Live data from Hacker News

App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

daringfireball.net

251–258 of 258 posts

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to argue we should close all banks or whatever ridiculous argument people come up with just because someone lost money. The only way to 100% prevent scams is to remove the potential entirely. There are scams, infinite actually, right now, on iPhones. Do you support that? Surely not, so we should lock iPhones down more no? Ideally, we ban smartphones altogether, to prevent scams. Oh you don't support tha…

The comparison to banks is actually pretty interesting. Unlike app developers, banks are by default directly liable for fraud that happens on their system. In many cases, even when someone gets their bank to send money to a scammer, they can still get that money back. Since the bank doesn't want to risk regulatory reprisal, they have a lower threshold for spending money to make customers whole. Exceptions and subtlet…

I'm not arguing we should open iPhones 100%. But the fact that ONLY apple approved software can be run is unacceptable. Alternative app stores, which Apple can approve, should exist.

We have highly secure repos on other platforms. I would argue the Debian repos are much, much more secure than the App Store. The safety and security argument against it is, simply put, wrong. It is incorrect, it should not be humored. The fact people genuinely believe only Apple can securely audit software is ridiculous, poorly thought out, and obvious corporate propaganda.

If we want iPhones to be more secure, we need to take a closer look at the permission system. What we don't need to do is let Apple continue their profiteering. And make no mistake, the singular goal of the App Store is profiteering. Security is not a goal, otherwise they would only allow open source apps that they audit. But no, they allow closed source apps which use private APIs and they do not give a fuck. And that's why there's quite a lot of malware on the App Store, and much less in the Debian repos. Despite one being run by a multi-trillion dollar corporation, and the other being run by volunteers. It's time to call spades, spades.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the sliding scale here where the left is "full anarchy" and the right is "goo goo ga ga baby proof the world", Apple is about 95% to the left. Here's how that looks: Anarchy |--------O-| Goo Goo Ga Ga And people are arguing we should be moving further right. It's ridiculous, we all need to be candid and recognize this will not work

Fortunately, it's not a linear scale. All sorts of technical and political options exist which don't fall cleanly into the anarchy or baby-proofing spectrum. Random incomplete examples, in no particular order and off the top of my head: GGP's idea of making it more commonplace to have a "Johnny" helping people with their tech needs to prevent accidents could work socially, if there are ways for communities to create…

I agree with all of this, and these are very good suggestions. I think, if Apple tightens the permission system, then alternative app stores would be a good idea. I also think probably downloading stuff from Safari should not be allowed. But alternative repositories definitely should.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay but again we cannot form all technology to only work for people with cognitive issues and nobody else. We can take their needs into consideration , just as we legally require businesses to put wheelchair ramps in. > NO, there are not, because Apple chooses to only allow their app store. The market we are talking about here is not "all smartphones". It's "the market of software available for iPhones", in which…

> We can take their needs into consideration Yes, I agree, and I said exactly that. > Should Gucci have to sell Coach handbags? Should Ford have to sell Toyotas? If Gucci was a Walmart, then yes. If Walmart claimed to be a grocery store, and exclusively served only Walmart goods, that's a problem. There's a difference between a brand and a marketplace . Apple is a brand . The App Store is a marketplace . The marketpl…

> If Walmart claimed to be a grocery store, and exclusively served only Walmart goods, that's a problem.

Why? Trader Joes and Aldi both do precisely that. No one minds.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#256
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of your coin is that I need to periodically visit my relatives and remove all sorts of malware and adware from their phones. Just like I've done with PCs over the past few decades.

Then Apple should do its fucking job correctly. It is not a poor little company, they have no excuse for this rank incompetence. None.

It's interesting how poorly some of these comments have aged in light of the retraction.

Re: App Store Rejection of the Week: Dark Hours

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the App Store will be the one real stain on his legacy Well, and the Apple Car. And the Butterfly Keyboard and that horrible i9 16" MBP. Plus the Airpower, and the Vision Pro, and he cancelled the entire Mac Pro lineup too. Also the $1,000 VESA monitor mount and goofy desktop wheels, and we should probably also mention his meetings with Donald Trump and eventual White House dinner with Bin Salman. Tim also failed t…

> Well, and the Apple Car. How is the Apple Car a stain on his legacy? They worked on something, and decided not to do it. Who cares? Apple’s management of the App Store has ruined mobile apps. Nobody gives a shit about the car.

You're right, at Apple's scale we should forgive Tim Cook for wasting human talent and capital on failed megaprojects. It's not like those resources could have been diverted to address the other problems with Apple's services or hardware products, who cares?
Post reply on HN