Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#231

Post by JohnFen » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #149

JohnFen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the author, so I don't know. But I would say the title is intended to be provocative and, in terms of what this looks like from the outside, isn't an unreasonable supposition. But, ultimately, it's not an important point either way.

I think intention is important, and in many ways more important than the end result, and it's worth highlighting potential mischaracterisation. If it's not important to you fair enough, but I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.

Intention is very important in many circumstances, yes! But in this sort of thing, where a user is being adversely affected, intention is of very little importance to that user. Regardless of the intent, the user is still adversely affected.

> I don't understand the point of you both contributing to the discussion as well as saying the discussion isn't worth having.

I didn't say the discussion isn't worth having. I think it is, because it's interesting.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#232

Post by adql » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #224

a4isms wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you are right. Jobs himself said that he wanted to go beyond selling computers, and sell information appliances. In that respect, he and Woz were diametrically opposed. When he was squeezed out of management in his own company, it is not a coïncidence that he elbowed his way into Jef Raskin's Macintosh project: Raskin was also interested in building information appliances, the difference between the two men wa…

> Jobs never lost his vision that Apple should sell appliances, and people who wanted to "wrench their own devices" should buy PCs. And honestly, I don't think information appliances are a bad thing to have in the world. It's not the kind of device I would choose for myself, but there's a class of users for whom a general computing device isn't just overkill, it's downright dangerous. Android is fine for my use case,…

But it's worse than appliance. Appliance doesn't actively block you from using it for something not listed in instruction manual

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#233

Post by red-iron-pine » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #209

angryasian wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let not be naive in saying that its still not possible. It is but a lot less. Companies have been getting better at bug bounties, education, and in general people working more with the technology

A huge part of the improvement has been sandboxing, code signing, and trusted distribution channels. In the Windows XP era, a freeware game or utility you downloaded turning out to be a virus was 100% your fault. It wasn’t a defect in Windows that your whole computer got owned, that was just how computers worked. Crazy to me that people want to go back there.

No, that was absolutely how Windows worked.

XP security was atrocious, and there were already better, functional models of how to structure things out there.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#234

Post by User23 » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

sublinear wrote: post #228

closeparen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up at a time when a computer was a thing that any website you accidentally clicked on could totally and permanently hijack. I don't miss it. One-click zero-friction execution of arbitrary code with the full privileges of your user account was a bad and wrong design. Malware scanning, signatures, and heuristics were a hilariously inadequate answer to the risks. One of the best things that's ever happened in com…

I think this is a false dichotomy. Nobody sane is arguing for a vulnerable computer. The desire is just less friction and fewer restrictions on what code can be written and executed by the owner on the device. Really this is what virtualization is for, and the only thing keeping mobile operating systems working as they do is that most consumers don't demand the same features as businesses, but in my opinion they shou…

I'm not even seeing a false dichotomy, it's just wrong. Running arbitrary code from the Internet isn't at all the same thing as running arbitrary code that you yourself just wrote.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#235

Post by adql » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #209

angryasian wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let not be naive in saying that its still not possible. It is but a lot less. Companies have been getting better at bug bounties, education, and in general people working more with the technology

A huge part of the improvement has been sandboxing, code signing, and trusted distribution channels. In the Windows XP era, a freeware game or utility you downloaded turning out to be a virus was 100% your fault. It wasn’t a defect in Windows that your whole computer got owned, that was just how computers worked. Crazy to me that people want to go back there.

Well, tech-competent people mostly survived that without scratch so they want same experience of actually owning machine today as they had 10 years ago.

The push for containerization and sandboxing is in right direction if user have control over it.

By all means run the new app I downloaded in nice little box and ask me when it wants to access any file from outside of it, but if I want to I should have option to give it permission to whatever I want.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#236

Post by cloverich » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #131

smoldesu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does letting people freely sideload apps conflict with this philosophy? You can still use your iPad as the world's most expensive e-reader if you want, letting other people run Linux on it doesn't somehow ruin your experience.

I think what Apple’s afraid of is an app like Facebook tricking/forcing users to sideload in order to bypass privacy protections and get full access to user data. I don’t think they’re at all worried about hobbyists sideloading open source apps. Everyone likes to say “but would Apple would lose the $100/yr from all those hobbyists.” How many hobbyists do you think are out there right now paying $100/year just to load…

They are worried about both, and use the former to justify the latter. And in the case of Facebook, they are worried for good reasons (they care about user privacy) and bad ones (they are happy to hurt Facebook financially, because it reduces their ability to compete with Apple).

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#237

Post by orangecat » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

lostgame wrote: post #109

sramsay wrote: post #68

What bothers me about this -- and it bothered me enough to leave the platform -- is not fees, or "hobby computing," or "it's just for my own use," or trying to figure out why this or that would be in Apple's interest. What bothers me is that it feels like an offense against the entire notion of what a computer is. I am, of course, aware that many (perhaps most) computers in the world are effectively appliances, but a…

>> It's like giving someone a deck of cards and telling them that these cards can only be used to play blackjack. You can't invent a card game, or change the rules, or build a house of cards, or do card magic. Millions of people buy cards that can only be used to specifically only play, say; 'Magic: the Gathering' (MtG). You could probably invent some sort of new game with MtG cards, or do some sort of card magic wit…

You could probably invent some sort of new game with MtG cards

And people did, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_Commander, which is now the most popular MtG format. So yes, even in this case the freedom to explore and experiment is good.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#238

Post by adql » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

KerrAvon wrote: post #177

flohofwoe wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I want a "computer" I open up my MacBook. That Macs are still somewhat open is just a happy historical accident. Enjoy it while it lasts :/

This is slippery-slope fearmongering. In reality, Apple has gone out of its way to ensure that Apple Silicon Macs can boot other operating systems if the user so desires, and can do so without sacrificing security.

How they have "gone out of their way" ?

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#239

Post by User23 » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

gretch wrote: post #119

smoldesu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does letting people freely sideload apps conflict with this philosophy? You can still use your iPad as the world's most expensive e-reader if you want, letting other people run Linux on it doesn't somehow ruin your experience.

My philosophy is that Apple can do whatever they want (as long as legal and ethical). They made a thing, and you bought it. Why would anyone with a bent on free computing walk into what they know to be a closed ecosystem. Just buy an Android phone. It’s like flying to a foreign country and expecting everyone to English to you imo…

> They made a thing, and you bought it.

That's the key point: I bought it. It's mine now and I have the moral the moral right to do anything I please with it that isn't immoral. Granted, there can be laws that trample that moral right or artificial technical barriers that attempt to restrict it, but both are unjust. Attempted word magic spells such as "by using this product that you just bought you agree that you didn't actually buy this product" are ridiculous, dishonest, incoherent, and not morally binding.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#240

Post by a4isms » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #189

a4isms wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, you are right. Jobs himself said that he wanted to go beyond selling computers, and sell information appliances. In that respect, he and Woz were diametrically opposed. When he was squeezed out of management in his own company, it is not a coïncidence that he elbowed his way into Jef Raskin's Macintosh project: Raskin was also interested in building information appliances, the difference between the two men wa…

Jobs called it "bicycles for the mind".* Back in the beginning there was lots of talk of "toasters" as an appliance every household has and even a child can use (to the point there was a famous screensaver of flying toasters). The Mac 512, Plus, and SE were embodiments of this. (The Apple //c with LCD attachment and carry handle was an earlier attempt.) Note that all of those included portability as a feature, while…

I remember "Bicycles for the mind" well:

http://raganwald.com/assets/images/bicycle-jobs.jpeg

But as a metaphor, I don't think of a bicycle as an appliance. Mainstream bicycles are brutalist: The chain and gears are usually on display and user-serviceable. Parts like wheels, saddles, and handlebars are standardized in a way that allows users to mix and match components freely. In the days of steel frames you could make art bikes and trikes and all kinds of things from a bicycle.

The metaphor works well to describe a lever for the mind's own motive ability.