Hacker News Reader

Comment by yakz | Hacker News Reader

They can build on it... developers have been building on it for years and making money doing it.

Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule.

If your app makes money (directly or indirectly), pay Apple whatever portion of your revenue that Apple demands. I also think that's a pretty clear rule.

If there's something that should obviously be regulated out of existence, it's allowing them to use terms like "buy", "own", etc. for platforms that you clearly do not control. You are renting the software and the device just comes with it.

View on HN

But its absolutely not true that this is enforced consistently. My iPhone currently contains three full programming language interpreters from the App Store---one for JavaScript, one for Python, and one for Clojurescript. I know one of those can make arbitrary network requests because I've done it, and I think the other two can as well.

So how is that different from iSH? Apple has approved a bunch of apps that can go get third party code and run it.

I think JavaScript/Clojurescript is the exception because they control the runtime and JIT: whether or not you buy their explanation, I think the reason they state is that this is to enable sandboxing. This is at least plausible to me: to have effective sandboxing, you need to restrict the APIs that a device can call, which means blocking the ability to generate and run arbitrary machine code on-device.

> This is at least plausible to me: to have effective sandboxing, you need to restrict the APIs that a device can call, which means blocking the ability to generate and run arbitrary machine code on-device.

This isn't true. You can sandbox arbitrary machine code by restricting the process it runs in (this is how seccomp works on Linux).

> to have effective sandboxing, you need to restrict the APIs that a device can call, which means blocking the ability to generate and run arbitrary machine code on-device.

Please, no, this is not how security and sandboxing works at all. Otherwise, the moment you have an arbitrary code vulnerability, you'd get full access to everything.

The way effective sandboxing works is by giving a process a set of capabilities/permissions, what have you, that is enforced by the kernel. Those permissions can be "can I open files", "can I talk to the camera subsystem", etc. Then, even if you somehow manage to generate the right function call at runtime, the call will fail. And to be clear, this is how apple's own security works.

Wouldn’t you have this as part of a defense in depth strategy? Apple’s public vs. private APIs and similar things seem to indicate that at least part of their security model involves static analysis of binaries and only allowing a set of approved APIs.

Apple's static analysis to detect private API usage is not very clever; you can get around it with some fairly trivial tricks.

No, it's not a security mechanism period. Public/Private APIs aren't part of the security model, it's a way to prevent app breakage in their ecosystem due to applications using unstable APIs.

But iSH isn’t running arbitrary machine code, it’s a x86 emulator running Linux inside. It’s more sandboxed than a JS runtime, which actually does compile down to machine code.

It really isn't. You can definitely download code into Scriptable and Pythonista, although I don't think they have package managers.

You've just said it. The difference is the package management. What Apple is defending here is the notion of a store around apps/containers. Apple does not want to provide leaks/wedges into other app ecosystems through native apps. Safari is the only way.

Not out-of-the-box, but users have created scripts that bootstrap package managers into those apps similarly to how iSH users have.

This is a wall I have hit with App Review quite a few times

You have to stop viewing the apps from a technical perspective. App Review is _intentionally_ non-technical, as frustrating as that is for us developers. They enforce App Store policy from a non-technical standpoint

I produce an app which can download and run code, and was rejected many times through App Review. I was able to point to many other apps which _technically_ also downloaded and ran code — but the difference, to App Review, was entirely in the appearance (my code was text based, it "looked like code" and not like Scratch's visual programming, or nodes, or whatever)

I disagree with the App Review decision in this instance, but I think they are enforcing policy consistently. It just looks random to those of us with enough technical experience to look past the visuals and to the implementation

We'd be happy to include your experiences when we talk to Apple about 2.5.2 if you'd like to share them with us. (I work on iSH, so you can either use the email on my profile or any of the other ways to contact the iSH team.)

Stop defending Apple and their shitty behavior.

> unapproved software

How is it 2020 and we're okay with this phrase? What the hell happened?

Apple is an enemy of computing and the DOJ needs to break them up.

No. You just need to not buy an Apple product.

Apple is a friend of people who want a curated store.

There are other options for those who don’t.

> You just need to not buy an Apple product.

Consumer behavior won't change Apple. We need the strong arm of the DOJ to tell Apple not to do this.

> Apple is a friend

Apple is not a friend of anybody. They're a for-profit company.

I’m not suggesting consumer behavior should change Apple.

I’m suggesting that consumers should buy a product that that suits their needs.

If you need alternate stores - buy Android.

There is no reason at all for Apple to be forced to do anything.

> There is no reason at all for Apple to be forced to do anything.

Apple impacts businesses, consumers, engineers - multiple industries - with their bad behavior.

