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

Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

dolphin-emu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 390 posts

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#311

Post by smoldesu »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #179
headmelted wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophically I agree with you, but I also have kids, and I’ve seen the wild west that is the Play Store. Admittedly, the same problems exist on the App Store, but not to the same why-even-try level of anything goes. The amount of kids apps, that are marketed as kids apps, certified as age appropriate, then contain ads for zombie gorefest horror was enough to make me give up trying with Android entirely. I have eve…

I’m surprised you think that Apple is going to lose the epic lawsuit, because if you look at any legal commentary (I’m following Hoeg Law’s extensive coverage of the case), the odds of the App Store being broken from this lawsuit or even sideloading being allowed appears to be extremely unlikely.

> the odds of the App Store being broken from this lawsuit or even sideloading being allowed appears to be extremely unlikely.

From what I've seen, Epic's primary intention is to get Apple to publicly admit the compromises they make to maintain their ecosystem, and then use that to drive a wedge between the court's interpretation of the situation and Apple's defense.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#312

Post by threeseed »

ActorNightly wrote: post #256
enraged_camel wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lot of FUD. Yes, Apple devices do collect some data and phone it home (mostly diagnostic, and iCloud, both of which can be turned off). However, unlike their competitors, Apple does not sell this data to advertisers. And they are just as likely to refuse to work with law enforcement as they are likely to cooperate. How many times has LE demanded that Apple break the encryption on the iPhone of a crime suspe…

Not spreading FUD, just pointing out inconsistency. "Yes, Apple devices do collect some data" should be the end of that sentence. Any data that is collected on the device and sent to apple is not private. It doesn't matter if Apple doesn't share it with other advertisers. Apple does advertising itself. There is no difference between it an a 3d party advertiser in terms of data they have access to. Once you get past t…

> Any data that is collected on the device and sent to apple is not private

Please providence evidence of this claim and specify which data is not private.

Apple uses differential privacy and removes PII which has been documented in the iOS Security Guide.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#313

Post by threeseed »

heavyset_go wrote: post #297
selectodude wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the key thing is that with Apple, you're generally the customer. I pay a huge amount of money for an iPhone and Apple wants me to pay a huge amount of money for another iPhone in the future. Google develops Android for free and as such, I, the consumer, am not Google's customer. It's simply a different business model. Apple could change their approach and in response I can change mine. Google could also set up a…

I paid a lot for cable TV and they still showed me ads despite being the customer. I also pay a lot for my internet connection as a customer, but guess what my ISP's privacy policy allows them to do? Share my data. Like any other profit driven company, Apple is incentivized to generate revenue from their customers' data and to advertise to them.

> Apple is incentivized to generate revenue from their customers' data and to advertise to them.

Apple is equally incentivised not to generate revenue in this way since they would lose hardware sales.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#314

Post by saagarjha »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #307
saagarjha wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do.

I do not think that Apple is maintaining a full GA level release cycle testing and release planning for a version of IOS that can allow 3rd party apps. The key here is the RELEASE TO GA. Of course they have internal builds that are signed and allow you to do whatever they want internally, but having a shipping GA with the normal protects and support for all the work and validations that would go into supporting 3rd p…

Apple ships a build with the ability to sideload to the SRD as well. It’s of course not quite the same as a production release, but I think it’s the closest you’ll get to that.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#315

Post by threeseed »

swiley wrote: post #308
myrandomcomment wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We to be fair their argument is 100% valid. Apple is very successful in selling their HW as is without the feature certain users want. The reality is that adding that feature would have a great deal of cost behind it for very little growth on their already impressive numbers. Everyone here on HN likes to criticize Apple for not allowing 3rd party stores, but in general wants their HW. This community is self selecting…

>Apple is NOT a monopoly... you can buy another device They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this. All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.

There’s also a monopoly on Slack, Google Docs, Fortnite etc.

In fact by that ridiculous definition everything in life is a monopoly.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#316

Post by smoldesu »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #261
fouric wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you prevent this from happening? Very simply - enforce security permissions at the OS level, rather than the app store level. There's no technical reason an app store also has to handle permissions. Leave the discoverability/reviews/curation functionality in the app store, and then just move the app installation functionality into the OS - the app store delivers an app package which the OS accepts, parses…

I don't think it's that simple, and relegating the main issue to a bracketed footnote doesn't make it so. I agree with you that permissions and a sandbox that actually works would have to be part of any solution. But you can rest assured that Facebook wouldn't have made such a fuss if all that was at stake is losing access to IDFA and getting slapped with some unenforceable privacy warning. What's creating a real pro…

I think they do have a point though. If Apple's primary concern was security, they would be approaching this from a fundamentally different perspective; their current solution is a pretty dubious stopgap that bridges "human consent" and "your app". A fundamentally secure approach would ultimately let the user audit and manually control their API interfaces to prevent abuse, instead of just hoping Apple has your best intentions at mind.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#317

Post by swiley »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #173
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>openness at the expense of security This is a false dilemma. You can have both.

