> unapproved software
> unapproved software
> unapproved software
> 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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
The user purchased a device which per the law in most countries gives them the right to use it as they like.
The security of the iPhone comes entirely from the sandbox and not app curation.
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.
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.
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.
“There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users': illegal drugs and software. " — Edward Tufte
Apple is a friend of people who want a curated store.
There are other options for those who don’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This option doesn't open a black hole that suddenly swallows your grandparents.
Where are all the people begging for Google to close this?
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.
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.
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'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.
Do you own an iPhone?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
If you don’t think it is best, nobody is forcing you to trust them.
That is currently your right.
It’s not clear what your complaint is.
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.
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?
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.
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 )
Not sure how that affected elsewhere and IE is still bundled where I live but nevertheless reminiscent.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
People keep trying to say this is about them being denied choice, and yet the choice they say they want is widely available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
You say this like Apple did it at gunpoint. They offered a superior product, and people bought it.
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.
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.
Nobody is forced to interact with them, either as a customer or a supplier.
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.
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.
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 absolutely have a choice. They have one choice if they want access to Apple's customers.
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.
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.
It’s not even remotely ‘needed’ for success.
Here’s a recent darling of HN as an example: https://roamresearch.com/