Apple has an illegal platform and it must be regulated. They've captured 50% of the United States computing market and illegally inserted themselves as middleman into every transaction, every software install. They punish everyone trying to do business and make engineers dance through flaming hoops.

Apple has become their own banana republic. Anticompetitive and illegal.

> Apple impacts businesses, consumers, engineers - multiple industries - with their bad behavior

Unfortunately the alternative is letting businesses and engineers impact the life of their own customers negatively.

Developers had way too much power to screw up users for years, and they did: spying and tracking behind our backs. Mandatory rootkits [1]. Piracy Protection and DRM that did way more than advertised and caused nuisance for paying customers. Rootkits on music albums. Apple has fixed or is trying to fix most of those.

If government wants to step up to regulate developers, small or big, maybe it's fine. But until then then Apple has provided the best solution to toxic developers.

Sure you can say "you can't just not install the app from the toxic developer", but then why isn't it ok to use the "you can just not buy an iPhone" argument?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25030660

I agree with you except that I believe that there is a third alternative.

All the safety issues that are solved by Apple’s approach could be solved by some combination of open source and or open source development, in an open way that does away with the single gatekeeper.

That would be better than either Apple or the Government controlling software distribution.

This is such a red herring!

It's just as easy to firewall your platform and prevent trackers. Open installation and privacy are not mutually exclusive.

The browser is a firewalled platform. Look at what Mozilla can do for privacy on their shoestring budget.

Apple likes it the way they have it. You cannot tell me the DOJ can't force them to open their platform and suddenly every Apple user is stuck on 90's era Windows. This is not how it works.

A firewall partially "fixes" part of the spying/tracking, but doesn't solve any of the other issues I pointed, especially concerning forced installation of software that screws up with my machine.

Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back. It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests.

Please read the linked reply. It was a real issue, not an hypothetical. Installing software required by my bank REALLY screwed up my computer in the past, and I didn't really have a choice.

To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank.

> It's my computer, it's a developer's sacred right to have any kind of code that acts against my interests.

Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented.

> Also, the fact I use a firewall doesn't excuse developers from being assholes and spying/tracking me behind my back.

A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about.

> To copy the argument used by Apple supporters, you can choose another bank.

Not really. I needed to be a customer of the specific bank to receive my salary. Luckily, this changed many year ago after government intervention, though. Now you're allowed to have an account in a bank other than the one chosen by your company. The problem is that every other bank still has the same requirement.

And my father still needs to be a customer of a specific bank to use government-backed credit for small companies that was best for him. There was nothing in the contract about Diebold controlling every single bit coming in or out of his computer.

> Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented.

It's still not a sacred right of developers to fuck with my computer or threaten my ability to conduct business. My computer is my property, not yours or any other developers. Having asshole developers out of this zone is great for me.

I'm not saying what we have is perfect. I want more freedom, but only for myself and for other users. What I don't want is this freedom to be abused by third-parties, so that I and other users are the mercy of asshole developers, which seem to be the majority in 2020. Freedom is difficult when it comes to closed source software.

> A sandbox will protect you from everything you claim to be worried about.

Still doesn't excuse it, nor completely fixes it.

And I tried everything and couldn't find anything that works with Warsaw by Diebold, other than buying Apple stuff. If you have suggestions I'm all ears.

> Apple has created an exclusionary economic zone and put 50% of Americans in it. This is unprecedented.

You say this like Apple did it at gunpoint. They offered a superior product, and people bought it.

A lot of the anti-Apple arguments I see here seem to have an element of ideological fixation. IMO the practicalities of the real world are always more involved than an ideological black/white distinction, and just as you said here there are always tradeoffs on different fronts. Openness instead of a walled garden is nice, but how far can you go with it? If you think about it, every company is essentially a plutocratic organization or even somehow military-like, where most important decisions are made by the few elites at the top and passed down, and people are quite fine with it.

Of course the argument here seems to be that Apple is gradually becoming an almost "public good", while if you're unhappy with a company you're working at, you can switch. But then again if there are better alternatives to Apple, nothing theoretically prevents the users from switching. I have been using Android since forever but this year I'm switching to iPhone. The touted "freedom" simply is not evident in most scenarios during my daily phone usage, and I'm fed up with a lot of downsides of Android (ironically, it's hard to think that being tracked by countless potentially malicious apps offers you more "freedom" than living in Apple's ecosystem), also Google is not known to be exactly friendly to developers either and it can be even more Kafka-esque to appeal a ban, apparently.

To maintain the standards of a system, sometimes the maintainer has to get hard, and this would result in them occasionally cracking down on false positives. Still, it's similar to how a society cannot function without an actual enforcer of rules, which is the police. As long as there is a mechanism/will to redress the false positives, it's much better than a system where there's no control at all. Of course, if you say you're a hardcore libertarian and are fine with living in a society without any policing and would rather protect your own interests yourself, no problem and you can always go with the most liberal phone OS out there. But most societies can't realistically function that way nor do most people wish it that way. The app ecosystem is similar in this sense.

There is a misunderstanding of market will choose the best competitor. A competition in of itself is not fair, it needs heavy regulation to become fair - like a running contest could be won by anyone if they were to shoot the other contenders. And this is what happens in unregulated markets - we’ve got an oligopoly, with a really high bar to enter - basically impossible for a newcomer (note that even Microsoft failed to enter it). So there should absolutely be some government regulation to make it fair - and it is not overreach. It is simply no longer Apple’s decision, since it is practically a public service in part, as you noted.

This is simply false.

Newcomers enter the phone market all the time.

What we don’t have is an adequately developed alternative OS that can appeal to regular users yet.

Microsoft failed because they have their own legacy to protect.

Google is compromised by their need to maintain their position in search.

There are plenty of Linux phone projects.

The only reason none of these are a good replacement yet is a lack of time and investment.

iOS didn’t just appear out of thin air - it took more than a decade to develop.

It’s easier than ever now to develop an alternative.

People who are focussing on forcing Apple to install alternative stores are by definition not interested in an alternative platform.

If they were, they would be investing in building one.

They just want access to Apple’s customer base.

That’s all there is to this.

You forget about the splitting of developers were a new project to emerge.

Microsoft failed, partly because it was as of yet not a big enough platform to target by other developers - they have enought things to do with android and apple. A new platform can’t emerge unless there is some incentive for developers to target it. Linux phones are in a special circumstance, because apps are developer for them out of a hobby. But phones are a main social device, you can’t have one that doesn’t have your bank’s app on it for example. Linux phones must emulate android (and it is sort of working, fortunately) to remain afloat.

Most online banking can be done just fine via a browser.

But ultimately you are right - there does have to be some incentive for people to support the platform.

People here are claiming that freedom from Apple is a huge incentive for developers.

Is that not correct?

The AppStore has every right to publish only apps they deem rightfull - so there would be absolutely no change there. Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to - that is I should be able to sideload anything, make it an alternative app store or a simple app.

They are even free to hide that option from regular users so the security of them won’t be harmed - they can’t install malware with 2 clicks because there will be 4 apple prompts explaining why it’s a bad idea. But I get to install a prog language interpreter or a proper browser - so win-win (other than apple’s profits, but I couldn’t care less)

> Yet, apple should not be able to disallow me from using my device in any way I want to

And my point is that random application developers should not disallow me from using my device in any way I want to, nor they should be allowed to make my device work against my interests.

So far, as a user, for the last 25 years, Apple has not disallowed me as much as random developers have, and in fact Apple has fought that fight on my behalf.

What Apple is doing by limiting developers powers is 100% in my interest since I don't care about developers that are hostile to me.

I 100% agree that I should be able to run what I want, but the other side of the story matters too. Maybe there's a technical solution? Maybe if everything was open source? Maybe better sandbox/firewalls?

I don’t see how allowing sideloading wouldn’t be a solution for both sides.

It doesn’t explain why if sideloading is what people want, they don’t just buy Android.

People keep trying to say this is about them being denied choice, and yet the choice they say they want is widely available.

>They've become their own banana republic.

It's insane that you would compare selling a superior product on a largely free market, to a CIA-backed coup of a foreign independent nation. Can you please point to me to the people Apple murdered to capture their market? This is some incredible anti-Apple rhetoric.

Meanwhile, in our currently implemented "open" platform you have engineers running amok with the personal data of millions of Americans.

Apple doesn’t impact anyone who doesn’t choose to be impacted.

Nobody is forced to interact with them, either as a customer or a supplier.

I've got a video streaming service. What the hell else am I going to do?

I don't want to deal with Apple and their draconian rules. They translate to "you're small peanuts not worth our time" or "you're not paying us enough".

Apple does not deserve to control all economic activity reaching 50% of Americans. Only the government gets to do that. Last I checked, Tim Cook is not in the Treasury department.

This is the company that cares more about dollars than the lives of Belarusian protestors. I do not want to deal with these thugs. It's insulting, degrading, and costs people their livelihoods.

Apple doesn’t control ‘all economic activity reaching 50% of Americans’.

You might change your view if you had correct facts. This is wrong on two counts. Firstly the amount of economic activity through the App Store is a tiny fraction of what you claim, and secondly Apple doesn’t control it because there are alternatives.

There are many avenues for delivering your streaming service.

You can deliver it via the desktop.

You can deliver it via the web.

You can sell cheap streaming boxes based on raspberry pi grade hardware.

You can create a storefront on Android.

You can deliver individual titles as apps through the App Store store.

There are plenty of options.

> If you need alternate stores - buy Android.

And when Google decides to stop allowing that, then what?

There's a duopoly and history suggests that when one can get away with rent seeking the other will follow.

If we continue to allow this behavior now then we guarantee it'll continue on the future.

This is exactly what happened with the 30%. Google did it because Apple had set the standard. They didn't do it because they did the math and came the exact same conclusion as Apple ina vacuum.

If Google decides to do that, then you might have an argument.

Google has a great incentive not to do it, which is that if they do it there would be a real argument for software distribution. to be regulated by the government.

But until they do, there isn’t.

Can you explain how this is an example of rent seeking? I can see how it is of profit seeking, but how is offering a product, services, and platform rent seeking?

It'd be rent seeking if Apple wasn't making the platform better for developers.

Which they obviously are.

Some developers may disagree with Apple’s strategy, but it’s obvious that they are investing in technologies that support developers, and continue to reach more customers - which also makes the platform better for developers.

> I’m suggesting that consumers should buy a product that that suits their needs.

It's cute you think this is why people buy things.

Also, you're completely missing the point here. Developers have no choice but to developer for Apple and that means that whatever Apple says, Apple gets. That's called bullying, at the very least, and I'm not alone in asserting that it extends into behavior that should at least be regulated.

Mind you, the only reason I think so is that their user base exceeds 1 billion users. There's a public interest in things when numbers are that big. If we were talking about some company with only a million users, the case would be much weaker.

> Developers have no choice but to developer for Apple and that means that whatever Apple says, Apple gets.

Developers absolutely have a choice. They have one choice if they want access to Apple's customers.

I think it's widely recognized that Sophie's Choice is not a choice.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with Nazi’s or concentration camps.

This just has to do with wanting to sell your apps to more people from the developer side, or wishing Google would use better materials to make their phones from the user side.

Let’s be honest here.

It has to do with needing, not wanting, access to a sufficiently large market to have even a remote chance of success.

Can you imagine anyone who wanted to make an app now, without publishing on either the Google Play Store or the App Store "in protest"? That's the option you're giving them. "Ask for more gruel or fail" and you're calling that a choice. Lets be honest here, indeed.

You know perfectly well what I meant and refused to touch the point.

A lot of successful software is not sold via app stores.

It’s not even remotely ‘needed’ for success.

Here’s a recent darling of HN as an example: https://roamresearch.com/

> people who want a curated store

This is a straw man.

Support allowing users to add alternate stores on iOS devices.

Having one choice is not freedom. And it has nothing to do with curration. If Apple's model is superior, then their app store will win against fair competition.

It’s not a straw man.

I don’t want my non-technical family members being persuaded to install other stores.

It is absolutely a feature, and a beneficial one at that, which many people want.

As for Apple allowing people to install other stores - why should they? Why not just buy an Android phone if you want that feature.

> I don’t want my non-technical family members being persuaded to install other stores.

Frankly, that's not your decision to make.

If they own the device, they get to decide. If they don't or are too young, then you can use various controls (i.e parental controls) to lock your devices down the way you want.

This is a straw man.

It’s absolutely my decision by to make if they ask me to recommend something to them. Especially if they have been having problems with malware and that’s why they are asking.

If they own the device they get to use it as it was designed to be used.

They also have the legal right to change it themselves (at least in the US).

What you don’t have is any basis for forcing Apple to design software the way you want, or to force my family members not to be able to follow my recommendation to choose iOS as Apple wants to offer it to them.

That’s between them and Apple and me.

What right do have to dictate how any of these three parties choose to interact?

There is no straw man.

You can't make that decision for me and millions of others.

You're voting to make our industry inequitable and running software some Orwellian dystopia.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple one day mandated that we hand them the copyright to the code we write. We're one step away from that now: we already have to write against a strict spec, fit all the rules, and are subject to arbitrary dismissal. They take 30% and leave us the crumbs. The appeals process is unfair. If Apple likes what you've got, they can just clone your app. One step away.

We're in prison and you're rationalizing about your parents.

Are you an iOS developer?

Do you own an iPhone?

Irrelevant.

Not at all.

The commenter claims to be imprisoned by Apple.

If that’s true, I want to understand how they got that way.

If it’s not true, then their entire argument is questionable.

2020, the new battle ground is now on how to define the term Straw man.

I am sorry this is completely off topic. But it is quite funny I notice the word suddenly gained usage, ( especially in any political debate ) and it is now sort of misused and misapplied all over the place.

