Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

This is presently an accusation by Telegram, nothing more. Sample of reasons why Apple may be doing whatever they are doing:

1) Telegram is prevalently used by Syrian fighters [1]. (Why they chose Telegram over Signal beats me.) As the Syrian conflict winds down, these fighters are returning home. That creates a security imperative for many governments, including in the EU.

2) Telegram recently ran an ICO that, at the very least, probably runs afoul of American securities law.

3) All of the reasons any app gets held up in review that are not "the Russian government pressured Apple."

TL; DR We have no evidence this is because of Russian meddling.

[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/isis-telegram-app_us_59...

View on HN

All this points to me is the risks of owning a phone whose only way to add apps is to go through one company's own discretion. Unlike in Android where you can easily install apps from other app stores or just download the file.

Installing apps outside an app store also introduces other risks, it's not exactly one better than the other. Personally I'd love to sideload apps, but seeing how big of a mess that was on desktops leads me to believe most users are better served by a gatekeeper.

I should have specified, I meant risk to freedom/censorship.

Well it has those risks too. Tainted copies of messaging apps shipped by hostile governments. If you download from the App Store you know you're getting the app that was signed by the developer.

Signed binaries and open distribution channels are not mutually exclusive.

> most users are better served by a gatekeeper.

I think the point is that Android's marketplace functions as a gatekeeper. Apple's marketplace functions as a prison warden. The difference is whether you on the inside are allowed to make exceptions for who can come through, or even pass through yourself. If you have no control, what you've been told is a protective wall is actually restraining wall.

That said, as to your original point, perhaps some people do need their devices imprisoned for the benefit of the rest of us. I'm not sure I believe that, but I will readily admit that a vast number of people are either unable or unwilling to detect and rectify the problem of their digital devices being hacked, and that ends up affecting us all.

While Android allows to install apps from anywhere, it doesn't allow them to have the same privileges that Google's apps have and doesn't allow them to manage iptables for example.

And then people install pirated .apk making iOS the most profitable mobile platform for developers as they prefer to focus on iOS, especially regarding expensive apps.

Do you actually know of anyone that installs pirated APK files? Do you have actual statistics as to how prevalent it is? I'm sure it happens, but if you're going to use it as the reason "iOS is the most profitable platform for developers" you're going to need to more evidence than an unsupported assertion such as that.

I will never support an oppressor. People should be free of gatekeepers, even if they're worse at looking after themselves than the gatekeepers are, because being a gatekeeper is just far too much of a moral hazard.

I think the best option is picking your own gatekeeper. fdroid and redhat are the gatekeepers of my system but if they turn bad I can choose better ones.

> how big of a mess that was on desktops

Wait, what? The desktop experience is wonderful in this regard - choose any number of app stores if you want, or don't, if you don't want.

I've never, ever thought of this as a problem.

The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS.

Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?

If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?

> The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS.

That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security.

> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?

Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing.

> If you're on this site you are not most people. But, if it wasn't for the rules of Apple and Google what kind of things do you think Candy Crush would install on your elderly relative's phone?

I dunno man, this seems like a very dangerous argument to me. It's like you're saying that there's a huge silent majority that is not qualified to be the sovereign over the machines in their life, and that's not my world view.

I acknowledge that malware is a huge issue, but I think it's reasonably clear that the best ways of mitigating it do not include disempowering people or cutting their free speech at the knees.

> That seems like victim blaming to me. I think this is more like pretty good evidence that Microsoft has done a disservice to its users vis a vis their security.

I squarely blame developers/designers. Not just Microsoft, but Netscape with SSL, Android with app permissions and side-loading, etc.

There is this terrible historical concept that we can solve security issues with user education and work around design/deployment problems with security through obtuse user prompts.

>> Remember when you'd find four different toolbars on IE that your friend/family/neighbor had no idea how they got?

> Yeah. I fixed that problem by introducing them to Ubuntu and Firefox, not by cordoning off their ability to install applications of their choosing.

Sure, just as long as you keep in mind that Firefox extensions and Ubuntu snaps/universe/multiverse aren't vetted for malware. Plus Firefox extensions (like those toolbars of days past) can inspect all traffic and capture things like credit cards and passwords.

But hey, the user was notified that there was a risk and blindly hit OK - because it was the way to get the computer to do what they said they wanted the computer to do.

> The millions of desktops riddled with adware and viruses running to this day is pretty good evidence that most people cannot effectively manage software on a desktop OS.

