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

Rotten Apple

adactio.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 226 posts

Re: Rotten Apple

#111

Post by addicted »

stetrain wrote: post #88
addicted wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's 1.5 billion iPhone users vs 100 million Mac users It’s beyond hilarious, after years of seeing Apple users fight back against the idea that the Mac’s better security relative to windows Windows has anything to do with its smaller user base, to see Apple users insist that the Mac’s smaller user base relative to the iPhone is what makes it more secure.

Those are probably different groups of people. I'll definitely agree that the Mac would see more security issues if it had the install base of Windows or iOS.

They’re a lot of the same people.

John Gruber for example used to rail against the Security by Obscurity argument (correctly, IMO), but makes the same security by obscurity argument today.

Re: Rotten Apple

#112

Post by myaccountonhn »

frizlab wrote: post #68

> Instead of graciously acknowledging that this is what’s best for users, Apple are throwing a tantrum. I’m a user and a developer and I’m convinced this is not what’s best for users.

It's better for me, a user of an iPhone.

Re: Rotten Apple

#113

Post by interpol_p »

Fischgericht wrote: post #63
thimp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is just "all we could deliver by the compliance deadline without compromising platform security" ? The truth is usually a lot less interesting than the hypothesis.

How would suddenly disallowing users to run a PWA that worked for years improve platform security? How would having Spotify be able to use their own subscription system compromise platform security? Being able to install software without needing an OK from the hardware manufacturer has been standard for over 40 years now. People do it on Windows PCs, on Linux PCs, on MacBooks and on Android phones, and that very clea…

They are not allowed to give their browser an advantage under the DMA. If you take a look at BrowserEngineKit and BrowserKit there is a significant API surface area they offer for third-party browser engines. They must have been building this for some time. It's really detailed, down to allowing developers to implement their own JIT! [1] they have custom UI components replacing their standard scroll views with ones that better support nested scrollable DOM elements. It's a staggering amount of engineering effort

I can totally believe that there is not enough time to re-think and re-architect how to implement push notifications, local storage and whatever other perks PWAs get for non-Safari third-party browser engines running as "apps." They may have lots of money and engineers, but throwing more of them at this problem is not going to build a well designed, thoroughly tested, and secure implementation any faster

[1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit/p...

Re: Rotten Apple

#114

Post by sneak »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #105
sneak wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a soon to be nonexistent middle class in the USA (as well as big growth in comparatively poor countries) getting Apple-style huge profits in the next 2-3 decades is going to be much more about getting $20-50/mo/user in perpetuity and less about selling premium price $1k-3k devices. The AVP (at like version 3 or 4) is the endgame for “Apple should make a TV”. It’s the ultimate passive content consumption device.…

Any organization is committed to recurring revenue because it has recurring costs, most importantly salaries.

Sure, but historically Apple made that recurring revenue by simply selling expensive hardware devices at intervals, one sale at a time. The growth period of those is now over. There aren’t ever going to be 5x as many smartphone or tablet or laptop users in the future as there are today. To support continued y/y increases they need to increase revenue somewhere and it’s not going to be from new product categories, at least for a few years, such as when the AV(non-P) is much lighter and an order of magnitude cheaper.

The problem is that they can’t simply continue to earn four hundred billion a year - that’s not enough. Each year it must increase. No revenue figure is ever sufficient.

Apple’s eras are:

- the growth of the pre-graphical personal computer market

- the growth of the graphical computer market (Mac) (worth noting that they mostly failed to capture this)

- the growth of the portable/internet graphical computer market (ie affordable personal laptops)

- the growth of the smartphone market

- rentseeking (and maybe the growth of the VR hardware market if they and Zucc have guessed correctly)

There isn’t another growing hardware market for them to surf at this point. They’re doing their best with smart speakers, earbuds, headphones, watches, and tablets but in the grand scheme of revenue nobody really cares about those and they won’t grow substantially in the future.

Re: Rotten Apple

#116

Post by jsnell »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #35

Why is it a bad response from Apple to disable a feature that they deem as a security risk if you allow for alternative browser engines? Browsers represent a significant attack surface since they can run code and also transmit data across the network. So when they are allowed to exist now Apple has either two options. One is to do the simple way and remove progressive web apps or extensively test and perform security…

Apple has been abusing their dominant market position for more than a decade, blocking browser competition with security being one of their excuses. They can't be trusted to be honest about what's a legitimate security issue, and what's just them using security as a smokescreen for anti-competitive behavior.

And in fact, they are not being honest in this very case. Their entire spiel is based on the idea that the 3rd party browsers will be malicious, and permit data sharing between different PWAs. It's a risk they've just made up, because they're already making all kinds of other security requirements on 3rd party browsers before allowing them on the platform. They could just have made this one of those requirements.

Re: Rotten Apple

#117

Post by JKCalhoun »

dwighttk wrote: post #70

Sure this situation already exists on Mac OS but that is a much smaller user base and there are plenty of alternatives where you can go and install arbitrary software. I deal with weird stuff my parents have installed on their Macs every time I visit… so far I haven’t had to do that with their phones. If I wanted them to use a Firefox browser engine on their phone I’d get them an Android.

Yeah, I thought the Mac comparison was easy to digest, but ultimately left me feeling still a little hungry. I'm thinking those that would install malware are obviously going to target the platform that is always online and that sells millions of units.

I remember how few Mac viruses there were back in the 90's vs. the PC platform. I don't think it had anything to do with System 7 security. ;-)

I'm not sure though if it wouldn't in fact hurt Apple's brand to give up the fight and instead install a big lever you can throw when you set up your iOS device that says, "Turn off security". Apple seems to be saying instead, you have choice — buy an Android.

I've never owned an Android though so I can say, is it rife with malware and other security compromises? Is the platform as hardened as iOS? Or it another case where the market is not as appealing as the iOS market to malware developers?

Re: Rotten Apple

#118

Post by devnullbrain »

robenkleene wrote: post #58

This is a terrible argument: > You can read Apple’s announcement on being forced to comply but as you do you so, I’d like you to remember one thing: every nightmare scenario they describe for the security of users in the EU is exactly what currently happens on Macs everywhere in the world. There's 1.5 billion iPhone users vs 100 million Mac users, Apple believes that at least part of the reason for that difference is…

You are conspicuously not noting how much Apple value the $89 billion they made on app store commissions last year.

Re: Rotten Apple

#119

Post by Brian_K_White »

blantonl wrote: post #95
worksonmine wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple always assume that you use their devices as primaries Assumes or tries very hard to make the alternative as difficult as possible? From a company that prides itself in improving and simplifying UX the dark patterns aren't mistakes.

Maybe the UX is so good because they don't care to have a development team supporting your 0.001% edge case of you wanting to run iMovie on your Sun Workstation running Solaris.

[flagged]

Re: Rotten Apple

#120

Post by cageface »

iainmerrick wrote: post #92
cageface wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: There is no native app for The Session, but you can install it on your phone nonetheless. Lots of people have done that. After a while they forget that they didn’t install it from an app store: it behaves just like any other app on their homescreen. Maybe you don't believe this but it was addressed.

I thought PWAs already didn't work well on iOS, though? Apart from opening in a browser window rather than as a full-screen app, is this going to behave significantly differently from before?

Apple has made some significant improvements in their handling of PWAs recently, most notably supporting push notifications. Which makes their recent moves even more discouraging.

https://www.thisdot.co/blog/the-renaissance-of-pwas

Post reply on HN