8 ms·

This would be a lot more interesting if f.lux was actually distributing source code. Instead, they were just distributing a binary that you sign with your own

• slg 11y ago
  >Such abuse puts the new free-tier Xcode dev program in jeopardy. Or it would force Apple to adapt similar to how they responded to the black market for developer program spots to access iOS betas by making a public beta program.
  • coldtea 11y ago
    Or they just made a public beta program out of their own will -- and not adapted at all.
• arm 11y ago
  Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I thought they were distributing the source for you to compile yourself.
  • autoreleasepool 11y ago
    > I thought they were distributing the source for you to compile yourself. This is what they should have done. Instead, they chose to distribute a binary of their proprietary (patent pending [0]), closed source [1] product. Not only am I not surprised that Apple shut them down the very next day, but I'm also having trouble feeling any sympathy for their cause. [0] https://justgetflux.com/ https://justgetflux.com/ - bottom of page [1] https://justgetflux.com/news/pages/eula/ https://justgetflux.com/news/pages/eula/
    • walterbell 11y ago
      Developers distributed binaries before app stores. They could publish a hash for their binary, on an HTTPS web page.
      • alextgordon 11y ago
        True, but I can understand Apple's position. Commercial software is unlikely to be a trojan. You have much higher value as a paying customer than as a victim. Open source software is similarly unlikely to be a trojan, especially if compiled from source. Closed-source freeware is the perfect attack vector. Opaque and widely disseminated. Who knows what's going on inside? Freeware is responsible for a gigantic amount of malware.
        • walterbell 11y ago
          If the source of the freeware is authenticated by HTTPS, users can make their own informed decisions, e.g. to enter a risk pool with millions of other users whose health has been improved, courtesy of a known developer with no track record of shipping malware. There are no zero-risk activities, only risk signals. Some people choose to trust a corporation with lawyers and endless pages of EULA, some people choose to trust one authenticated developer with a proven track record of service to the community. At the moment, we are still free to make our own informed choices.
          • alextgordon 11y ago
            I am talking about closed-source freeware only. f.lux is closed source. Nobody can verify whether it does what it says. Apple clearly does not want to set a precedent. Open source is fine. If f.lux published the source code, then we could compile it ourselves, and Apple would be happy (they recently made the iOS Dev Program free of charge to allow sideloading in this manner.)
            • walterbell 11y ago
              Millions of people have used f.lux on other platforms. Hundreds of hours of real-world testing per user, multiplied by millions of users, leads to expectations about the behavior of f.lux on iOS. This is also known as reputation, credibility and brand recognition. For those who need what f.lux offers, this empirical data means more than Apple's walled garden theories and non-liablity EULAs.
  • guelo 11y ago
    That makes zero sense. Millions of people have installed f.lux binaries on more sane platforms without problems.
• revelation 11y ago
  The drama! You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Seriously, this thread is making Stallman look like a reasonable majority candidate for president. It seems all it took for people to forget what caused PCs to blossom is a little bit of gold coating.
  • hueving 11y ago
    >You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Windows makes you sign binaries with your own certificate before running them to bypass the signed code protection?
    • swiley 11y ago
      They do with shell scripts (although there's a way to turn it off).
  • blazespin 11y ago
    The problem is the world is now networked extensively and much more of our 'life' is online. Creating malware and the financial benefits of doing that are much more understood. State actors have invested billions (if not 100 of billions by now) in cyber attacks. I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to police anyone trying to provide unsigned binaries. They protect the security of their i devices in a way that no other ecosystem owner does.
    • jacquesm 11y ago
      Their devices? I thought people paid for those things.
  • coldtea 11y ago
    >You're describing the Windows application model of the past 30 years. Considering how many viruses, lost work, malware and hair-tearing that model has induced, it makes sense to go beyond it, doesn't it?
    • 11y ago
• ars 11y ago
  > Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users No it is not. You can do that on every single computing device out there - except those from Apple. There is some risk if you are stupid about it, but not huge right. A warning screen would be enough. > never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple It's my device, not Apple's. (Well, I would never actually buy an Apple device because of this, but those who do buy them should have the right to install whatever they link.)
  • cortesoft 11y ago
    You can do it on non-iOS Apple devices, too.
  • usaphp 11y ago
    > its my device, not apple's Except when a device gets highjacked or something by a malware or whatever then user always blames the manufacturer of the OS, I guess apple knowing this just have a strict policies about it. Apple has a right to decide how to build and maintain their OS, they are the ones who created it, not device owners. If device owners don't like something about it, they have an option not to purchase it, Apple does not have an option to not sell a phone to some dumb user who will install viruses and then complain about Apple lack of security
    • wolfgke 11y ago
      > Except when a device gets highjacked or something by a malware or whatever then user always blames the manufacturer of the OS In other words, a bad swimmer blames the producer of the bathing drawers for his bad swimming skills. I understand.
      • chaz72 11y ago
        It would be ridiculous for a bad swimmer to blame the creator of his or her swimwear. On the other hand, a bad swimmer might be pretty upset with the creators of his or her boat, if hypothetically the goal is to stay out of the water. It's just possible that it depends on what you expect from the device when you buy it.
• poppup 11y ago
  This is not a programming issue, it is a health issue. I understand the challenges in the way the policies are set up, but again, this is a health issue that needs to be addressed one way or another.
• Lazare 11y ago
  > Side-loading pre-built binaries like that is a huge risk for users That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to run binary code of your choice on your own computer. It's interesting to imagine the outrage if this policy was enforced by literally any other company on literally any other device or platform. > and never had a chance of being tolerated by Apple That's probably true. > Such abuse Can we perhaps find a term other than "abuse"? It seems quite inappropriate in this context. Spamming is abuse. Running non-Apple approved code on your own person device is basically the opposite of abuse.
  • braythwayt 11y ago
    > That's quite an odd thing to say, isn't it? You're basically endorsing the idea that you shouldn't be allowed to run binary code of your choice on your own computer. Quite a few people have been saying for a very long time that distributing proprietary software without users being able to see the source is a Bad Thing. It's not your freedom they object to, they feel they are actually championing your freedom. You or I may pragmatically decide to embrace opaque proprietary software, but certainly there is a reasonable school of thought opposed to the notion. It's much like arguing that we should be free to buy food that doesn't list the ingredients on the side, and drugs that aren't tested. There're reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that issue.
    • teddyh 11y ago
      You are actually conflating two separate issues: 1. Whether users should be able to run any software (binary or not, proprietary or not) which they happen to have access to, on hardware that they own and 2. Whether it is right for people to distribute, to users, software which is useful for a purpose, and therefore attractive, but where the users cannot change or even inspect the software itself (and cannot hire anyone else to do these things for them). The issue at hand was the first one, and you answered by talking about the second one. I believe the usual Free Software Movement arguments go like this: For the first question, it is obvious that users should have a right to use the things they own however they wish – otherwise it can hardly be called ownership. For the manufacturer to give such restricted hardware in exchange for money, but still retain this degree of control over the hardware after the transaction, should therefore not be allowed to be referred to as “selling”, since the recipients/possessors of such hardware cannot usefully be considered the full “owners”. For the second question, while it is obvious that it is unethical to tempt users to give up their freedom to change and inspect the software, or have it changed or inspected (since this checking and tinkering is one of the things which drives a good society), it is certainly not obvious that it should be out-and-out illegal for anyone to offer such unchangeable and uninspectable software to users.
• mikeash 11y ago
  What is the huge risk for users in sideloading pre-built binaries? If you're worried about malware, sideloaded apps still run in the same sandbox that app store apps run in. Apple's review process does not meaningfully impact security, so the sandbox is all that stands between you and malware either way.
  • orbitur 11y ago
    At a minimum, Apple's review process includes a scan to ensure your app submission doesn't include private API usage. Like private APIs that can screw with color output, outside of the app. And so on. The security comes from 1. Defining a set of APIs that you're allowed to use 2. Ensuring that you only use those APIs Sideloading apps skips that important security check.
    • mikeash 11y ago
      Step 2 doesn't happen. The private API scan is superficial and basically only catches accidental use (for example, maybe somebody discovered the API in a StackOverflow post and didn't realize it was private). It doesn't catch use that people deliberately want to get through. Getting through the check is as easy as some string obfuscation and a dynamic symbol lookup. If a given private API is a security problem (and I agree that altering the screen's gamma settings system-wide may well qualify) then that private API needs to be actually secured, by taking it out of process and gating it on a sandbox entitlement. The private API check is done to allow Apple the flexibility to change those APIs without potentially breaking a ton of apps and pissing off their users. It does nothing whatsoever for security, unless your threat model is programmers capable of writing malware but incapable of obfuscating function calls.
• Daishiman 11y ago
  What a sad, pathetic day that you have to consider loading your own code a on a general computing device a risk and privilege.
  • cerberusss 11y ago
    It's not your own code, it's a binary. With your Apple ID, you can always run your own code.