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

Rethinking the App Store

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#311

Post by kevincox »

LexGray wrote: post #310
kevincox wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why we can't have things if they aren't useful to 5% of the population and don't harm the rest. Also the "maybe not as high" comment was about security because you can make an argument that the human review is better. However there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence on either side comparing human review to mostly automated.

Basically because that 5% is saying the other 95% should never have the option for a device without third party App Stores. It is a small minority trying to dictate what options the majority has available.

No one is forcing anyone to install an app store. But this logic you are already being forced to switch to Android and install a third-party app store for applications that aren't allowed on the Apple App Store or Google Play. The reality is that you aren't being forced to do that today and won't be if you can install software without approval from Apple in iOS.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#312

Post by LexGray »

saagarjha wrote: post #194
baddox wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect a large portion of Apple’s users value the fact that they can’t break their phone by accidentally installing the wrong app or clicking the wrong button. To them it might not be clear what they’re getting from this no-rules App Store.

I think people using Cydia had a pretty good idea of what they were doing.

Doubtful as few changed the root password.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#313

Post by humblecurator »

cesher wrote: post #4

I love Stratechery, but I think this one gets it wrong. Think of App Store as three products: 1. App quality screening 2. App promotion/distribution 3. In app purchasing Ask any reasonable dev if they are willing to foot a fixed cost to get their app screened, a fixed cost per app download (bandwidth), and variable cost to get their app promoted in the store (not everyone needs this) and they would agree. What pisses…

I agree, Apple's approach forces one kind of value capture through in-app purchases, then they do a value capture on that value capture with the 30% take.

I'm paraphrasing Byrne Hobart here, but if they beefed up their App Store discoverability and had proper search functionality and a self-serve ad engine like Alibaba, their revenue model would reflect demand and then, finally, the Ubers and Facebooks would have to start paying significant amounts for all the free App Store support they've had this entire time.

The fact that digital content services like Spotify are expected to subsidise other companies with different business models like Facebook or Uber is indefensible IMO.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#314

Post by sreekotay »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #278
sreekotay wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe think of it differently: what if there were third party app stores that had the same TECHNICAL requirements, but not the same business/policy requirements. Feels like this is (should be?) as much about USER freedom and choice as it is about DEVELOPERS. While cost precipitated the current set of issues, it's really about the role Apple plays in arbitrarily mediating between customer and service. So basically, yo…

> Each "app store" would have it's own ability to set those policies for apps it carries - but (crucially) users would have the OPTION. > For users that don't care - stick with Apple. As an Apple user, to me this is the opposite of having "options". As an individual, I cannot fight any remotely large company let alone FB or Google. If they hold my messaging or email hostage, I would be forced to use their secondary i…

Fair point on FB and Google. Troubling rumblings in that direction...

But I dont follow... install only their app from that store. Same sandbox, etc applies. Let them require same security.

As to revenue... that might have to so with customer set? If it were only Apple, a lot less people would own smartphones....

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#315

Post by LexGray »

pwinnski wrote: post #240
kitsunesoba wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, as a user I'm not going to be happy if I have to resort to using an unscrupulous third party App Store with fewer privacy restrictions in order to get the app I need. There's also the possibility of mobile equivalents to the Adobe CC installer/manager that act as their own "App Store" and aren't subject to any rules at all, which is even worse. After seeing what the likes of Adobe does on desktop PCs, I do n…

Allowing alternate sources of apps is not at all the same thing as allowing apps to do whatever they wish on your device. iOS apps would still be sandboxed and heavily restricted. In-app privacy would be unchanged. Apple should have the ability to "shut off" unscrupulous third-party App Stores just as they do today with unscrupulous developers. Adobe would find it tough going if they withdrew from Apple's App Store,…

So Apple still needs to be responsible for content of third party stores? The stores should require Apple code signing to allow remote shut down and be complaints about items in non Apple stores reviewed by Apple for unscrupulous behavior? Sound like a waste of battery where like Mac and Windows a constant malware checker would be required at the OS level.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#316

Post by scarface74 »

contextfree wrote: post #301
scarface74 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having admin privileges doesn’t matter. Any software you install still has read and write permissions to all of your files, can encrypt your files (ransomware) can read your contacts (which hasn’t changed since the ILoveYou days in the early 2000s), etc.

That's true of full-trust (i.e., "Win32") software and that's why AppContainer (i.e., "UWP") was introduced. Moving the Windows software ecosystem to adopt AppContainer/UWP more pervasively is still a work in progress, but surely moving away from everything requiring admin privileges is prerequisite to any such more fine-grained sandboxing?

And we get back to the “problem”. Any app that wanted to do harm wouldn’t opt in to use UWP. If you are only going to use apps that can use UWP you might as well use an iPad and not deal with the bloat of Windows which is still a horrible experience on a tablet or convertible. Windows and Macs are “insecure by design”. They almost have to be to be more usable than the iPad. That’s not meant to be a criticism toward Windows. All either Apple or Microsoft can do is throw up dialogs and people just become accustomed to clicking on “Ok”.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#317

Post by LexGray »

Sargos wrote: post #173
willvarfar wrote: post #32

I'm divided. As a programmer, I'm as happy as a pig in mud in the low-level innards of my computers and operating systems, and like that I can get at them etc. That's why I have linux on my desktop. But 'open' systems don't work out well for 'normal' users. Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? I want my parents and friends and everyone else to use an iphon…

>Remember the viruses and trojans and instability and all the rest of the Windows days, or Android? The era you are referencing was two decades ago and those problems stemmed from development processes that didn't take security into consideration since it was mostly written in pre-internet days and worked well in that environment. Once Microsoft took security seriously things got better. Windows is -still- an open pl…

Originally the carriers were terrified of app stores because there would be cell network hacking tools and service disrupting network traffic. A vast majority of malware on macOS now comes from pirate apps stores via torrents. Much of the current App Store design is based on those concerns and the current iOS sandbox is still a long way from preventing those abuses.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#318

Post by supermatt »

comex wrote: post #305
supermatt wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitrary code, not binaries. You can run arbitrary code through a compiler (which gets signed automatically when it gets linked) and then run it, or you can run arbitrary code through an (already signed) interpreter. You CANNOT run an unsigned binary on silicon, but I totally understand your confusion given their statement. Edit: To clarify further, you cant run an ARM binary - x86 apps going through rosetta (curren…

Why do you care about unsigned binaries when self-signed binaries work fine and the linker produces signatures automatically? It's just a technical change in the required format for executables, not a substantive change in what you're able to do. You may as well complain that macOS doesn't support ELF binaries.

Not self signed. Signed by an Apple issued cert. This entire thread is about control of distribution. You absolutely will not be able to distribute a Mac app without an Apple dev subscription in order to have your app notarised, agreeing to everything that comes with that. At the moment you can. This is clearly a “substantive change”.

I am a proponent for code-signing, I just don't see why I cant use my own cert (such as that issued for a domain name) instead of an apple issued one - if it is solely about preventing code tampering, as they state...

The actual reason behind a central issuance of certs is DRM. If apps NEED to run through this gatekeeper, then the gatekeeper can phone home to get a license for you to run the app (or not). This will enable the revocation of a cert for distribution of malware, but will also enable revocation for other reasons - like a dev breaching the terms of their agreement with apple (whatever those may be).

That is what the issue is. There is literally no benefit in this unless apple can revoke certs, because there is nothing to stop a dev signing a malicious app!

I don’t see what this has to do with elf binaries. I mentioned arm binaries because that is what all upcoming apple “computers” will be.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#319

Post by comex »

supermatt wrote: post #318
comex wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you care about unsigned binaries when self-signed binaries work fine and the linker produces signatures automatically? It's just a technical change in the required format for executables, not a substantive change in what you're able to do. You may as well complain that macOS doesn't support ELF binaries.

Not self signed. Signed by an Apple issued cert. This entire thread is about control of distribution. You absolutely will not be able to distribute a Mac app without an Apple dev subscription in order to have your app notarised, agreeing to everything that comes with that. At the moment you can. This is clearly a “substantive change”. I am a proponent for code-signing, I just don't see why I cant use my own cert (suc…

That's not correct. To quote Apple:

> New in macOS 11 on Apple silicon Mac computers, and starting in the next macOS Big Sur 11 beta, the operating system will enforce that any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run. There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now generated automatically by the linker.

An "ad-hoc signature" is Apple jargon for a code signature without a certificate (so really just a set of hashes, no actual public-key signature); I called it self-signed since it's a more familiar term. By "there isn't a specific identity requirement" they mean it's not required to be Apple-signed.

Of course, macOS on Apple silicon will still require an Apple signature by default like it does on Intel, but you'll be able to disable that like you can on Intel.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#320

Post by supermatt »

comex wrote: post #319
supermatt wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not self signed. Signed by an Apple issued cert. This entire thread is about control of distribution. You absolutely will not be able to distribute a Mac app without an Apple dev subscription in order to have your app notarised, agreeing to everything that comes with that. At the moment you can. This is clearly a “substantive change”. I am a proponent for code-signing, I just don't see why I cant use my own cert (suc…

That's not correct. To quote Apple: > New in macOS 11 on Apple silicon Mac computers, and starting in the next macOS Big Sur 11 beta, the operating system will enforce that any executable must be signed with a valid signature before it’s allowed to run. There isn’t a specific identity requirement for this signature: a simple ad-hoc signature issued locally is sufficient, which includes signatures which are now genera…

And, as a user, what is the mechanism for ad-hoc signing an unsigned binary on silicon? :)

You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries. You can’t disable/bypass the gatekeeper on silicon.

If you have access to a transition kit you can see this for yourself.

Post reply on HN