Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

If my app were to do something nefarious, my developer ID would get revoked and that would be the end of that.

Sure, but this strikes me as naïve. It can take less than being nefarious to get booted off of a service (like having an Apple developer ID) like having a corporation or government agency filing a potentially unfounded complaint against you (as we've seen with YouTube videos and, this very week, Jotform's Web site.)

The problem I have with Gatekeeper isn't in the pleasant, straightforward scenario Apple wraps into its copy. The problem is giving a corporation direct control over whose apps can and cannot work on a computer by default is a set up for some depressing abuse stories that can only be rectified by turning off security or performing UI acrobatics.

View on HN

The problem with your comparison is that the stakeholders of SOPA/PIPA are people who want to screw you. They don't care about your experience they want to make the most possible money off you.

I'd argue that to Apple the consumers are their stakeholders. They want to do everything in their power to make the user's experience better.

If we see Apple pulling apps of honest hard working people then I'll eat crow but in the five years of the iOS App Store how many horror stories do we have (if any)?

I will continue to give Apple the benefit of the doubt until they do something to make me question. So far I've never been inconvienced and only had a better computing experience since I got my Mac and my iPhone. That is why I, and many other people, will continue to use their products.

There are stories. Some of the recent ones:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/03/ataris_legal_t... http://mashable.com/2011/12/12/apple-pulls-app/ http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/01/process-killer-app-that-a... http://www.neoos.ch/blog/30-quickpick-pulled-from-app-store-... http://lifehacker.com/5614752/grooveshark-iphone-app-pulled-... http://www.joystiq.com/2011/12/28/imame-app-pulled-from-ios-... http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/01/match-com-app-store/

Most (but not all) orient around violations of Apple's developer TOS which are famously fickle and changeable. No emulators? Can't use "private APIs"? Microsoft was hauled in front of the DOJ for better. Could those using an Apple account to sign their non App Store apps be subject to similar, shifting rules about what's kosher and what's not?

And if Atari has really had apps pulled for supposedly bearing a "passing resemblance to an Atari classic", we're in weird territory. From my POV, there's just a creepy potential for blacklist first, ask questions later style arbitration on Apple's part.

As a once Apple fanboy who's still surrounded by Apple gear, this all seems a bit weird to say, but as a developer I'm not keen on this move at all.

  > Can't use "private APIs"? Microsoft was hauled in front
  > of the DOJ for better.

Utter bullshit.

http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18821233/microsoft-...

Tony has already posted a good link, but more:

http://www.zdnet.com/news/microsoft-vs-doj-its-all-in-the-ap...

Of particular interest:

On Thursday, when the company had a chance to edit the DOJ's antitrust remedy proposal, it added language stating that "nothing in this provision shall require Microsoft to disclose any internal interfaces of a Microsoft Operating System Product."

Throughout its edits of the DOJ proposal, Microsoft tried to draw a distinction between external APIs (which the company is willing to give away and already often does) and internal APIs (which it is fighting tooth and nail to keep under wraps).

Restricting access to and the lack of documentation for private APIs was a key part of the case, although due to its technical nature, was not particularly well publicized.

Apple is a corporation that is traded on the stock market. Their primary customers and their board of directors are the stakeholders, not the paying buyers. Hence, they absolutely want to screw with us if that is producing better stock prices.

In the past, Apple has done quite a nice job at still doing a lot of stuff that benefits us--probably by promoting long term user satisfaction as their recipe for success. But at the end of the day, their allegiance probably lies with the stakeholders, and many of them are more interested in short term earnings than long term investment.

Agreed. It would be naive to think that the stock holders have absolutely no say. But Apple seems to have done such a great job at putting the customer experience first and making a ton of money off of it. They also have more cash on hand than God so I'm not worried about them tanking somehow and needing to gouge us anytime soon.

If all of a sudden Apple stops making money and starts doing shady stuff then I'll look at my other options and possible switch again just like I've done before.

Gatekeeper looks like it won't require anywhere near the UI acrobatics that are necessary to install an unsigned driver on Windows, and it will be easier for open-source developers to get signing keys for OS X.

Good thing you can always use Windows or Linux.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com