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

Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

bennettnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 535 posts

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#511

Post by the_third_wave »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #198

My honest question is: What's the alternative. I'm not an apple fan. Most of my personal devices run Linux, but I feel essentially trapped on an iPhone. It doesn't seem like there's a truly useful open phone out there. I don't like Apple, and I don't trust them or their ostensibly pro-privacy stance much, but I want as little privacy invasion and as little advertising as possible on my phone, and I think as bad as Ap…

The solution is a de-Googled Android running an AOSP-derived distribution with an enclave (or 'second space' or 'multiple personalities') for those few Google or Google-dependent apps. You can either use one of the second space/enclave/container apps to create such an enclave or you can enable and disable the apps before and after each use (which is what I do). It is always worth trying those apps on a Google-free device since many of them work fine without having any Google services installed even though the complain loudly about GSF needing to be installed for them to work correctly - the Swedish BankID tool is one of the latter, it always produces a popup telling me it won't work without Google Services but does its job once that popup is dismissed.

Eventually there may be a non-Android 100% free software alternative but as it stands now the above solution works fine and keeps the data vampires from your door.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#512

Post by Forgeties79 »

jacooper wrote: post #502
Forgeties79 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've gotten off chrome and now use firefox + Proton VPN, so browsing I've done to some degree. I think Gmail is the next thing to go then Gdrive. The issue I'm having is ditching the Apple ecosystem. I've been editing on Apple machines for over a decade in Premiere/FCPX/DaVinci Resolve/etc. and the idea of breaking it all down - losing probably 70% of my plug-ins due to licensing restrictions, for instance - and movi…

I am a Linux user, I will say just save your time and stay on macOS. Unless all you use is just davinci resolve (PRO), which works on Linux well (RHEL/Rocky with more steps needed for others), Creative apps on Linux are still not good enough.

Appreciate the insight!

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#513

Post by sneak »

bobleeswagger wrote: post #484
sneak wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is no alternative that users can choose instead of Apple's marketplace, and with only one source of apps for a billion+ devices and no way to configure those devices to use any other, Apple has effectively banned anonymous publishing for a seventh of Earth.

> no alternative 20 years ago we didn't have app stores. I'm not sure where your level of entitlement comes from, Apple doesn't have to allow anonymous publishing and I fully understand why they have put reasonable barriers to entry into their ecosystem. You don't.

I'm going to take your claim at face value.

The sense of entitlement comes from the purchase of the device, which is then remotely controlled by a party who has no property interest in the device following purchase.

If you bought the phone, you should be able to run all the apps you want on it, not only the ones Apple and the various regional governments say you are allowed to. Surely you see the abuse potential (which is not theoretical - iPhones in China cannot type or display the flag of Taiwan or install VPN apps) there?

Why do people defend vendors remotely disabling functionality in devices end users have bought and paid for?

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#514

Post by yamtaddle »

jjav wrote: post #488
yamtaddle wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they were more like an appliance. The fact that I constantly have to fiddle with the damn things is why I don't ride more. If they were more like modern cars or, indeed, iPads, that'd be ideal. Instead it's like "well, let's go discover what work I'll have to do on my bike before I can ride it...." Ugh. I do enough handy shit, I don't need a bicycle-maintenance hobby.

> The fact that I constantly have to fiddle with the damn things is why I don't ride more. Nothing turns more people away from riding bikes than entry-level bikes. Which is unfortunate. Yes, they're constantly needing work and adjustment and never quite shift or brake well. It doesn't have to be that way though. Mid to top tier components are very reliable and work so much better, even when old. It makes a night and…

I think I'm kinda in the same place I was with computers, years ago: I've bought very-cheap, I've bought a notch or two above very-cheap, and I've seen both suck about equally, so it's damn hard to convince myself that the solution to my problem is spending more money. But it's probably true.

And I know it's not exactly fair but I can't stop comparing bikes to cars. The amount and preciousness of the materials, the level of stress, the complexity of construction, how long it can go before service, and so on, and damnit, I can't shake the feeling that 1% of the cost of a car should get a really reliable and near-zero-maintenance bike. But no, $200 won't do it. $300 probably won't, even. Not for a new bike, anyway.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#515

Post by Spooky23 »

gnarbarian wrote: post #320
anigbrowl wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is generally correct. But at the same time, it's facile to ignore the existence of network effects that arise from increased connectivity, and the way they shift incentives. They are not just 'our' tools ( qua individual owners), because they leverage a massive shared infrastructure of standards, data sharing, and re-transmission. What you're offering here is not an argument but a mental block to actually thinki…

specific remedies cannot be prescribed for abstract problems. We deal with those problems as we always have, through cultural and legal reinforcement. Our culture informs us of what is socially acceptable (theft, greed, dishonesty etc) and meters out justice through our real social networks of family and friends. For issues that raise to a level of criminality we use the legal system. I also think it's perfectly fine…

When Apple is forced to allow for side loading, you’ll miss the old AppStore when the government moves in to regulate. You’ll have AppStore licensing within 3-5 years.

