28 ms·

I’m so unused to seeing a corporation act in the interests of their customers explicitly counter to the wishes of law enforcement and the intelligence community

I’m so unused to seeing a corporation act in the interests of their customers explicitly counter to the wishes of law enforcement and the intelligence community that I’m racking my brain trying to think of ulterior motives that explain why Apple might have this. Either way, on the surface, I’m quite pleased by this development.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
No kidding! Everyone in my immediate circle has iPhone, I get the occasional friend with the “Android better”... but it’s things like this that make me remember Apple is a company that is very clearly for money which means for the most part they really need to deliver to the customer - where google is a company that tries to do everything they can to imply they aren’t about sales they “give away” this and that, it’s a “free and open” ecosystem etc etc. I’ll take upfront and honest at the issue of more limited and expensive any day.
- mcny 8y ago
  Now that you mention it, I wonder whether the security thing plays into the reason why I need to remove and add apps I compile myself every n days? This limit is pretty much my only gripe against Apple at this point but if it is for privacy/security, I don't know what a good balance would be... Sorry if I sound like a broken record [1]. I don't own an iOS device at the moment. I would love to get an iPad but it kind of sucks that I can't compile and run my own apps. [1] Previously on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16993157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16993157
  - dcow 8y ago
    That one is about platform control. It's one thing to build a platform that only executes signed code--that's good for security--but it's another thing to refuse to give users control over who the trust authority is for their system. Apple still maintains that under lock and key effectively refusing to let you run your own software on your iPhone.
    - bitwize 8y ago
      Apple places their customers first and developers second. They build devices for humans, not the mutant lizard people from space who develop software.
      - LeoNatan25 8y ago
        I am a human, and I develop software. This is a moronic statement.
        bitwize 8y ago
        Gee, I was going for ironic, missed, and hit moronic. Close enough for horseshoes. :) I've started referring to software developers (like myself) with intentional irony as "mutant lizard people" after hearing one too many times how a particular OS/tool/programming language needs to be designed "for humans" (i.e, n00bs with no prior exposure to it).
        LeoNatan25 8y ago
        That would be a terrible idea. Isn’t that how JavaScript started?
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      It's not that clear cut of a tradeoff. If Apple were to allow limitless sideloading of apps and that became the standard way that people installed apps on iOS devices, it would seriously limit their ability to keep the platform secure against malicious apps.
      - Karunamon 8y ago
        I'm not sure that's a valid concern given that Android has allowed that since its earliest days, and most people are content to just use the market.
        8y ago
  - huebnerob 8y ago
    Without that time limit, an entire black market of non-app-store software distribution could spring up, and Apple would not be able to protect little Bobby who wants an emulator from bad app actors.
    - keiyakins 8y ago
      So? The entire promise of computers is programability. If you can't make it do what you want it to do, you might as well just get an old nokia.
    - saurik 8y ago
      The real limitation isn't "seven days", as that's not that annoying: it is that you can have at most three such apps. But frankly, that still doesn't provide much "protection" from bad apps. All it is doing is prevent all of the apps on your phone from being pirated (capping that at three), which bounds the damage from adding this feature.
  - Art9681 8y ago
    You can compile and run your own apps though. You would need an apple developer account and pay the fee to be able to side load your own apps. There is a process that allows you to do it if you're serious about it. Edit: Disregard my comment. I clicked the link and understand the context of your comment now. Still, if you want to code and deploy your own apps you can do it but there are conditions.
    - rsynnott 8y ago
      > You would need an apple developer account and pay the fee to be able to side load your own apps You don't need to pay to deploy to your own devices these days.
  - mygo 8y ago
    This is simply not true. You’ve been lied to, and you don’t own an iOS device to check for yourself. I’m pasting something I shared in another thread here. I have no idea where this lie came from but it seems like someone is trying to keep people away from developing apps on iOS. I’ve written a couple personal apps that sync with health kit data collected from my Apple Watch and nutrition apps to help me track things in a way that is useful for my fitness goals. In 2016-2017 I used these apps to put on 30 lbs and stay relatively lean but I’ve never wanted to publish them in the app store. I don’t pay for any developer program. Just need to download some (free) developer tools / SDK for XCode, build the source, and put it on my phone. The install is tethered, but afterwards it stays there until I delete it. Restarting the phone doesn’t delete the app either. Only time I needed to re-install was when my 5s crapped out and I had to get a new phone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- soneil 8y ago
