13 ms·

Let me give a courtesy remainder that it is "... until Apple change their mind". Whatever the provider, I really hate those walled gardens where what you can d

by nolok 9y ago

Let me give a courtesy remainder that it is "... until Apple change their mind". Whatever the provider, I really hate those walled gardens where what you can deliver or not is at the whims of a company whose interest is not always aligned with yours. I understand being on them is necessary due to how large their market are, but this is really not where I hoped we would be fifteen years ago. I guess I'm merely venting, and daydreaming about what could have been, "if only"...

beefsack 9y ago
Possibly scarier than the fact that crap like this even exists is the amount of ecosystem aligned zealotry that you see even on places like HN, vehemently defending anti-developer policies purely because of the amount of personal investment in the ecosystem.
- crowbahr 9y ago
  Sunk costs are a real thing.
  - nolok 9y ago
    I think his point wasn't that sunk cost are a myth, but rather that they shouldn't make you blind to the problem of the platform you're bound to. Whether or not that's something that happens here or elsewhere can be argued and I don't necessarily agree with him, but that's where he was going with it I believe
    - crowbahr 9y ago
      My statement was more a reflection on the reasons than asserting he was saying they weren't. It was a commiseration.
  - simonh 9y ago
    I don't think it's so much the sunk costs that matter. It's the dividend you get back every day from that investment which keeps you hooked. That's what you don't want to lose.
- stouset 9y ago
  This is a pretty unnecessary straw man. There are a lot of people who defend particular ecosystems in spite of anti-developer policies for defensible reasons.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >vehemently defending anti-developer policies purely because of the amount of personal investment in the ecosystem Well, some consider them pro-user or pro-ecosystem policies. Not everybody agrees in the "open for all" as the best option for every tech.
- brlewis 9y ago
  Instead of questioning the motives of people who disagree with you, how about a concrete example with citation? This comment sides with yours but makes the point better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536374
- criddell 9y ago
  > vehemently defending anti-developer policies Developers do some pretty shitty things. Lots of us using Apple stuff came from more open ecosystems and are here at least partially because Apple restricts what developers do. My video game console is very closed. My phone is fairly open. The controller on my weekend project is a Raspberry Pi - very open. It's not a question of zealotry really.
coldtea 9y ago
>I understand being on them is necessary due to how large their market are, but this is really not where I hoped we would be fifteen years ago. Depends on who "we" are. Some people also wanted a hassle free device, which only runs curated apps, and that keeps the whole experience more secure, unified, private, etc that a "open for all" environment.
- nolok 9y ago
  Oh of course I'm aware of that, that's why I said the whole thing as my own wishes ("I hoped we would be"). I can also see the value in such a device, my main gripe is the total lack of realistic alternative in the smartphone market right now.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    Isn't Android a realistic alternative? Certainly it has its own problems, but the ability to 'side-load' whatever app I want far out weights those, at least for me.
    - aerique 9y ago
      Android's becoming more of a walled garden as well. More and more stuff depends on the opaque blob that is Google Play Services and an increasing number of apps (even games ffs!) only want to run when SafetyNet says the device is save. The SafetyNet stuff is somewhat understandable for banking apps but it means rooting, Xposed modules and custom Android builds is out of the question, taking away a lot of freedom.
      - vbezhenar 9y ago
        It's a choice of developers, not Android's failure. I suspect that game developers are trying to protect from piracy. I doubt that they implemented those checks just for fun.
        Angostura 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 9y ago
Windows is getting there very very fast too. I made a fresh install of the latest windows 10 pro this week end, and it is now very difficult to do simple things like changing the default program for an extension. I wanted to use Irfanview for jpg files but the primary menu for allocating an app to images will now only allow you to select a windows store app, not a local app (and you cannot change the default program from a contextual menu on the file anymore). Otherwise you have to go through a list of thousands of extensions to find manually the correct one (of course no search). Needless to say I didn't bother to change png, bmp, gif & others. Windows is more unappealing by the minute. It will become the same locked down OS than iOS, unsuitable for developpers and power users.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I want a sandboxed OS where random app X doesn't access my $HOME data just because it feels like it. As for developers, iOS is quite suitable as the set of developer sessions last week at WWDC 2017 proved, and I do have lots of fun targeting UWP. Many of us, developers, are quite ok with following the rules of the platforms we target.
  - fredsir 9y ago