We have a market economy in this space. The platform companies recognize the risk associated with these platforms and try to control it.

People like Thiel are self interested. He welcomes government oversight because he can influence government - but cannot really influence Apple and Google.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#516

Post by albrewer »

indymike wrote: post #409

I remember having to save up in high school to buy the Windows 2.11 SDK. I think it was $500, which took me a month to earn. Later on, I got into doing apps on Palm, and had to buy Code Warrior. Then, commercial Unix where they charged extra for the "developer workbench". The $100 is a decent value compared to an inflation adjusted $500. But I do agree with this being an affront to all that is good and decent.

I don't think it's fair to compare the pricing of 1990 with that of today.

To get started developing my own stuff on Windows or Android, the tools and SDKs are free today. I can do whatever I want locally and don't have to pay a dime to anyone.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#517

Post by albrewer »

eddieroger wrote: post #386
dpcan wrote: post #105

2 weeks ago I created a prototype in SwiftUI to present at work this week and I was going to use my phone. An hour before the meeting I decided to open it and do one last run-through to refamiliarize myself with it. I got the same notice. Had to scramble to rebuild/provision and re-install on my device from my Mac that was in another part of town - for which I had to drive. And then I got some strange errors because…

> An hour before the meeting I decided to open it and do one last run-through to refamiliarize myself with it Apple has plenty of reasons for people to be upset, but testing your live demo an hour before going on is not their fault.

If I load a demo app on my device, test the demo, and then turn the device off, I expect the everything to work exactly like it did the next time I turn on my device.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#518

Post by error503 »

danaris wrote: post #482
error503 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a technical perspective, of course it is possible to give users control of the trust on the devices they ostensibly own, rather than giant megacorps, and I remain extremely unconvinced that this leads to a meaningful loss of security or privacy for those users. From a socioeconomic perspective, it's a much bigger question; the allure for those megacorps is far too strong and the economics of the industry makes i…

Oh, this is certainly a question primarily about the social aspects and second-order effects. The technical perspective is much more solvable, though still not, I think, a solved problem . The problem with "I control my device" is, and always has been, twofold: First, that when some malware gets in, it looks like you. Second, that people who are not technically savvy will not be able to use that control to protect th…

> First, that when some malware gets in, it looks like you.

I don't see what this has to do with trust. Whether or not there is a secure trust chain, malware can likely impersonate you.

> Second, that people who are not technically savvy will not be able to use that control to protect themselves, but will instead very often have it used against them.

If people are going to ignore the flashing red banners that pop up when they try to override the trust store that comes with their device, then that is a price we have to pay, IMO. We accept in the rest of our lives that some things are dangerous, and while we erect many barriers to make those things more difficult, we recognize that is the price of freedom. People will do them anyway, and some will be harmed. It doesn't have to be frictionless, it just has to be possible.

Is there a spate of malware going around that involves users installing new keys in their UEFI secure boot trust store? I haven't really heard of this. I also haven't really heard of a spate of malware using Android's developer mode that is pretty easy to enable, if you know how. I think the risk involved in giving users ultimate control of the device's trust store is greatly overblown.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#519

Post by gnarbarian »

Spooky23 wrote: post #515
gnarbarian wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

specific remedies cannot be prescribed for abstract problems. We deal with those problems as we always have, through cultural and legal reinforcement. Our culture informs us of what is socially acceptable (theft, greed, dishonesty etc) and meters out justice through our real social networks of family and friends. For issues that raise to a level of criminality we use the legal system. I also think it's perfectly fine…

When Apple is forced to allow for side loading, you’ll miss the old AppStore when the government moves in to regulate. You’ll have AppStore licensing within 3-5 years. We have a market economy in this space. The platform companies recognize the risk associated with these platforms and try to control it. People like Thiel are self interested. He welcomes government oversight because he can influence government - but c…

actually I use Android and a third party app store called fdroid for many things like gadget bridge which I use to control my open source pinetime smart watch. I prefer this.

I love side loading apps on my oculus quest too. my quest will continue to provide me value after meta ceases support this year.

Re: Apple doesn’t want you developing hobby apps

#520

Post by a4isms »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #305
cma wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At NeXT it seemed like Jobs did the opposite, making workstations for professionals.

Always felt that was because there were a few things he wanted in the machine, power, high storage, high resolution, multitasking, networking, voice recording and the only way to achieve those was a price tag that could only be sold as a workstation.

I am not in a position to say why the original NeXT was so different in philosophical underpinnings than the Mac, but there are a few differences one can observe from the outside that may (and I only say may) have contributed to the final outcome:

1. When Jobs left Apple, he was barred from competing with them in the general computing/appliance market. NeXT when it launched was advertised as a product for higher education.

2. Jobs had to bootstrap a company from scratch into what was by then a much more sophisticated industry than existed when the Apple // or mac were launched. Building on top of Unix and Mach was way lower risk than trying to invent an entire operating system from the ground up when your interest was really in the user experience.

Post reply on HN