  They're both doing the same thing. Just in Google's case, you and I aren't the customer. We're the user. Not the same thing.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Ok, but, if my buying choices are going to promote one company over another - I think I’ll choose to promote the one I’m the customer of.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Kind of a funny comment given the sibling comment noting that this is Apple catching up to a long-existing Android securitt feature, file transfer over USB requires first unlocking the device.
  - evan_ 8y ago
    No, iOS has done that for years, since like iOS 2 or 3 maybe. This is different- it locks itself down completely, even to channels that have previously been granted access, if it hasn't been unlocked for 7 days
    - devcpp 8y ago
      My Android phone (and most recent Android phones I know) completely locks USB data, including from devices that had previously been granted access. You have to unlock, touch a notification and enable some file transfer option instead of "charging only". No 7 days limit, the access is denied immediately once it disconnects.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- astro_robot 8y ago
  Google is very clearly all about the money as well. It's just that they understand there is no money that will come from the "customer". Instead, it will all come from other corporations that are seeking to leverage the relationship Google has established with you. I think it is healthy to remember that companies aren't some do good no matter what it costs them. At the end of the day, all companies are trying to make money the best way possible. Frankly, I am glad that there is both Apple and Google. I think they both do well while making money.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    No, it very clearly comes from the customer with Google. However, with Google, the End User is almost never the customer.
    - rock_hard 8y ago
      The argument that the user isn’t the customer needs to die please! It’s a overly simplified statement and misleads any serious conversation on the related topics! Thank you
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        Do you pay Google? No? Then you’re not their customer. Yes? Then you are. It isn’t a value judgement.
        chii 8y ago
        To be pedantic, even if you paid google, they wouldn't be treating you differently. Prime example is Google apps for your domain customers...
        dx034 8y ago
        Still, saying you're not the customer but the product is wrong. If you watch TV, you're also not the product. I'd probably classify TV audience as customers of the stations, even if the money is made with advertisement. But viewers are certainly not products. Google isn't different from a TV station. You as a user are a customer and pay Google by consuming the ads they present you in various products.
- keiyakins 8y ago
  Apple is awful at providing a reasonable spread of devices though. There's no $50 iphone that does everything I need, I'd have to spend at least ten times that. Then I'd have to pay MORE to be able to develop and run my own programs?! At that point, why even have a microprocessor rather than using a simple fixed function ASIC? Would I be happier if I could get a phone with the equivalent of BIOS and nothing else and vet and install my own software? You bet. If nothing else, I'd not have to install all those Play ____ apps I never use. But given the choices available, Apple is a bad one.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    No one would buy or make your low margin low cost phone, that’s why it doesn’t exist. Almost like Apple has probably evaluated the business case of an open ecosystem low margin low cost phone, and then immediately went back to printing money.
    - freeone3000 8y ago
      The $50 price point being deliberately chosen seems to be a reference to Android Go, whose USP is that the max price of the phone, new, no subsidy, is $50. (Though in the US, ZTE actually sells them for $80.) Of course, they're miserable little devices, but they are technically smartphones that technically run android.
    - PhantomGremlin 8y ago
      and then immediately went back to printing money. I love the phrase "printing money". It's time proven. But it just occurred to me that it doesn't do Apple justice. Apple's free cash flow for the trailing 12 months was $44.6 Billion. That's 446 million $100 banknotes. How many printing presses does it take to print that many bills? How many sheets of cotton/linen paper? Apple's financial numbers are astounding.
  - krrrh 8y ago
    $50 is a pretty amazing price point for something as flexible as a smartphone. However, you can get a perfectly usable used 5S for close to that range. Spend $15-40 extra and you can outfit it with new glass, screen, and battery, and it will feel like new, and probably perform at least as well as a brand new $50 Android. You can get a free developer account that lets you develop and run your own programs since a couple of years. I don’t know what you’re getting on about with ASICS, but I guess you may just need to accept being in a niche market segment.
jkestner 8y ago
I think it's as simple as: Apple's business is determined much more by end users than by government regulation. Unlike telecoms or increasingly, Google/Facebook. And this is amplified by Apple deciding that, as the others can't follow it, it's a good differentiator to invest in.
