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

App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 437 posts

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#391

Post by Apocryphon »

syspec wrote: post #382
Apocryphon wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple disrupted the whole game and put carriers on the defensive. It is highly unlikely that the carriers could try to create their own app stores to funnel iOS users towards them. Unlike with Android, neither they nor the OEMs have the ability to customize the operating system. Nor would users care to install a bunch of bloatware apps on some shoddy telecom's third party app store.

The same carriers that hijack DNS, to show you adds when you make a typo on a URL? Or the same carriers that managed to show you an add when you're on WiFi that you pay for, on your own computer?

It takes a lot less effort to do both of those things, than it is to build a third-party app store and to entice users to join. They may attempt to, but it would be difficult. It’s a lot easier to show ads than it is to get users to use those crappy carrier or OEM bundled bloatware apps. Even Apple has had to allow app hiding or deletion of its first party apps in recent updates, because a lot of users don’t use a lot of them and find them to be clutter.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#392

Post by nojito »

sudosysgen wrote: post #60
nojito wrote: post #8

I personally can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information because their schools have a contract with the developers and have made it mandatory. Same will be true of employees and their employers.

Students are already made to use iPads or Chromebooks with apps installed using the Apple Enterprise tools that don't have to pass the validation process and can collect all of their information. Same is true of employers and their employees. So what you are talking about is in fact already there, and Apple is fine with it and facilitates it.

MDM is transparent through the profile you install.

Same won’t be true via a third party App Store.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#393

Post by nojito »

arrosenberg wrote: post #39
nojito wrote: post #8

I personally can’t wait for students to be forced to install apps from third party stores that collect all their information because their schools have a contract with the developers and have made it mandatory. Same will be true of employees and their employers.

Can you explain how this is materially different from the apps corporate security already makes you install on devices to allow them to track and wipe the device? How it is materially different from what goes on my laptop?

MDM is transparent. Third party appstores wont be transparent.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#394

Post by zepto »

ok_dad wrote: post #332
sgjohnson wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there’s also a 3 app maximum Although you can always pay Apple $99/year to get around it!

Plus the cost of an Apple computer to develop it on.

So what? There are plenty of other options if you want to develop software for you own use.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#395

Post by zepto »

tragictrash wrote: post #375
mullingitover wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually forgot that Xcode could install wirelessly! To me, unlocking the device and connecting it to the computer (which could be a mac mini next to my bed) is completely trivial. It really doesn't get much easier.

I love the logical gymnastics you iphone fanboys go through to make your views fit the world we live in.

The world we live in is one where nobody is forced to buy an Apple product. If you don’t like what Apple does, don’t buy their products.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#396

Post by zepto »

flutas wrote: post #386
zepto wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that can happen, then that is a security flaw of the device and should be fixed, no? Yes. It should be fixed. Guess what? Nobody has ever in human history figured out how to make software that is free of security flaws. That’s why these things are only part of the solution. > I mean, reading a text could install a virus on iPhones last year, yet I didn't see people screaming that all texts should have to go thro…

> If you think application software is like a text message then you don’t know enough to comment on this issue. If you think that was an example of what I think software is like, then you probably shouldn't comment on it either. I'm just commenting on the fact that, like you said, there's always going to be security issues and using them as the scapegoat for "why" this can't happen is a bad argument. What's the diffe…

> like you said, there's always going to be security issues and using them as the scapegoat for "why" this can't happen is a bad argument.

No it isn’t. If you agree that there are always going to be security issues, then there is no reason why customers shouldn’t be able to choose a product where human moderation is used to mitigate them.

You haven’t made any case as to why customers should be denied this option.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#397

Post by zepto »

scarface74 wrote: post #384
tragictrash wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand how this works. It's dominant. Just because you think iphone is better doesn't mean it's not dominant. Classic Tesla fanboy logic

I’m saying just the opposite. If the argument is that people prefer Android over iPhones for reasons like “openness” [sic] that’s clearly not the case. Where users can afford iPhones either because they have the income or where carriers have easy payment plans, they buy IPhones - like in the US or the more affluent even in China.

People prefer a phone with a store curated by Apple.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#398

Post by zepto »

Apocryphon wrote: post #317
zepto wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you avoided the question. Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security?

Far closer to perfect security than anti-Apple skeptics such as yourself would claim.

How many security flaws are there, and when do you anticipate that they will all be eliminated?

If you can’t answer these questions, then you can’t make any claim about it being close to perfect.

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#399

Post by Apocryphon »

dane-pgp wrote: post #390
Apocryphon wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I overstepped my IANAL boundaries there. But I think it shouldn’t be too difficult for Apple’s lawyers to argue that functionality built into the OS to protect location data or control the cellular radio are distinct from say, Apple’s first party Podcasts or Music apps.

A judge should be unimpressed if Apple simultaneously argued that they need to protect users from apps which track your location data, and that they need to deny those users the ability to install apps which stop mobile networks from tracking your every move.

Is the ability to have unrestricted access to user location data a component of this lawsuit?

Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee

#400

Post by Apocryphon »

zepto wrote: post #398
Apocryphon wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far closer to perfect security than anti-Apple skeptics such as yourself would claim.

How many security flaws are there, and when do you anticipate that they will all be eliminated? If you can’t answer these questions, then you can’t make any claim about it being close to perfect.

How many of those security flaws are mitigated by App Store curation, and how many of those flaws are already being let through?

At this point we are both asking each other to prove negatives now, as productive as that is. I think we can both agree to disagree.

Post reply on HN