Live data from Hacker News

Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

techradar.com

101–110 of 344 posts

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#101

Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.

Probably from almost going out of business because they didn't control their own platform.

Yeah, Apple remembers very well the "clone wars". Steve Jobs came back and killed that off.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#102
post #97
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more…

Alrighty then, kindly send me money amounting to 25% of your annual expenses. I'm told such fees are harmless.

What have you done for me?

I already send much more than 25% of my annual expenses for the privilege of using the US's platform. I don't even use most of the features but I can't seem to opt out of paying this commission. What gives?

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law. A breach of contract is against, and has remedies provided under, the law of contracts.. > A contract is not law No, but the law of contracts is law.

But this isn't a question of logic, it's a question of definition. And all the discussion I can find online say breaking a contract doesn't fall under the definition of "illegal". Do you have an authoritative source that defines it otherwise?

>And all the discussion I can find online say breaking a contract doesn't fall under the definition of "illegal".

IIUC, breaking a contract is a civil tort[0]:

   A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and 
   amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability. In the context of
   torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" 
   describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.1 
And torts (again, IIUC) are not the breaking of a legal code, and as such cannot be illegal, as they break no laws.

Something illegal is dealt with in a criminal court (yes, there are administrative courts in various places that handle minor infractions, but those are governed under the relevant legal code and are adjudicated as such.

Civil torts are not contained within any legal code, and as such cannot be illegal. That said, there are some harms that may also rise to the level of criminality (e.g., fraud), which may also have a civil tort associated with them.

But breach of contract by itself is just breaking the rules[1] agreed upon by the parties to a contract.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort

[1] https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/rules-and-laws/6286...

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#104
post #97
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more…

Alrighty then, kindly send me money amounting to 25% of your annual expenses. I'm told such fees are harmless.

Are you making my app searchable and downloadable on 1B devices? Because hell yeah I’ll take that deal. I paid Apple 30% on about $1M of revenue that would have been less than $10k without them. You think I feel abused?

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#105
post #13
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but now can I run a virtual machine on an android device?

You can run Chrome, which has a virtual machine in it. Maybe not the same kind of virtual machine that you're talking about, but this is the kind of virtual machine that Apple has banned: any kind of code that isn't statically compiled, that isn't immediately readable. This is why Chrome (actual, not the thin cosmetic shell over Safari WebView available now) can't run on iOS: Chrome has to download & run JS code, and…

You're mixing up executing JavaScript generally vs JavaScript with a JIT. Apple has specifically banned Just-in-Time (JIT) compilation, where JavaScript (or anything) is translated into machine code, marked for execution, and ran directly on the processor. There are real security reasons for forbidding this[0]. All modern browsers use JIT compilation for JS since this is crucial for good performance. But a JIT isn't a requirement for running JS, it just makes things faster.

You can run JavaScript without a JIT no problem, but there is a separate Apple ban on alternative browser engines. Ostensibly browsers are banned because without a JIT they'd very slow and lead to a bad user experience, though I'm doubtful this is the only reason. (You can try Safari with the JIT disabled by turning on Lockdown Mode)

But there's nothing forbidden about interpreting code, as long as you don't generate machine code and try to mark pages of memory for execution. Practically this means scripting languages and nothing that's compiled or interpreted with a JIT. For example: with iSH, available on the app store, you can get a full virtual Linux environment and write all the JavaScript (via Node) or Python code you want: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243

[0] I wrote another comment recently re: Apple/JIT and mention some of the security reasoning behind this, though I'm no expert: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35695431

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#106

Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.

Apple is not anti-VM. It is anti VM-on-non-Apple-hardware. ;-) Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware. Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines. Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines…

Apple makes it pretty annoying to run VMs on Apple hardware too. Their license agreement has restrictions in it that are kind of unfortunate.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#107

Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.

One guess: if macOS could be virtualized, it would be even easier to run things like Messages, FaceTime, and Photos on non-Apple hardware, which reduces some of the lock-in effect that keeps people from leaving the ecosystem (i.e. Green Bubble Effect)

Yes, and would lead to iMessage spam and FaceTime robocalls.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#108
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything I find says that to be illegal, something must be against the law. A breach of contract is against, and has remedies provided under, the law of contracts.. > A contract is not law No, but the law of contracts is law.

"contracts" is civil law. to be illegal it would have to be criminal law. defamation is legal. it's a tort, you can get sued for it and lose. in civil court. there is contract law, but breaking contract law is not illegal. a tort for example, is a tort, not a crime.

[deleted]

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#109
post #13
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but now can I run a virtual machine on an android device?

You can run Chrome, which has a virtual machine in it. Maybe not the same kind of virtual machine that you're talking about, but this is the kind of virtual machine that Apple has banned: any kind of code that isn't statically compiled, that isn't immediately readable. This is why Chrome (actual, not the thin cosmetic shell over Safari WebView available now) can't run on iOS: Chrome has to download & run JS code, and…

Web Extensions can run arbitrary JavaScript in the context of the web page they're injected into.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#110
post #105
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run Chrome, which has a virtual machine in it. Maybe not the same kind of virtual machine that you're talking about, but this is the kind of virtual machine that Apple has banned: any kind of code that isn't statically compiled, that isn't immediately readable. This is why Chrome (actual, not the thin cosmetic shell over Safari WebView available now) can't run on iOS: Chrome has to download & run JS code, and…

You're mixing up executing JavaScript generally vs JavaScript with a JIT. Apple has specifically banned Just-in-Time (JIT) compilation, where JavaScript (or anything) is translated into machine code, marked for execution, and ran directly on the processor. There are real security reasons for forbidding this[0]. All modern browsers use JIT compilation for JS since this is crucial for good performance. But a JIT isn't…

There's not much of a security argument for forbidding a JIT.
Post reply on HN