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

Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 375 posts

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#281

Post by skohan »

threeseed wrote: post #239
teruakohatu wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. There are many classes of applications on the Play Store and F-droid not on the App Store, including multiple browsing engines and emulators. I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.

Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate. Emulators, VMs etc have existed for years. Again it’s far more the form factor that is a restriction than whether it’s downloadable from the store or not.

It's very much not something you could depend on as a component of a serious workflow. You have to stay on top of certificates, and Apple can change those rules at any time.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#282

Post by skohan »

kelnos wrote: post #200
enos_feedler wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t think Apple has a team of people trying to figure out what you can do with them? iPadOS isn’t designed to cripple the HW, its designed to extract the most from it. Its missing some traditional use cases

iPadOS is designed to extract the most revenue from the hardware, and the users. An more-open platform would allow for many things that would likely be really awesome for users, but is disallowed because that would threaten Apple's revenue streams.

Which is exactly what anti-trust regulation is supposed to protect us from, it's a shame it's quite impotent at the moment

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#283

Post by emsy »

manicdee wrote: post #85
m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

Most phone users aren’t interested in developing software on their phone. They aren’t interested in developing a better systemd. They have no idea what malware actually is. All that is going to happen if Epic gets their own store is Epic will be collecting the 30% rather than Apple, and the user will get apps that are poorly designed, chew battery, and don’t conform to the UX standards that Apple has set (eg: accessi…

>If you want third party stores, there’s the Android ecosystem. Keep your grubby mitts off the Apple ecosystem.

Ah yes, because that's where you'll find customers that use iOS.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#284

Post by skohan »

tshaddox wrote: post #168
mason55 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible. You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.

This is the point that people keep missing. The most common argument is “just let people install whatever software they want and if they install something bad that’s their fault.” But the point is that, if Apple does allow sideloading apps, customer satisfaction with iPhones will almost certainly go down . Can you argue that those new unsatisfied customers are to blame? Sure. But Apple probably actually cares about h…

You might have less average negative experiences in the home if everyone were only allowed to buy new Ikea furniture and appliances directly from Ikea. But there are a lot of reasons people would find that level of restrictiveness unacceptable.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#285

Post by skohan »

mason55 wrote: post #70
m463 wrote: post #52

The best result for customers is that there are alternate ways of putting apps on their own phones that do not require apple's permission. Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The customers that try the alternate ways may find problems, but they will also find enormous positive changes in their ability to do new things on their phone. Personally, I would like the abil…

> Then the customers that trust apple to protect them will just stay with the app store. The problem is that if it’s possible to trick grandpa into downloading a malicious app then it will happen. The only defense is to not make it possible. You can argue if that’s a worthy goal or not but thats what Apple has to do if they want to make it impossible to trick people into downloading malware.

I don't know if the appropriate standard for technology is that it has to be completely safe for grandpa. In general we don't design society for the lowest-common-denominator.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#286

Post by EvanAnderson »

kergonath wrote: post #269
fartcannon wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still have that even if it's open. There's literally nothing preventing them doing all that while letting others choose not to.

You can’t, because no app can install other apps. So sandboxing would need to be significantly changed. Every big software publisher having its own store implies that our details will be stored in more databases, which increases the risk of hack or leak. The alternative would be to not get apps that we can currently get without risking much. It is hard to see this as a progress.

Google did this right with developer mode on Chrome OS. Flip a physical interlock and your device becomes simultaneously "yours" and untrusted by Google.

Apple could do the same thing. They won't because the reason for the walled garden is revenue. The user privacy and security gambit conveniently aligns with generating revenue.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#287

Post by skohan »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #143
fartcannon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to use these unbelievably powerful portable computers like general purpose computers. Develop applications right on device! My dream.

That does not sound desirable at all for anything other than basic toys..

Maybe you feel that way because you've only ever had mobile devices which hamstring any possible developer tools

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#288

Post by techrat »

threeseed wrote: post #215
skohan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new iPads literally have the same SOC as what are some of, if not the best consumer laptops on the planet currently. But what can you do with them? Not a heck of a lot, thanks to the walled garden that is iPad OS. If you ask me, that's a crying shame. I don't see how it hurts anyone to allow side-loading of apps on iOS devices. Even if you make it as hard as having a toggle behind a scary warning 2 layers deep in…

Where is the evidence that allowing sideloaded apps will result in an explosion of desktop class apps ? Hasn’t been the case with Android. And I would say the touch centric form factor is far more an issue.

I guess we're going to pretend that all those Humble Bundle users don't exist at all.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#289

Post by techrat »

threeseed wrote: post #239
teruakohatu wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. There are many classes of applications on the Play Store and F-droid not on the App Store, including multiple browsing engines and emulators. I would wager that within weeks or months there would be a full windows VM available for the iPad if it was allowed.

Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate. Emulators, VMs etc have existed for years. Again it’s far more the form factor that is a restriction than whether it’s downloadable from the store or not.

>Apple allows you to sideload those kinds of apps using the developer certificate.

A TEMPORARY developer certificate that expires and requires a MacOS system to install.

Meanwhile I can click to download an apk through the browser on my phone, click accept and install. No expiration, no self signed certificates, no other system needed.

Re: Judge in Fortnite case holds Tim Cook's feet to the fire

#290

Post by techrat »

skinnymuch wrote: post #251
m463 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in a few seconds I can think of many many ways an ipad is crippled. - look at your data directly and back it up - backup and restore the entire device including apps - use ethernet through the lightning port instead of wifi - use general usb devices through the lightning port - wifi scanner (apple disallowed it in ios early-on) - tcpdump network traffic - change the wifi-off shortcut to actually turn it off (matching…

All of this is available if jailbroken. There aren’t many people caring too much about most of these. I personally enjoy parts of the first two. They aren’t deal breakers if I can’t jailbreak/root though.

>All of this is available if jailbroken.

should read:

All of this is available if you use the same exploits that malware often use to compromise systems.

"Jailbreaking" is not a feature inherent to iOS so stop trying to say it's an option. It really isn't.

An option is something that continues to be available to the user regardless of system updates and without restriction. As such, sideloading apps is an option on Android.

Jailbreak is not a feature. It is the result of the LACK of features.

Post reply on HN