381–390 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were relying on a huge loophole. The code runs inside JavascriptCore but it injects native code into the app.
That sounds like a huge hack. They built a company around that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.
Disagree -- it's not the court's job to even categorize a thing as a loophole or not. It simply applies the law. Some actions will fall inside a prohibition and some outside. Divining the intent of the drafters of the law is something fraught with problems considering the process. Just one example -- there may have been a group of supporters of the law in question used against Aereo that only supported the law becaus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This needs a little elaboration. Cached Javascript in any hybrid app is a security hole because that can be exposed through a jailbreak. Depending on how much of your business logic you've pushed into the JS layer to enable that "80% code sharing" that makes managers go all tingly you may be exposing all kinds of things - cached access tokens, API keys and whatnot - to anyone who wants to install your app and mine it…
You as an end user jailbreaking your own phone is not a "security hole". I'm not aware of any non-tethered jailbreak for iOS 10
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why developers criticize OS vendors use of "private APIs" The point is not that these APIs exist; the problem is when vendors actively block others from using them, with hacks and/or policy bans. That's extremely hypocritical and anti-competitive. I can see why unofficial APIs must be discouraged (because let's be honest, developers will bitch and moan when they change -- Microsoft in particular was strong-armed in…
It's not about marketing, economics or other MBA-feuled non-technical ideas. It's about a software vendor saying: this is our platform, here are API's for you to use, don't go outside it. It is perfectly reasonable, and so far, any other interpretation seems to be a skewed view to facilitate some sort of non-compliant piece of software.
I'm Erez Rusovsky, the CEO of Rollout.io Rollout's mission has always been, and will always be about helping developers create and deploy mobile apps quickly and safely. Our current product has been a life saver for hundreds of apps by allowing them to patch bugs in live apps. We were surprised by Apple's actions today. From what we've been able to gather, they seem to be rejecting any app which utilizes a mechanism…
Oh man. You were surprised? Really? You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law. Predictably they got killed by lawsuits because judges aren't idiots and the law isn't inflexible to the point where the intent and context isn't considered. Your case is even worse because you engineered a solution to adhere to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.
Disagree -- it's not the court's job to even categorize a thing as a loophole or not. It simply applies the law. Some actions will fall inside a prohibition and some outside. Divining the intent of the drafters of the law is something fraught with problems considering the process. Just one example -- there may have been a group of supporters of the law in question used against Aereo that only supported the law becaus…
This is not the case in common law systems, which the US and UK have. Judges discover the law through principals and precedent. Legislation can override this, however. The US Constitution is a good example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.
To some extent I agree with you, but at the same time it is not the purpose of the court to create law. It is their job to interpret. Lawyers read and understand. Evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking), is the responsibility of the legislative branch (in that case, Congress).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.
To some extent I agree with you, but at the same time it is not the purpose of the court to create law. It is their job to interpret. Lawyers read and understand. Evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking), is the responsibility of the legislative branch (in that case, Congress).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.
Then the letter of the law means nothing.
You may disagree with this, but the fact remains that the law works like this in the US and UK and has since 1066.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh man. You were surprised? Really? Exactly! Apple has always been adamant that they see _all_ code that goes onto devices. Live patching is so bloody obvious against their EULA.
What is "code"? Everybody who has programmed in LISP or Scheme knows that there is no essential distinction between code and data (only many programming languages make it a little hard to see that it is all the same). Thus Apple would have to see not only all code, but also all data that goes onto the devices. But this would imply that Apple disallows all apps that read data from a foreign (i.e. at least not Apple-co…
Apple has decided that, and you're not going to get around their policies with a clever rhetorical question.