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

Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#201

Post by EMIRELADERO »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #200
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking at it the wrong way. The point of the regulation would be to force manufacturers to officially give users the same level of code execution that they have over the sold devices as themselves. If Apple, via software updates, can control what software runs on the iPhone of the user, then the user should also have that control, to install whatever OS/bootloader they desire, the same way as Apple can.

You're shifting goalposts. You were arguing for the same level of code execution after sale of the device , not at point of compilation. By the time every iPhone leaves the factories in China and India, they're already locked down. The consumer only has as much ability to execute code as any bugs allow in the initial OS release. Also, Apple doesn't have the ability to install any OS/bootloader as the hardware is spec…

Look, it's simple:

The code execution is locked down with a private key that only Apple has.

Apple can therefore sign any executable for any iDevice that exists, and it will run without issues. They could make a completely new bootloader/OS combo from scratch while mantaining compatibility with the hardware.

The bar is then: "Is it technically and officially possible for Apple to install any OS/bootloader that's compatible with the iPhone hardware?" The answer to that is yes, it is.

So, if it is possible for Apple to do so (by them having the private key used to sign the OS images) even after they sell it to me, then it should be legally mandated for me to have the same level of official posibility to do the same via the same means.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#202

Post by Dracophoenix »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #201
Dracophoenix wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're shifting goalposts. You were arguing for the same level of code execution after sale of the device , not at point of compilation. By the time every iPhone leaves the factories in China and India, they're already locked down. The consumer only has as much ability to execute code as any bugs allow in the initial OS release. Also, Apple doesn't have the ability to install any OS/bootloader as the hardware is spec…

Look, it's simple: The code execution is locked down with a private key that only Apple has. Apple can therefore sign any executable for any iDevice that exists, and it will run without issues. They could make a completely new bootloader/OS combo from scratch while mantaining compatibility with the hardware. The bar is then: "Is it technically and officially possible for Apple to install any OS/bootloader that's comp…

> The code execution is locked down with a private key that only Apple has.

And digital signatures for the various drivers that only work in iOS.

> Apple can therefore sign any executable for any iDevice that exists, and it will run without issues. They could make a completely new bootloader/OS combo from scratch while maintaining compatibility with the hardware.

That Apple can does not mean it should be compelled to. In addition, Building an entirely new OS is separate from the issue of being regulated to provide equivalent access after sale.

> The bar is then: "Is it technically and officially possible for Apple to install any OS/bootloader that's compatible with the iPhone hardware?" The answer to that is yes, it is.

Then this is no longer about consumers having the right to do as they wish with a device they have purchased. Instead, this is about compelling Apple into providing protected information or forcing the company to design an open OS. This runs afoul of many constitutional protections not the least of which is compelled speech.

> So, if it is possible for Apple to do so (by them having the private key used to sign the OS images) even after they sell it to me, then it should be legally mandated for me to have the same level of official posibility to do the same via the same means.

That they have a private key, does not mean they're obligated to share it nor should they. I fret for the precedent this would set. Arguing for control of your own device that you can root yourself is not the same as forcing a manufacturer to allow arbitrary access to the OS at first swipe.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#203

Post by EMIRELADERO »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #202
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, it's simple: The code execution is locked down with a private key that only Apple has. Apple can therefore sign any executable for any iDevice that exists, and it will run without issues. They could make a completely new bootloader/OS combo from scratch while mantaining compatibility with the hardware. The bar is then: "Is it technically and officially possible for Apple to install any OS/bootloader that's comp…

> The code execution is locked down with a private key that only Apple has. And digital signatures for the various drivers that only work in iOS. > Apple can therefore sign any executable for any iDevice that exists, and it will run without issues. They could make a completely new bootloader/OS combo from scratch while maintaining compatibility with the hardware. That Apple can does not mean it should be compelled to…

Apple shouldn't be the one doing the signing for every user or giving out any private keys of theirs. What should happen is that they should be forced to design their devices in such a way as to allow an authorized user to change the public key used for signature verification.

All this is a disgression however. The point is that the law should simply mandate that manufacturers design their devices in a way in which what the OEM can do to an already-sold device in terms of code execution/control also be possible for the new owner to do.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#204

Post by tinus_hn »

vorpalhex wrote: post #15
musicale wrote: post #13

> One bill opposed by the App Association is the Open App Markets Act, which aimed to help app developers use alternative in-app payment systems and avoid Apple's standard cuts of 15 to 30 percent. The cut is a platform fee , and collecting it via the in-app payment system is mechanism , not policy. The core issue is Apple's rate: although it is usually comparable to rates on other game platforms (eShop, Google Play,…

Apple didn't help deliver my ebook or podcast. They don't deserve 30% of that.

Apple is not the exclusive source of podcasts or ebooks on iOS or otherwise; they provide an optional store. Especially for podcasts their store is a new, optional feature and it is perfectly possible to offer your own store and your own authenticated podcasts and integrate them into Apples podcasts app. You can also offer them in Apples store and have them deal with payments and distribution and accept that they charge a 30% commission. They don’t even require exclusivity, you can both offer your own store and Apples store at the same time, whichever your customers find more convenient.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#205

Post by ASalazarMX »

restore_creole_ wrote: post #174
modeless wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... with a $700+ Mac purchased from Apple, and usually a $99/yr subscription purchased from Apple, plus a network connection to Apple's servers to obtain code signing permission, which must be periodically refreshed or your code will stop running, to ensure you are never independent of Apple's ongoing approval.

I'm pretty sure you can sideload without an Apple developer account($99) but you need to reinstall the app every 7 days and you can only have 3 installed at once. The processing on refreshing the install and swapping between more than 3 apps can be automated by using desktop software like AltStore.

OMG I wouldn't know what to do with such freedom.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#206

Post by simondotau »

dmitriid wrote: post #167
simondotau wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is. Tell that to Epic Games' department of license revenue.

"Free as in beer" only concerns itself with the price of the distributed software. Edit: In Epic's case the tools remain free as in beer. There's no additional cost to using them. Epic applies a fee to what you produce with them, and even then: > A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that prod…

Yes, I know what Epic's business model is. As with many software libraries, it's free as in “first sign this contract, do some stuff with our stuff, then later we shall decide how much you owe us”.

If you want to lump that in with free as in beer because Epic isn't taking money from people who haven't made something particularly profitable, okay, but I don’t think many people would agree with you.

(It's also free-as-in-you're-part-of-their-marketing-strategy. Widespread "free" use of Unreal Engine helps build developer experience with Unreal Engine, increasing the availability of relevant skills in the job market, and making its use more attractive when it comes time to start a big, highly profitable project.)

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#207

Post by dmitriid »

simondotau wrote: post #206
dmitriid wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free as in beer" only concerns itself with the price of the distributed software. Edit: In Epic's case the tools remain free as in beer. There's no additional cost to using them. Epic applies a fee to what you produce with them, and even then: > A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that prod…

Yes, I know what Epic's business model is. As with many software libraries, it's free as in “first sign this contract, do some stuff with our stuff, then later we shall decide how much you owe us”. If you want to lump that in with free as in beer because Epic isn't taking money from people who haven't made something particularly profitable, okay, but I don’t think many people would agree with you. (It's also free-as-…

You keep piling more and more unrelated things onto a very simple concept. "Free as in beer" literally talks just about the cost of distributed software. That's it.

Your attempt to somehow conflate it with someone's business models are laughable at best. All software comes with strings attached. And the biggest one is: even people who distribute software for free still have a business to run and mouths to feed.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#208

Post by simondotau »

dmitriid wrote: post #207
simondotau wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know what Epic's business model is. As with many software libraries, it's free as in “first sign this contract, do some stuff with our stuff, then later we shall decide how much you owe us”. If you want to lump that in with free as in beer because Epic isn't taking money from people who haven't made something particularly profitable, okay, but I don’t think many people would agree with you. (It's also free-as-…

You keep piling more and more unrelated things onto a very simple concept. "Free as in beer" literally talks just about the cost of distributed software. That's it. Your attempt to somehow conflate it with someone's business models are laughable at best. All software comes with strings attached. And the biggest one is: even people who distribute software for free still have a business to run and mouths to feed.

I see where you're confused. You might well have a valid point if the discussion was about the Xcode IDE or whatever developer tools are supplied alongside Unreal Engine. That's not what the discussion was relating to. Per the great great great great great great great grandparent's post, the discussion was referring to "...the frameworks Apple develops that is available to you when you fire up Xcode..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32905694

Or indeed that post's parent, where a different opinion was offered about when a license for CoreML libraries was paid. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32905596

Or its parent, the one which initially defined the scope of the discussion, which was "...Apple charging a license for the frameworks and tooling they provide..." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32905555

Not about the Xcode IDE itself which I agree is free-as-in-beer. (Though others might disagree — an argument could be made that it was paid for the purchase of a relevant Apple hardware product; the fact that it wasn't pre-installed being a mere technicality.)

Post reply on HN