9 ms·

> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also

by staunch 11y ago

> If you buy something from the App Store, we do know what you bought from the App Store, obviously. We think customers are fine with that. Users should also be able to install apps on their iPhones without Apple knowing what they're doing. Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. But I agree with him on everything else and think he's a hero for what he's doing.

api 11y ago
Unfortunately if you remove the walls from the garden you get a malware, crapware, and (ironically given the topic) spyware explosion -- a tragedy of the commons more or less. Mobile devices are used by over a billion people, most of whom don't know much about computers. From the perspective of sleazy marketers and black hat hackers that's a lot of fresh meat. They're better than PCs since they're studded with sensors, allowing the user to be tracked and spied upon to an unprecedented degree. Look at the Google Play store and the Android ecosystem, which is comparatively more open. If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely, you'll get random ads, trackers uploading your geo-location constantly to god-knows-where, etc.
- codeka 11y ago
  > If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely That's completely orthogonal though, because Play Store is Google's walled garden. What Google allow you to do, in addition to downloading things from their walled garden, is also side-load apps completely separately from the walled garden. There's no evidence that the ability to side-load causes an increase in malware/crapware.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- kbenson 11y ago
  What would we do if we didn't have apple to protect us from our own ignorance? Apple is fallible. If developers can break out of app review constraints by using carefully included bugs[1] then the only solution is actively monitoring what the apps are doing. If that's the case, what value-add is Apple's walled garden? Just keeping out crappy programs? I think there are plenty of solutions for discovering what programs are good or not, as we've been working on that problem for decades now for computers specifically, and centuries in the general case. 1: http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exploiting-their-own-app http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exp...
  - api 11y ago
    I think you and the downmodders are shooting the messenger. I do not like walled gardens any more than I like taxes or drunk driving checkpoints. I'm just explaining why they are there and why many users actually prefer them, and I'm doing so to let people know there's a problem worth solving. Pretending the problem doesn't exist doesn't help. Computer security is just far too confusing and difficult for the non-tech-savvy. With walled gardens people can delegate their security to someone that, while not perfect, is much better at it than they are. For most people this is a huge win. This is what happens to most peoples' computers if they are "open": https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/99/259360546_504c726d0b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/99/259360546_504c726d0b.jpg If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but I don't know of one that could match the Apple Store for ease of use. Since user experience trumps everything, app stores are winning.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      None of the security and privacy arguments require a walled garden though. The real benefit is the fine grained control over what an application can do on your system. A set of fine grained controls and a a good set of defaults, or better yet the ability to subscribe to defaults as recommended by third parties. I Apple had controls much finer than those presented by Android with a set of sane defaults, and to that I could add what the EFF's recommends as defaults, we would all be better off, because Apple's best interests and my best interests are not always aligned. I'm going to repeat that last part, because I think it's very important. Apple's best interests and my best interests are not always aligned. Why should they have ultimate control over what can and cannot be run on my phone.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Drama. Seriously, stop giving the media so much credit. You can trust the Play store as well as you can trust the App store.
larrywright 11y ago
I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's perpetual issues with this makes me think that Apple made the right choice.
- nnutter 11y ago
  Apple might just be better at covering it up. I would rather see it implemented like GateKeeper on OS X is. Safe store with the user having the power to decide if they leave the store or not.
  - fpgeek 11y ago
    While I applaud the spirit, I don't think actually implementing it like GateKeeper is a good idea: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exploit-completely-bypasses-macs-malware-gatekeeper/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exp...
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  The security benefits come mostly from curated package management in general, not limiting the device to one particular repository (the App Store).
  - javajosh 11y ago
    I don't think the public is sophisticated enough to understand the decoupling of these two ideas. But I also think that one day, probably soon, it will be.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Technical users are members of the public, too. If you want to treat users like infants, then you should hereby completely forfeit any and all rights to complain about "tech shortages" and technical illiteracy of end users.
sigmar 11y ago
>Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Requiring that all software on your device be signed by a single entity (i.e. apple) is horrifying when you think about where that might lead to in the future.
- martingordon 11y ago
  And where is that? Like he said, any back door for the good guys is a back door for the bad guys as well.
  - sigmar 11y ago
    back door for the good guys? you mean being able to execute unsigned code? If apple is ever compelled by the government to not allow a certain app (if they lose in the FISA courts) or if the leadership of apple changes? Stories like this could be just the beginning: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-removing-drone-strikes-app http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-remo...
  - aianus 11y ago
    My Galaxy S3 let me flash whatever I wanted on it. Just had to reboot in a special mode and click a button agreeing to void my warranty. No back door required. Why can't iPhones do the same (from a security perspective, I understand the business reasons)?
    - martingordon 11y ago
      I'm saying that the flashing/side-loading is the back door. A malicious actor with physical access to your phone (think screen repair shop, TSA agent, etc) could flash a compromised OS or install malware on your device. Also, there a lot of not-savvy people who will follow instructions in a well-crafted email or pop up and allow themselves to succumb to spyware and malware.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
AdmiralACK 11y ago
From: http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xcode-7-allows-anyone-to-download-build-and-sideload-ios-apps-for-free/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xcode-7-allows-anyone-to-downl... "Apple has changed its policy regarding permissions required to build and run apps on devices. Until now, Apple required users to pay $99/year to become a member of Apple’s Developer Program in order to run code on physical iPhone and iPads. As part of the new Developer Program, this is no longer required. Apps can be tested on devices, no purchase necessary."
- nnutter 11y ago
  Does it let you install binary apps or do you have to compile from source? Do they still have to be signed? Who verifies the signature?
  - iancarroll 11y ago
    You have to compile an app using XCode and then it will automatically sign it with a certificate tied to your Apple ID.
  - batuhanicoz 11y ago
    Well, if you have a developer cert, you can use iModSign app to change the certificate on a binary and install it on your iOS device. I've done this before with a beta version of WhatsApp.
  - jolux 11y ago
    You have to compile it.
iammyIP 11y ago
You have a misconception: any apple device is not a 'personal computing' one, but a 'corporate controlled' one. There goes your dilemma.
guelo 11y ago
Right. I haven't used an iPhone in years but I remember being forced to enter credit card details to install or upgrade even a free app.
- marincounty 11y ago
  Their used to be a way around giving up a atm/credit card? I remember getting home with my big purchase, and thinking, I'm not giving this company more money. Plus, I just don't like to give the number out. I don't think I even gave them my real address.
verusfossa 11y ago
I would support something like an Fdroid repo for ipas and apks. It supports private repos. Every company having a repo you could simply add would be the best. Would fix trust and maintenance costs too since you control the repo list, they control the repo. I can't see Apple or Google giving up the cash cow that is their respective garden though.
kbenson 11y ago
What he's saying is good, but it doesn't make him a hero. It costs him nothing to take this stance, and is actually helpful to him as one of the main competitors to the company he heads is deep in this specific issue, and it's a perceived weakness of theirs. You aren't a hero for doing or saying something convenient that benefits yourself, regardless of whether it's good and/or true.
fukusa 11y ago
With all due respect, he is not a hero. He is just the CEO of Apple. And Apple, even though it produces great products, profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap. If he was actively fighting this system of exploitation, that would probably make him a hero. Instead, he profits from it. That makes him not a hero but just another businessman. Furthermore, he is defending privacy only because it strengthens his business and weakens that of Google et al.
- nnd 11y ago
  It's not like we have a free worldwide labor market anyway. No one is enslaving those workers, they only choose to take that job.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Choice is a lot less relevant for this discussion than you think.
- b6 11y ago
  > profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap At least in China, the "exploited" workers you speak of have chosen to work at factories rather than do the kind of farm labor their parents did. Do you think they would be better off if they were not able to make such a choice? If they were paid the same wages a factory worker in Norway might receive, do you think the manufacturer would choose to open a factory in China? You describe Cook as just another evil businessman, whereas I suspect he has done more, practically speaking, to lift people out of poverty than most.
  - reagency 11y ago
    Apple could pay a lot more to Chinese workers and still pay less than Norway wages. Tim Cook collects $hundreds of millions by exploiting a power imbalance in the labor market.
    - 11y ago
mirimir 11y ago
It's possible to use the App Store anonymously. For example, Apple allows users to create and use accounts via Tor. And it accepts gift cards, which one can purchase with thoroughly anonymized Bitcoin. Getting devices anonymously is the hardest part. Paying cash for used devices is probably the best option.
Steko 11y ago
> Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens To me this seems excessively moralistic, like "all closed source is bad". There are concrete advantages and disadvantages to a walled garden and whether a device has one or not should be up to the manufacturer. Customers then can weigh the tradeoffs when they make their decisions. I also don't find privacy to be among the significant disadvantages of walled gardens. Lack of choice leading to lower quality experience, the chilling effect of disallowing specific content or entire categories and the potential for price gouging seem to be far and away the biggest issues. Another issue is "walled gardens are bad" is a bit ignorant of real restrictions device makers have historically had to navigate such as carrier contracts saying no tethering apps.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
I like the idea of keeping app signing requirements, but giving each user a device-specific signing key if they request one. I don't think a novice user is going to accidentally get the signing key for their device and then sign a malicious app with it.

by staunch 11y ago

api 11y ago

Unfortunately if you remove the walls from the garden you get a malware, crapware, and (ironically given the topic) spyware explosion -- a tragedy of the commons more or less. Mobile devices are used by over a billion people, most of whom don't know much about computers. From the perspective of sleazy marketers and black hat hackers that's a lot of fresh meat. They're better than PCs since they're studded with sensors, allowing the user to be tracked and spied upon to an unprecedented degree. Look at the Google Play store and the Android ecosystem, which is comparatively more open. If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely, you'll get random ads, trackers uploading your geo-location constantly to god-knows-where, etc.

codeka 11y ago
> If you don't know what you're doing and install apps from the app store without examining them closely That's completely orthogonal though, because Play Store is Google's walled garden. What Google allow you to do, in addition to downloading things from their walled garden, is also side-load apps completely separately from the walled garden. There's no evidence that the ability to side-load causes an increase in malware/crapware.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
kbenson 11y ago
What would we do if we didn't have apple to protect us from our own ignorance? Apple is fallible. If developers can break out of app review constraints by using carefully included bugs[1] then the only solution is actively monitoring what the apps are doing. If that's the case, what value-add is Apple's walled garden? Just keeping out crappy programs? I think there are plenty of solutions for discovering what programs are good or not, as we've been working on that problem for decades now for computers specifically, and centuries in the general case. 1: http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exploiting-their-own-app http://www.imore.com/researchers-sneak-malware-app-store-exp...
- api 11y ago
  I think you and the downmodders are shooting the messenger. I do not like walled gardens any more than I like taxes or drunk driving checkpoints. I'm just explaining why they are there and why many users actually prefer them, and I'm doing so to let people know there's a problem worth solving. Pretending the problem doesn't exist doesn't help. Computer security is just far too confusing and difficult for the non-tech-savvy. With walled gardens people can delegate their security to someone that, while not perfect, is much better at it than they are. For most people this is a huge win. This is what happens to most peoples' computers if they are "open": https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/99/259360546_504c726d0b.jpg https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/99/259360546_504c726d0b.jpg If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but I don't know of one that could match the Apple Store for ease of use. Since user experience trumps everything, app stores are winning.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    None of the security and privacy arguments require a walled garden though. The real benefit is the fine grained control over what an application can do on your system. A set of fine grained controls and a a good set of defaults, or better yet the ability to subscribe to defaults as recommended by third parties. I Apple had controls much finer than those presented by Android with a set of sane defaults, and to that I could add what the EFF's recommends as defaults, we would all be better off, because Apple's best interests and my best interests are not always aligned. I'm going to repeat that last part, because I think it's very important. Apple's best interests and my best interests are not always aligned. Why should they have ultimate control over what can and cannot be run on my phone.
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
Drama. Seriously, stop giving the media so much credit. You can trust the Play store as well as you can trust the App store.

larrywright 11y ago

I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's perpetual issues with this makes me think that Apple made the right choice.

nnutter 11y ago
Apple might just be better at covering it up. I would rather see it implemented like GateKeeper on OS X is. Safe store with the user having the power to decide if they leave the store or not.
- fpgeek 11y ago
  While I applaud the spirit, I don't think actually implementing it like GateKeeper is a good idea: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exploit-completely-bypasses-macs-malware-gatekeeper/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exp...
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The security benefits come mostly from curated package management in general, not limiting the device to one particular repository (the App Store).
- javajosh 11y ago
  I don't think the public is sophisticated enough to understand the decoupling of these two ideas. But I also think that one day, probably soon, it will be.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Technical users are members of the public, too. If you want to treat users like infants, then you should hereby completely forfeit any and all rights to complain about "tech shortages" and technical illiteracy of end users.

sigmar 11y ago

>Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens. I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Requiring that all software on your device be signed by a single entity (i.e. apple) is horrifying when you think about where that might lead to in the future.

martingordon 11y ago
And where is that? Like he said, any back door for the good guys is a back door for the bad guys as well.
- sigmar 11y ago
  back door for the good guys? you mean being able to execute unsigned code? If apple is ever compelled by the government to not allow a certain app (if they lose in the FISA courts) or if the leadership of apple changes? Stories like this could be just the beginning: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-removing-drone-strikes-app http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-remo...
- aianus 11y ago
  My Galaxy S3 let me flash whatever I wanted on it. Just had to reboot in a special mode and click a button agreeing to void my warranty. No back door required. Why can't iPhones do the same (from a security perspective, I understand the business reasons)?
  - martingordon 11y ago
    I'm saying that the flashing/side-loading is the back door. A malicious actor with physical access to your phone (think screen repair shop, TSA agent, etc) could flash a compromised OS or install malware on your device. Also, there a lot of not-savvy people who will follow instructions in a well-crafted email or pop up and allow themselves to succumb to spyware and malware.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago

AdmiralACK 11y ago

From: http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xcode-7-allows-anyone-to-download-build-and-sideload-ios-apps-for-free/ http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/10/xcode-7-allows-anyone-to-downl... "Apple has changed its policy regarding permissions required to build and run apps on devices. Until now, Apple required users to pay $99/year to become a member of Apple’s Developer Program in order to run code on physical iPhone and iPads. As part of the new Developer Program, this is no longer required. Apps can be tested on devices, no purchase necessary."

nnutter 11y ago
Does it let you install binary apps or do you have to compile from source? Do they still have to be signed? Who verifies the signature?
- iancarroll 11y ago
  You have to compile an app using XCode and then it will automatically sign it with a certificate tied to your Apple ID.
- batuhanicoz 11y ago
  Well, if you have a developer cert, you can use iModSign app to change the certificate on a binary and install it on your iOS device. I've done this before with a beta version of WhatsApp.
- jolux 11y ago
  You have to compile it.

iammyIP 11y ago

You have a misconception: any apple device is not a 'personal computing' one, but a 'corporate controlled' one. There goes your dilemma.

guelo 11y ago

Right. I haven't used an iPhone in years but I remember being forced to enter credit card details to install or upgrade even a free app.

marincounty 11y ago
Their used to be a way around giving up a atm/credit card? I remember getting home with my big purchase, and thinking, I'm not giving this company more money. Plus, I just don't like to give the number out. I don't think I even gave them my real address.

verusfossa 11y ago

I would support something like an Fdroid repo for ipas and apks. It supports private repos. Every company having a repo you could simply add would be the best. Would fix trust and maintenance costs too since you control the repo list, they control the repo. I can't see Apple or Google giving up the cash cow that is their respective garden though.

kbenson 11y ago

What he's saying is good, but it doesn't make him a hero. It costs him nothing to take this stance, and is actually helpful to him as one of the main competitors to the company he heads is deep in this specific issue, and it's a perceived weakness of theirs. You aren't a hero for doing or saying something convenient that benefits yourself, regardless of whether it's good and/or true.

fukusa 11y ago

With all due respect, he is not a hero. He is just the CEO of Apple. And Apple, even though it produces great products, profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap. If he was actively fighting this system of exploitation, that would probably make him a hero. Instead, he profits from it. That makes him not a hero but just another businessman. Furthermore, he is defending privacy only because it strengthens his business and weakens that of Google et al.

nnd 11y ago
It's not like we have a free worldwide labor market anyway. No one is enslaving those workers, they only choose to take that job.
- gozo 11y ago
  Choice is a lot less relevant for this discussion than you think.
b6 11y ago
> profits from exploiting factory workers in countries where workers have less rights and where labour is cheap At least in China, the "exploited" workers you speak of have chosen to work at factories rather than do the kind of farm labor their parents did. Do you think they would be better off if they were not able to make such a choice? If they were paid the same wages a factory worker in Norway might receive, do you think the manufacturer would choose to open a factory in China? You describe Cook as just another evil businessman, whereas I suspect he has done more, practically speaking, to lift people out of poverty than most.
- reagency 11y ago
  Apple could pay a lot more to Chinese workers and still pay less than Norway wages. Tim Cook collects $hundreds of millions by exploiting a power imbalance in the labor market.
  - 11y ago

mirimir 11y ago

It's possible to use the App Store anonymously. For example, Apple allows users to create and use accounts via Tor. And it accepts gift cards, which one can purchase with thoroughly anonymized Bitcoin. Getting devices anonymously is the hardest part. Paying cash for used devices is probably the best option.

Steko 11y ago

> Personal computing devices shouldn't have artificial walled gardens To me this seems excessively moralistic, like "all closed source is bad". There are concrete advantages and disadvantages to a walled garden and whether a device has one or not should be up to the manufacturer. Customers then can weigh the tradeoffs when they make their decisions. I also don't find privacy to be among the significant disadvantages of walled gardens. Lack of choice leading to lower quality experience, the chilling effect of disallowing specific content or entire categories and the potential for price gouging seem to be far and away the biggest issues. Another issue is "walled gardens are bad" is a bit ignorant of real restrictions device makers have historically had to navigate such as carrier contracts saying no tethering apps.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

I like the idea of keeping app signing requirements, but giving each user a device-specific signing key if they request one. I don't think a novice user is going to accidentally get the signing key for their device and then sign a malicious app with it.