7 ms·
It's not anti-freedom. It's just pro-ease-of-use and it's easier to guarantee a quality experience when there are less unknowns and less variables to account fo
by dkonofalski 9y ago
It's not anti-freedom. It's just pro-ease-of-use and it's easier to guarantee a quality experience when there are less unknowns and less variables to account for. When everyone is using the same device with the same software, it's much easier to guarantee a great experience.
- steve19 9y agoAllowing side loading of apps would not impact usability in anyway. Edit: It would massively increase the usability, allowing any apps to be installed, not just Apple approved apps, making the phone more usable to many people. Back in the day I had to buy a dev account just to load an emulator I wanted to use (it was open source) without rooting.
- dkonofalski 9y agoThat is objectively untrue. Every system that has allowed sideloading of apps has been compromised by that very feature.
- StavrosK 9y ago"Every society that has been allowed to drive cars has had car accidents." I know the risks, I want to do it anyway. I don't want a nanny over my head.
- braythwayt 9y agoThat may be a better analogy than you intend. The problem with cars is that everyone suffers the consequences of your driving. In fact, you may have the least exposure to the carbon monoxide, pollution, or even accident risk. Pedestrians, cyclists, property owners, and other drivers are all at risk of your driving. For that reason, societies tightly regulate car ownership and driving. More so than phones: I don’t need a license to use a phone, nor do I have to register my ownership or have it regularly inspected. But technology these days has this same characteristic: Others bear the costs of your decision. Every device connected to the internet is a DDOS vector. I don’t want you deciding whether to keep your device up to date with the latest security patches, because if you (and a few million others) don’t, GitHub is down for me.
- StavrosK 9y agoSo, are you doing the responsible thing and not using a laptop, or any device that's vulnerable, like a router?
- melse 9y agoBear in mind that the vast vast majority of apple's customers have 0 interest in sideloading apps- if you're apple it makes a great deal of sense to trade off security for the masses against a few power users who can't sideload apps occasionally here and there
- tinus_hn 9y agoA compromise doesn't affect you, it affects Apple and the app developers. iOS has the best apps because it has people buying them instead of everyone and his brother pirating. Anyway, if you don't want to deal with how an iPhone works, how about buying a different phone.
- taormina 9y agoBut can ruin your privacy guarantees.
- mikeash 9y agoHow? Sideloaded apps would still be sandboxed.
- eropple 9y agoSideloaded apps make attacks on non-sideloaded stuff a lot easier.
- mikeash 9y agoNot to sound like a broken record, but, how?
- kitsunesoba 9y agoIt's more than just sandboxing: Apps going through the App Store have to meet a stringent set of requirements, chiefly being no private API usage, no circumvention of features intended to give the user control/privacy, and no third party web engines (and all the performance and security implications that come with those). Apple regularly rejects apps that violate the first two, and while I'm sure some get through they tend to get buried by scores of more legitimate alternatives. Sideloaded apps get to bypass all of this. If they ever do offer sideloading/gatekeeper, it should be turned off by default and turning it on should make the risks crystal clear with a scary alert and passcode prompt. Average folks should be heavily discouraged against using it. Gatekeeper works on the Mac, but iOS devices are both far more numerous and far more personal, so the stakes are much higher.
- mikeash 9y agoApple's checks are not very deep. They suffice to keep honest people honest but do little against an actual adversary.
- jsjohnst 9y agoTechnically, they do. You just have to pay more for it (aka buying a developer account).
- madeofpalk 9y agoActually you don't even need to pay for it these days. Free Apple Developer accounts can side load apps through Xcode
- jack1243star 9y agoYou need to pay for the Mac to use Xcode though...
- madeofpalk 9y agoCorrect. You need to own a computer to run computer software.
- nothrabannosir 9y agoI see your point, but: That's not an excuse, that's an explanation. It is anti freedom whether that's their end game or not. I don't really care about Apples motives, I care about the product. Really, Apple is anti Nothing and pro only one thing: money. Everything else is a corollary. Including ease of use, freedom, and privacy. It's just that those things do matter to me (and GP).
- muninn_ 9y agoWhat's an example of a common use case in which Apple is anti-freedom in your opinion?
- Gaelan 9y agoPresumably they're talking about the App Store walled garden.
- themacguffinman 9y agoWeb browser engines. Default apps.
- muninn_ 9y agoIs it really that big of a deal for the web browser engines? What's the issue with the default apps? I believe you can now uninstall just about every one of them.
- StavrosK 9y agoNot being able to unlock your phone or sideload programs. I don't accept the "we know what's best for you" argument. They could have allowed jailbreaking and added huge warnings.
- tinus_hn 9y agoApple allows you to 'sideload' apps as long as you get a (free) developer account.
- jack1243star 9y agoIt is anti-freedom, in the sense that all apps are censored under Apple's own rules. They specifically said that apps do not constitude free speech.