![]() Apple said that mandating sideloading doesn’t comply with its pro-consumer privacy protections. It says the lower court even agreed that Apple’s witness on the subject (Head of Software Engineering, Craig Federighi) was stretching the truth when he had disparaged macOS as having a “malware problem.”Įpic then points to examples of Apple’s own marketing of its Mac computers’ security, where it touts “apps from both the App Store and the internet” can be “installed worry-free.”Īpple has argued against shifting to this same model for iPhone as it would require redesigning how its software works, among other things, including what it says would be reduced security for end users.Īs app store legislation targeting tech giants has continued to move forward in Congress, Apple has been raising the alarm about being forced to open up the iPhone to third-party app stores, as the bipartisan Open App Markets Act and other international regulations would require. “For macOS Apple relies on security measures imposed by the operating system rather than the app store, and ‘notarization’ program that scans apps and then returns them to the developer for distribution,” Epic’s new filing states. Epic says that if Apple can allow sideloading on Mac devices and still call those computers secure, then surely it could do the same for iPhone. ![]() However, one of Epic’s larger points has to do with the Mac’s security model and how it differs from the iPhone. While Apple largely touted the ruling as a victory, both sides appealed the decision as Epic Games wanted another shot at winning the right to distribute apps via its own games store, and Apple didn’t want to allow developers to be able to suggest other ways for their users to pay.Īpple appeals the Epic Games ruling and asks to put ordered App Store changes on hold But the court decided Apple could not prohibit developers from adding links for alternative payments inside their apps that pointed to other ways to pay outside of Apple’s own App Store-based monetization system. Apple district court case that Apple did not have a monopoly in the relevant market - digital mobile gaming transactions. ![]() The Cary, N.C.-based Fortnite maker made these points in its latest brief, among several others, related to its ongoing legal battle with Apple over its control of the App Store.Įpic Games wants to earn the right to deliver Fortnite to iPhone users outside the App Store, or at the very least, be able to use its own payment processing system so it can stop paying Apple commissions for the ability to deliver its software to iPhone users.Ī California judge ruled last September in the Epic Games v. Apple’s Mac, explains Epic, doesn’t have the same constraints as found in the iPhone operating system, iOS, and yet Apple touts the operating system used in Mac computers, macOS, as secure. And it points to Apple’s macOS as an example of how the process of “sideloading” apps - installing apps outside of Apple’s own App Store, that is - doesn’t have to be the threat Apple describes it to be. In a new court filing, Epic Games challenges Apple’s position that third-party app stores would compromise the iPhone’s security.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |