Any increase in complexity will increase the attack surface. The question is by how much, and what the upside is for users. In this case, it seems Apple could have taken more care; hopefully it's not a symptom of recalcitrance.
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.
Apple’s DMA malicious compliance explained.
- Thread starter Sophisticatednut
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Any increase in complexity will increase the attack surface. The question is by how much, and what the upside is for users. In this case, it seems Apple could have taken more care; hopefully it's not a symptom of recalcitrance.
To me that equation is how much (trillion dollar malware industry) vs user upside (easier to pirate apps). Because users already had a huge variety and extremely low prices.
Sure, but you can say that about any individual software problem. As you pointed out, isolating the one issue is disingenuous.
That's not what I was thinking or implying. On a personal level, my interest is in game emulation. Apple appear to have recognised this is a key driver of interest in alternative app stores, hence the sudden U-turn on their long-standing policy of refusing to allow such apps in their store. They are doubtless hoping this move (and others) will take most of the wind out of the desire, outside the EU, for more app store options. It's worth noting though that if nothing else, the fear of alternative app stores has (slightly) shifted the balance of power between Apple and their users, which as a user, I'm all for. In general, I think its a good thing if iPhone / iPad users can get the apps they want, even if Apple decline to host them in their store, for whatever moral or business reason (e.g. no vape apps).
The other aspect is in setting a fair tithe for access to mobile platforms. Apple and Google have certainly put in the work to build successful and polished mobile platforms. But this evolution of the computing landscape has become central to modern life. I think there's a conversation to be had in terms of what's a fair return for this. Both companies are now among the world's richest, and left unchallenged, will essentially levy a 30% tax on mobile activity in perpetuity. Both iOS and Android became mature some time ago and are now only evolving gradually. Creating a new mobile platform that could challenge either is virtually impossible, given the radical advantages it would need to offer to get people to consider switching. So at this point, both companies are essentially just collecting rent.
That's exactly my point. The vast majority of interest in game emulation is for piracy. I'm not saying or implying that emulation is illegal. Simply that the main use case is to freely obtain and run other people's software without permission or compensation. I'm sure you're one of the ethical ones that rips their own ROMs, but in my experience that's not very common.
How is that more important than limiting the trillion dollar malware industry? The previous model was a failure that resulted in high prices, piracy, malware, fragmented markets, inconsistent UI's, and poor support for new OS features.
That's a disingenuous argument considering that the 30% applied to less than 2% of developers and mobile activity consists of a whole lot more than IAP.
Creating a new mobile platform doesn't require radical advantages. I would start with governments forcing Google to end it's anticompetitive agreements with it's horizontal competitors. Until this is addressed, I won't believe that competition is the real focus of any legal action or regulation in the mobile market.
Forking android and adding non-Google apps and services on top are a relatively efficient way to enter the market.
Interesting.
I am not sure just what Apple's game plan is.
I am not sure just what Apple's game plan is.
That was not your point - you said "easier to pirate apps" i.e. iOS software. It's disingenuous to conflate that with game ROMs, which are a specific case. Most of the games I'm interested in are 80's / 90's arcade machines; a few may be available as iOS conversions, but ROMs are by far the most convenient and authentic way of playing them.
Bit of a non sequitur. Does your Mac get regularly overrun with viruses? Any reason to think your phone / iPad will, especially given that iOS is vastly more locked down / sandboxed?
What 'model' are you referring to? The Mac? It seems alright to me.
Those 2% are the ones that make significant money; I believe something like 50% of apps on the App Store don't get a single download. In total, iOS customers spent $89Bn on apps in 2023 (of which $35Bn was subscriptions), so it's hardly a paltry sum. Source: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
Mobile activity does consist of a whole lot more than IAPs, but I can see why the games industry in particular feels like Apple is getting an unfair cut (games account for 60% of smartphone app revenue overall). I guess it depends on whether you consider an iOS device to be more like a console or a computer. Perhaps that's why Apple is so (inexplicably) restrictive with the iPad - it doesn't want iOS devices to be seen as computers i.e. open platforms.
For people to switch at this point, a new platform couldn't merely be on par with iOS or Android. Those platforms are well established, with long track records of support and huge app libraries. People are embedded in ecosystems. For people to break with them, a new entrant would need to offer a pretty compelling USP - and one that couldn't just be copied (or bought) by the $Tn incumbents.
Whataboutism. We're talking about Apple here.
That's not a new platform... it's still Android. In any case, Android already allows third party app stores.
I'm not wrong because you chose to make a distinction that I didn't.
Not at all. You're just pretending that the Mac is representative when a trillion dollar malware industry says otherwise.
I never claimed it was a paltry sum. That just you moving the goalposts...
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
...since your claim was obviously misleading.
What's "unfair" about charging the market rate?
Not at all. People switch to competing apps all the time. The underlying OS could still be android-compatible, so their favorite apps would be available. Amazon Fire is the obvious example.
No, we're talking about new entrants into the mobile OS market and what's preventing them.
Nope. It's little "a" android. Forks of open source projects are different products. The current problem is that Google has conspired with 70% of the market to install Google Play Services on top of android in order to limit competition.
If you were specifically talking about ROM files for old games, you should have said so. An 'app' is widely understood to be an iOS application i.e. an iOS executable you'd download from the App Store. An emulator ROM is not an iOS executable, and therefore has very different connotations in terms of piracy i.e. it can't infect your phone, and it's not stealing from App Store developers.
The 'trillion dollar malware industry' is complex issue. Much of it is going to target business / corporate servers. A good chunk of it is going to rely on people clicking on dodgy emails. The most meaningful comparison here would be to Android, but that's tricky as the big problem with that OS is the tardiness of security patch deployment; this isn't an issue with Apple, regardless of whether the device is using a third party app store.
No, but you did say that only 2% of developers pay the 30% fee, implying that it wasn't worth worrying too much about. The issue is that the majority of downloads will be concentrated in a relatively small number of apps that get huge numbers of downloads (if you're not in the top ten apps in a category, you might as well not exist). So most of those downloads will have a 30% fee deducted.
Depends on what 'market' you consider iOS devices to be in. Are they more like a PlayStation, or a Mac? A proprietary device with strict gatekeeping, or an open platform.
The iPhone is at least superficially more like the former, but there's no real excuse for the iPad - and especially the iPad Pro - to not to be treated like the latter. iPadOS has long been accused of crippling the powerful hardware, with many people asking for a more macOS-like experience. But Apple seem reluctant to let any iOS device be conceived of as an open platform, lest it impact their cash cow, the iPhone.
I'm not talking about switching apps, I'm talking about switching OS's. That's a much bigger undertaking.
I'm not interested in the ability of a new smartphone manufacturer to make another me-too Android device. The problem with Android is not a lack of choice in the hardware market. It's that the OS is developed by Google, largely for the exfiltration of one's data.
OK. That is an issue too. But I'm primarily interested in discussing iOS.
I wasn't. I was using it generically to refer to any application including ROMs.
That's nothing but an attempt to minimize a trillion dollar issue.
I didn't imply that. You're simply changing what I said to make your argument easier. You said it was a "30% tax on mobile activity in perpetuity." I was simply refuting that claim.
No, it doesn't. Console games and mobile games both pay around a 30% platform fee.
I addressed this multiple times. Again, fork android, invest in a custom UI, and replace the platform apps and services with non-Google alternatives (either first party or existing third party solutions).
Either am I. Which is why I addressed this exact issue.
"A new mobile platform" would have to not be iOS.
Good article on the wider issues around Apple's vertical integration: https://stratechery.com/2024/united-states-v-apple/