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Don't they use Google Cloud for ICloud storage?
  - ivanfon 8y ago
    Looks like they use Google Cloud and AWS. I assume they’ve built their platform in a way that they can easily use many different providers. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-cloud-platform-icloud-confirmation https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-clo...
  - MBCook 8y ago
    I believe so but that’s an implementation detail. They could switch to AWS or Azure.
  - zwily 8y ago
    They heavily use AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure.
    - george_perez 8y ago
      Not anymore for Azure. Google Cloud replaced Azure for them. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf Control (Command) + F and there's no mention of Azure anymore.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    They use multiple types of cloud storage; the data is encrypted and Google isn’t processing it, just storing it.
fishmeat 8y ago
It makes them seem unlike Microsoft Windows and Google Analytics and win points with their customer base.
izacus 8y ago
> I’m so unused to seeing a corporation act in the interests of their customers explicitly counter to the wishes of law enforcement and the intelligence community that I’m racking my brain trying to think of ulterior motives that explain why Apple might have this. Apple started to assist chinese government and used their walled garden to ban all their users from using secure communications and VPNs. As soon as actual dollars are on the line Apple just like other corporations chooses dollars. I'd be vary of trusting them too much.
- prklmn 8y ago
  But dollars are always on the line, and that’s why they’re protecting customers outside of China and complying with the authoritarian Chinese gov in China. Most countries don’t have draconian measures like China does to make sure that companies comply with their every demand.
  - izacus 8y ago
    Other "evil" companies like Google instead refused to do business with such regime. Apple actively helps the regime by banning VPN apps and preventing Chinese people from installing them from 3rd party sources.
    - geofft 8y ago
      I am not quite sure the cases are analogous: Google is a website, Apple sells physical objects. When Google "refused to do business" with China, they doubtless knew that users would instead use a VPN and access some other national version of Google. Meanwhile, if Apple doesn't do business in China, it's not like people in China getting genuine smuggled iPhones that work normally. They're either going to use other platforms or use untrustworthy knock-off iPhones, and all of those probably comply with government regulations too. Still, your point above stands: a company as large as Apple or Google has too many individuals with their own personal interests for "trustworthy" to really be a meaningful term. I trust Apple mobile phones much more than Google mobile phones, but, for instance, I trust Google laptops much more than I trust Apple laptops. I am sure there are good people working on all four products, but for some reason Apple's mobile phone division and Google's laptop division have consistently put out better products.
rsynnott 8y ago
"We're better at privacy" is a fairly obvious way for Apple to differentiate itself, especially when the business model of many of its competitors kind of depend on not being very good at privacy (contextual ads and so on). This fits that brand fairly well.
Yizahi 8y ago
Then you should read older post by Elcomsoft (1), about Apple consciously degrading several layers of security in iOS11 (compared to iOS10) essentially to a PIN-code. Currently if you know PIN and have iPhone you can extract everything out of it, out of backups and out of iCloud. (1) https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2017/11/ios-11-horror-story-the-rise-and-fall-of-ios-security/ https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2017/11/ios-11-horror-story-the-r...
- makecheck 8y ago
  The type of login be changed though, to anything you want; e.g. it can be a long text passphrase.
  - Yizahi 8y ago
    The point is - it is now a single point of failure and it is probably not very feasible to expect to enter long password every time you unlock the phone. And no, biometrics is not a replacement. Biometrics is a login, not a password. You can't change your compromised biometrics unlike passwords.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      But you can disable the biometric logon automatically. Either screwing it up too many times (like touching the wrong finger) or by quick-tapping the power button a number of times - upon which it falls back to the stronger password. If you're in a position where you know bad guys with guns are coming, you can just power the phone down. If you know they're coming but don't have much time, or you're unsure, you just thwack the power button a few times. If you don't know they're coming, you're kind of screwed, but then again you would be anyways.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        If the bad guys with guns are coming and they want to decrypt your phone, they can beat it out of you - rubber hose decryption is remarkably effective.
fahadkhan 8y ago
To kill the competition? Not saying that that is the case, only that it maybe a possible motive
jiveturkey 8y ago
google does this ALL the time. you just don’t read about it in the press. for example, they encrypt the inter-data center links. for which they own the fiber. they do all kinds of stuff like that and are always doing new things. of course they don’t go 100% and encrypt email or docs but still they go to quite far lengths as long as it is within scope of their business model. (same as apple) other companies do this kind of thing also. again, they just aren’t in the news cycle. then there’s yahoo.
- acdha 8y ago
  > google does this ALL the time. you just don’t read about it in the press. for example, they encrypt the inter-data center links This has been well covered in the press as part of the NSA story. To the extent that the belief Apple getting more coverage is true, it’s because most people know tech companies protect themselves but Apple’s moves affect millions of people who otherwise would not have the resources to do so.
- zymhan 8y ago
  Google covering their _own_ ass and encrypting their internal data at-rest and over-the-wire has nothing to do with their approach to mobile device security. Any company worth their salt will encrypt traffic that transits any untrusted network after Snowden's revelations.
rightos 8y ago
Android has literally had this feature for ages. By default plugging your device in puts it in "charging only" mode and you have to tap a notification and explicitly select MTP or PTP mode before it even attempts to talk to the computer.
- zymhan 8y ago
  That is not the same as disabling the entire USB data stack. iPhones have been charging by default, and prompting to sync, since time immemorial. This is a new feature, that logically disables the USB port after 7 days without unlocking.
  - rightos 8y ago
    On Android no data connection is made, when a connection on the data pins is detected one is offered, but as far as I can tell no device is even detected by the OS until after picking a mode, nothing to attack. Let me know if I'm missing something, but I get no change in Device Manager/dmesg when plugging my phone in, indicating no data connection to me. It would appear the entire data connection is disabled until a mode is picked.
    - sizzle 8y ago
      Correct, unless you enable adb in developer mode.
    - zymhan 8y ago
      This is the normal behavior in iOS, and has been for years. What Apple is doing is _additionally_ disabling the USB port on an even lower level. Currently, the port could still exchange data if it were tricked or hacked, but disabling the port on a controller level will prevent accessing the device entirely. Or at least that's the theory. Since it can obviously be reconnected after entering a passcode, there are conceivably ways to get it to open up. But that will have to be tested.
      - rightos 8y ago
chrischen 8y ago
They are not counter law enforcement. They are pro-user and the fact that their device works for the user and not advertisers, law enforcement, or negative external actors.
briandear 8y ago
Because Tim Cook strongly cares about privacy. Furthermore, privacy can be a competitive advantage. It’s an extremely smart move to double down on protecting users given what we’ve seen from the Facebook-types.
jarjoura 8y ago
Well, the iPhone has always been a locked down device. Every iteration of it has plugged up holes where access can get around safeguards. 1. It protects the store monopoly by guaranteeing the device will only ever load signed code from Apple. This is a huge financial incentive for Apple to invest engineering time into it. 2. Tim Cook has successfully recast the lockdown as a user privacy issue and is winning in the court of public opinion on the matter. Again, another huge financial incentive as it is something Android cannot deliver on. 3. There are real consequences to enabling the wishes of US law enforcement that I firmly believe the executives at Apple do not want to open that pandora's box. Our government may truly want to solve real crimes, and this may frustrate them, but there are governments who very concretely want that same power to lock up opposition voices and witch hunts.
wmeredith 8y ago
I assume that Apple is seeing some traction in their latest push to be the consumer privacy company and are putting more wood behind that arrow.
rphlx 8y ago
In most circumstances it's not clear to me that a >48 hour timeout is really a major impediment to law enforcement in a major metro. Of course, if they arrest like 10,000 people on the same day from a major protest or something it could create a capacity problem, but otherwise it seems like more of an irritant - a new time constraint - rather than a truly effective countermeasure to vulns in their LI/USB stack. I would be much more impressed if they allowed users to wholesale disable all non-charging functionality.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The reason why this is annoying for law enforcement is because it effectively shuts down many forms of brute-force password cracking attacks, which take time to perform.
phatfish 8y ago
Apple's direction on privacy and using their premium brand image to look after their customers first is refreshing. I just wish there was some way they could also play fair with their tax responsibilities. Rather than having the EU force their hand and showing the Irish deal to be illegal for example. Granted the governments that enter into such deals (or refuse to fix the loop holes) are also part of the problem. Considering the pile of cash they sit on if anyone can set a good example it's Apple.
gcb0 8y ago
it is NOT about law enforcement. Law enforcement could get this before 1 week (NSA) or force the company to add a backdoor (FBI) This is more likely about reducing the market for stolen phones.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

