Hacker News Reader

Comment by cageface | Hacker News Reader

Because no matter how much you trust Apple's good intentions now you also have to trust them in perpetuity. When you relinquish your own power and agency to a third party it can be very hard to get it back. Maybe you trust Apple and Tim Cook today but do you trust their next CEO and the next?

It's the same reason I don't let Google keep any of my browsing and location history even though I might benefit from that as a user today. I don't trust what they might want to do with that data later.

If you think any billion dollar company is acting in any interests but its own you're being naive.

View on HN

Srsly. For a corporation goodness is an investment in future badness. Like that Pink Floyd song, "Dogs".

Your logic defeats your own argument. If we shouldn't trust billion dollar companies it stands to reason that the fewer few billion dollar companies we trust, the better. If you're already in the iPhone ecosystem, you're already placing a lot of trust in Apple. So using Sign In With Apple means trusting a company that you already trust.

I don't trust any of them. The point is Android gives me an escape hatch. If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service. This isn't possible on an iPhone

”If necessary I can use an Android phone and apps without ever logging into any Google service.”

I don’t think this is actually feasible in practice. I’ve never encountered a real person using a Google-free android device as their daily driver in the wild. I work in security, and actually ask android users I encounter if they are worried about GOOG data collection or whatever. Nobody ever responds with “I’m Google-free”.

You’re still placing a shitload of trust into Google if you’re relying on their binaries to keep your data private.

What data are you talking about? They're explicitly doing this to prevent the ad companies (Google and Facebook) from collecting data.

What data is Apple collecting?

My concern with Apple isn't about collecting data it's about removing choices. I can't sideload apps on my iPhone, even if they might be essential to fighting a totalitarian government (HKMaps). I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone. I can't buy books through the Kindle app without paying Apple a 30% cut.

Honestly this stuff scares me more than the data collection that Google does, for example, because at least I have some control there. And Apple's privacy controls are kind of moot anyway if I use iCloud and all my data is just one subpoena away from anybody that wants it.

> I can't sideload apps on my iPhone

Then don’t buy one. Highly competitive market where you can buy others where this is possible.

Shutting down any conversation of "I'd like to be able to do this with my iPhone" with a condescending "don't buy it, duh" disregards any of the reasons why people might want to buy iPhones (some of which were mentioned in this very thread) and is, IMO, a lazy argument.

worst argument ever. Don't use Google, don't use Facebook, don't buy apple, and finally if you don't like NSA traking your calls leave America, this like it is, just leave if you don't like it... well, nop

So privacy or freedom, pick one.

Just a sidetone about HKMaps - as far as I know it was always available on the mobile web.

There are multiple ways to sideload apps on iOS, with and without a paid developer account, and without having to jailbreak.

With a fairly annoying set of limitations if you don't have a paid account or won't use a jailbreak.

> I can't use any browser but Safari on what is supposedly my phone.

You can use one of a number of browsers on you phone. The browser developers are the ones who are constrained, having to use the WebKit rendering engine—but then, it’s not their phone.

Does the distinction actually matter though? By constraining what developers can provide, you're automatically constraining what users can use, so I don't see how it makes a difference.

Non-WebKit based iOS browsers are zero, and non-Chromium based Android browsers rounds to zero. So I don't think the distinction is very important, if it exists.

It's silly to cast the mobile browser wars in abstract terms, as if JoesOwnWebBrowser is going to be a thing tomorrow. It's Google and Apple, full stop. Google is leveraging their titanic web properties and mobile ecosystem control to push Chrome. Apple is using their control over the iOS ecosystem to retain Safari. The choice is whether the mobile web has two relevant players, or one.

There are other browsers with significant market share on Android, such as UC Browser. The reason they have chosen Chromium as the base is because it is easier for them to build on it, and not because Google enforced it as a policy on Android.

That's an important distinction. Apple's monopolistic practices prevent better software from succeeding on phones, and I'm disappointed that Apple's anti competitive behavior is excused.

Note: UC Browser is a huge privacy threat and please ask friends and family to uninstall it. But the point still stands.

I honestly can't tell if "Android enables better software like UC Browser which is terrible and please ask your friends and family to uninstall it" is satire or in earnest.

That's not what I implied. What's important is the possibility of something better having a shot at success. One could argue that a browser based on Chromium rather than Webkit, could work better for their needs on iOS. Unfortunately that can't happen on iOS.

And here's a real world example: even if v8 was a better runtime for React Native it still wouldn't be allowed into iOS.

> Does the distinction actually matter though?

I think so, yeah. Or at least, the idea that the rendering engine is all that matters for a browser is not something I’d just accept without explanation.

This is simply not true. Other browsers on iOS are nothing but wrappers around a worse webview than Safari.

Perpetually missing web features (PN) so that you are forced to make an app, for obvious reasons.

> but then, it’s not their phone

And apparently it's not your phone either.

Well HKMaps is a bad example. You can get the same functionality from a web browser. If you don’t want to be locked into a vendors platform - create a web app.

Does Amazon allow third party book sellers on their Kindle devices? Again, the open web to the rescue. I can go to Amazon’s store from my browser and buy books.

In fact, I use the Kindle web reader on my iPad when reading books about AWS, because the Kindle app doesn’t allow embedded web links to Amazon (even AWS Informational links).

You can't get the same functionality in a website because Apple has deliberately not supported some web standards like push notifications.

Again you can make the argument that this is to protect users but it also just happens to protect their native app ecosystem.

Thankfully they don’t support web push notifications. What a horrendous standard that’s turned out to be.

Why would it be any better with apps?

I had to uninstall many apps because there was no option to deactivate marketing PNs.

All major mobile platforms let you disable all notifications from apps, sane as website push. Why were you forced to uninstall them to do so?

Because I do want relevant PNs, like a chat message for marketplaces or billing issues, whatever. I couldn't disable something like "offers", "news", "marketing BS".

When I have to turn off PNs completely for an app, there is no reason to have that app installed anymore, I might just use the website.

Ah, so you didn’t “have to” uninstall apps, you simply chose to. I misunderstood your comment and retract my earlier “forced to” question, apologies.

I made a mistake and turned on for Tom’s Hardware - a site that’s I thought was credible. They started spamming me immediately with advertising.

Push notifications only came in handy to keep the battery draining Slack “application” off of my computer.

How is it a bad example when people are using it to fight and evade an oppressive government as we speak?

They did make a web version but it lacks the offline and privacy features of the native app. Apple removing the iOS app is a perfect example of why these big companies can't be trusted with ultimate control.

Local storage has been supported by mobile Safari since day one for offline usage.

How much more privacy did they get by an app that gets information from the internet than a website?

There are massive limits on local storage on Safari. It's nowhere near what you can do with an app. Also apps aren't limited to using HTTPS connections with unsecured DNS.

The best I can tell is that you can safely use around 50Mb for local storage.

https://love2dev.com/blog/what-is-the-service-worker-cache-s...

Given the deal they signed with Radio Shack prohibiting resale of their customer list, I’m inclined to trust them in perpetuity. If they give cause otherwise then I might reconsider, but to date they haven’t.

What are your thoughts on this? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...

I understand and accept that the FBI and other third parties may be able to non-consensually acquire any traffic I send over a network and/or to a third party, using a great many methods including legal summons emplaced against the network and/or third party for the data that I share.

I'm comfortable with that, because I understand the working agreement that exists with my network and third-party services providers (such as Apple), and I understand that they are bound by legal summons in many respects for the data they receive.

Note I don't consider this ideal, and I don't think it's the best possible outcome for society, but I've spent 20 years consciously managing my choices on such matters, ever since DejaNews was founded, and I understand where I stand versus my choices today.

That's FBI spin. Apple's reluctance to drop their own keys for backups is entirely based on the frequency with which they have to recover keys for nontechnical users who have lost their passwords, and you'll note that more and more features are being rolled out in such a way that Apple does not have access.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com