alt Hacker NewsTo protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all devices, regardless of how they got installed. A consequence of that is that they cannot answer government requests to kill apps with “I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that”.
Was that the right trade-off? I’m not sure, but AFAIK, they aren’t allowed to add alarming warnings when users add alternative stores, so they can’t put up signs “you’re leaving the safe area”, so I can see why they made this choice.
Replies
It wasn’t their choice to make. The user purposefully installed the app from a 3rd party store. That sounds like user intent. If Apple cared about their users, they would allow a user to use without caveat. Including installing whatever software they wish so long as it worked on the platform.
This is right to repair. This is ownership. When you buy some hardware, you should be allowed to install any software you wish, provided it works and you have the technical know how to do so.
Why can't they add a "this app is not verified by apple, we can't guarantee it's safe" popup? Making people jump through ridiculous hoops (like jailbreaking) would violate the DMA, but surely not a simple matter-of-fact warning? Windows does the same with unsigned apps, as do many version of Android.
> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps
This feature is part of antivirus solutions for ages.
> To protect their users they chose to include a feature that allows them to remotely kill nefarious apps on all device
And yet if you refund an app it's not automatically removed from your device. Always thought that was weird.
In this case they didn't remove the app from the users' devices, they “removed Alternative Distribution functionality from iTorrent’s Developer Portal without any warning.”
So they revoked the right of the developer to publish on other stores, and don't allow publishing that app on their own store.
Beside of those apparent "government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions" cited as reason by Apple (whatever that means), they now demonstrated that they still have indirect control over the offering of ALL digital markets.
So regardless in which market you want to publish, you still need to remain in good standing with Apple.
Combining that with Apple's ability to observe the install-base of iOS-devices it's quite a conflict of interest. (The least nefarious being Apple courting successful apps from other stores to come over to Apple)