Doesn't it seem weird to you how they only cared about "making iOS secure" once they had their own product?
If Google or Microsoft did this the reaction here on HN would be so different. Any anti-competitive practice could be rationalized by saying it makes the platform more secure.
1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable
2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking
Seems like they chose the latter. It’s easy to construct a case for why it is technically inappropriate to allow third-party apps in this space, that I personally boil down primarily to “a frequently-abused chance for corporate entities to monetize the user data of minors”.
Apple took years to implement content filtering, and did so in a way that prohibits applications from knowing whether their filters are ever exercised, as otherwise Facebook and other malicious entities would long ago have added a filter for ^(.*)$ to transmit every request to third-party servers. Is their refusal to permit otherwise anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?
Apple, if I understand correctly, prohibits third-party keyboards in certain password-type dialogs on iOS because keyboard apps are allowed to send network requests. (They are allowed to do so because e.g. GIF search.) Is this prohibition anti-competitive, security-forward, or both?
We as a community need to become a lot more careful with use of the phrase “anti-competitive”, as many industry-standard security practices that we would demand of any product we build and use are then labeled “anti-competitive” solely when they interfere with us doing anything we like, or when they’re done by an organization that doesn’t share its internal discussions with us when making decisions on our behalf.
Is it appropriate to stifle the competition for my personal data, even if that is, in a literalistic interpretation, anti-competitive?
I sure hope so.
> 1) Ban them immediately, no matter how necessary to parents, as the risk of tracking/stalking of all iPhone users is unacceptable
> 2) Build a safer solution that can’t be harnessed for tracking/stalking, and then ban all solutions that can be used for tracking/stalking
Surely the correct answer, if the solution is really so valuable that it cannot be done without in the time it would take to come up with a safe solution, is
3) tell the programmers of the potentially privacy-violating solutions that they'll be banned once you do (2), then do (2);
or arguably even
4) do (3), and, in the meantime, display a hard-to-ignore dialogue on installation that warns "this app may violate your privacy, and will be automatically uninstalled once Apple's safer solution is available. Do you wish to proceed?"
?
I have watched expert users infect themselves with malware faster than I can open my mouth to warn them that they’ve just unthinkingly clicked Next and blown their foot off, and then had to help them wipe their installation and start over.
I do not consider the current world we live in to be one where it is safe to prioritize absolute freedom over all other concerns. I accept that this puts me at odds with those that do, but as I watch them shoot their own feet off, I am grateful that I chose a more pragmatic path. I am grateful that a safer path is available for those who are unable to comprehend the severities of the risks they are defended against.
The solution you propose is no different than saying that the safety on a gun is sufficient to protect someone from accidentally shooting themselves with it. I do not agree with your assumptions, and I think the solution you describe is selfish and neglectful. You prioritize your ideals over the welfare of others unable to avoid paying the price you think yourself able to dodge. Your choice is abhorrent to me, and pushes me further away from the absolutist freedoms you espouse. Consider carefully in the future whether your argument as presented today helps or harms your cause.
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions. Both my (3) and (4) include "then do (2)", which seemed to be the solution you were proposing; they just more clearly communicated to developers that (2) was coming, and more clearly communicated to users the consequences of implementing half-baked solutions before (2) was done. I can imagine a lot of practical problems with what I suggested, but it's hard for me to see how increasing the communication in either or both of the ways that I proposed, while also doing what (it seems) you're proposing (and what Apple did), constitutes adherence to a selfish ideal.
Ever since moving everyone in my extended family to Apple’s ecosystem, I no longer field any calls about uninstalling malware, computer running slow, video calls are crystal clear, and the devices work forever. And if there’s a problem, they can take it to the Apple store and get it fixed, and restore from iCloud backup and they’re up and running in no time.
If Google or Microsoft want to re-create that convenience, I’m all for it. I know I sound like a shill, but I think it’s well worth whatever extra it costs in terms of time I saved troubleshooting.
If you take those away, of the rest, I'd wager the overwhelming majority is used for sports and hunting.
So, not sure about that. You might have the right claim, but the "by definition" might be too much
A weapon is by definition madr to cause harm, so it is not benign.
Even hunting is not a benign act at all, which is why you need training and have a lot of regulation regarding how you can practice it.
And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.
Have any of the console makers or smart TV makers been told what they can and can’t put on their own devices? Has any physical store been fined for limiting what they sell in their own store?
And that’s not how monopolies are defined.
And market percentage is too one major metric of how monopolies are defined.
If you don’t like it by an Android and develop for Android. Literally every single person on the planet with access to iPhone could alternatively use Android. In fact, iPhone is more expensive than cheap Androids, so there is even less reason for people to stay with iPhone. Yet, for some weird reason, people keep buying the phones.
If I subscribe to the Disney channel, I suspect to not see porn. If I buy Apple, I expect that my privacy is being rigorously protected. For people who want porn or less secure devices, those things are readily available from other vendors. Just become Apple doesn’t sell “porn” doesn’t make them a monopoly. If your local movie theater doesn’t screen porn films, are they being anti-competitive? Are they considered a monopoly? Not allowing porn producers to screen their films at the local movie theater is analogous to Apple not allowing privacy dangerous apps on their store.
What exactly is Apple’s business motivation for not allowing third party spyware but allowing third party music streaming, video streaming, office apps, book stores, etc? When they make money off of their own services in the other areas?
Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
I think the argument is Apple has a little more market dominance (both smart phone hardware and OS) than a single smart tv maker or even Nintendo in the console market.
Keeping the market dominance point in mind, Apple isn’t just deciding what is and isn’t allowed...you had a number of developers with successful apps not just have to contend with a copy cat app created by Apple but because of their control over the marketplace Apple killed their developers apps and took the entire market (rightly or wrongly).
