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

iPad Camera Multitasking

blog.thinktapwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#151

Post by Grustaf »

asaddhamani wrote: post #148
Grustaf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? People explicitly trust Apple with their most sensitive data. Asking for permission for specific apps makes no sense. I don’t personally care about “level playing fields” but even if I did, I wouldn’t expect or want it to include the first party.

On Android I’ve seen even Google apps ask for camera permissions, I’m making a choice about whether I want this specific app to have access to my camera, whether it comes from Apple or any other developer doesn’t matter. I should be able to disable the camera access for any app including the built-in camera app.

Why would you want to disable camera access for the camera app? Something tells me that is not very common.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#152

Post by 0x0 »

Grustaf wrote: post #151
asaddhamani wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Android I’ve seen even Google apps ask for camera permissions, I’m making a choice about whether I want this specific app to have access to my camera, whether it comes from Apple or any other developer doesn’t matter. I should be able to disable the camera access for any app including the built-in camera app.

Why would you want to disable camera access for the camera app? Something tells me that is not very common.

I think what many of us want and expect is a bullet proof permission system for the app store that doesn't contain surprises, gotchas, and magic entitlements that are ripe for exploitation (see for example PsychicPaper)

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#153

Post by smoldesu »

josephg wrote: post #146
smoldesu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, Apple didn't give the world LLVM. They bought out the original development team and then had them develop a proprietary fork for Apple devices, oftentimes referred to as Apple LLVM. Also, while I'm here, I still am not convinced of Apple's privacy dedication. The T2 chip was a joke for anyone familiar with PRNG generation or the actual exploits being patched with it, and they've refused to add E2E enc…

My lizard brain reads your comment as "What? Apple do good things? No! Apple bad! All things you say are good about apple are actually bad. You'll see, because apple is bad!" You can make tribal cynicism sound clever if you use complex enough arguments, and rely on enough obscure details. "Peh, Apple didn't give the world LLVM. They bought it out and made Chris Lattner into a sellout." But you have to heavily filter…

I'll indulge you.

I respect Apple's dedication to to having a single unified experience across all of your devices. I'm glad they switched to a Unix-based operating system instead of the garbage that powered their previous machines. I think the Quartz window manager is one the most impressively designed pieces of contemporary software, and I'd kill someone for the chance to look at the source code.

My "King for a Day" changes at Apple would probably include pausing their ARM transition, potentially to use ARM and x86 as a differentiator between their "Air" and "Pro" lines, respectively. The patents for the latter ISA are expiring this year, meaning that Apple would be well withing their legal rights to sell a chip with all of the battery optimization of the 5nm node while also supplying a more complete and standard instruction set. I would stop the chase to "make the computer disappear" and instead seek to make the computer functionally seamless. The dedication to making thinner devices is sabotaging their lifespan and usability. Plenty of other machines opt to add extra room to accommodate for a better keyboard, better webcam or more ports, and I gotta say I prefer it. I'd much rather carry around my 5 year old Thinkpad than my M1 Macbook Air, if solely for the reason that the former has RJ45 and SD card slots.

I don't really see any way that it could backfire, though I'm sure abandoning the M1 devices would cause a little initial friction. Apple could easily cart out a new "L1" chip that ships as an APU with the M1's CPU and GPU architecture onboard. Once people see that it's just as fast (if not faster for industry applications), people won't care.

In closing, I don't think Apple is the bad guy. But I'm far from convinced that they're the good guy, or even a morally grey participant. Their historic greed and botched engineering continues to make a mockery of their legacy, and it's a shame when many of the engineers involved are genuinely talented people. If Apple wants my respect, they should respect the input of the open source community trying to make package managers with Apple-level integration, or the right to repair community who's trying to make sure that the Mac lives as long as it can.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#154

Post by _ph_ »

scarface74 wrote: post #131
_ph_ wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree and disagree. Yes, it is good that not every app has root rights, that you have a reasonable expectation of security and some level of quality assessment. However, at the same time Apple fails dramatically at keeping bad or even nefarious apps out of the app store. And in a lot of places, user experience is outright horrible because of the restrictions. Have you ever tried to move music from files to…

Can you imagine the shit show that would happen if a developer installed a video playing app on his own CarPlay device and he got in accident? All car manufacturers are very careful about what you are allowed to do on driver accessible controls on dashboard gadgets.

