441–450 of 498 posts
Just ditch Apple. The obnoxious attempt to ban any kind of customization is sickening. Apple like to shoot in their own foot by making life miserable for developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why you don't build on someone else's platform. Apple/Google/Platform Owner will always do what's right for them, not the customer, and not the developer, for example banning Amazon from selling books in their kindle app, not allowing competing browsers (they recognise the power of the web as a platform), not allowing competing sales mechanisms (where they don't get a cut), and here not allowing developers to…
Try making e.g. a game that is not on someone else's platform. Make a game that is not for PC or XBox or PS or Nintendo or iOS or Android or Facebook or Java or whatever. Count money. Oops, there isn't any. Or, try making a Photoshop clone, CAD software or similar without being on someone else's platform. Oops. "it don't work" :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why you don't build on someone else's platform. Apple/Google/Platform Owner will always do what's right for them, not the customer, and not the developer, for example banning Amazon from selling books in their kindle app, not allowing competing browsers (they recognise the power of the web as a platform), not allowing competing sales mechanisms (where they don't get a cut), and here not allowing developers to…
Try making e.g. a game that is not on someone else's platform. Make a game that is not for PC or XBox or PS or Nintendo or iOS or Android or Facebook or Java or whatever. Count money. Oops, there isn't any. Or, try making a Photoshop clone, CAD software or similar without being on someone else's platform. Oops. "it don't work" :)
Or is the right challenge "make a game for PC that isn't in the microsoft app store"? Which is in fact no hindrance at all.
It's not really "someone else's platform" just by using someone's software. They have to be in control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To some extent I agree with you, but at the same time it is not the purpose of the court to create law. It is their job to interpret. Lawyers read and understand. Evolution of the law (which involves creating new portions of the law to cover previously created portions which are considered lacking), is the responsibility of the legislative branch (in that case, Congress).
Under that reasoning, wiretapping laws and privacy laws should not apply to digital communications, because they were not specifically mentioned.
I think this has manifested at its peak with Ethereum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd have to know a few things first, like (1) the IPA is a ZIP file, (2) the ZIP file is actually of a directory and (3) you can dump the actual code in the JS files (if they're in the bundle directory) much easier than you can look for strings from the binary that might look like an API key. The API key is actually the least of the hazards, since you can hide that in the keychain. Having source code for your busin…
Shipping source code with business logic (assuming the definition of source code includes obfuscated JS) is how the entire web works today! With WASM the code that is shipped will be even further away from the original source code and really not so different from downloading ARM from the App Store or Java/ART bytecode from the Play Store.
Hybrid apps could achieve that same kind of relative business logic security, but at the cost of pushing more and more of the actual business logic behind an API and not in the JS in the app. At that point, the benefits of code sharing (such as they are) get fewer and fewer since it's really pretty easy to write API code in Objective C, Swift, Java or Kotlin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing, from Apple's perspective, things that overlay the whole screen and alter the appearance of other people's apps (such as applying a colour cast), are essentially "white hat phishing". It makes security sense to hide this capability in the OS and not in apps.
You can see, I trust, how this could lead down a monopolistic slippery slope. For instance, virus-scanning is a dangerous enterprise, given that it exposes a greater attack surface if the antivirus program is poorly written. Should Apple and Microsoft remove the ability for third-party antivirus apps to exist? How about third-party firewalls?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the letter of the law means nothing.
The law is a living breathing organic document. Anybody who says otherwise is living in 1776 with slaves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh man. You were surprised? Really? You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law. Predictably they got killed by lawsuits because judges aren't idiots and the law isn't inflexible to the point where the intent and context isn't considered. Your case is even worse because you engineered a solution to adhere to t…
> You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law. Without reading the blog, I just wanted to comment on Aereo: a lot of us think that this was the wrong decision, and not in a facetious or 'cute' way. To quote Scalia's dissent in the case: > In a dissent that expressed distaste for Aereo’s business model, Justice…
FWIW I agree that the court got it wrong, but Scalia's reasoning in supporting Aereo's position is flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is not the purpose of the court to create law In common law systems it is precisely their job to do so.
In the United States, creation of law is the responsibility of the Legislative branch. There is no avenue for the Judicial branch to create law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing, from Apple's perspective, things that overlay the whole screen and alter the appearance of other people's apps (such as applying a colour cast), are essentially "white hat phishing". It makes security sense to hide this capability in the OS and not in apps.
You can see, I trust, how this could lead down a monopolistic slippery slope. For instance, virus-scanning is a dangerous enterprise, given that it exposes a greater attack surface if the antivirus program is poorly written. Should Apple and Microsoft remove the ability for third-party antivirus apps to exist? How about third-party firewalls?
If MS had taken a harder line then at least hundreds of millions of people would have had faster computers... And arguably safer ones. But it would be hypocrisy for MS, given they gave us IE, ActiveX, DLLs, VB macros, etc.
Most third party firewalls are just GUIs using the OS API for filtering, not parsers written in C running in the kernel.