You don't pay 30% extra. You pay some smaller portion, because the 30% only comes out of the paid apps. The value you get from free apps which you wouldn't get if someone else had to cover the costs.
Think about it:
1. We don't have to worry about searching for an app. We can find the apps without all the SEO or anything, and they are all in one place.
2. Defending their trademark (fake apps don't exist in the App Store). How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid.
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid.
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Please explain to me then, kind sir, why my friends and coworkers Android phones are always ending up with spyware and miners and shit on them, while my friends, family and coworkers with iPhones simply don't understand why this situation exists to begin with? The only thing I can come up with is a No True Scotsman - all these phones must just be shitty Android phones and thus aren't representative of the One True Android that apparently "proves that the market forces work as intended" by the Good People th
Then you and your friends are stupid for burying your heads in the sand. There's been many wide spread malware found. Many of the white hat hackers had to admit to what they were doing before getting kicked off the store! Lol
Unlike Android, only Appl can scan all apps for malware, making it much harder to detect. Even then, i find it amusing that spybot search and destroy has a i os section.
https://blog.malwarebytes.com/... [malwarebytes.com]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]
Perfect is the enemy of good. Just because there are some problems, does not mean it's a disaster worthy of government intervention. There are malware and viruses for the MacOS platform but your risk on MacOS is still wildly disproportionate to your risk on Windows.
That's because unlike iOS, Android allows you to install spyware and miners if that's what you want to do. iOS blocks anything not notarised by Apple, full stop. That's a pretty bulletproof way to not get malware but it isn't perfect. There have been instances of iOS malware distributed in the App Store in the past which resulted in big problems for users. Apple are pretty damn responsive and put an end to issues quite quickly but their sandbox is still vastly inferior to the Android one.
In terms of legi
Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.
- Alan Turing
Apple (Score:2, Informative)
Apple wants you to think paying 30% extra is a necessity. It is clearly not.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-44Nh_QkrQ
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Think about it:
1. We don't have to worry about searching for an app. We can find the apps without all the SEO or anything, and they are all in one place.
2. Defending their trademark (fake apps don't exist in the App Store). How awful would it be if you searched Google for Bank of America iPhone App, you
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Android has always allowed competing app stores, and you can even change a security setting yourself and just download apps directly from the web (just like how it works on a real computer). Amazingly, the sky has not fallen. In the face of Android already proving it can work, Apple's argument is just control freak bullshit.
I still however, do not want to see government intervene in that situation.
Sometimes Uncle Sam has to get out the belt, because businesses don't always play fair. See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act [wikipedia.org], as an example from the automotive industry.
Android is built to better contain untrusted apps (Score:4, Informative)
By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied:
* Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies)
* Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups)
* A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC
* seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls
I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Re: (Score:3)
iOS apps have to be vetted because there's only one proper layer of protection on iOS to stop apps from misbehaving. The iOS Sandbox provides all of the constraints using predefined mandatory access controls and a few helper processes. Any mistakes in this layer will cause a compromise across all apps. You can see how flimsy this can be by examining the large list of things Apple does not allow in sandboxed apps. Apple's sandbox is fantastic on macOS but is overstretched on iOS/iPadOS. Apple has every reason to be paranoid. By comparison, with Android, the following protections are applied: * Separate UIDs per application (so all UNIX-style DAC applies) * Separate GIDs per permission (so the process has to be in specific groups) * A fully fleshed out SELinux policy to constrain every process regardless of DAC * seccomp-bpf system call restrictions on much newer Android versions block unnecessary system calls I regularly crap on Linux for its poor IO scheduling and responsiveness under load but unlike iOS, Android uses multiple overlapping layers to constrain apps even when they are known to be malicious. iOS by comparison depends upon centralised controls by Apple to work properly.
Please explain to me then, kind sir, why my friends and coworkers Android phones are always ending up with spyware and miners and shit on them, while my friends, family and coworkers with iPhones simply don't understand why this situation exists to begin with? The only thing I can come up with is a No True Scotsman - all these phones must just be shitty Android phones and thus aren't representative of the One True Android that apparently "proves that the market forces work as intended" by the Good People th
Re: Android is built to better contain untrusted a (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of legi