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

Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 344 posts

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

#121

Post by vlovich123 »

chrisshroba wrote: post #94
crazygringo wrote: post #51

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)

Not necessarily. iMessage & FaceTime AFAIK are cryptographically locked onto Apple HW. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that each piece of Apple HW ships with a burned in unique private key that Apple records the public key of in it's internal database. That private key would be missing in a VM context.

It's possible my data is out of date though because iMessage spam is real & I'm not sure how that's done if it needs a valid private key that Apple can ban.

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

#122

Post by ElFitz »

l8rlump wrote: post #112
crazygringo wrote: post #51

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.

They want to sell hardware. I'm reminded of this every day when I can't use Apple Reminders and Calendar properly on non-Apple devices. I have an Apple phone but use a non-Apple computer. You used to be able to have a web interface to Reminders, but they changed it and now you can't add tasks in the web interface. No worries then, let's use Caldav. Hmmm, can't add a Caldav server to iCloud anymore. Ahh, we can add a…

> I might be cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a ploy to get more people into buying more of their devices.

I’d bet on just not testing that use case because they don’t care enough about it. Thus not catching and never fixing any arising issue or regression.

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

#123

Post by scrollaway »

l8rlump wrote: post #112
crazygringo wrote: post #51

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.

They want to sell hardware. I'm reminded of this every day when I can't use Apple Reminders and Calendar properly on non-Apple devices. I have an Apple phone but use a non-Apple computer. You used to be able to have a web interface to Reminders, but they changed it and now you can't add tasks in the web interface. No worries then, let's use Caldav. Hmmm, can't add a Caldav server to iCloud anymore. Ahh, we can add a…

This shit is why I use Google products on my iphone: gmail, calendar (with reminders), contacts, etc. (Paid version at that: I pay for google workspace, even for personal use)

I'm not locked in to the Apple ecosystem: I can use it on my Linux desktop, or switch to an Android phone at any time.

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

#124

Post by stale2002 »

pb7 wrote: post #99
thfuran wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, that's over twice the minimum threshold for monopoly power.

"Monopoly power" is not a monopoly and in the UK, public schools are actually private schools, so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries.

> "Monopoly power" is not a monopoly

Fortunately, "monopoly" isn't the thing that the law cares about.

Everything to do with anti-trust law, and competition laws, is not about monopolies, and is instead about monopoly power.

> so maybe we shouldn't compare terminology across countries

Feel free to look at the the FTC says about this topic then. It to applies to companies with monopoly power, and not literal monopolies.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power"

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

#125

Post by ElFitz »

nobody9999 wrote: post #103
crazygringo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Civil torts are not contained within any legal code, and as such cannot be illegal.

Doesn’t that depend on the country? Would it also be true in civil law countries? Or only in common law countries?

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

#126

Post by rektide »

varenc wrote: post #105
rektide wrote: 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…

Long post. What you're saying may have some good to know particulars that I didn't get right. But the net is: the only performant way to run JS or any other non-pre-compiled (jit) language is banned. And there's separate bans altogether on browser engines even if running like dogs it were tempting. Because Apple sucks & is mean & a shit.

These are both horseshit fuckery excuses. Cast these wads into the pit. It's all fuckery, & there's so many other security defense layers. These prohibitions are bad spirited jerks being bad and jerks.

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

#127

Post by Gigachad »

brightball wrote: post #66
crazygringo wrote: post #51

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.

Best guess? They don’t charge for their OS because it is attached to their hardware.

Doesn't seem to make all that much sense though. The value of their OS is how perfect it works with their hardware. Sure some people want to run MacOS on a standard desktop, but that doesn't seem to be a significant group of people.

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

#128

Post by jonpalmisc »

vlovich123 wrote: post #121
chrisshroba wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Not necessarily. iMessage & FaceTime AFAIK are cryptographically locked onto Apple HW. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that each piece of Apple HW ships with a burned in unique private key that Apple records the public key of in it's internal database. That private key would be missing in a VM context. It's possible my data is out of date though because iMessage spam is real & I'm not sure how that's done i…

I haven’t looked at this in detail in a while either, but I don’t think the claims here are correct.

It is true that Apple employs some efforts to prevent/discourage you from using those services illegitimately, but using iMessage and FaceTime from a Hackintosh has been possible for years, largely without jumping through any hoops.

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

#129

Post by cloudking »

Robotbeat wrote: post #35

Now I'd like to be able to legally run MacOS on a virtual machine or on AWS or Azure or Google Cloud or something. I know you can rent a bare metal Apple Mini or something, but Apple's terms of service make this all basically illegal to use like any other VM. That means if I want to develop an app for iOS (beyond just what you can do in Swift Playgrounds), I can't just boot up a VM or AWS instance, I have to either b…

Try cancelling a subscription from the app store in your browser.. oh wait you can't do it on the web you have to install iTunes.

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

#130

Post by lawn »

crazygringo wrote: post #51

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.

The walled garden is absolutely essential to Apple's business idea. If you want to use an Apple product, then they want you to commit to their ecosystem completely.

It makes perfect sense that they'd be against anything that circumvents their walled garden, and a VM does just that by allowing users/developers to use their OS without buying their hardware.

I personally hate it, and it's why I'll never touch any Apple product.

Post reply on HN