If there is an actual security risk, availability of those APIs could be tied to signing the necessary contracts which make the developer accept the liability. But we were discussing the special API used by zoom. No safety risk here.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#155

Post by supermatt »

scarface74 wrote: post #102
supermatt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reduce the odds of a screwup by giving it to arguably the most popular app in the store? This is nothing more than apple giving themselves and their preferred partners an unfair advantage - somewhat in opposition to Tim Cooks recent statement on developer equality.

Every company does this. They roll new features out to trusted partners first to get feedback and then they polish it. For instance how do you think that AWS [1] can have testimonials about how great a brand new product is before it is available for public release? Once you make an API public, you have to support it for the foreseeable future. It’s much easier to work with one or two trusted third parties. When I was…

I am aware of how staged rollouts work, but you cant say that you treat all developers the same if you give some features you don't give others - regardless of their maturity.

Even giving those "preferred" developers advance notice of upcoming features isn't treating them the same as other developers. I really don't see how you can think otherwise.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#156

Post by xuki »

kmeisthax wrote: post #149
xuki wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was pulled from an encrypted IPA.

Right, but my point is that it's still not public information what entitlements apps use. Apple's policy is that users should not be able to read the contents of encrypted IPAs at all. The fact that you can do it doesn't make the information public - you have to go through extra steps, many of which are illegal to explain to you in most parts of the world, to be able to decrypt IPAs and read out the entitlements file…

Nothing I did was illegal. I downloaded an IPA file with Apple Configurator 2, the binary inside it was encrypted. However it was possible to read the entitlement without decrypting the whole binary. One can certainly automate this process if one can figure out how to download IPA file automatically.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#157

Post by scarface74 »

_ph_ wrote: post #154
scarface74 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the shit show that would happen if a developer installed a video playing app on his own CarPlay device and he got in accident? All car manufacturers are very careful about what you are allowed to do on driver accessible controls on dashboard gadgets.

If there is an actual security risk, availability of those APIs could be tied to signing the necessary contracts which make the developer accept the liability. But we were discussing the special API used by zoom. No safety risk here.

There is a privacy risk. Apple can’t make the developer accept liability. A contract between Apple and a developer is not going to stop Apple from being sued.

Even if the contract then said the developer would have to reimburse Apple, how would Apple recoup a multi million dollar judgment from an unknown developer?

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#158

Post by scarface74 »

supermatt wrote: post #155
scarface74 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company does this. They roll new features out to trusted partners first to get feedback and then they polish it. For instance how do you think that AWS [1] can have testimonials about how great a brand new product is before it is available for public release? Once you make an API public, you have to support it for the foreseeable future. It’s much easier to work with one or two trusted third parties. When I was…

I am aware of how staged rollouts work, but you cant say that you treat all developers the same if you give some features you don't give others - regardless of their maturity. Even giving those "preferred" developers advance notice of upcoming features isn't treating them the same as other developers. I really don't see how you can think otherwise.

No developer who has watched a WWDC demo since the first version of iOS supported the App Store in 2008 is unaware that some developers get prerelease versions of iOS so they have something to demo on stage.

No developer should be under the expectation that they are going to have the same level of access to Apple engineers as someone from Microsoft, Adobe, or Epic.

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#159

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #158
supermatt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of how staged rollouts work, but you cant say that you treat all developers the same if you give some features you don't give others - regardless of their maturity. Even giving those "preferred" developers advance notice of upcoming features isn't treating them the same as other developers. I really don't see how you can think otherwise.

No developer who has watched a WWDC demo since the first version of iOS supported the App Store in 2008 is unaware that some developers get prerelease versions of iOS so they have something to demo on stage. No developer should be under the expectation that they are going to have the same level of access to Apple engineers as someone from Microsoft, Adobe, or Epic.

[deleted]

Re: iPad Camera Multitasking

#160

Post by [deleted] »

scarface74 wrote: post #158
supermatt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of how staged rollouts work, but you cant say that you treat all developers the same if you give some features you don't give others - regardless of their maturity. Even giving those "preferred" developers advance notice of upcoming features isn't treating them the same as other developers. I really don't see how you can think otherwise.

No developer who has watched a WWDC demo since the first version of iOS supported the App Store in 2008 is unaware that some developers get prerelease versions of iOS so they have something to demo on stage. No developer should be under the expectation that they are going to have the same level of access to Apple engineers as someone from Microsoft, Adobe, or Epic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN