Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

al3x.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#21

Post by Zev »

akeefer wrote: post #12

In general a well-reasoned article, but I don't really agree with the contention that private APIs should be removed: when you're shipping releases of something infrequently and you want to avoid breaking client code, APIs have to be something you can commit to supporting long-term without significant changes. Keeping APIs private allows you to provide functionality that you want to have without risking a bunch of st…

Personally, I'm with al3x on what he says about private APIs in this post. Here's a few of my favorite moments that I've personally encountered with Apple and private APIs:

* There are APIs that date back to 2.2.1 (at the very least) that haven't changed but won't be made public. And these are APIs that - nearest I can tell (and this is with a rather large amount of testing) - work perfectly fine. Or, better yet, APIs that have existed on Mac OS X since 10.0 (and likely taken from NextStep) still being considered private! (Well, until very recently in at least one case; NSAttributedString was made public without any UIKit additions)

* The docs suggesting the use of private APIs located in PrivateFrameworks. (They still suggest this, by the way.)

* This one is probably my all time favorite: All but calling the task the API performs does trivial and pasting a few lines of code (using APIs that have existed publicly since 2.0) that can reimplement the function in the report, rather then make the API public.

If the API is that trivial to do and the engineer behind the radar is so sure that the code won't cause any problems that they can tell people to use said code, then, why wasn't it simply public in the first place? Someone obviously felt it was useful enough for Apple to have..

* Reimplementing something that the system can already do. In what is, in all likelihood, the exact same way the system implemented it; in a lot of my cases, I end up (unknowingly) creating methods and vars with the same names Apple used for their methods and ivars.

Yes, there are legit reasons to keep APIs private. Big Hacks™ to get a release out the door do happen. But, in my experience with the iPhone/iPad (which is, admittedly, one sided towards what I've experienced), Big Hacks™ and things disappearing between releases isn't the case and keeping many of the APIs private is more of a hinderance than anything else.

And FWIW, relevant radars have been filed for many of these issues as the situation arose, mostly to what feels like an unvarying degree of futility; Radar doesn't get called a black hole for no reason.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#22

Post by mechanical_fish »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #19
tjogin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out. Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers. Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it…

Flawless record? What about all the ad-supported apps where the new ads suddenly started calling premium phone numbers if you accidentally tapped the ad.

Unfortunately, that exception kind of proves the rule. Apple left in a loophole - they kind of had to allow apps to link to arbitrary external content without registered authors - and, lo, through the loophole comes malware.

This, alas, is why I'll probably have to keep buying computers instead of just the iPad if I want to run emacs or other user-scriptable apps. To the extent that it is possible, Apple wants every line of code on the phone to be traceable to an author and revokable in case of trouble.

The exception is the web, of course. Apple's browser supports everything; if you want arbitrary power, write one of those web apps we've heard so much about for the last decade! We who aspire to use emacs on iPad now need an HTML5/JS version. It's like being boiled in our own Kool-Aid: people have been claiming for years that web apps can eventually replace all other apps, and now the rubber meets the road.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#23

Post by signa11 »

after thinking a bit about it for a while, ipad to me, seems to be more of a media consumption device than either a computer or a phone. i can read books, play video-games etc on it, and it seems to be of the just right form-factor for such activities.

given that, i don't think i would be interested in running any arbitrary program on it. i would prefer my computer for doing that. apple store thus becomes more of a alternate clearing-house of published information. i am probably more concerned about some fundamental erosion of fair-use-rights here than anything else, as building strict copyright controls on such a device is probably much simpler .

if content-providers/distributors find ipad to be a viable platform for disseminating media, then copyright would be back with a vengeance. libraries / physical books might then be passe...

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#24

Post by pyre »

tjogin wrote: post #16
pyre wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AppStore approval process does not guarantee that something is not malware. At best it's just a superficial filter. It's like creating a mail filter that puts any email that contains the word 'viagra' into your spam folder and calling it a 'spam filter.'

Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out. Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers. Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it…

> Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out.

Those non-functioning spam-filters also kept spam out when all you had to filter on were the words 'real estate,' 'viagra,' and 'cialis.' Lo and behold though, the world does not stagnate and those same filters are woefully inadequate today.

> Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher

There are marketplaces out there where a person's entire identity (not just their credit card number) are bargained and traded. How closely does Apple monitor the information that is given to them? Does Apple continually pull credit reports on people to make sure that their information does not turn up stolen?

> a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it the 'OK'.

