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

321–330 of 350 posts

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#321

Post by comex »

supermatt wrote: post #320
comex wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

`codesign -s - my_binary`, though that would rarely be necessary unless you patched it in a hex editor or something, since otherwise it would have been automatically ad-hoc signed when it was linked.

> You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries.

They have the same distribution restrictions on Apple silicon as on Intel. You can, but it requires the person running the binary to either (a) run it in a terminal, (b) right-click Open, or (c) use spctl --master-disable to disable Gatekeeper entirely.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#322

Post by nickflood »

csunbird wrote: post #253
nickflood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple says that App Store is secure and stuff. But it would not become less secure if there are other stores. And everybody who wants security for themselves could choose to use the App Store exclusively. Everybody else, on the other hand, would not be forced to do the same for the benefit of a big corp. Sure, I've got relatives who would happily install crap on their devices given the ability, but iPhone's internal…

App Store will not be less secure if they allow third party app stores, but the platform will . How long do you think that it will take for scam apps in poorly moderated app stores to appear, which the users are tricked to install for "free v-bucks" or "free $10 store credit"?

Well, we have other platforms to look at. Android, Windows, MacOS - they all seem to be fine regarding this issue. Not great, but not bad either, while offsetting the bad with their openness.

The open web also exists and somehow doesn't need full moderation for people to be, one the whole, relatively safe there.

O think, the situation with App Store looks like there are parental controls that are always on, and the parent is Apple. And sure, it can be fine, until the parent becomes abusive or until the child becomes (in this case the user base on the whole) smarter and more prepared for what's out there.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#323

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

nodamage wrote: post #309
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A judge ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a judge ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter. I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of s…

> I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this. > Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows Not quite. As I explain in another comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455 ) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other compani…

> Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers

Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#324

Post by the_other »

auggierose wrote: post #232
the_other wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a disabled person, I’m forced to disagree. Most disability is social: activities are hard to perform not due to physical limitation (although this has some effect), but because social constructs and practices obstruct access.

It depends on the kind of software. Should games be required to be accessible? I don't think so. Should banking apps be required to be accessible? That probably depends on the size of the bank. Should software used for accessing government services be accessible? Of course. I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

At a personal level, I’m fine with individual pieces of software being accessible or not. It’s the same with individual pieces of art, buildings and so on. I’m into music enough that I DJ and play in bands; my partner is deaf and prefers subtitled films; no big deal.

But when you pull your focus a bit further back to look at society, Infrastructure, systems and practices, it’s easy to see that disabled people are both more vulnerable and also less well supported (and often actively discriminated against).

The laws we have give disabled people some leverage to redress that imbalance. Unfortunately, the perspective that “accessibility is an expensive addition” is so pervasive (or not even considered), that disabled people need those laws.

A problem with laws is they reinforce binary thinking. As written they tend towards flexibility, but at the point of enforcement, there’s usually a hard line between punishment and not, which amplifies that binary impression. A less binary outlook would see people and companies embracing the opportunities for collaboration and creativity. For example, a big games publisher could actively seek out and promote developers who specialise in accessible games, or games that play with creative devices beyond the vision-first norm. A few examples exist but they’re rare, independent and it’s not a category you can search for. The same goes for art, galleries, cinema. London, where I live, had an improving state of live subtitled theatre, but it’s still only one performance in 50 or 100, for the big shows. It’s probably only even this good because of the law.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#325

Post by supermatt »

comex wrote: post #321
supermatt wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And, as a user, what is the mechanism for ad-hoc signing an unsigned binary on silicon? :) `codesign -s - my_binary`, though that would rarely be necessary unless you patched it in a hex editor or something, since otherwise it would have been automatically ad-hoc signed when it was linked. > You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries. They have the same distribution restrictions on Apple silicon as on Intel. You c…

Good luck expecting a user to do that! As I already said, you cant distribute an ad-hoc app, so this is exactly what they would have to do - hence my smiley face!

You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point - otherwise there is no difference to the current behaviour.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#326

Post by comex »

supermatt wrote: post #325
comex wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, as a user, what is the mechanism for ad-hoc signing an unsigned binary on silicon? :) `codesign -s - my_binary`, though that would rarely be necessary unless you patched it in a hex editor or something, since otherwise it would have been automatically ad-hoc signed when it was linked. > You can’t distribute ad-hoc signed binaries. They have the same distribution restrictions on Apple silicon as on Intel. You c…

Good luck expecting a user to do that! As I already said, you cant distribute an ad-hoc app, so this is exactly what they would have to do - hence my smiley face! You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point - otherwise there is no difference to the current behaviour.

> You CANNOT bypass gatekeeper on silicon - that is the whole point, otherwise there would be no diffference!

Yes, you can. The only difference between Intel and Apple silicon in this regard is that binaries that literally have no code signature (as opposed to a self-signed one) will not run. It's a technical cleanup measure that removes a special case (executable with no associated signature blob), not a lockdown measure. It's not intended to make a difference from the user's point of view.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#327

Post by nodamage »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #323
nodamage wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this. > Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows Not quite. As I explain in another comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455 ) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other compani…

> Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?

Yes, that was a separate case from 1994 and they ultimately settled with the DOJ. The browser stuff happened a few years later in 1998.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#328

Post by munawwar »

I am more in favour of going back to installing apps from the web, reading app reviews (also from the web), bringing back app listing websites (remember nokia days?), running an antivirus and cutting any chance of another monopoly rising.

Alternative app stores won't break this monopoly. Android for example already have alternatives.. but how many know them and how many use them? The one that's shipped with the OS always wins. Besides, most of them take like 20% tax.. which is still hugely profitable.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#329

Post by anoncake »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #292
anoncake wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only a problem when you run untrusted software. Doing that is insane.

No, you shouldn't need to trust software in the first place. Why should my email client be allowed to access my camera, whether I trust it or not?

Because sandboxing harms the user experience.

Re: Rethinking the App Store

#330

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

sjwright wrote: post #134
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The raison d'être of the Apple App Store is to make money. All other considerations are secondary at best.

Ultimately true of all businesses and all products.

There's always exceptions...

Some business exist with the intention of generating a loss, or some sort of tax avoidance scheme. Legally, I don't mean tax evasion.

Post reply on HN