    > I want a sandboxed OS where random app X doesn't access my $HOME data just because it feels like it. You should check out XFENCE[1], formerly known as Little Flocker, and made by Jonathan Zdziarski who sold it to F-Secure after he was hired by Apple as a security guy. [1]: https://beta.f-secure.com/key/XFence https://beta.f-secure.com/key/XFence
  - clouddrover 9y ago
    I want full, real Firefox on iOS but that doesn't look like being an option any time soon. I want a real choice of browser on the platform. I also find file management deeply annoying on iOS, but maybe that will improve with iOS 11 and the new file management stuff.
- oblio 9y ago
  My money's on this happening due to an internal power struggle within Microsoft. The Windows division was historically the top dog within Microsoft (probably on par with Office). They can't maintain that status: PC renewal cycles are long and the PC market is decreasing, both in terms of market share and in absolute values. I guess they're trying to get more money from this stable or even shrinking market share. My guess is that at some point Microsoft bosses will really start butting heads and Azure/developer tools + Office/enterprise applications won't budge, especially since they're on the rise. Windows damaging Microsoft's reputation hurts all their businesses and I doubt they will let this happen for long. I believe big parts of Windows will become more and more open and even Windows itself could open sourced within 10 years, at most.
danpalmer 9y ago
Definitely wearing my Apple fanboy hat here, but... > Let me give a courtesy remainder that it is "... until Apple change their mind". I'm going to propose that there has been ~1 legitimate case of this in iOS history. Maybe 2? I feel like for the most part, the original guidelines were pretty solid. While they weren't complete and have been changed significantly since the original publication, most of this has been to add guidelines around new features (like push notifications), and to clarify rules. This clarification could be read as Apple changing their mind, but I reckon almost every instance has been 'obvious' and that it would almost always be apps that were knowingly skirting way too close to the rules, and not acting within the spirit of the guidelines, that got burned.
- Tepix 9y ago
  I suggest you check out http://www.appstorereviewguidelineshistory.com/ http://www.appstorereviewguidelineshistory.com/ Sure, you may agree with most of them, but what if you're the developer of an app such as a cryptic watch app for the Apple Watch, and then Apple decides to block all apps on the watch who's main function is displaying the time (like they did)?
  - danpalmer 9y ago
    Thanks for the link, very useful! I would say that the cryptic watch app was 'obvious' in my mind though. Watch faces are a well defined concept on the watch, and the lack of third party watch faces was about as explicit as one can expect from Apple. I'm not surprised at all, and ignoring the fact of whether they should be allowed, I feel they were skirting too close to the boundary to be able to complain about being removed, but that's just my reading of the situation.
PaulRobinson 9y ago
I think some people need a walled garden. Genuinely - the reason why I gave my Mum a MacBook was because I was fed up of having to deal with the mess of the Windows machine every time I went home. What would be better is is if in the device settings I was able to say "I know I downloaded this, and I know it's not signed, and I'm OK with running it", just like I do on macOS and have done for some time. The walled garden approach was there for some time because of carrier concerns initially, but now it's purely commercial: Android has shown a more liberal attitude with better security around key pieces of hardware can still protect the carrier network from malicious attack. Apple now have such huge value-add in terms of the app store - Apple Pay, discoverability, ratings and so on - that most developers would happily pay to be there. However, yes, it would be nice if I could choose what goes onto my device if I agree it's on me if something goes "wrong".
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  I doubt carrier concerns were the motivation for the Apple iPhone App Store - they'd have mandated some kind of AT&T and Sprint App Store (with $2 ring-tone and wallpaper downloads...). Besides, Windows Mobile, Nokia and Blackberry all had their own respective ecosystems long before Apple - I say this as a user of PocketGear since 2001. I hate to say it, but Apple is right: the use-cases for truly unlocked computing on constrained mobile devices are very limited and, given our experience with the Windows tech support scammers a massive liability for everyone: if non-expert users have any access to a button on their phone that will drain their bank accounts, no matter how clearly labelled, then there will be rampant attacks to make them press it; the only solution, therefore, is to make it completely impossible to both run unsigned code, and for code to execute outside of a sandbox. In the early days of iOS - there was a much stronger justification for jailbreaking because iOS was just so aneamic - useful features like a Widget Dashboards or "Today" summary screen, data tethering, and ad-blocking were all conspicuously absent. But now we've got them and since iOS 8 or 9, it's been perfect for me.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The fact that all the same restrictions still apply to the iPod Touch and the WiFi-only iPads shows that Jobs's infamous "Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down" excuse was bullshit.
jshelly 9y ago
I struggle to comprehend the arguments against Apple's way of doing things, it clearly works very well for the people in the ecosystem. If it's not your style then perhaps some other platform is?

