Technology

37793 readers

58 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

189

Apple will require notarization for apps from third party app stores, and will disable updates for apps installed via third party app stores if staying outside EU (support.apple.com)

submitted 9 months ago by brie to c/technology

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As far as I can tell this basically means that all apps must be approved by Apple to follow their "platform policies for security and privacy" even if publishing on a third party app store. They will also disable updating apps from third party app stores if you stay outside the EU for too long (even if you are a citizen of an EU country, with an Apple account set to the EU region).

The idea that preventing app updates is in line with their claims of protecting security is utterly absurd. "Never attibute to malice what can be explained with stupidity," but Apple isn't stupid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 102 points 9 months ago (9 children)

“Never attibute to malice what can be explained with stupidity,”

With corporations I feel like the opposite should apply.

[–] derbis 24 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Hate that phrase. Great way to excuse malice.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

There is an 'adequately' missing. It somewhat counters the excuse of malice.

If you can't adequately attribute it to stupidity it has to be malice (or at least negligence).

[–] brie 6 points 9 months ago

Yeah, that's the more thorough version. My interpretation of the quote was to first search for stupidity, if only to confirm it is not in fact stupidity (but malice).

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)