631–640 of 903 posts
I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…
Your iDevice being jailbroken makes my iDevice less secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any argument in favour of the iPhone being so locked down needs to contend with the fact that Macs are just as reliable, but far more configurable. All I want is the for the iPhone to be as open as a Mac. Let me run binaries signed by legit devs!
At work I need to sign executables with a very expensive code signing certificate. I can sign anything with it though. I still have no idea how that makes the executables more legit :). You seem to be a power user, and I get what you want, but pleeeease no signed binaries! :D For me a setting "I know what I'm doing" would be good enough :) (like on Android smartphones). That way I can install anything I want, and you…
I think the idea is that if Apple finds you signing software with malware, they can invalidate your certificate, and then your software won't run anymore on anyone's mac. And you know that you will lose your certificate and have a hard time creating a new one if you sign malware, so you probably won't do it. You also know that by default, your users won't be able to run malicious versions of your software, so your reputation won't be damaged by stories of "I installed the Schipplock Frobnicator App and my machine got infected".
In effect, it's a decent system to allow other distribution methods than the App Store without opening the flood-gates for malware and trojans. I 100% agree though that there should be some obscure option to run unsigned software, it should be a system acting on behalf of the user to protect the user, not a system acting on behalf of Apple to control the user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have to guess. Android app store is clear example that gives power users choice, while at the same time being able to hold onto most of the users.
The Google play store is heavily censored and moderated and most users don’t know about side loading.
Do you expect most users would know about side loading in Apple's case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's a little bit different from an ad, but I take your point. That doesn't happen to me when I use the cheap earbud things that Apple sells (I use a Subsonic client app for music); do you have any idea what triggers it?
Curious which subsonic client? I’ve been using play:sun for a few years and sometimes AVSub. These clients are okay, but I do get some weird issues with them sometimes. Having said that, I love subserver more than any other media server options.
In my opinion, Apple could very well give a special entitlement to developers who want full system access, maybe even by requiring to register the UDID somewhere on Apple's website for that entitlement to be valid, whatever. Any apps signed with that entitlement can do whatever they want for the given UDID.
Why they don't do it is pretty clear. But sure, it must be because they care about us :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple actively cripples Safari so that developers are forced to make apps for the App Store and give them a cut of all revenues. Safari is an extremely cynical product, much more than Chrome. Developers should not support Safari. Let the sites break.
What does Twitter do that requires an app that doesn’t work on safari? What did Reddit do that requires an app that safari can’t do? LinkedIn? Steam? EBay. Amazon. Google maps. Discord. Slack. What do these do that can’t be done on safari on iOS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you mean? The "Android kernel" is not meaningfully different from the Linux kernel. 4.4BSD however was released in 1993, so iOS would've had decades to diverge from it.
But we'll not know unless they open source it. chuckle
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really want this to happen, and I hope Apple is forced to make it happen — a fairly likely scenario in the EU I think — but if they do allow side-loading I fear they will disable all sorts of Apple services when you flip that switch. No more Apple Pay, for starters. Maybe no iMessage. Things where they can argue they have to turn them off to protect the user, and/or themselves, from rogue apps. And then you could h…
Agreed. The real reason is the inevitable avalanche of support requests that hit when some popular side loaded app introduces a 0-day. No one at the Genius Bar is going to touch your toxic device. That means no Apple Care or iCloud backups either. Support is expensive. Apple spends a lot of money to provide what is generally very excellent support. It’s a huge component of the overall brand for many users that stay i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to take Spotify's call for openness seriously when they're just as controlling as Apple is when it comes to how it allows its users to use its product. Most egregiously, they never delivered the promised playback-capable replacement for libspotify, probably because they want to keep their users in their little walled garden where Spotify can subject them to incessant A/B test tweaks to the UI designed to he…
You can take him completely seriously: he just wants to be able to sign up paying users on iPhone without handing 30% to Apple. I don’t think that’s particularly opaque.
I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…