The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness • Hacker News Board

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#11

Post by tjogin » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 6:36 AM UTC

netcan wrote: post #9

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually be O.K. with the restrictions in the App store if there was any non-jailbreak method of loading apps outside the app store. That would allow you to install things like Google Voice, Opera, or whatever if you the user want to, while still providing a squeaky clean simplified view to the average user. For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from the Android Market. However, b…

I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness. The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation instructions... The iphone just got a bit mor…

> The iphone just got a bit more difficult.

And a bit more dangerous. Malware lies not far down this path.

I think Apple is even more concerned with malware than they are with the difficulty part.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#12

Post by akeefer » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 6:40 AM UTC

In general a well-reasoned article, but I don't really agree with the contention that private APIs should be removed: when you're shipping releases of something infrequently and you want to avoid breaking client code, APIs have to be something you can commit to supporting long-term without significant changes. Keeping APIs private allows you to provide functionality that you want to have without risking a bunch of stuff breaking client-side on upgrade, since you can update your applications to work with your API as needed. Getting APIs right enough that they can be supported indefinitely is really, really hard, and it's not reasonable to expect that every bit of required functionality will be implemented and designed to such a high level of completeness the first time around.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#13

Post by pyre » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 6:42 AM UTC

netcan wrote: post #9

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually be O.K. with the restrictions in the App store if there was any non-jailbreak method of loading apps outside the app store. That would allow you to install things like Google Voice, Opera, or whatever if you the user want to, while still providing a squeaky clean simplified view to the average user. For example, on an Android phone, by default you can only install apps from the Android Market. However, b…

I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness. The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation instructions... The iphone just got a bit mor…

The issue being that some "Apple unapproved" apps are useful to people outside of the 'top 5%' but not useful to Apple's bottom line.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#14

Post by pyre » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 6:46 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #11

netcan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness. The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation instructions... The iphone just got a bit mor…

> The iphone just got a bit more difficult. And a bit more dangerous. Malware lies not far down this path. I think Apple is even more concerned with malware than they are with the difficulty part.

The AppStore approval process does not guarantee that something is not malware. At best it's just a superficial filter. It's like creating a mail filter that puts any email that contains the word 'viagra' into your spam folder and calling it a 'spam filter.'

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#15

Post by SwellJoe » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 7:01 AM UTC

jstevens85 wrote: post #10

>the device launched with a PHP IDE in the App Store on day one, amongst other code-related applications. I can't seem to find any of these applications (I'm not sure how to browse for iPad specific apps in iTunes). Does anyone know which apps he's talking about?

Given the rule against scripting on the device, it can't be a particularly useful IDE...I would guess maybe it's an app front-end to some online PHP sandbox.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#16

Post by tjogin » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 7:16 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #14

tjogin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The iphone just got a bit more difficult. And a bit more dangerous. Malware lies not far down this path. I think Apple is even more concerned with malware than they are with the difficulty part.

The AppStore approval process does not guarantee that something is not malware. At best it's just a superficial filter. It's like creating a mail filter that puts any email that contains the word 'viagra' into your spam folder and calling it a 'spam filter.'

Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out.

Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers. Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it the 'OK'.

One of these, or all three in combination is keeping malware out of the AppStore. Whichever, the end result is that the AppStore review process is stopping malware extremely well.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#17

Post by netcan » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 7:21 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #13

netcan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might have trouble really maintaining squeaky cleanliness. The 'average user' still might want or need Google Voice, Opera, or something she needs for work. She sees it on someone else's phone, she asks how you get it. The tell her: Go to preferences, untick 'allow only app store apps', click OK after scary warning, download app to your PC, follow installation instructions... The iphone just got a bit mor…

The issue being that some "Apple unapproved" apps are useful to people outside of the 'top 5%' but not useful to Apple's bottom line.

At the moment Jane never has to have her son help her with her phone the way she does with the PC. She knows how to do everything, even if she never does it. Even without any direct bottom line issues (eg avoid voip takeover), I think this might be enough to motivate Apple.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#18

Post by plinkplonk » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 7:30 AM UTC

"Here is my position, restated as clearly as I possibly can:

1. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad developer program, and make it free."

This is key to me. The day Apple allows me to program whatever I want and deploy to my device without giving them an annual "developer fee", I'll buy an IPad, ITouch and MBP.

I am no Open Source Zealot and am perfectly fine with the closed OS and somewhat ok with the AppStore policies, but I find "developer fees" a very patronizing idea, specifically when I have to pay it every year! wtf! if I paid for the damn device. why should I rent my right to develop on it with 20% of the device cost annually?!.

So hopefully someone in Apple will listen people like Payne and revoke the developer fee (at least the "annual" bit).

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#19

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 8:12 AM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #16

pyre wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AppStore approval process does not guarantee that something is not malware. At best it's just a superficial filter. It's like creating a mail filter that puts any email that contains the word 'viagra' into your spam folder and calling it a 'spam filter.'

Unlike the non-functioning spam-filters you speak of, the AppStore approval process actually has a flawless record of keeping it out. Now, I'm not saying that's squarely because of the diligence of the reviewers. Most likely, it's just as much or more because there's a paper trail from every app to its publisher, a long with the fact that someone is at least going to make a cursory review of the app before giving it…

Flawless record? What about all the ad-supported apps where the new ads suddenly started calling premium phone numbers if you accidentally tapped the ad.

Re: The Moderate's Position on iPad Openness

#20

Post by ZeroGravitas » Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 8:23 AM UTC

plinkplonk wrote: post #18

"Here is my position, restated as clearly as I possibly can: 1. Apple should not charge to put applications you’ve written onto your personal iPad (or iPhone, for that matter). If you purchase one of these devices, you should be able to install software of your own creation on it without any intervention or approval on Apple’s part, other than creating a free developer account. Essentially, take today’s iPhone/iPad d…

I am an "Open Source Zealot". If Apple waved a magic wand and killed all the open source software on my Macbook (not even counting the stuff they bake in themselves) then it would be useless to me.

The App store process seem to break the open source model for no obvious gain. I can't modify some app to suit myself, my company or my family. I can't find a bunch of willing collaborators. Everyone has dollar signs in their eyes and is forced to invest in a Mac, a yearly fee and dealing with bureaucracy to get releases out. This is probably accidental but I want the same process that creates all the code I appreciate on my other computers to be at least tolerated, and preferably encouraged on my mobile ones.

I thought we'd left the shareware and freeware days behind, yet here we are again.