( Not suggesting your or your GP are right or wrong in using the term )

There's a pretty clear reason for passing legislation to force Apple to allow third party stores, and I think it has been explained well in the parent comments: some people believe users should control their devices. There are also pretty clear reasons for not doing so: other people believe Apple should control its devices.

Politicians can legislate things. They already get to dictate how parties interact. I'm not sure how rights come into it, since they wouldn't be breaching any of your rights that I can think of.

This is not an accurate representation of reality.

Users simply cannot control their devices. No individual can no matter how skilled. Software complexity moved past that point decades ago.

All we can actually do is choose who to trust when we acquire software.

Nobody is forced to choose or trust Apple, but many do.

Since choices exist for people who want to decide for themselves who they trust to provide software, the argument cannot be about that.

The people who argue that Apple should be forced to allow third party stores are only interested in the potential commercial gain they could make if they had access to Apple’s customers.

They just want access to the customers so they can make money out of them.

That is all this argument is about and all it has ever been about.

Of course users can control their device. Control doesn't mean assembly programming, control means to decide how they want to use it. I am not a car mechanic, I won't approach my car with a tool. Still I control my car as I can drive it to any workshop of my choice to have changes done. The car manufacturer has no say in this.

You can take your phone to anyone you like and have them make whatever changes you pay for.

That is currently your right.

It’s not clear what your complaint is.

Whom can I pay for to install something like Termux on my iPad? Apple not only forbids third-parties from offering such a service via the App Store, they also do their best to prevent this by any other path. That they are not 100% successful (jailbreaks) doesn't mean the situation is anyhow comparable to cars, where there is a wide ecosystem of 3rd party support for customization.

There are engineers who can do it for you if you are willing to pay.

If you want easier customization buy Android. That is one of the selling points.

Not all cars are engineered to be cheap to customize easily.

You are detracting from the point. The point isn't that there is exactly one alternative, which is somewhat more customizable, the point is that Apple makes it willfully difficult to customize. This is not equal to cars.

Apple doesn’t make it willfully different to customize.

They make it willfully difficult to compromise it.

It’s not equal to cars, because cars aren’t software and are not vulnerable to the many attacks that phones are.

It seems like you want a more customizable device and are happy to accept the risks.

Why buy an iPhone if it isn’t what you want?

No they make it willfully difficult to customize. Installing applications is not compromising. And stop with strawmen like "Why buy an iPhone if it isn’t what you want? ". The discussion is about the freedom any buyer of any product should have. Fundamental customer rights.

Customers do have the freedom you claim.

Installing Apps can definitely be compromising: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_horse_(computing)

Perhaps you should brush up on computer security.

Just because it’s hard to modify an incredibly complex piece of microelectronics and a huge software base doesn’t mean you don’t have the right.

What you are asking for has nothing to do with freedom.

It has to do with you wanting to force Apple to design their product differently to support your individual desires.

I’m correct to point out that for someone like you, a choice is already available.

My car displays speed in kph and has no option to display it in mph. How do I get that changed?

> The people who argue that Apple should be forced to allow third party stores are only interested in the potential commercial gain they could make if they had access to Apple’s customers.

> They just want access to the customers so they can make money out of them.

> That is all this argument is about and all it has ever been about.

And this is not an accurate representation of reality. I have zero professional or financial connection to software development, but I still want Apple to allow third-party stores or at least third-party installs so I can do the things on my phone that I want to that Apple says no to. I want to play games on an emulator, I want to stream video games (e.g. xCloud) without downloading individual wrapper apps for each game or attempting to play through Safari, I want to use proper browser engines other than Safari and hopefully have proper uncrippled PWA support, I want to run interpreters/compilers/shells like iSH, I want to play adult games, etc.

What I find even more abhorrent is the notion that because you bought an Apple product that you belong solely to Apple when it comes to anything in regards to that device. I'm a consumer/customer period, not Apple's customer. I bought the phone because of the hardware quality and that should be the end of the transaction.

You can do anything you want to with your own phone.

The law allows you to hack on it in any way you like.

What you are saying is that you don’t have the capacity to make the phone do what you want.

You want Apple to do that work, and you want the government to force them to do it for you.

That is not the same thing.

You didn’t have to buy it if it didn’t do what you wanted.

Are you claiming you didn’t know it was locked down before you bought it?

No. The work has already been done for all those things I want, I just can't utilize any of it. I don't want Apple to do anything other than allow me to install apps outside of the App Store and without the bullshit 7-day restriction on sideloading.

I know what I bought and iPhones are still the best option for my use case despite the limitations. Just because I decided to purchase an iPhone from the limited options (Android or nothing), doesn't mean I have to be head-over-heels in love with it and I can still be unhappy with certain aspects of it. I can still desire improvements to what I consider the best available option.

You can continue to try to do mental gymnastics and twist the contexts here, but you're bending over backwards to let Apple bend you over.

What's even more frustratingly absurd is that you think that you can "hack" your iPhone without going through Apple. The only way to do that is purchasing a Mac for around $1k and to get over the previously mentioned bullshit 7-day restriction is a $99/yr developer account.

You can hack your phone by jailbreaking without paying anything to Apple.

I don’t have any problem with you being unhappy with Apple for not building what you want. The iPhone is pretty far from what I want too.

What I dispute is that they should be forced to build something for you, or that there is any ‘should’ about this. I want an open device too, and would prefer such a device to the iPhone, however I don’t want Apple to be forced to make one for me.

There are no gymnastics going on here. Apple’s software is not designed to make it easy for you to customize the way you would like. Nobody disputes that.

What I dispute is the use of the government to force them to change their designs, especially since we have alternatives to choose from and can contribute to them if we so desire.

> All we can actually do is choose who to trust when we acquire software.

Right, but when you buy an iPhone Apple says that they are the only people you can trust. The argument is that this isn't necessarily the best scenario.

Many people think it is best for them.

If you don’t think it is best, nobody is forcing you to trust them.

This isn't straw man. It's been used twice in this thread incorrectly.

Frankly, it's also my families decision to use Facebook, and they have the freedom to use it, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to discourage them from using the platform. Just because that's their decision doesn't mean they are properly informed about their technical decisions or understand the impact. If absolute distribution freedom was a major concern for them I'd tell them to buy Androids.

Reminds me of the browser wars, and how Microsoft handled the threat of euro antitrust fines: https://phys.org/news/2009-07-eu-microsoft-unbundle-explorer...

Not sure how that affected elsewhere and IE is still bundled where I live but nevertheless reminiscent.

> I don’t want my non-technical family members being persuaded to install other stores.

On Android this isn't an issue, you leave sideloading disabled. Apple could use the same method. Apple could even make you use XCode to unlock the ability. But locking it entirely is obnoxious.

Bingo!

This option doesn't open a black hole that suddenly swallows your grandparents.

Where are all the people begging for Google to close this?

They bought iPhones.

Nobody bought an iPhone because of this retriction. Most people buy iPhones for fashion. There are very few people who have been duped into buying iPhones because of the security and privacy marketing that doesn't hold up to the barest scrutiny — most iPhone users simply don't care about that aspect of Apple's marketing.

iPhones, I don't know, but offering iPads to parents/grandparents because of this restriction? Yes, I know many...

> Apple could even make you use XCode to unlock the ability. But locking it entirely is obnoxious.

Wow. That is actually a really elegant solution to that problem. Well done.

The only way I would change it would be to walk it a little away from Xcode, and have it be through an official tool for Mac/Linux/Windows, and possibly open source it so it could be ported to BSD/whatever else by the community.

That has it's own issues though, and I don't know that it would actually be better, it's just where I would draw the line.

I disagree that this is a straw man. Apple has been consistent for _years_ on this issue -- they clearly believe that choosing the Apple ecosystem is synonymous with choosing to only be able to run code that has been reviewed (theoretically) by the app store team. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then it is a duck.

> How is it 2020 and we're okay with this phrase? What the hell happened?

Shareholders happened, that's why.

The lines between company and customers are blurred, giving perverse incentives to defend company practices that wouldn't fly if there were a clear distinction.

>The lines between company and customers are blurred...

“There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users': illegal drugs and software. " — Edward Tufte

Why did you quote that 4 times?

We're OK with the phrase because the alternative was people's phones being infested with malware and viruses.

It's pretty obvious that's what happened. Apple built a phone you can let your whole family use without worries. Why are you confused by this?

If computing is your goal, then an iPhone is obviously not the device for you. Fortunately for you, there are tons of other platforms for computing.

Multiple app stores are no less secure than singular app stores everything else being the same.

Plenty of people aren't okay with Apple's actions but there aren't exactly great alternatives.

Nothing is stopping Apple from allowing other stores other than control and in app purchase profits.

I think this construction is not so simple.

How would Apple let other app stores and make sure they are secure?

Will they review apps stores? Will it be rules for what an app store should do? If so, the is this the kind of app stores that people want as alternatives: app stores which follow Apple rules?

If Apple will not review app stores and let them be installed than how are they secure? What stops a malware to be presented as an alternative store and then allow installation of a messenger while saving user and password from users?

Hmm, like disallow them in the AppStore but allow sideloading apps, even an alternative app store - and then put a large banner that it is insecure blabla that the user can ignore if he/she so chooses. Or allow it only with some developer mode for which a user would have to touch something n times , like it is on Android. So those who don’t know what is it all about can stay in their walled garden, while the rest can use their goddamn 1000 dollar phone the way they want

Who says Apple has to vet anything.

The user purchased a device which per the law in most countries gives them the right to use it as they like.

> We're OK with the phrase because the alternative was people's phones being infested with malware and viruses.

Exactly! Next, I hope Apple will apply the same curation and registration requirements to websites if they want to be browse-able on Safari. Internet is a dark place full of scams, fake news, and privacy pitfalls. It's time to replace the open web with a curated premium web. /s

The Apple store does not replace any open standards, it is merely an alternative. Apple cannot and does not you from using or paying for open hardware and software.

When a market becomes a requirement for society to operate it no longer is allowed to hide behind that veil. It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the issue at hand and instead excuse it with a "well no one forces you". Markets are a force that shape how people can live.

This market became a “requirement” (which is a bit BS since Android ecosystem is still much larger than iOS, but anyhow...) because people voted for this system consistently over many years (again and again). They voted with their wallets for it when the iPhone was a tiny newborn dream and RIM/Nokia were king, they continued to vote for it year on year after Android was released, and they are still voting for it... as is.

With this in mind: It’s arguably also intellectually dishonest to pretend that we all woke up today in some kind of “iOS only world” and should now regulate it. a) It’s not, and b) you would be killing the very thing that made everyone want this ecosystem in the first place.

If all the “regulate them!” and “open the store!” people win, then history says most will eventually move on to a new ecosystem that works like the old one (which people evidently like). Android has been open the whole time and the money gravitates away from it... If highly regulated and fully open phones worked so well then iOS would be a footnote in history books, and not the powerhouse that you want to squash.

That's black and white argument. Products change markets over time, not instantly. There does not have to be a singular event.

"Voting with your wallet" entirely ignores what actual voting is. Whatever the original reason no longer applies, now the devices are an expectation for livelihood, safety, and overall communication. It becomes a public problem.

Having two choices is not choice. Google deserves the same regulation apple does. Real choice would be dozens of competitive and entirely independent choices. The nature of markets of scale prevent this from happening.

Yet despite this, more Apple users have been infected with malware (Xcodeghost) than users of Amazon and Google Android devices combined, despite there being far more Amazon and Google Android users than Apple users.

I'm not sure that's true... Xcodeghost was a single attack that affected ~4000 apps and got it contained comparatively quickly, whereas Android devices get infected with virus-laden with quite regularly.

https://www.androidcentral.com/nearly-impossible-remove-andr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/07/10/25-mi...

https://in.pcmag.com/security/138196/android-users-need-to-m...

https://www.foolproofme.org/articles/169-over-1-million-andr...

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-malicious-apps-infect-million-...

And this is just five articles I found from a superficial search.

Now don't get me wrong. I absolutely abhor the Apple's App Store and their overzealous security policies, but they work. I just don't think they're necessary to keep our devices safe.

Xcodeghost alone infected hundreds of millions of people (including all Wechat users). Let's add up your examples.

The first one infected a few thousand. The second one spread on Chinese phones, not Google or Amazon phones. The third infected about 120k users. The fourth infected 1 million users. The fifth infected 10 million users.

So the Apple App Store infected at least an order of magnitude more users despite having an order of magnitude fewer users total. Why at least? Apple does not allow third party security apps on its devices, so there are likely to be way more infections that we just haven't heard of.

>> the alternative was people's phones being infested with malware and viruses.

That's a very weak argument. Actually this is a part of Apple's marketing for ignorant people.

I have been using various Linux distros and Android phones for years and never got a malware and virus because: - I install software from trusted sources or compile from the source - I keep SW, OS and kernels up-to-date - It is getting harder and harder to exploit modern systems thanks to improved sandboxes in browsers, namespaces, ASLR and other techs

What people just need is a bit of training on how to use a computer. They don't need Apple.

No matter how I count, I see only two viable platforms for everyday use in a mobile device. Please enlighten me with the other options (and yeah, I do know about pinephones, and I even own one, but it needs quite a bit of love (not talking about it having an inferior hardware - since I would like to use my phone as a portable camera as well))

There's still malware on the app store, Apple only removes things that look like malware. They don't instrument the code during reviews.

The security of the iPhone comes entirely from the sandbox and not app curation.

If people want Apple to treat them like children, why should we stop them? I'm not being sarcastic — there may be good reasons we don't want Apple to coddle the public, but I have yet to see them.

Absolutely.

As much as I dislike Apple, their ecosystem works for them and their users. Unfortunately the general public isn't aware of the restrictions imposed on them until it matters, like when their screen is broken and they can't pay $$$ for a first party repair.

We need regulation coining and enforcing accurate terminology for the relationship between vendors like Apple and Tesla, and their users. It's not ownership. If I can't run whatever software I want on hardware that I paid for, I don't own the hardware.

Can you imagine if your mattress didn't work with third party bed frames? Or pillows?

This is something that should definitely be discussed a lot more. And in defining this new relationship we should also define the responsibilities of the parties. Like for example who is responsible for recycling. I believe such a relationship is fine as long as it is not confused with traditional ownership.

Of course their ecosystem works for their users, those of us it doesn't work for have left.

We are just encouraging the rest of you who actually enjoy computers to leave too, and warning app developers to avoid that platform if your app is actually interesting or if a lot of people's careers ride on it, since who knows what apple may decide is not acceptable in the future.

I'm sitting here as a developer, contemplating if my next phone should be an iPhone or Android - and this is the gist of what I think:

- If I buy an Apple I buy into this developer unfriendly ecosystem with a big gatekeeper.

- If I buy an Android I pay with all my privacy, on top of that Google is also a big bully to small app developers.

- Besides Google or Apple, what choices are there?

How do you pay with privacy if you get an Android phone? On an Android phone, you get to choose which SMS app you use, which means neither Apple nor anyone else sees who you are messaging in order to check if you're messaging an iMessage user. You get to install apps on your device without telling anybody. You get to develop apps for your own device without giving your banking details to anybody. You can find your location without sending your location to Apple or anybody else. None of those are possible on iOS. Freedom and privacy go hand in hsnd.

> Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule.

Is it? Apple can one day decide that a web page with JavaScript loading in an app is “unapproved software.” And now your entire app/business is in jeopardy.

And what about apps like Reddit and Imgur that host tons of NSFW content, yet are allowed to be published in the App Store?

Apple has more blurred lines than Robin Thicke.

"Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule."

This is a non sequitur.

"Don't do things that are not 'approved' even though 'approvals' are to a great extent, arbitrary"

Apple shifts their interpretation of rules all the time, more problematically, they literally change the rules themselves, and can do so at any time.

They will continue to push and try to eat into other business models to the extent they have the power to do so.

If Apple could interpret or change their rules so as to take a 30% cut of Uber's business - they would. They only reason they don't, is because they don't have enough power to do so. Yet.

This 'just follow the law' rhetoric reminds me of some other kind of populism ...

They make an app (JavaScript engine, actually) that runs unapproved software. It's embedded in Safari.

Apple has said from the beginning that apps that don't meet App Store TOS should be moved to the web.

I’d love to see Apple support an Xcode on iOS devices - and have it provide the runtime things like iSH could rely upon. In one fell swoop they could control the code people can run while also making the systems that much more replacements for traditional devices.

> Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule.

If you think curl or wget are evil unapproved software I don't see how presenting a rational argument as a counterpoint could possibly be of any benefit. Sometimes I forget that people with such opinions actually exist.

This is almost literally like the people I've seen freak out about seeing someone do complex things from the command line in a public place (coffee shop, etc) and jump to the wildly wrong conclusion that something was being "hacked".

I don’t think folks think that wget or curl are evil. It just seems pretty obvious that this kind of app would be forbidden by Apple. Which sucks, but I don’t think it’s surprising.

You already pay $99 / year for being on their app store

'Run unapproved software'. What's the difference between asking a calculator to add 1 to 2, and asking a scripting engine to add a to b?

It'll take you a lot longer to violate intellectual property law with the stock calculator.

I guess it depends on definitions - you can just type in the AACS number if the calculator has enough digits.

Were one so inclined, anyone comfortable with embedded programming and electronics could make an arbitrary calculator perform the critical decryption calculation.

It would be slow as hell, but it's proof of the underlying theme: attempting to ban general purpose computing is insane.

You just reminded me of the "Airport Manager of Conscious Perceptions" from that Onion news story about Franz Kafka International Airport.

I hear his voice in my head when I read your comment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEyFH-a-XoQ

Just because token developers are succeeding does not mean that the app store serves any general purpose unless that general purpose is "make the proprietor of the app store rich".

Agreed. Nothing wrong with such business model, other than the deception.

> Don't make an app that allows users to run unapproved software. I think that's a pretty clear rule.

Translation: don’t make an app that put users in control of their own devices.

I’m sorry, but I take issue with such user-hostile behaviour.

Then don’t buy their products?

The issue is whether the App Store restrictions are arbitrary and constantly shifting, and that has been consistent basically since Apple started allowing third party software on iOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com