No kidding! Everyone in my immediate circle has iPhone, I get the occasional friend with the “Android better”... but it’s things like this that make me remember Apple is a company that is very clearly for money which means for the most part they really need to deliver to the customer - where google is a company that tries to do everything they can to imply they aren’t about sales they “give away” this and that, it’s a “free and open” ecosystem etc etc. I’ll take upfront and honest at the issue of more limited and expensive any day.

mcny 8y ago
Now that you mention it, I wonder whether the security thing plays into the reason why I need to remove and add apps I compile myself every n days? This limit is pretty much my only gripe against Apple at this point but if it is for privacy/security, I don't know what a good balance would be... Sorry if I sound like a broken record [1]. I don't own an iOS device at the moment. I would love to get an iPad but it kind of sucks that I can't compile and run my own apps. [1] Previously on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16993157 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16993157
- dcow 8y ago
  That one is about platform control. It's one thing to build a platform that only executes signed code--that's good for security--but it's another thing to refuse to give users control over who the trust authority is for their system. Apple still maintains that under lock and key effectively refusing to let you run your own software on your iPhone.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    Apple places their customers first and developers second. They build devices for humans, not the mutant lizard people from space who develop software.
    - LeoNatan25 8y ago
      I am a human, and I develop software. This is a moronic statement.
      - bitwize 8y ago
        Gee, I was going for ironic, missed, and hit moronic. Close enough for horseshoes. :) I've started referring to software developers (like myself) with intentional irony as "mutant lizard people" after hearing one too many times how a particular OS/tool/programming language needs to be designed "for humans" (i.e, n00bs with no prior exposure to it).
        LeoNatan25 8y ago
        That would be a terrible idea. Isn’t that how JavaScript started?
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    It's not that clear cut of a tradeoff. If Apple were to allow limitless sideloading of apps and that became the standard way that people installed apps on iOS devices, it would seriously limit their ability to keep the platform secure against malicious apps.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      I'm not sure that's a valid concern given that Android has allowed that since its earliest days, and most people are content to just use the market.
      - 8y ago
- huebnerob 8y ago
  Without that time limit, an entire black market of non-app-store software distribution could spring up, and Apple would not be able to protect little Bobby who wants an emulator from bad app actors.
  - keiyakins 8y ago
    So? The entire promise of computers is programability. If you can't make it do what you want it to do, you might as well just get an old nokia.
  - saurik 8y ago
    The real limitation isn't "seven days", as that's not that annoying: it is that you can have at most three such apps. But frankly, that still doesn't provide much "protection" from bad apps. All it is doing is prevent all of the apps on your phone from being pirated (capping that at three), which bounds the damage from adding this feature.
- Art9681 8y ago
  You can compile and run your own apps though. You would need an apple developer account and pay the fee to be able to side load your own apps. There is a process that allows you to do it if you're serious about it. Edit: Disregard my comment. I clicked the link and understand the context of your comment now. Still, if you want to code and deploy your own apps you can do it but there are conditions.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    > You would need an apple developer account and pay the fee to be able to side load your own apps You don't need to pay to deploy to your own devices these days.
- mygo 8y ago
  This is simply not true. You’ve been lied to, and you don’t own an iOS device to check for yourself. I’m pasting something I shared in another thread here. I have no idea where this lie came from but it seems like someone is trying to keep people away from developing apps on iOS. I’ve written a couple personal apps that sync with health kit data collected from my Apple Watch and nutrition apps to help me track things in a way that is useful for my fitness goals. In 2016-2017 I used these apps to put on 30 lbs and stay relatively lean but I’ve never wanted to publish them in the app store. I don’t pay for any developer program. Just need to download some (free) developer tools / SDK for XCode, build the source, and put it on my phone. The install is tethered, but afterwards it stays there until I delete it. Restarting the phone doesn’t delete the app either. Only time I needed to re-install was when my 5s crapped out and I had to get a new phone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
soneil 8y ago
They're both doing the same thing. Just in Google's case, you and I aren't the customer. We're the user. Not the same thing.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Ok, but, if my buying choices are going to promote one company over another - I think I’ll choose to promote the one I’m the customer of.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Kind of a funny comment given the sibling comment noting that this is Apple catching up to a long-existing Android securitt feature, file transfer over USB requires first unlocking the device.
- evan_ 8y ago
  No, iOS has done that for years, since like iOS 2 or 3 maybe. This is different- it locks itself down completely, even to channels that have previously been granted access, if it hasn't been unlocked for 7 days
  - devcpp 8y ago
    My Android phone (and most recent Android phones I know) completely locks USB data, including from devices that had previously been granted access. You have to unlock, touch a notification and enable some file transfer option instead of "charging only". No 7 days limit, the access is denied immediately once it disconnects.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
astro_robot 8y ago
Google is very clearly all about the money as well. It's just that they understand there is no money that will come from the "customer". Instead, it will all come from other corporations that are seeking to leverage the relationship Google has established with you. I think it is healthy to remember that companies aren't some do good no matter what it costs them. At the end of the day, all companies are trying to make money the best way possible. Frankly, I am glad that there is both Apple and Google. I think they both do well while making money.
- Aloha 8y ago
  No, it very clearly comes from the customer with Google. However, with Google, the End User is almost never the customer.
  - rock_hard 8y ago
    The argument that the user isn’t the customer needs to die please! It’s a overly simplified statement and misleads any serious conversation on the related topics! Thank you
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Do you pay Google? No? Then you’re not their customer. Yes? Then you are. It isn’t a value judgement.
      - chii 8y ago
        To be pedantic, even if you paid google, they wouldn't be treating you differently. Prime example is Google apps for your domain customers...
      - dx034 8y ago
        Still, saying you're not the customer but the product is wrong. If you watch TV, you're also not the product. I'd probably classify TV audience as customers of the stations, even if the money is made with advertisement. But viewers are certainly not products. Google isn't different from a TV station. You as a user are a customer and pay Google by consuming the ads they present you in various products.
keiyakins 8y ago
Apple is awful at providing a reasonable spread of devices though. There's no $50 iphone that does everything I need, I'd have to spend at least ten times that. Then I'd have to pay MORE to be able to develop and run my own programs?! At that point, why even have a microprocessor rather than using a simple fixed function ASIC? Would I be happier if I could get a phone with the equivalent of BIOS and nothing else and vet and install my own software? You bet. If nothing else, I'd not have to install all those Play ____ apps I never use. But given the choices available, Apple is a bad one.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  No one would buy or make your low margin low cost phone, that’s why it doesn’t exist. Almost like Apple has probably evaluated the business case of an open ecosystem low margin low cost phone, and then immediately went back to printing money.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    The $50 price point being deliberately chosen seems to be a reference to Android Go, whose USP is that the max price of the phone, new, no subsidy, is $50. (Though in the US, ZTE actually sells them for $80.) Of course, they're miserable little devices, but they are technically smartphones that technically run android.
  - PhantomGremlin 8y ago
    and then immediately went back to printing money. I love the phrase "printing money". It's time proven. But it just occurred to me that it doesn't do Apple justice. Apple's free cash flow for the trailing 12 months was $44.6 Billion. That's 446 million $100 banknotes. How many printing presses does it take to print that many bills? How many sheets of cotton/linen paper? Apple's financial numbers are astounding.
- krrrh 8y ago
  $50 is a pretty amazing price point for something as flexible as a smartphone. However, you can get a perfectly usable used 5S for close to that range. Spend $15-40 extra and you can outfit it with new glass, screen, and battery, and it will feel like new, and probably perform at least as well as a brand new $50 Android. You can get a free developer account that lets you develop and run your own programs since a couple of years. I don’t know what you’re getting on about with ASICS, but I guess you may just need to accept being in a niche market segment.