I think you're right when it comes to security, but in order for that to work Apple would have to admit that checking apps for security issues is not inseparable from imposing rules that are supposed to benefit their own business model. That said, here's a challenge for everybody (including myself) who doesn't like Apple's app store monopoly and side-loading ban: Apple now requires apps to ask for permission before t…

The security comes from the sandbox, Apple's curation is pretty mediocre and they only remove malware once it's popular or if it's extremely obvious during the short review.

iOS malware authors tend to publish their binaries as unsigned dylibs and don't need Apple ID accounts so they aren't even banned when they're caught. instead they convince other developers to ship it in seperate apps (there are various ways, money, convenient APIs, both in the case of Facebook.)

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#318

Post by rcoveson »

tisFine wrote: post #259
rcoveson wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! No, that's just a garden. A garden is where a single trusted entity cultivates the plants it wants in the way it wants. It has boundaries, but not necessarily walls. Walled gardens are a strict subset of gardens. A walled garden doesn't let you…

Neither does Apple’s App Store; users can pick Linux. Anyone pushing into the App Store specifically then complaining has their own initial choice to blame. But of course that can’t be right…

Linux distros offer a lower-case "app store", a "garden", while also allowing you to straddle the line between the garden and the outside. On the same device, at your own discretion. They don't make it any more difficult than it has to be.

iOS is a "walled garden" because it requires you to be in or out. Like you say, you can "pick Linux", but that's not tearing down walls. That's just leaving the walled area.

The frustration with Apple isn't the fact that they're forcing anybody to use their stuff. It's that they make a lot of cool stuff, and then they go out of their way to make it difficult to use anything not Apple-sanctioned on their stuff. Most OSes don't do this. I like the Linux distro approach better: Provide a garden, but also allow the installation of stuff from other gardens, or from the wilds.

I don't know why you're being derisive of people who have only "their own initial choice to blame". I choose to live in the city where I live, and that has downsides. I even knew those downsides going in! But that doesn't mean I have no right to complain about the downsides. Maybe the upsides still make it worth it to me, and I'm just pushing for a world where I can have those while also fixing what I think is wrong with the place.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#319

Post by myrandomcomment »

swiley wrote: post #308
myrandomcomment wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We to be fair their argument is 100% valid. Apple is very successful in selling their HW as is without the feature certain users want. The reality is that adding that feature would have a great deal of cost behind it for very little growth on their already impressive numbers. Everyone here on HN likes to criticize Apple for not allowing 3rd party stores, but in general wants their HW. This community is self selecting…

>Apple is NOT a monopoly... you can buy another device They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this. All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.

WhatsApp has 2B users vs. 1.6B for Apple. Of the 1.6B for Apple there is a group that would not use iMessage, but any other 3rd party application, like Whatsapp.

The fact that you are left of a chat does not make Apple a monopoly. The people in your group could choose to all switch to the same application, of which most of are closed source. I spent a ton of time in APAC and while each country has different most popular chat apps, the group of us that have spent years working together on and off at different companies all agreed on a common chat app. It's just not hard.

I have a few long term friend groups where a member has an Android and the text is green. No issues sending them text at all. The MMS stuff can be broken but that is not Apples fault.

Your argument is Apple once again the same as everyones else, and appeal to everyone be open because it is your philosophical view of things and it would make your life simpler.

Apple is a for profit company. They are not a monopoly on chat because they choose to offer their users a better experience over the standard SMS (which they supported).

I am frustrated with all the people that miss that distinction. They are a private entity and can do what they way within the outline of the law. You can vote with your pocketbook, or run for office and get the laws changed.

Also, the OSS vs non-OSS comment: you cannot take for granted that everyone here comes down on the side of the GPL 100%. There are a ton of us that work/worked at companies that did priority software because that is what made sense for the business model. We do not write software for free - ie, there has to be a method to pay our bills. I personally have major issues with GPL3 when it comes to creating works for a profit company. No major ones with GPL2, Apache, MIT, etc.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#320

Post by swiley »

threeseed wrote: post #315
swiley wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple is NOT a monopoly... you can buy another device They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this. All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.

There’s also a monopoly on Slack, Google Docs, Fortnite etc. In fact by that ridiculous definition everything in life is a monopoly.

This is anti-trust (extreme abuse of the monopoly.)

Slack, Google Docs, and Fortnite don't force you to use their brand of computer to participate in group chats with your friends.

Slack and Google Docs even work on my pinephone.

If Google forced you to buy an Android if you wanted to use Google Docs with whatever group of people you need to work with you'd probably be upset too.

Post reply on HN