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

About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

ish.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 484 posts

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#461

Post by zepto »

kaba0 wrote: post #453
zepto wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The op should respond since they seem to feel imprisoned, but you do not. It sounds like you just like the quality of their product. Apple does let you use the phone as you want to. They just didn’t design it to do the things you say you’d prefer. I assume that you wouldn’t have made the trade off if you didn’t think it was worth it. Liking a product enough to buy while wanting it to be designed a little differently…

Well, I don’t feel inprisoned, but nor am I completely happy with this phone. iSH is really great, and is a must - and so would several other app which can’t exist here.

I presume those apps can exist on Android.

The point here is that you can actually get everting you want, just not with Apple’s design.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#462

Post by zepto »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #447
sooheon wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Developers have no choice but to developer for Apple and that means that whatever Apple says, Apple gets. Developers absolutely have a choice. They have one choice if they want access to Apple's customers .

I think it's widely recognized that Sophie's Choice is not a choice.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with Nazi’s or concentration camps.

This just has to do with wanting to sell your apps to more people from the developer side, or wishing Google would use better materials to make their phones from the user side.

Let’s be honest here.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#463

Post by mullingitover »

josephcsible wrote: post #454
mullingitover wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that opening up iDevices to run arbitrary, unsigned code would be a security win. Can you elaborate on that?

That's not what I said. It's fine for devices to only run signed code. It only becomes bad when the owner isn't in control of whose code signatures are trusted.

Android devices generally fall into this category you're describing. Are you saying that Android has superior security to iOS?

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#464

Post by roblabla »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #231
roblabla wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to have effective sandboxing, you need to restrict the APIs that a device can call, which means blocking the ability to generate and run arbitrary machine code on-device. Please, no, this is not how security and sandboxing works at all. Otherwise, the moment you have an arbitrary code vulnerability, you'd get full access to everything. The way effective sandboxing works is by giving a process a set of capabilities/…

Wouldn’t you have this as part of a defense in depth strategy? Apple’s public vs. private APIs and similar things seem to indicate that at least part of their security model involves static analysis of binaries and only allowing a set of approved APIs.

No, it's not a security mechanism period. Public/Private APIs aren't part of the security model, it's a way to prevent app breakage in their ecosystem due to applications using unstable APIs.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#465

Post by RonanTheGrey »

zepto wrote: post #462
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's widely recognized that Sophie's Choice is not a choice.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with Nazi’s or concentration camps. This just has to do with wanting to sell your apps to more people from the developer side, or wishing Google would use better materials to make their phones from the user side. Let’s be honest here.

It has to do with needing, not wanting, access to a sufficiently large market to have even a remote chance of success.

Can you imagine anyone who wanted to make an app now, without publishing on either the Google Play Store or the App Store "in protest"? That's the option you're giving them. "Ask for more gruel or fail" and you're calling that a choice. Lets be honest here, indeed.

You know perfectly well what I meant and refused to touch the point.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#466

Post by zepto »

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #465
zepto wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with Nazi’s or concentration camps. This just has to do with wanting to sell your apps to more people from the developer side, or wishing Google would use better materials to make their phones from the user side. Let’s be honest here.

It has to do with needing, not wanting, access to a sufficiently large market to have even a remote chance of success. Can you imagine anyone who wanted to make an app now, without publishing on either the Google Play Store or the App Store "in protest"? That's the option you're giving them. "Ask for more gruel or fail" and you're calling that a choice. Lets be honest here, indeed. You know perfectly well what I mean…

A lot of successful software is not sold via app stores.

It’s not even remotely ‘needed’ for success.

Here’s a recent darling of HN as an example: https://roamresearch.com/

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#467

Post by lern_too_spel »

zepto wrote: post #426
lern_too_spel wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That relies on the device being so insecure that it has a rootable vulnerability, which is even worse.

So what? It’s your right to do it. Nobody can legitimately claim they aren’t allowed to do what they want with their phone. It’s simply not true. It’s obviously true that many people wish Apple designed their software differently. Those people are free and not to buy things they don’t like the design of. Not one person on this thread has explained how they were forced to buy an iPhone.

The thread is about whether an iPhone is your phone or Apple's. If Apple has made the device they way they wanted and the way the user should want (secure), it is Apple's device. If they failed and made an insecure device, it is yours.

Whether people can buy other phones is irrelevant to the question of whose phone an iPhone is. I fully agree that people should buy other phones.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#468

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #467
zepto wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? It’s your right to do it. Nobody can legitimately claim they aren’t allowed to do what they want with their phone. It’s simply not true. It’s obviously true that many people wish Apple designed their software differently. Those people are free and not to buy things they don’t like the design of. Not one person on this thread has explained how they were forced to buy an iPhone.

The thread is about whether an iPhone is your phone or Apple's. If Apple has made the device they way they wanted and the way the user should want (secure), it is Apple's device. If they failed and made an insecure device, it is yours. Whether people can buy other phones is irrelevant to the question of whose phone an iPhone is. I fully agree that people should buy other phones.

The phone is yours and you can do what you like with once you have bought it. That is not in question.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#469

Post by lern_too_spel »

zepto wrote: post #468
lern_too_spel wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thread is about whether an iPhone is your phone or Apple's. If Apple has made the device they way they wanted and the way the user should want (secure), it is Apple's device. If they failed and made an insecure device, it is yours. Whether people can buy other phones is irrelevant to the question of whose phone an iPhone is. I fully agree that people should buy other phones.

The phone is yours and you can do what you like with once you have bought it. That is not in question.

The whole point of this thread is that you cannot unless it has a rootable vulnerability.

Re: About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store

#470

Post by js2 »

monocularvision wrote: post #344
js2 wrote: post #84

Apple won't allow you to run youtube-dl on your iOS device. Section 2.5.2 is just the excuse. If 2.5.2 didn't cover it, they'd make up another rule to do so. Apple isn't going to let people sidestep copyright on iOS. It doesn't matter whether youtube-dl or curl or wget have legitimate uses. If they can be used to sidestep copyright, Apple will ban them. I'm an Apple user. This pisses me off too.

I run youtube-dl using StaSh inside of Pythonista.

I'm happy to find out I was wrong.
Post reply on HN