by nolok 9y ago

beefsack 9y ago

Possibly scarier than the fact that crap like this even exists is the amount of ecosystem aligned zealotry that you see even on places like HN, vehemently defending anti-developer policies purely because of the amount of personal investment in the ecosystem.

crowbahr 9y ago
Sunk costs are a real thing.
- nolok 9y ago
  I think his point wasn't that sunk cost are a myth, but rather that they shouldn't make you blind to the problem of the platform you're bound to. Whether or not that's something that happens here or elsewhere can be argued and I don't necessarily agree with him, but that's where he was going with it I believe
  - crowbahr 9y ago
    My statement was more a reflection on the reasons than asserting he was saying they weren't. It was a commiseration.
- simonh 9y ago
  I don't think it's so much the sunk costs that matter. It's the dividend you get back every day from that investment which keeps you hooked. That's what you don't want to lose.
stouset 9y ago
This is a pretty unnecessary straw man. There are a lot of people who defend particular ecosystems in spite of anti-developer policies for defensible reasons.
coldtea 9y ago
>vehemently defending anti-developer policies purely because of the amount of personal investment in the ecosystem Well, some consider them pro-user or pro-ecosystem policies. Not everybody agrees in the "open for all" as the best option for every tech.
brlewis 9y ago
Instead of questioning the motives of people who disagree with you, how about a concrete example with citation? This comment sides with yours but makes the point better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14536374
criddell 9y ago
> vehemently defending anti-developer policies Developers do some pretty shitty things. Lots of us using Apple stuff came from more open ecosystems and are here at least partially because Apple restricts what developers do. My video game console is very closed. My phone is fairly open. The controller on my weekend project is a Raspberry Pi - very open. It's not a question of zealotry really.

coldtea 9y ago

>I understand being on them is necessary due to how large their market are, but this is really not where I hoped we would be fifteen years ago. Depends on who "we" are. Some people also wanted a hassle free device, which only runs curated apps, and that keeps the whole experience more secure, unified, private, etc that a "open for all" environment.

nolok 9y ago
Oh of course I'm aware of that, that's why I said the whole thing as my own wishes ("I hoped we would be"). I can also see the value in such a device, my main gripe is the total lack of realistic alternative in the smartphone market right now.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  Isn't Android a realistic alternative? Certainly it has its own problems, but the ability to 'side-load' whatever app I want far out weights those, at least for me.
  - aerique 9y ago
    Android's becoming more of a walled garden as well. More and more stuff depends on the opaque blob that is Google Play Services and an increasing number of apps (even games ffs!) only want to run when SafetyNet says the device is save. The SafetyNet stuff is somewhat understandable for banking apps but it means rooting, Xposed modules and custom Android builds is out of the question, taking away a lot of freedom.
    - vbezhenar 9y ago
      It's a choice of developers, not Android's failure. I suspect that game developers are trying to protect from piracy. I doubt that they implemented those checks just for fun.
      - Angostura 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cm2187 9y ago

Windows is getting there very very fast too. I made a fresh install of the latest windows 10 pro this week end, and it is now very difficult to do simple things like changing the default program for an extension. I wanted to use Irfanview for jpg files but the primary menu for allocating an app to images will now only allow you to select a windows store app, not a local app (and you cannot change the default program from a contextual menu on the file anymore). Otherwise you have to go through a list of thousands of extensions to find manually the correct one (of course no search). Needless to say I didn't bother to change png, bmp, gif & others. Windows is more unappealing by the minute. It will become the same locked down OS than iOS, unsuitable for developpers and power users.

pjmlp 9y ago
I want a sandboxed OS where random app X doesn't access my $HOME data just because it feels like it. As for developers, iOS is quite suitable as the set of developer sessions last week at WWDC 2017 proved, and I do have lots of fun targeting UWP. Many of us, developers, are quite ok with following the rules of the platforms we target.
- fredsir 9y ago
  > I want a sandboxed OS where random app X doesn't access my $HOME data just because it feels like it. You should check out XFENCE[1], formerly known as Little Flocker, and made by Jonathan Zdziarski who sold it to F-Secure after he was hired by Apple as a security guy. [1]: https://beta.f-secure.com/key/XFence https://beta.f-secure.com/key/XFence
- clouddrover 9y ago
  I want full, real Firefox on iOS but that doesn't look like being an option any time soon. I want a real choice of browser on the platform. I also find file management deeply annoying on iOS, but maybe that will improve with iOS 11 and the new file management stuff.
oblio 9y ago
My money's on this happening due to an internal power struggle within Microsoft. The Windows division was historically the top dog within Microsoft (probably on par with Office). They can't maintain that status: PC renewal cycles are long and the PC market is decreasing, both in terms of market share and in absolute values. I guess they're trying to get more money from this stable or even shrinking market share. My guess is that at some point Microsoft bosses will really start butting heads and Azure/developer tools + Office/enterprise applications won't budge, especially since they're on the rise. Windows damaging Microsoft's reputation hurts all their businesses and I doubt they will let this happen for long. I believe big parts of Windows will become more and more open and even Windows itself could open sourced within 10 years, at most.

danpalmer 9y ago

Definitely wearing my Apple fanboy hat here, but... > Let me give a courtesy remainder that it is "... until Apple change their mind". I'm going to propose that there has been ~1 legitimate case of this in iOS history. Maybe 2? I feel like for the most part, the original guidelines were pretty solid. While they weren't complete and have been changed significantly since the original publication, most of this has been to add guidelines around new features (like push notifications), and to clarify rules. This clarification could be read as Apple changing their mind, but I reckon almost every instance has been 'obvious' and that it would almost always be apps that were knowingly skirting way too close to the rules, and not acting within the spirit of the guidelines, that got burned.

Tepix 9y ago
I suggest you check out http://www.appstorereviewguidelineshistory.com/ http://www.appstorereviewguidelineshistory.com/ Sure, you may agree with most of them, but what if you're the developer of an app such as a cryptic watch app for the Apple Watch, and then Apple decides to block all apps on the watch who's main function is displaying the time (like they did)?
- danpalmer 9y ago
  Thanks for the link, very useful! I would say that the cryptic watch app was 'obvious' in my mind though. Watch faces are a well defined concept on the watch, and the lack of third party watch faces was about as explicit as one can expect from Apple. I'm not surprised at all, and ignoring the fact of whether they should be allowed, I feel they were skirting too close to the boundary to be able to complain about being removed, but that's just my reading of the situation.

PaulRobinson 9y ago

I think some people need a walled garden. Genuinely - the reason why I gave my Mum a MacBook was because I was fed up of having to deal with the mess of the Windows machine every time I went home. What would be better is is if in the device settings I was able to say "I know I downloaded this, and I know it's not signed, and I'm OK with running it", just like I do on macOS and have done for some time. The walled garden approach was there for some time because of carrier concerns initially, but now it's purely commercial: Android has shown a more liberal attitude with better security around key pieces of hardware can still protect the carrier network from malicious attack. Apple now have such huge value-add in terms of the app store - Apple Pay, discoverability, ratings and so on - that most developers would happily pay to be there. However, yes, it would be nice if I could choose what goes onto my device if I agree it's on me if something goes "wrong".

DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
I doubt carrier concerns were the motivation for the Apple iPhone App Store - they'd have mandated some kind of AT&T and Sprint App Store (with $2 ring-tone and wallpaper downloads...). Besides, Windows Mobile, Nokia and Blackberry all had their own respective ecosystems long before Apple - I say this as a user of PocketGear since 2001. I hate to say it, but Apple is right: the use-cases for truly unlocked computing on constrained mobile devices are very limited and, given our experience with the Windows tech support scammers a massive liability for everyone: if non-expert users have any access to a button on their phone that will drain their bank accounts, no matter how clearly labelled, then there will be rampant attacks to make them press it; the only solution, therefore, is to make it completely impossible to both run unsigned code, and for code to execute outside of a sandbox. In the early days of iOS - there was a much stronger justification for jailbreaking because iOS was just so aneamic - useful features like a Widget Dashboards or "Today" summary screen, data tethering, and ad-blocking were all conspicuously absent. But now we've got them and since iOS 8 or 9, it's been perfect for me.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The fact that all the same restrictions still apply to the iPod Touch and the WiFi-only iPads shows that Jobs's infamous "Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down" excuse was bullshit.

jshelly 9y ago

I struggle to comprehend the arguments against Apple's way of doing things, it clearly works very well for the people in the ecosystem. If it's not your style then perhaps some other platform is?