Is this an actual fact-based observation or just personal memories rooted in a time that Windows 98 was the best that many people got?

It often seems like people who hold your position are arguing against a caricature. As in, you can't do it this way because people used to have problems, or people might...

Well, I agree with a slightly different assertion: that most people cannot securely manage software on a current desktop OS.

One of the problems that I think we technical people have not been able to solve yet is giving the user appropriate signals of the relative danger of the action they are about to engage in.

If all the dialog boxes look very similar, and any app can create one, you have yourself a dangerous system.

> most users are better served by a gatekeeper

If you believe that's the case the bigger problem is the lack of education that leads to some people who are incapable of understanding the risks associated with doing so and not that they have access to do so.

My mum is highly educated but somehow every time I visit her, her computer is full of fresh malware.

Usually it's stuff like sketchy webpages that say "your Flash Player is out of date. Click here to install lates version." and they just do it.

Malware makers will always find a way to trick people into installing their stuff.

Yes, let’s just educate everyone instead of bulding a better system in the first place.

Others have already said this, but you can always add a gatekeeper on top of an open system.

IMHO what closed systems like Apple propose is a false dichotomy. There's no reason why Apple couldn't allow sideloading apps and aggressively curate it's own store. The average user will use Apple certified apps and the power users who need more will sideload uncertified apps.

If gatekeepers are as genuinely beneficial to end users as people claim, then there's no reason to force anyone to use them or to block off unofficial channels. If your claim is true then ordinary people will stick to the certified App store of their own volition because it makes them feel safe.

Put a phone permitting side loading in front of my mom or half my friends and they’ll find a way to get a virus within a month. Broadly speaking, freedom a consumer doesn’t understand isn’t freedom to them. Apple’s products are reliable in part due to their tight control over the ecosystem.

I kind of don't understand this. Nobody is forcing anyone to use sideloading. Heck, Android phones by default have sideloading turned off in the settings so you can't even accidentally do it without going through a bunch of warnings.

Unless Android phones have an extra side-channel I don't know about, I just can't imagine someone sideloading an app on one of them unless they explicitly have decided the benefits outweigh the risks.

And if an average consumer is going into their settings and explicitly turning off a security measure, then at what point does it become reasonable to say that they're doing it because the official app store is not good enough on its own for the average consumer?

I get the whole "consumers are too stupid to know what's good for them" argument that people make sometimes, but I think that's a very tricky line to walk - especially when a company has a huge amount of profit tied up in deciding that individual freedom is a net negative.

Like most security features that can be trivially disabled, if it's simple to turn it off, bad actors will just say "OK, first click 'Turn this off', just click 'Yes' on all the mumbo-jumbo that comes up, and then you can use our software that will give you [free money/a better love life/etc]". Many people who would've gotten far enough to install the app in the first place will be able to follow the prompts to disable the safeguards, and voila.

I agree with you that it's a tricky line to walk, but the UX issue can't be dismissed as a triviality.

You can go through the process now with Amazon Underground, Prime Video, and several other Amazon apps for Android. The user is prompted to sideload Amazon's apps that contain functionality disallowed in Google's app store. Amazon shows step-by-step dialogs teaching users how to do it. It would be really interesting to know how many "non-power-user" users have actually stepped through that process at Amazon's behest.

But again, if moderated app stores are good enough for the average user, why are they going through Amazon's tutorial to begin with? Why isn't Amazon on the official channel?

It feels circular to me: "Most users are better served by a gatekeeper" -> "Because if users had a choice to go outside the system they would" -> "Therefore the gatekeeper must be mandatory" -> "Because most users are better served by a gatekeeper".

At what point do we have to step back and say, "maybe users just don't want gatekeepers?" Especially bearing in mind that, again, anyone who actually did want a gatekeeper could still use one and be fully protected.

We're assuming that every casual user who sideloads an app on Android is doing it because they're uneducated. What if they're not? What if they just feel like it's an acceptable risk?

What if the reason we can't trust the average user to stay in a moderated system is that moderated systems are not scalable, adaptable, or reliable enough to meet the needs of even an average user?

Being able to install apps without Apple's permission also means being able to sell apps without paying 30% to Apple.

What would be more interesting is how many users who have stepped through that process to install the Amazon apps, have then gone on to use the same process to sideload malware.

This is because it is actually pretty reasonable to make the judgement that Amazon is trustworthy enough to sideload their applications despite the dire warnings, so what you really want to find out is how many people are making unreasonable judgements on what is trustworthy enough to sideload.

You can add a scary warning which could be enough for many users. And charge additional fee for fixing system broken because of this.

> You can add a scary warning which could be enough for many users

Hah. Does the tech crowd never learn?

What we expect the "many users" to see:

    +-------------------+
    | This is dangerous |
    | you'll be on your |
    | own, so take care |
    |                   |
    | [cancel]     [ok] |
    +-------------------+

What the "many users" really see:

    +-------------------+
    | This is a mildly  |
    | annoying message  |
    | only made to      |
    | delay access to   |
    | instant happinness|
    | and BTW blah blah |
    | blah blah blah    |
    | blah blah blah    |
    |                   |
    | [meh]  [buzz off and giev me teh warez]
    +-------------------+

> And charge additional fee for fixing system broken because of this.

"Hey I hear from <insert {relative,friend,whatever} here> that you work with, uh, computers and stuff, and, I think my phone is somehow, uh, broken, and I know zilch about computers, so could you help me with it pleeeease?"

I've been astounded with spectacular consistency over the years at how much people can achieve (however unsafely) to get stuff for free even if they openly claim to be tech illiterate. That includes jailbreaking and installing "alternative" app stores. Basically some kind of goal-oriented BOFH's dummy mode on steroids.

I think it depends on the person. There are responsible people who aren't going to take a risk for dubious opporunity to watch pirated movies on a tiny screen. The message should be honest and then it won't be interpreted as you imagine.

This has nothing to do with warez or pirated movies.

For over a year, Minecraft shipped for the Mac without being properly signed for Gatekeeper. Their official support article said the only way to get it to work is to turn the feature off (disable binary signatures system-wide) - probably because they didn't want to explain to people what right-clicking was.

I'm unsure if this was due to lethargy, lack of wanting to pay $99/yr to have their $2.5 bil product have a proper software signing key, or an ongoing technical issue. But they in no way explained to users what the ramifications of this change was, and the typical user making the change was likely a kid.

If Apple provides a way for a company (I'll pick on Spotify here as a likely example) to ship their app without having to play by the rules of the App Store, it will quickly become the only way to get the app. The only way the users will be able to get the functionality they want on their phone would be to disable the security protections and side-load. And historically, companies have dismissed the ramifications to the user of doing this ("Hit 'Ok' on the dialog which is displayed")

Companies like Amazon has a whole third party store based on exploiting what is often referred to in Android as a "developer mode". I see zero likelihood Apple will make it possible for a side loading feature compatible with mass distribution without government pressure. If you don't care about distribution but just want to build and load an app on your personal phone, thats already possible and does not require any fees or paid tools (assuming you have a Mac).

Of course, this App Store is also the central authority which would allow Telegram to take down fake apps which are there to confuse users and potentially provide vectors for things like ransomware and surveillance by state actors.

While that's probably true, Apple could bring to iOS what macOS has been doing for years: code-signed apps that aren't distributed through the App Store and aren't subject to any of the App Store's restrictions (and can't guarantee the ostensible security benefits), but can still be "disabled" by Apple if they prove to be bad actors. On macOS, there are actually three states for this: signed App Store apps, signed regular apps, and entirely unsigned apps. Users get to tell the system what to allow and disallow. There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now.

(That system on macOS is, for those who don't remember, called Gatekeeper!)

Apple won't be able to receive its 30% revenue cut then.

That may be the reason, but it's not a technical reason. :)

> There's no really good technical reason for Apple not to allow at least the first two categories on iOS by now.

But then I can sign a jailbreak with my developer certificate and pass it around. Now, you're going to say that such a thing has never happened on macOS, but the fact that it could happen because you've opened the door to it is something that should be considered.

As soon as it get wide enough they’d just block you.

iOS doesn't allow this because Apple makes shitloads more money from mobile than desktop. They recently blocked Valves app from iOS because it allows you to stream games from another device which puts apples cut from the app store at risk. They don't care about steam on OSX because they make so much less money there.

To be clear, Apple's published statement is that it was blocked because it lets you purchase games through the app, which has been forbidden since day 1.

They also state they are continuing to work with Valve to get it published (presumably with only the feature to play existing purchased and free content, like say the Kindle app)

Android is almost as locked to Google Play as Apple is to the App Store, to the effect that no vendor has made a successful business selling phones without the Play Store. While they've finally fixed it, for years, they used scare tactics to prevent sideloading by insinuating it as a security risk, requiring you allow "less secure apps" in order to sideload. Most applications won't run without Play Services even if you do sideload them, and Play Services can remote uninstall an app from every device anyways, should they choose to employ it.

Yes, you can roll your own with a ROM and limit yourself to the tiny selection on F-Droid, but you enter an increasingly niche area. While it's "technically possible", it isn't really supported well enough to justify holding it as a benefit over a competing platform from a mainstream sense.

Bear in mind, when faced with a technical question revolving around making a backup of APK files, a core Android engineer said they "didn't support piracy", which was... a pretty hefty accusation to throw around for an innocuous backup of apps for being able to sideload should they be pulled from the then-called Android Market.

I wonder how difficult/useful it would be to create a community-driven package management system, like AUR or nixpkgs. Is there any known attempt?

Regarding your first paragraph, all of the Chinese domestic versions of Android have been totally successful without the official Play Store. The manufacturer such as Huawei, zte, oppo, etc installs the Chinese app stores as part of the OS load. What you wrote applies to the English language market.

This is a half truth. You are right in that Chinese companies have succeeded without the Play Store, but for one key reason: Google isn't in China. Literally the only place Android is open is where Google voluntarily isn't keeping it closed.

Well, not quite voluntarily.. ;)

Google is not in China because the China government tried to hack Gmail accounts so they left as the right thing to do.

But I think you know this?

But I can go to a public forum right now and find pirated .apk for thousands Android apps. And that’s extremely bad for the ecosystem.

The core difference is I can use an apk without any trouble.

But this is not the first time we can see a difference between how Apple and Google conduct themselves in these situations.

Look at China. The China government tried to hack Gmail accounts and so Google left China. Versus Apple handed all their user data over to the China government. I get it was so Apple could make money in China but sometimes principle is more important as we saw with Google.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

Not applicable to Telegram, but if the app is open source and you have a Mac (!) you can install it using Xcode.

Since Signal is actually open source, you can install it even if Apple decides to block it in the future (if you have a Mac).

This is a great option if your audience has very high need, but it will not make it available to the average non-tech savvy person who needs it.

Telegram clients are open source and can be built yourself.

Kinda. They're open source, but the source code is not updated frequently.

OK, but High Sierra VMs in VBox are pretty easy with vagrant. Plus the standard tweaks for running on Windows and Linux hosts.

So technical users could install for their friends.

Do note that it will only run for 7 days unless you pay Apple $100 a year for the privilege of running code on your own device.

You can reinstall it every 7 days for free though!

This is only true for iOS apps, not for Mac Apps. You can get Xcode and compile whatever you want with it.

OK, but we're clearly talking in the iOS context, given that was the only platform Apple was blocking.

Based on history, it’s by far more likely that it’s #3. Have we ever seen Apple prevent updates to an app globally due to government request (any government)? No... What we have seen are plenty of other reasons that Apple has rejected updates - like including new features that violate policies.

This really makes no sense on its face - if this is real Apple responding to Russian demands, why is Televram even available in the App Store at all?

We've also seen Apple just pull apps all together from countries at the request of the government, so I don't understand why Apple would only reject updates at the request of a government, rather than pull the app completely.

> Telegram is prevalently used by Syrian fighters

So Apple is afraid that they will start killing people in Europe using newer Telegram versions?

Russian propaganda says similar things, that Telegram is used by terrorists and drug dealers and that is why government needs to be able to read your messages.

> Telegram recently ran an ICO that, at the very least, probably runs afoul of American securities law.

Telegram is a British company.

Telegram is used by those people. As is Facebook, Twitter, Tor, the road network, cash, credit cards, Walmart supermarkets, mobile phones, electricity... That one bad person, or group of bad people, use a technology in support of their wrongdoing does not make the technology bad.

(I'm agreeing with you, just stating the point more obviously).

> Telegram is prevalently used by Syrian fighters [1]. (Why they chose Telegram over Signal beats me.) As the Syrian conflict winds down, these fighters are returning home. That creates a security imperative for many governments, including in the EU.

BS. There is exactly 0 reasons why they should infringe on your rights. Remember that. 0 reasons.

"Telegram recently ran an ICO that, at the very least, probably runs afoul of American securities law.” Their ICO is absolutely compliant with the securities laws. There wasn’t a sign of general solicitation and the investors were required to be accredited.

2) Telegram didn't run an ICO. They wanted to but raised enough funds in the private markets that there was no need to continue with an ICO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com