4 ms·

I posted this in the other thread before, but I'm going to repost it here because people still don't seem to understand why the iPhone's restrictions are so imp

by hexley 17y ago

I posted this in the other thread before, but I'm going to repost it here because people still don't seem to understand why the iPhone's restrictions are so important. --------------------- I don't see how it's anything other than a net positive, you gain in security and ease of use for consumers. If you're more hacker minded like this audience is, it's extremely trivial to jailbreak - the distinction being that it is totally independent and not sanctioned by Apple whatsoever. This is an important point. After working in user support I can totally empathise with Apple's decision to keep the platform closed via the App Store. The vast majority of the people buying these phones (ie, normal users - not geeks) are the ones who voluntarily install spyware on their PC's, click yes to every dialog box they see and execute random email attachments without thinking twice. They don't scrutinise certificate errors in their browser, use PGP, constantly have a bash window or two hanging around - in fact I think a lot of the people who have bought iPhones as fashion accessories would have trouble even changing their wallpaper. The iPhone undeniably has the biggest mindshare, and a very hefty marketshare slice of any high-end mobile communications device yet, one notably skewed toward people with large disposable incomes. Remember, it's constantly connected to the internet, has a connection to the phone network (and thus an unlimited tab conveniently linked to your credit card), knows where you are and even in which direction you're facing. It knows who you talk to, who your contacts are...etc. I could go on. The point is this device and it's associated popularity is a fucking GOLDMINE for the kind of people who write malware. The App Store and it's uncompromising restriction is the final solution to keeping this cesspool of a software "ecosystem" off the platform. Even if Apple provided an "Advanced" setting which gains you root access on your device the malware writers would simply instruct the clueless user to enable it, and I KNOW that 99.9% of people would do it without hesitation, for the promise of nothing more than a cheap thrill. All the EULA-type warning "this-is-a-bad-idea-and-we're-not-responsible" notifications in the world won't stop them. It's based on the same psychology as that study where an alarming majority of people would tell you their password for a chocolate bar. Oooh, kittens!!! cue screaming and convenient lawsuits targeting high-profile Apple when their phone bill arrives with a $50,000 total Yeah, I think we can do without that sort of thing, and Apple certainly doesn't need that kind of unrepairable damage done to their brand perception. We put up with malware on Windows because like it or not it's the de-facto standard, and consequently most people don't know any better. There is an almost bewildering array of choice when it comes to mobile handsets, and people are likely to go with the one that doesn't have a reputation for involuntarily emptying your bank account.

orangecat 17y ago
If you're more hacker minded like this audience is, it's extremely trivial to jailbreak - the distinction being that it is totally independent and not sanctioned by Apple whatsoever. Not only "not sanctioned" by Apple, but actively opposed by them. They go out of their way to stop jailbreakers and consider them criminals, and per the DMCA they're probably right. It will be terrible for future innovation if the only way to gain control over your own hardware is to become a felon. The App Store and it's uncompromising restriction is the final solution to keeping this cesspool of a software "ecosystem" off the platform. Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web. Even if Apple provided an "Advanced" setting which gains you root access on your device the malware writers would simply instruct the clueless user to enable it, and I KNOW that 99.9% of people would do it without hesitation That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to.
- hexley 17y ago
  Not only "not sanctioned" by Apple, but actively opposed by them. They go out of their way to stop jailbreakers and consider them criminals, and per the DMCA they're probably right. It will be terrible for future innovation if the only way to gain control over your own hardware is to become a felon. Of course they don't like people jailbreaking, they've worked very long and hard on making a store with a fair and seamless DRM system - then barely a week after it's jailbroken somebody has gone and made an almost one-step process for cracking, distributing and downloading pirated applications. DRM relies on a closed system by it's very nature - it's understandable they like to discourage against subjugating their entire business model. HOWEVER: they have never (as of my knowlege) put in additional effort to prevent jailbreaking. The online media a few years ago was buzzing with warnings about updates bricking jailbroken iPhones - like if done out of some sort of malice when it turns out the problem was AnySIM completely trashing some areas of the baseband, rendering it unusable when updated next. So let's see, Apple getting a ton of bad press misdirected at them (as usual) because of the clumsy mistakes of some people who didn't really test their baseband modifying software before releasing it to the public. Oh, and a more recent example. The installer for OpenSSH in Cydia didn't bother to prompt a change for the default root password on the iPhone (alpine) - suddenly there's a "virus" spreading between unsecured jailbroken iPhones because of clueless idiots once again thinking they know what they're doing when they clearly don't. The press? "OMG ITS TEH IPHONE VIRUSSSSS RUN FOR THE HILLS!!" Do you think they bothered to mention that you had to a) Jailbreak your phone, b) Install OpenSSH and c) Neglect to change the default password? Of course not, who cares insignificant details like that when you can have a headline with the words "iPhone" and "virus" both in it. Gee, I wonder why Apple don't like jailbreaking guys? Meanwhile, it would be naîve to think that Apple doesn't have plenty of jailbroken iPhones they use internally for various things. I have no doubt they are keeping a very close eye on the progress of the JB scene. Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web. We don't know the exact reason for many Apple's rejections, but I disagree with this sentiment in general - there are hundreds of examples of approved apps which directly with Apple's own offerings and if you're referring to the GV rejection in particular that's even more puzzling as it doesn't compete with Apple at all (unless they're secretly planning on becoming a telco?) Examples of approved apps which might enroach on Apple's territory are various Safari replacements (iCab etc), Map applications, and even Spotify; clearly stepping on the toes of iTunes store. The problem is the inconsistency, which to me points more toward individual agent whims or moods rather than policy. I agree this is unacceptable but they have promised to make it better. They have stated publicly that they approve > 99% of apps, so as usual it's a vocal minority. That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to. There has already been a bank account phishing app which was undiscovered for weeks on the Android Marketplace. I wonder why whoever coded that didn't target the iPhone instead and get 100x the opportunity? Oh that's right, they couldn't. The system works.

by hexley 17y ago

orangecat 17y ago

If you're more hacker minded like this audience is, it's extremely trivial to jailbreak - the distinction being that it is totally independent and not sanctioned by Apple whatsoever. Not only "not sanctioned" by Apple, but actively opposed by them. They go out of their way to stop jailbreakers and consider them criminals, and per the DMCA they're probably right. It will be terrible for future innovation if the only way to gain control over your own hardware is to become a felon. The App Store and it's uncompromising restriction is the final solution to keeping this cesspool of a software "ecosystem" off the platform. Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web. Even if Apple provided an "Advanced" setting which gains you root access on your device the malware writers would simply instruct the clueless user to enable it, and I KNOW that 99.9% of people would do it without hesitation That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to.

hexley 17y ago
Not only "not sanctioned" by Apple, but actively opposed by them. They go out of their way to stop jailbreakers and consider them criminals, and per the DMCA they're probably right. It will be terrible for future innovation if the only way to gain control over your own hardware is to become a felon. Of course they don't like people jailbreaking, they've worked very long and hard on making a store with a fair and seamless DRM system - then barely a week after it's jailbroken somebody has gone and made an almost one-step process for cracking, distributing and downloading pirated applications. DRM relies on a closed system by it's very nature - it's understandable they like to discourage against subjugating their entire business model. HOWEVER: they have never (as of my knowlege) put in additional effort to prevent jailbreaking. The online media a few years ago was buzzing with warnings about updates bricking jailbroken iPhones - like if done out of some sort of malice when it turns out the problem was AnySIM completely trashing some areas of the baseband, rendering it unusable when updated next. So let's see, Apple getting a ton of bad press misdirected at them (as usual) because of the clumsy mistakes of some people who didn't really test their baseband modifying software before releasing it to the public. Oh, and a more recent example. The installer for OpenSSH in Cydia didn't bother to prompt a change for the default root password on the iPhone (alpine) - suddenly there's a "virus" spreading between unsecured jailbroken iPhones because of clueless idiots once again thinking they know what they're doing when they clearly don't. The press? "OMG ITS TEH IPHONE VIRUSSSSS RUN FOR THE HILLS!!" Do you think they bothered to mention that you had to a) Jailbreak your phone, b) Install OpenSSH and c) Neglect to change the default password? Of course not, who cares insignificant details like that when you can have a headline with the words "iPhone" and "virus" both in it. Gee, I wonder why Apple don't like jailbreaking guys? Meanwhile, it would be naîve to think that Apple doesn't have plenty of jailbroken iPhones they use internally for various things. I have no doubt they are keeping a very close eye on the progress of the JB scene. Along with anything that remotely competes with Apple's business model. If Microsoft had that level of control 20 years ago, we wouldn't have the web. We don't know the exact reason for many Apple's rejections, but I disagree with this sentiment in general - there are hundreds of examples of approved apps which directly with Apple's own offerings and if you're referring to the GV rejection in particular that's even more puzzling as it doesn't compete with Apple at all (unless they're secretly planning on becoming a telco?) Examples of approved apps which might enroach on Apple's territory are various Safari replacements (iCab etc), Map applications, and even Spotify; clearly stepping on the toes of iTunes store. The problem is the inconsistency, which to me points more toward individual agent whims or moods rather than policy. I agree this is unacceptable but they have promised to make it better. They have stated publicly that they approve > 99% of apps, so as usual it's a vocal minority. That's a testable prediction, since Android offers exactly that setting. We'll see if it becomes a cesspool of malware; I don't expect it to. There has already been a bank account phishing app which was undiscovered for weeks on the Android Marketplace. I wonder why whoever coded that didn't target the iPhone instead and get 100x the opportunity? Oh that's right, they couldn't. The system works.