve given you tools to use. And WHAT??? They want a piece of the profits??? OUTRAGE!

And to answer your question, what makes iOS so special is how much money developers make there. It dwarfs everything else you mentioned combined. You’re cheering on developer greed. They’ve absolutely flocked to this platform with its supposedly prohibitive fees. It’s hard to take your argument seriously.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Got it. So you don’t actually understand what Epic is asking for and you ignored that I admitted Apple’s current sideloading is cumbersome. 99% of users do not need to sideloading apps, much less more than 1.

[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

The vast majority would almost certainly remain on the app store, and practically nothing would change for those apps in terms of security or convenience. Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue. Epic isn't trying to force apps off the app store. They are only trying to open up options for other developers to distribute and make money without having to give it all to the monopoly that is Apple. This would give users the option to also move outside of the walled garden, but at no point would anyone be forced to do anything.

[-] gdbjr@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

You seemed to have left out when Fortnite was removed from the play Store and lots of fake scam apps popped up in their place. So yes things would most likely change.

Plus there are a handful of app developers would would love to leave the App Store. Basecamp and proton come to mind. So now you have at least 3 app stores to add.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Android has allowed downloads from other app stores for years, and not once has it posed a significant issue

Lol. That’s not true. It constantly poses an issue and is one of the major sources for fraud on the platform.

Epic isn't trying to force apps off the app store

I never said they were and it seems like you don’t get what they are trying to do. Currently, getting an app on the App Store entails clicking a “Get” button and responding to a prompt for confirmation/payment. It’s one prompt, every user can be 100% certain it’s secure, and it takes 2 seconds to confirm and validate your identity.

If Epic gets what it wants, every app could potentially have its own payment/confirmation prompt and every developer could have their own launcher and interface for even finding and downloading the apps. They have no way of verifying if the site they’re being forwarded to is secure, where their payment information is going, or whether the developer and payment site are even the same party which means their purchase data and other information is a vector to be compromised. On top of that, you have to enter separate payment and billing information for each launcher and every one has a separate email, data, and privacy policy which could allow them to do whatever they want with your data.

It is an objectively worse experience for 99% of people in every way.

[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I'm curious if you can point me to any specific instances of third party app stores being problematic for Android, perhaps I missed something.

In my experience, most users either don't know about the third party app stores or don't use them. Android has a setting to completely disable downloads from outside sources. If a user chooses to download from a third party app store, they are doing it of their own free will and they alone assume the same risks as browsing the internet normally. At that point it's really just internet 101 that any competent person should understand. Anyone else can simply choose to stay in their walled garden of safety.

Also, for the most part, developers won't develop for a third party store or make their own launcher unless there is a significant advantage to do so, like being forced to pay exorbitant prices to a monopolizing company in exchange for a false sense of "privacy and security". Apps aren't going to suddenly jump ship and make their own launchers. That costs a lot of money and Apple has curated a nice ecosystem. But, both developers and users should be allowed to choose what and how they install software on their personal devices. Android has proven that the wider user base will see virtually no impact and device security wont suddenly be compromised unless a specific user chooses to compromise their own device.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

This is a very naive and, frankly, sheltered view. The majority of mobile malware and spyware is exclusive to Android. Also, it doesn’t matter if indie devs don’t jump ship. It’s enough to have major companies develop their own launchers. It’s objectively worse.

[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

My views come directly from having owned both ios and android devices with their respective app stores. The majority of malware is on Android, but it's hardly exclusive. Android devices also hold the majority of the market, by a very wide margin. The idea that ios is some kind of paragon of perfect security and privacy is incredibly naive and misguided.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is exclusive, though. What malware exists for iOS? Nearly every issue is only on jailbroken phones. If it’s not in the App Store, it’s not something you can install. That’s the whole point. And, on top of that, this is about more than just malware and sideloading. This is about opening up a trusted process to several untrusted actors. These responses are ridiculous.

[-] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.wired.com/story/kaspersky-apple-ios-zero-day-intrusion/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2023/09/23/ios-1701-critical-security-update-warning-for-all-iphone-users/?sh=794a8b094e83

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/iphone-apps-infected-malware

https://thehackernews.com/2016/03/how-to-hack-iphone.html?m=1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2022/01/08/apple-warning-iphone-hack-attack-vulnerability-new-iphone-update/?sh=73609cec659e

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2023/09/09/ios-1661-update-now-warning-issued-to-all-iphone-users/?sh=4cf4c51cf2f0

https://www.darkreading.com/dr-global/spyware-vendor-egyptian-orgs-ios-exploit-chain

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Did you even read the details for any of these?