So yeah if you change your facts and the smart tv or Nintendo allowed apps/adult games, saw developers create a market and then the hardware maker launched their own software competitors and disallowed the initial apps/games...there would be blowback.
Would you be okay if apps with the same capabilities were marketed as a way to catch cheating spouses?
If Apple decides they wanted to ban loot boxes in games, would you be opposed to that?
Aren't apps with these same capabilities (and more) being marketed as a way to track and spy on a spouse? (regardless of their fidelity)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
With NYT’s (usual) shallow technical reporting, I can’t tell what the app does. Just like the article for this post. The only reason we on HN suspect that the apps for this article must be using some combination of MDM API’s and a VPN is because we know how iOS works.
But I can always throw the question back at you. How can you on one hand say that it would be okay if this app did do something similar (which I can’t tell) and Apple banned it for privacy reasons but not okay to ban other software that is spyware?
Yes.
>Should Smsrt TV makers be forced to allow any third party app?
Yes.
>What about console makers? Should Nintendo be forced to allow adult oriented games on their platform?
Yes. They do not have to endorse or even promote such games, but they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit such games either.
>Next question. What if this app with the same capabilities - to record the apps and activity used on another phone - was marketed to husbands who suspected their wives were cheating. Would you be okay with that too? Should Apple allow it?
Yes, Apple should allow the app's functionality. The law shouldn't allow such ads or spying on people without their knowledge.
In short, it shouldn't be Apple/Samsung/Nintendo's business what gets run on a device.
You can then install all of the spyware and ransomware that your heart desires.
Therein is the crux of the matter - it ceased to be Apple's phone the moment they sold it.
Were you okay with them banning Facebook’s VPN app that spied on users?
No, I want them to allow it on MY PHONE.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/196170-microsoft-is-fi...
I spend most of the time on my phone on the web, using subscription services that aren’t bought through the App Store, watching tutorial videos that I don’t buy through the App Store, and reading books I bought from the Amazon store.
I also listen to podcast using a third party player.
Have you ever dropped your phone and needed a repair?
The chance of both of those is correlated to how much time you spend on your device.
And of course, your particular use case isn’t driving apples decisions — it’s the aggregate behavior of all its users.
So while you may not buy more apps or services, it is certainly the case that increases in phone use correlate to increases in Apple Eco System generated revenue for Apple.
And you still haven’t answered the other question. How are these third party apps better at controlling usage than Apple’s built in screen time and parental controls?
Repairs are a non-trivial source of revenue and increased usage certainly increases repairs.
But more important are the other examples I gave which you have ignored.
I don’t know how they are better personally, but the author of the article (did you read it?) certain pointed out some examples.
As far as I can tell, your argument is that user phone usage has zero impact on apples revenue, I’m making the opposite case. My sense is that phone usage is correlated with revenue.
Until you do, I think it’s safe to say that your unsubstantiated opinions are just that. Again, can you cite any feature that the third party apps have that Apple didn’t either include recently in the screen time feature or the parental controls that have been there forever?
>> Unlike apps such as OurPact, Apple’s tools don’t allow parents to schedule different times throughout a day when an app is blocked — for school or family dinner. And Apple’s tool blocks adult content only on its Safari web browser and some apps, not on other browsers or many popular apps, like Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. <<
So, in case you missed it, here is what they are saying:
1) ability to set a schedule for blocking apps through out the day.
2) blocking content outside of Safari (in other apps / browsers / etc).
If you set parental limits in settings. Those limits are supported by Chrome. But, if you are trying to limit what sites your kids can browse to, why would you allow them to install the third party browser in the first place? You can set up Family sharing to notify you and when your child tries to install an app and you can approve or reject the approval from your phone.
And if you are that concerned about your child’s well being, why would you install VPN software on their phone that allows a third party to track and record all of the internet activity from your child’s phone?
A VPN app cant block content on a level of granularity that blocks certain videos or twitter accounts.. But if you’re counting on software to block Youtube videos and Twitter, you’re doing it wrong.
You said the article didn’t make any claims as to what features weren’t available so I provided them.
I’m not going to engage in a tangential analysis of those features, but you are welcome to it.
How pray tell is a third party app going to filter only certain YouTube videos and certain Twitter posts? Didn’t you have at least the tiniest bit of suspicion about the article?
You might not agree with the original post, but downvoting me for merely stating what the argument is seems out of the spirit of HN.
What is the financial motivation for Apple wanting you to be on your phone more?
How is Apple’s offering less effective?
As to your other questions, if I use the phone more I’m more likely to buy a new phone, buy more cloud storage, download and buy more apps, generate referral sales by other people seeing me use the product, drop the phone requiring Apple repairs, the list goes on.
Apple wants to develop a deep relationship with their users, so in Nearly every case using the products more is to their benefit.
The more you rely on the products the more free attention you spend in their eco-system, and the more likely you will spend money that they will get a % of.
I think some others have laid out the argument for how the Apple solution is less effective than others, so I’ll let that stand and not rehash it here.
Whether or not this is the actual motivation for Apple is unclear, but the incentives are clear that they’d want you to use your phone vs not using it.
There's a document about this stuff at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Take a look at the third item from the bottom.
Do you really think that people are going to purposefully install an app that keeps them from taking pictures that will cause them to use more cloud storage? Do the third party apps somehow prevent this better than Apples built in controls? You’ve posted twice without giving any details to back up your claims.
Not really - there's a big difference between banning an insecure app when a secure solution has been added to the OS, and banning an app when no secure solution yet exists.
And in the case of Google, it would be different because Google’s business model is all about “targeting” you. Apple’s model is simply to sell you stuff.