That cursory review means nothing. There are many apps which are nothing more than wrappers around websites. How long does it take to to build an app that is such, but waits for a trigger (at some point after the app is approved and has an installed base) to enabled its malicious features?

None of this even addresses possible zero-day exploits in apps that access external content (email worms, browser exploits, etc). If jail-breakers can run unsigned code on the iPhone, so can someone that exploits an app.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#25

Post by pyre »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20
plinkplonk wrote: post #18

"Here is my position, restated as clearly as I possibly can: 1. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad d…

I am an "Open Source Zealot". If Apple waved a magic wand and killed all the open source software on my Macbook (not even counting the stuff they bake in themselves) then it would be useless to me. The App store process seem to break the open source model for no obvious gain. I can't modify some app to suit myself, my company or my family. I can't find a bunch of willing collaborators. Everyone has dollar signs in th…

The issue isn't so much Apple and the iPad/iPhone, but whether this will start a trend. In 10 years time will all computer platforms be closed, unless you shell out top-dollar for a laptop/desktop computer? I hope to hell not.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#26

Post by ZeroGravitas »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #22
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flawless record? What about all the ad-supported apps where the new ads suddenly started calling premium phone numbers if you accidentally tapped the ad.

Unfortunately, that exception kind of proves the rule. Apple left in a loophole - they kind of had to allow apps to link to arbitrary external content without registered authors - and, lo, through the loophole comes malware. This, alas, is why I'll probably have to keep buying computers instead of just the iPad if I want to run emacs or other user-scriptable apps. To the extent that it is possible, Apple wants every…

Isn't this the same old DRM/Terrorism loop where every breach of the pointless and/or ineffective restrictions is used as justification for the next round of pointless and/or ineffectual restrictions. And along the way you the honest consumer/citizen lose the ability to modify your device, to reverse engineer, to crack protection for any reason, and various other 21st century civil rights as collateral damage.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#27

Post by glhaynes »

akeefer wrote: post #12

In general a well-reasoned article, but I don't really agree with the contention that private APIs should be removed: when you're shipping releases of something infrequently and you want to avoid breaking client code, APIs have to be something you can commit to supporting long-term without significant changes. Keeping APIs private allows you to provide functionality that you want to have without risking a bunch of st…

I have no problem with private APIs per se and always felt that Apple had found a sensible system: apps on the App Store, including Apple's, couldn't use private APIs, but the built-in apps could do whatever they wanted.

But apparently at least iBooks (and maybe iWorks?) on iPad use private APIs. That doesn't seem fair at all: selling side-by-side with 3rd party competitors on the store that can't do the same things Apple's apps can.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#28

Post by randomCSNobody »

Personally, I'd prefer that Apple would release all their code on some sort of open-source license that enables me to compile and study it at will, in addition to the freedom of letting me re-distribute that software any way I want to.

The main problem with any company that releases a piece of software and demands that you pay for it is that the company is trying to create value that isn't there. Information, be it code or anything else, is not valuable because it isn't scarce; I can get the number of copies I have of any piece of data arbitrarily close to infinity very easily. Apple, however, denies this simple fact and decides to use copyright law to extract some artificial value that would not exist under true free-market principles. Granted, Apple is not the only company that does this, but they're not more moral than Microsoft or any other corporation that uses these same tactics.

The main problem with this imaginary value is that it's very difficult for companies to adopt open-source licenses when they don't want to lose their steady stream of revenue. Of course, customers should be free to pay for code if they want, but they shouldn't be coerced by government-granted monopolies in the form of copyright law.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#29

Post by tensor »

netcan wrote: post #9
theBobMcCormick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually be O.K. with the restrictions in the App store if there was any non-jailbreak method of loading apps outside the app store. That would allow you to install things like Google Voice, Opera, or whatever if you the user want to, while still providing a squeaky clean simplified view to the average user. For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from the Android Market. However, b…

I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness. The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation instructions... The iphone just got a bit mor…

Somehow mac laptops remain functional and malware free despite not being locked down by apple. They've remained this way for many, many years. I'm not sure how much more real world evidence you need that this argument is not good.

The truth is that Apple does it to maintaing market control on their software, not for some altruistic "malware prevention" goal.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#30

Post by tjogin »

pyre wrote: post #24
tjogin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out. Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers. Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it…

> Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out. Those non-functioning spam-filters also kept spam out when all you had to filter on were the words 'real estate,' 'viagra,' and 'cialis.' Lo and behold though, the world does not stagnate and those same filters are woefully inadequate today. > Most likely, it's just as much or more b…

Fact remains: no malware on AppStore.
Post reply on HN