Every single one of these requires that either 1) The user’s phone be running an old version of iOS (which, by default, auto-updates unless someone has turned it off), 2) the user installs something on their PC first and installed an app from the App Store that was removed and is no longer available, or 3) the user be specifically targeted and not have Lockdown mode turned on. And this is over a span of almost 10 years as the first one of them was used in 2014.

I will concede that this obviously shows iOS is not immune but I never really said that it was. This does show, though, that iOS is far more secure than Android even if we only restrict the scenario to the official app markets on Android.

https://www.phonearena.com/news/android-malware-apps-master-list_id149175 vs. https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS

Over 100 in the last year with over 300 million devices infected vs. 17 over 15 years with 500,000 devices (including jailbroken devices and targeted attacks).

It’s not even a close comparison.

[-] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I agree with an asterisk that it would be a worse experience for most users.

But my contention is that the benefit is greater even if it is less convenient, and that alternate app stores on Android have shown that the majority of people don't use them or know they even exist. So for most people, there won't be too much change. I'm sure some larger apps will try to force their own app stores and payment methods, but I don't see that succeeding because again, it hasn't on mobile. So I think there will be churn in the first few weeks or months, but then it would settle down.

At the end of the day, this is a computer owned by a user. They should be able to install what they want without having it approved by Apple and sold only through their store.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s not merely about convenience. It literally opens the door to every developer having their own method to download apps. It lowers the security of these devices, it’s worse for privacy, and it’s objectively a poorer experience for end users.

[-] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's the risk of freedom.

But even still, I again point to Android. You know how you avoid any security or convenience issues? You just don't use the third party app store. And I think the same will play out if iOS does start allowing third party app stores.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure if you’re too young or if you were blissfully ignorant but you seem entirely unaware of how easily people are led to add those kinds of things when there’s money involved. Does no one remember IE toolbars?

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

It's objectively a better experience for me on Android, since it provides an easy source to find foss apps without ads or mtx. Saying opening up is bad would be like saying stuff like libreoffice, handbreak, and blender are bad because they can be retrieved outside official stores on desktop OS.

I'm glad that I'm able to retrieve programs that aren't on the Apple store on MacOS like BetterDisplay and Rectangle to improve my MacOS experience over being locked to only the Apple store offerings. Why would I see the same freedom as bad on a phone when I don't expect or want babysitting.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You can’t just apply your anecdotal experience to every user of these devices. And everyone responding is just talking about side loading which is not at all what the issue is. It’s fine for you to be able to install apps from other places but that’s not what’s at stake here. Epic wants to have its own store just like what happened to Steam and that doesn’t compare to what you’re suggesting.

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't see a problem with epic having their own store on PC. Steam is also an "unwanted unofficial store" on Windows and Mac. I'm glad that third party stores are able to thrive on Windows, since it is what allowed for stores like Steam or GOG to even exist due to Microsoft not strictly controlling who has the ability to distribute software on their OS.

Are you really trying to use Epic showing up to compete with Steam as though it is a negative when Steam is a store that is thriving on Windows OS that they don't even have control over? Even their Steamos doesn't prevent people from installing competing launchers. Steam is the complete opposite of who you should be using if you are trying to argue against the existence of Apple App store alternatives on iPhone.

[-] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You clearly have never used a Steam game/app that has required the install of a separate launcher in order to play within Steam. It’s a hot mess that breaks games constantly. On top of that, you seem to be ignoring that Epic’s lawsuit is about storefronts. Paying and downloading apps that require a separate payment system and separate update system is, in every way, a negative compared to Apple’s App Store.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It works in reverse too. The developers don’t care about competition. They just want to profit from the platform without paying anything. You could say Apple’s claims about platform quality and consistency are weak, but the only thing on the other side of this is boosting developer profit margins.

[-] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago

Apple on Thursday argued the lower court orders violate the U.S. Constitution because they overstep the powers of a federal judge. Apple argued that the trial judge relied on a case brought by a single developer - rather than a broader class of developers - to justify a nationwide ban, without proving that the nationwide ban was needed to remedy the harm caused to Epic.

That's a pretty flimsy ground to resist the ruling. But that's expected when you are the Disney of the tech world.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If only the lawyers and judges deciding this knew the joy of having the Epic launcher on their PC.

Lawyer: “Should anyone be allowed to create a computing platform free from Epic bloatware?”

Judge: “That wouldn’t be fair, would it?”

SMH

[-] heyspencerb@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

This should not be a government decision. If you don’t like the closed ecosystem, get a different brand of phone. Government should not force design decisions onto companies

[-] bighi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

So our options should be to accept a company that prevents us from using 100% of OUR phones, or choosing the crappy competitor?

That’s a lose-lose scenario. Why would anyone defend it?

[+] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works -13 points 1 year ago

It's like a whiny child running to mommy because their sibling is being a meanie.

Apple

Welcome

Rules:

Communities of Interest: