Tim Cook rails against """bad privacy regulation & sideloading""" in keynote speech

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I doubt most people even know what sideloading is, so I don't see how it would affect less tech savvy people if they don't sideload anyway.

And the issue with malware on Android is likely due to devices getting less updates, or people downloading fake apps from the play store, which is kind of a downside of not charging everyone $100 to have access to publishing an app.

I disagree, only having 2 choices in the smartphone market isn't enough, its like having Nvidia and AMD with graphics cards, prices have gone up for both and having a duopoly isn't exactly a healthy market.

Plenty of products have safety features but that doesn't stop someone from getting hurt, there is always the chance and you can't fix someone being stupid with their device.

I guess it depends how you closed off you want your phone or tablet to be, but I think a large company telling me what apps I can run is incredibly selfish.

The issue is, they know NOTHING about sideloading, but they learn enough about it via search that it enables them to install an app that can't be found on curated and somewhat verified official markets all while not knowing about any dangers of it, they just want that Forknife because it was kicked out of GooglePlay/App Store for violating their TOS. Literally been there and seen that. And people often say "yeah, but this doesn't affect me". really? Botnets don't just run on their own. They are a collective of victim devices that can also affect others eventually. Or when someone has data harvesting malware installed and it hoards your phone number along with god knows what else because some clueless person with your data in their phone got it all snagged. It's never just the victim of the phone. It essentially means it affects EVERYONE that the victim is in contact with and this extra info is often used to craft particularly trustworthy sounding bot requests asking people in victim's name to send them money or passwords and whatnot. So, it would be cool if people stop glorifying sideloading without having a single f**king clue about anything.

 

So, here is security related shit smartasses here demanded from me.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I doubt most people even know what sideloading is, so I don't see how it would affect less tech savvy people if they don't sideload anyway.

And the issue with malware on Android is likely due to devices getting less updates, or people downloading fake apps from the play store, which is kind of a downside of not charging everyone $100 to have access to publishing an app.

I disagree, only having 2 choices in the smartphone market isn't enough, its like having Nvidia and AMD with graphics cards, prices have gone up for both and having a duopoly isn't exactly a healthy market.

Plenty of products have safety features but that doesn't stop someone from getting hurt, there is always the chance and you can't fix someone being stupid with their device.

I guess it depends how you closed off you want your phone or tablet to be, but I think a large company telling me what apps I can run is incredibly selfish.

Ok if most people don't know what it even is then why add it? I mean let's be honest can other app stores compete with the native apple apps store when sideloading becomes an option? I am of the opinion that no it won't. Also epic just wanted to violate apples tos and pay a cut to apple and this whole its about fair competition is bs imo. Do you know what is fair competition? It's when companies can make different products for different target audiences without being forced to change that. 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Or when someone has data harvesting malware installed and it hoards your phone number along with god knows what else because some clueless person with your data in their phone got it all snagged.

iOS already has rather good Sandboxing and Apps should never be able to access other Apps or system information without first being asked and then granted so if chosen. Sideloaded Apps could simply have restrictions on what is allowed, unlike App Store Apps so things like contact lists simply are not accessible to sideloaded Apps no matter what.

 

Background running could be not allowed at all ever, limited network functions and persistent connections automatically closed and if tried to be re-established continually then Gatekeeper outright blocks the App and reports this activity. Then if necessary the Developer ID/Publisher ID globally blocked due to multiple report submissions and the App removed from all iOS devices automatically.

 

To even install a sideloaded App creating your own Developer ID and signing the App for your phone could be part of that requirement, if nothing more than to make it that bit more inconvenient so only those that actually really want to do it will.

 

Also have as part of the ToS of sideloading limits on distribution so if an App becomes popular enough it's no longer eligible for being sideloaded and must be distributed via Appt store, again monitored and enforced by Gatekeeper.

 

These are all things Apple already has the capability to do or is already doing so it's not requiring any extra effort from Apple at all. Simply put, sideloading on iOS doesn't have to be an exact copy of how it works on Android and I don't think it would anyway.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok if most people don't know what it even is then why add it? I mean let's be honest can other app stores compete with the native apple apps store when sideloading becomes an option? I am of the opinion that no it won't. Also epic just wanted to violate apples tos and pay a cut to apple and this whole its about fair competition is bs imo. Do you know what is fair competition? It's when companies can make different products for different target audiences without being forced to change that. 

And Apple is only fighting against this because they have a direct monetary conflict of interest. Don't be fooled or believe anything else, 99.9999% of Apple's objections is financial and nothing more. Finding a narrative to put forward to the public has little to do with why they are actually opposed to it.

 

So yea, don't be thinking there are clean hands on either side of that fight between Apple and Epic, or Apple and EU. None of them have unstained white gloves.

[RejZoR]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

iOS already has rather good Sandboxing and Apps should never be able to access other Apps or system information without first being asked and then granted so if chosen. Sideloaded Apps could simply have restrictions on what is allowed, unlike App Store Apps so things like contact lists simply are not accessible to sideloaded Apps no matter what.

 

Background running could be not allowed at all ever, limited network functions and persistent connections automatically closed and if tried to be re-established continually then Gatekeeper outright blocks the App and reports this activity. Then if necessary the Developer ID/Publisher ID globally blocked due to multiple report submissions and the App removed from all iOS devices automatically.

 

To even install a sideloaded App creating your own Developer ID and signing the App for your phone could be part of that requirement, if nothing more than to make it that bit more inconvenient so only those that actually really want to do it will.

 

Also have as part of the ToS of sideloading limits on distribution so if an App becomes popular enough it's not longer eligible for being sideloaded and must be distributed via Appt store, again monitored and enforced by Gatekeeper.

 

These are all things Apple already has the capability to do or is already doing so it's not requiring any extra effort from Apple at all. Simply put, sideloading on iOS doesn't have to be an exact copy of how it works on Android and I don't think it would anyway.

And you honestly and seriously believe people actually read the warnings? Let me tell you, they don't. They just tap ALLOW on everything that gets thrown at them just to get to whatever they think they are getting. Or not even that, just getting rid of annoying pesky dialogs asking them things. Been there, seen that bazillion times.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And you honestly and seriously believe people actually read the warnings?

You honestly think everyone will go through the effort of creating a developer account, sign the App just to use it? With any other annoyances Apple may build in just to make it that bit extra unappealing?

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

They just tap ALLOW on everything that gets thrown at them just to get to whatever they think they are getting

Right so ignore the point where a sideloaded App will have basically no access to anything so any prompts and smashing yes will grant no access to anything important or personal..

 

Or better yet something like Fortnite wouldn't even be eligible for sideloading as it would exceed distribution limits..

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Been there, seen that bazillion times.

No you haven't because you haven't seen sideloading implemented this way at all. It would be impossible for you have have seen the outcome of this since it's not done this way at all ever by anyone, yet.

 

So that was a good way of telling me you didn't actually read what I wrote without saying it, thanks 

[Lightwreather]

10 pages already?

My, I've underestimated this topic.

 

 

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

10 pages already?

My, I've underestimated this topic.

It's about Apple, times any expectations by 10 

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok i get it you like chocolate and now everyone else has to have chocolate in their snacks because that is what you like best. I mean what a shame it would be if there was snacks that had the option of vanilla. We can't have that we need to add chocolate to it. This is basically what you are doing. 

Stop misrepresenting my argument. It's intellectually dishonest. Stick to what I actually said, instead of coming up with false equivalencies as a means of strawmanning my position.

 

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You are saying I like open platforms so now all platforms should be open platforms which is kinda ridiculous.

Why would that be ridiculous?

 

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Now compare that to me who likes it when the market allows for different options. 

How is allowing me to side-load apps decreasing the number of options you have? As we've established repeatedly, it has no impact on you personally if you don't engage with it.

 

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

 I mean at that point if they are so similar you might as well not have an option. 

How does enabling side-loading make iOS that much like Android that all the other differences suddenly vanish and the choice becomes meaningless? Is the lack of side-loading really the defining characteristic that makes iOS different form Android to you?

 

Most cars share more similarities than differences, yet you wouldn't say that what little variety there is in the car space is for naught because someone hasn't made a car yet that doesn't allow you to change your own wheels for fear of you messing up and overtightening your lug nuts. Besides, I'm not arguing for iOS to become Android and never have. I can't believe I have to reiterate this for the umpteenth time: Every single computer on the planet should give its legal owner the ability to do with it whatever they please. That's just a fundamental aspect of computers that should be true no matter what. Not in an attempt to make them all behave the same and homogenize all the offerings, but to maintain a fundamental right that I should have control over the hardware I own without the makers deliberately trying to lock me out of it. You keep invoking Android here as if the point of my argument is that iOS should be more like Android when it isn't. So can we finally put that ridiculous notion to bed and stop repeating the mantra "If you want something to behave like Android, don't buy an iOS device, duh", because that again is a strawman.

 

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Ok if most people don't know what it even is then why add it?

If most people don't know what it is (another unsubstantiated claim, by the way) and won't engage with it, why should it be prohibited? I love how you keep dancing around this idea that most people don't know what side-loading is so it's dangerous to them but also irrelevant to add because they wouldn't engage with it either way. I'm loathed to bring it up again, but you're once again being inconsistent and hypocritical. It's a literal catch-22 with you here, side-loading shouldn't be added because most people don't know what it is but because they don't know what it is they have no use for it therefore it shouldn't be added. 

[darknessblade]

44 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's about Apple, times any expectations by 10 

Especially since it is only 4 days since it was posted. 

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

You honestly think everyone will go through the effort of creating a developer account, sign the App just to use it? With any other annoyances Apple may build in just to make it that bit extra unappealing?

 

Right so ignore the point where a sideloaded App will have basically no access to anything so any prompts and smashing yes will grant no access to anything important or personal..

 

Or better yet something like Fortnite wouldn't even be eligible for sideloading as it would exceed distribution limits..

No you haven't because you haven't seen sideloading implemented this way at all. It would be impossible for you have have seen the outcome of this since it's not done this way at all ever by anyone, yet.

 

So that was a good way of telling me you didn't actually read what I wrote without saying it, thanks 

Not until you allow it all sorts of things. Come on dude, now we're going to be pretending it's all rainbows and unicorns because in some magic lalaland everything is ideal and nothing ever gets leaked or stolen because somehow everyone has thought of everything in advance? Distribution limits. AHAHAHAHA. People don't have the single clue what MB or GB is. If it says Fortnite is 20MB, do you think normies have the slightest clue it's not 20GB ? Right.

 

The crap people write here to defend stupid sideloading is just beyond baffling. And always I hear some dumb theoretical arguments for it that are entirely disconnected from reality. But whatever, turn iOS into same shit as is Android and then we'll see the exact same people crying and whining how iOS is terrible and full of holes. Heh. The logic.

[darknessblade]

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Not until you allow it all sorts of things. Come on dude, now we're going to be pretending it's all rainbows and unicorns because in some magic lalaland everything is ideal and nothing ever gets leaked or stolen because somehow everyone has thought of everything in advance? Distribution limits. AHAHAHAHA. People don't have the single clue what MB or GB is. If it says Fortnite is 20MB, do you think normies have the slightest clue it's not 20GB ? Right.

 

The crap people write here to defend stupid sideloading is just beyond baffling. And always I hear some dumb theoretical arguments for it that are entirely disconnected from reality. But whatever, turn iOS into same shit as is Android and then we'll see the exact same people crying and whining how iOS is terrible and full of holes. Heh. The logic.

If you are really that against sideloading why not write a letter to every party state of the European union telling them about your concerns regarding the DMA, forcing apple to allow sideloading

[Arika]

As i've said multiple times across multiple threads: If iOS's security hinges on the fact that they only allows approved apps to be installed from their own store, than that is not security.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

As i've said multiple times across multiple threads: If iOS's security hinges on the fact that they only allows approved apps to be installed from their own store, than that is not security.

Really? It's been working pretty damn great for all these years, meanwhile Google can't seem to keep up even within their own GooglePlay and their GooglePlay Protect is a joke. Yeah, they are really doing great there. Top notch.

[Biohazard777]

21 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Really? It's been working pretty damn great for all these years, meanwhile Google can't seem to keep up even within their own GooglePlay and their GooglePlay Protect is a joke. Yeah, they are really doing great there. Top notch.

I agree that Google and MS aren't doing a great job... but saying Apple does it "pretty damn great" is an overstatement at least 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discussed-disclosing-128-million-iphone-hack-then-decided-not-to/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XcodeGhost

This is one example, one that came to light thanks to 3rd party researches, not thanks to Apple.

 

Also this topic being about privacy... You do know that App store privacy section is completely self-reported by the developer?

Clicking on "See Details" shows you this:

As a dev you fill out a questionnaire in the App Store Connect, I assure you If I was to say all data is not linked to you but it actually is - Apple isn't checking that.
My company has several apps on the App store that could 100% link the data to you just by setting some flags from false to true on our servers, without an app update or privacy section update.
Also we could just not report some of the data we are collecting to Apple, as in not stating it in the privacy section. For example "Usage Data", our servers log each request and pretty much each tap, scroll, log in, etc. you make is a request... even though the App itself isn't monitoring the usage, our servers are. Yeah not disclosing that that would make us douchebags, open us up to lawsuits, etc... but the fact remains, privacy violation would occur and Apple didn't do diddly squat to prevent it, the cherry on top is that Apple wouldn't be held accountable at all. 

PS My company isn't "FreshPlanet Inc.", screenshots above are just random app I opened.

 

[WhitetailAni]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Background running could be not allowed at all ever, limited network functions and persistent connections automatically closed and if tried to be re-established continually then Gatekeeper outright blocks the App and reports this activity. Then if necessary the Developer ID/Publisher ID globally blocked due to multiple report submissions and the App removed from all iOS devices automatically.

This EXTREMELY limits how well sideloaded apps could work. Do what macOS does and have you put in your passcode and iCloud password to allow this.

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

To even install a sideloaded App creating your own Developer ID and signing the App for your phone could be part of that requirement, if nothing more than to make it that bit more inconvenient so only those that actually really want to do it will.

This is already the case, and should continue to be.

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Also have as part of the ToS of sideloading limits on distribution so if an App becomes popular enough it's no longer eligible for being sideloaded and must be distributed via Appt store, again monitored and enforced by Gatekeeper.

Nah, this is simply Apple gets more money, since to distribute on the App Store is a $99/year fee. Just enable every Apple ID to have unlimited apps, app IDs, and no expiration date.

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Stop misrepresenting my argument. It's intellectually dishonest. Stick to what I actually said, instead of coming up with false equivalencies as a means of strawmanning my position.

 

Why would that be ridiculous?

 

How is allowing me to side-load apps decreasing the number of options you have? As we've established repeatedly, it has no impact on you personally if you don't engage with it.

 

How does enabling side-loading make iOS that much like Android that all the other differences suddenly vanish and the choice becomes meaningless? Is the lack of side-loading really the defining characteristic that makes iOS different form Android to you?

 

Most cars share more similarities than differences, yet you wouldn't say that what little variety there is in the car space is for naught because someone hasn't made a car yet that doesn't allow you to change your own wheels for fear of you messing up and overtightening your lug nuts. Besides, I'm not arguing for iOS to become Android and never have. I can't believe I have to reiterate this for the umpteenth time: Every single computer on the planet should give its legal owner the ability to do with it whatever they please. That's just a fundamental aspect of computers that should be true no matter what. Not in an attempt to make them all behave the same and homogenize all the offerings, but to maintain a fundamental right that I should have control over the hardware I own without the makers deliberately trying to lock me out of it. You keep invoking Android here as if the point of my argument is that iOS should be more like Android when it isn't. So can we finally put that ridiculous notion to bed and stop repeating the mantra "If you want something to behave like Android, don't buy an iOS device, duh", because that again is a strawman.

 

If most people don't know what it is (another unsubstantiated claim, by the way) and won't engage with it, why should it be prohibited? I love how you keep dancing around this idea that most people don't know what side-loading is so it's dangerous to them but also irrelevant to add because they wouldn't engage with it either way. I'm loathed to bring it up again, but you're once again being inconsistent and hypocritical. It's a literal catch-22 with you here, side-loading shouldn't be added because most people don't know what it is but because they don't know what it is they have no use for it therefore it shouldn't be added. 

Have you been listening to the arguments made at all? Allowing sideloading breaks the walled garden that Apple is know for and make it much more like android. I am also curious as to if you are an iPhone user anyways and if iPhones allowed sodeloading would you switch if you already aren't? Because it seems to me that alot of people wanting sideloading added so badly aren't even Apple customers in the first place and are completely ignoring why apple users like ios in the first place. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

29 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Have you been listening to the arguments made at all? Allowing sideloading breaks the walled garden that Apple is know for and make it much more like android. I am also curious as to if you are an iPhone user anyways and if iPhones allowed sodeloading would you switch if you already aren't? Because it seems to me that alot of people wanting sideloading added so badly aren't even Apple customers in the first place and are completely ignoring why apple users like ios in the first place. 

Oh the irony of asking if I'm actually reading your posts when you clearly aren't reading mine. For one, I have already mentioned that yes, I own an iPhone since my work mandates that as a company phone. I mean, yeah, I could grant my employer access to my private phone and have that registered in the company MDM but that ain't happening.

 

And for two, the entire core of my argument was that every computer should allow its owner to use it how they see fit, regardless of if I personally use one or not, so it's completely irrelevant if I personally would even use an iPhone as my private phone. You know, that's how ideologically consistent opinions work, they apply universally, not just in isolated cases. Side-loading alone wouldn't even make me want to use an iPhone as my personal smartphone, heck it's not even in the top 10 reasons why I'd never use an iPhone as my personal phone. 

 

And how exactly does side-loading make iOS that much more like Android? Because as someone who actually uses both ecosystems I can tell you there are plenty of differences on both, with advantages and disadvantages. But side-loading has no bearing on literally any of those. And you have yet to actually substantiate this notion meaningfully. You could start by actually answering the questions I've posed instead of making vague ad hominems to distract form the fact that you have no arguments.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

This is already the case, and should continue to be.

It is but currently costs money if you don't want to have to re-sign all the time, which is really the point. You don't have to do this with Android so why Apple would change to that model doesn't make any sense to me why people would think so say that's what would happen. Simply relaxing restrictions and removing the cost massively changes the usability of something, like sideloading on iOS. Wide sweeping changes are not required.

 

7 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

This EXTREMELY limits how well sideloaded apps could work.

Correct, and for a lot of things it doesn't have all that much impact. How many games need to run in the background? Zero? How many games need inactive persistent network connections? Zero? Yes this includes online games.

 

What sideloaded Apps do you need to use that really need access to contacts? Location? Anything personal at all stored on the phone rather than asking within the App what is required for the App and stays within the App that you can then choose to say no in fact I don't want to give X to this App and then not use it.

 

7 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

Do what macOS does and have you put in your passcode and iCloud password to allow this.

Doesn't negate any of the risks any of the current opposers have to allowing this so will not satisfy them. Hence my suggestions to address those.

 

7 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

Nah, this is simply Apple gets more money, since to distribute on the App Store is a $99/year fee. Just enable every Apple ID to have unlimited apps, app IDs, and no expiration date.

Already said this however like above doesn't address naysayers concerns, nor Apples. So I have no problem with requiring developers and App publishers to have to put on their big boy pants and stump up for App Store access and rules if what they do gets popular enough. So long as that distribution limit is sufficiently high enough, as in targeting the likes of Facebook, Epic etc. I would be oh so happy if Epic gets literally nothing out of this but the people and consumers that really would benefit from this actually do.

[leadeater]

14 hours ago, Arika S said:

As i've said multiple times across multiple threads: If iOS's security hinges on the fact that they only allows approved apps to be installed from their own store, than that is not security.

Malicious Apps on the App store are already prevalent, been proven so multiple times, anyone saying otherwise is either denying reality or refuses to look or acklowdge this fact. I already posted how many of the top 1000 Apps are bogus, more than zero which is more than it should be for this "perfect ecosystem of security".

[leadeater]

15 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Distribution limits. AHAHAHAHA. People don't have the single clue what MB or GB is. If it says Fortnite is 20MB, do you think normies have the slightest clue it's not 20GB ? Right.

I'm sorry but how on earth did you conclude size of the App was what I was talking about when it was extremely clear, like extremely clear, I was talking about world wide installations. I could give a damn if the app is 10 Exabytes, 1 install of it is 1 install...

 

Could you like actually spend more than a few milliseconds reading posting, actually be willing to have a discussion, or if not then leave.

 

If you just want to yell in to the void "No!" kindly leave out the quote of the posts you aren't even reading, thanks.

 

At least some people have the decency to offer and discuss solutions, just saying no with zero reasoning doesn't add any value to the discussion nor give what you say or your opinions any respect to those having to read it. If you want to be taken seriously then act accordingly.

 

15 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And always I hear some dumb theoretical arguments for it that are entirely disconnected from reality.

Careful that mirror you are standing in front of might break.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Malicious Apps on the App store are already prevalent, been proven so multiple times, anyone saying otherwise is either denying reality or refuses to look or acklowdge this fact. I already posted how many of the top 1000 Apps are bogus, more than zero which is more than it should be for this "perfect ecosystem of security".

While that is true at least they attemp at limiting issues related to that while with sideloading isn't vetted through Apple so they believe that their is a security risk in that and I would intend to agree.

[darknessblade]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Malicious Apps on the App store are already prevalent, been proven so multiple times, anyone saying otherwise is either denying reality or refuses to look or acklowdge this fact. I already posted how many of the top 1000 Apps are bogus, more than zero which is more than it should be for this "perfect ecosystem of security".

Exactly, Apples walled garden is perfectly safe.

 

Well....................................

 

How hackers bypass the walled garden

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/03/scammers-have-2-clever-new-ways-to-install-malicious-apps-on-ios-devices/

PAY to close the app
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/15/23027363/apple-scammy-apps-mac-app-store-moderation

------------

List of all malicious apps, malware, spyware, etc

https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOS

 

And don't start saying that is only for Jailbroken apps. read the WIKI, and you will see not all are for Jailbroken Iphones

-------

And my personal favorite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

--------------

The problem with WALLED gardens is also that you as a user CANNOT fix issues from malware that run at a ROOT level, On a Non-jailbroken Iphone, meaning once Malware has entered your phone, you can consider that phone a paper-weight.

 

On android this is much easier to do, since you are not limited by the barriers the Maker of the device/OS have set for you.

 

[RejZoR]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm sorry but how on earth did you conclude size of the App was what I was talking about when it was extremely clear, like extremely clear, I was talking about world wide installations. I could give a damn if the app is 10 Exabytes, 1 install of it is 1 install...

 

Could you like actually spend more than a few milliseconds reading posting, actually be willing to have a discussion, or if not then leave.

 

If you just want to yell in to the void "No!" kindly leave out the quote of the posts you aren't even reading, thanks.

 

At least some people have the decency to offer and discuss solutions, just saying no with zero reasoning doesn't add any value to the discussion nor give what you say or your opinions any respect to those having to read it. If you want to be taken seriously then act accordingly.

 

Careful that mirror you are standing in front of might break.

Who the F addresses scope of distribution or scale of distribution (or even spread rate if we're talking malware in disguise) with "it would exceed distribution limits" and then bark at me for misunderstanding your nonsense? Give me a break dude.

[RejZoR]

17 hours ago, Biohazard777 said:

I agree that Google and MS are't doing a great job... but saying Apple does it "pretty damn great" is an overstatement at least 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discussed-disclosing-128-million-iphone-hack-then-decided-not-to/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XcodeGhost

This is one example, one that came to light thanks to 3rd party researches, not thanks to Apple.

 

Also this topic being about privacy... You do know that App store privacy section is completely self-reported by the developer?

Clicking on "See Details" shows you this:

As a dev you fill out a questionnaire in the App Store Connect, I assure you If I was to say all data is not linked to you but it actually is - Apple isn't checking that.
My company has several apps on the App store that could 100% link the data to you just by setting some flags from false to true on our servers, without an app update or privacy section update.
Also we could just not report some of the data we are collecting to Apple, as in not stating it in the privacy section. For example "Usage Data", our servers log each request and pretty much each tap, scroll, log in, etc. you make is a request... even though the App itself isn't monitoring the usage, our servers are. Yeah not disclosing that that would make us douchebags, open us up to lawsuits, etc... but the fact remains, privacy violation would occur and Apple didn't do diddly squat to prevent it, the cherry on top is that Apple wouldn't be held accountable at all. 

PS My company isn't "FreshPlanet Inc.", screenshots above are just random app I opened.

 

So, would you now also show us GooglePlay statistics? You can't just throw one side and say "gotcha". We're talking who does better after all, not who had an incident that everyone made the most drama around.