jkestner 8y ago

I think it's as simple as: Apple's business is determined much more by end users than by government regulation. Unlike telecoms or increasingly, Google/Facebook. And this is amplified by Apple deciding that, as the others can't follow it, it's a good differentiator to invest in.

jimmy1 8y ago
Don't they use Google Cloud for ICloud storage?
- ivanfon 8y ago
  Looks like they use Google Cloud and AWS. I assume they’ve built their platform in a way that they can easily use many different providers. https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-cloud-platform-icloud-confirmation https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/26/17053496/apple-google-clo...
- MBCook 8y ago
  I believe so but that’s an implementation detail. They could switch to AWS or Azure.
- zwily 8y ago
  They heavily use AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure.
  - george_perez 8y ago
    Not anymore for Azure. Google Cloud replaced Azure for them. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf Control (Command) + F and there's no mention of Azure anymore.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  They use multiple types of cloud storage; the data is encrypted and Google isn’t processing it, just storing it.

fishmeat 8y ago

It makes them seem unlike Microsoft Windows and Google Analytics and win points with their customer base.

izacus 8y ago

> I’m so unused to seeing a corporation act in the interests of their customers explicitly counter to the wishes of law enforcement and the intelligence community that I’m racking my brain trying to think of ulterior motives that explain why Apple might have this. Apple started to assist chinese government and used their walled garden to ban all their users from using secure communications and VPNs. As soon as actual dollars are on the line Apple just like other corporations chooses dollars. I'd be vary of trusting them too much.

prklmn 8y ago
But dollars are always on the line, and that’s why they’re protecting customers outside of China and complying with the authoritarian Chinese gov in China. Most countries don’t have draconian measures like China does to make sure that companies comply with their every demand.
- izacus 8y ago
  Other "evil" companies like Google instead refused to do business with such regime. Apple actively helps the regime by banning VPN apps and preventing Chinese people from installing them from 3rd party sources.
  - geofft 8y ago
    I am not quite sure the cases are analogous: Google is a website, Apple sells physical objects. When Google "refused to do business" with China, they doubtless knew that users would instead use a VPN and access some other national version of Google. Meanwhile, if Apple doesn't do business in China, it's not like people in China getting genuine smuggled iPhones that work normally. They're either going to use other platforms or use untrustworthy knock-off iPhones, and all of those probably comply with government regulations too. Still, your point above stands: a company as large as Apple or Google has too many individuals with their own personal interests for "trustworthy" to really be a meaningful term. I trust Apple mobile phones much more than Google mobile phones, but, for instance, I trust Google laptops much more than I trust Apple laptops. I am sure there are good people working on all four products, but for some reason Apple's mobile phone division and Google's laptop division have consistently put out better products.

rsynnott 8y ago

"We're better at privacy" is a fairly obvious way for Apple to differentiate itself, especially when the business model of many of its competitors kind of depend on not being very good at privacy (contextual ads and so on). This fits that brand fairly well.

Yizahi 8y ago

Then you should read older post by Elcomsoft (1), about Apple consciously degrading several layers of security in iOS11 (compared to iOS10) essentially to a PIN-code. Currently if you know PIN and have iPhone you can extract everything out of it, out of backups and out of iCloud. (1) https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2017/11/ios-11-horror-story-the-rise-and-fall-of-ios-security/ https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2017/11/ios-11-horror-story-the-r...

makecheck 8y ago
The type of login be changed though, to anything you want; e.g. it can be a long text passphrase.
- Yizahi 8y ago
  The point is - it is now a single point of failure and it is probably not very feasible to expect to enter long password every time you unlock the phone. And no, biometrics is not a replacement. Biometrics is a login, not a password. You can't change your compromised biometrics unlike passwords.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    But you can disable the biometric logon automatically. Either screwing it up too many times (like touching the wrong finger) or by quick-tapping the power button a number of times - upon which it falls back to the stronger password. If you're in a position where you know bad guys with guns are coming, you can just power the phone down. If you know they're coming but don't have much time, or you're unsure, you just thwack the power button a few times. If you don't know they're coming, you're kind of screwed, but then again you would be anyways.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      If the bad guys with guns are coming and they want to decrypt your phone, they can beat it out of you - rubber hose decryption is remarkably effective.

fahadkhan 8y ago

To kill the competition? Not saying that that is the case, only that it maybe a possible motive

jiveturkey 8y ago

google does this ALL the time. you just don’t read about it in the press. for example, they encrypt the inter-data center links. for which they own the fiber. they do all kinds of stuff like that and are always doing new things. of course they don’t go 100% and encrypt email or docs but still they go to quite far lengths as long as it is within scope of their business model. (same as apple) other companies do this kind of thing also. again, they just aren’t in the news cycle. then there’s yahoo.

acdha 8y ago
> google does this ALL the time. you just don’t read about it in the press. for example, they encrypt the inter-data center links This has been well covered in the press as part of the NSA story. To the extent that the belief Apple getting more coverage is true, it’s because most people know tech companies protect themselves but Apple’s moves affect millions of people who otherwise would not have the resources to do so.
zymhan 8y ago
Google covering their _own_ ass and encrypting their internal data at-rest and over-the-wire has nothing to do with their approach to mobile device security. Any company worth their salt will encrypt traffic that transits any untrusted network after Snowden's revelations.

rightos 8y ago

Android has literally had this feature for ages. By default plugging your device in puts it in "charging only" mode and you have to tap a notification and explicitly select MTP or PTP mode before it even attempts to talk to the computer.

zymhan 8y ago
That is not the same as disabling the entire USB data stack. iPhones have been charging by default, and prompting to sync, since time immemorial. This is a new feature, that logically disables the USB port after 7 days without unlocking.
- rightos 8y ago
  On Android no data connection is made, when a connection on the data pins is detected one is offered, but as far as I can tell no device is even detected by the OS until after picking a mode, nothing to attack. Let me know if I'm missing something, but I get no change in Device Manager/dmesg when plugging my phone in, indicating no data connection to me. It would appear the entire data connection is disabled until a mode is picked.
  - sizzle 8y ago
    Correct, unless you enable adb in developer mode.
  - zymhan 8y ago
    This is the normal behavior in iOS, and has been for years. What Apple is doing is _additionally_ disabling the USB port on an even lower level. Currently, the port could still exchange data if it were tricked or hacked, but disabling the port on a controller level will prevent accessing the device entirely. Or at least that's the theory. Since it can obviously be reconnected after entering a passcode, there are conceivably ways to get it to open up. But that will have to be tested.
    - rightos 8y ago

chrischen 8y ago

They are not counter law enforcement. They are pro-user and the fact that their device works for the user and not advertisers, law enforcement, or negative external actors.

briandear 8y ago

Because Tim Cook strongly cares about privacy. Furthermore, privacy can be a competitive advantage. It’s an extremely smart move to double down on protecting users given what we’ve seen from the Facebook-types.

jarjoura 8y ago

Well, the iPhone has always been a locked down device. Every iteration of it has plugged up holes where access can get around safeguards. 1. It protects the store monopoly by guaranteeing the device will only ever load signed code from Apple. This is a huge financial incentive for Apple to invest engineering time into it. 2. Tim Cook has successfully recast the lockdown as a user privacy issue and is winning in the court of public opinion on the matter. Again, another huge financial incentive as it is something Android cannot deliver on. 3. There are real consequences to enabling the wishes of US law enforcement that I firmly believe the executives at Apple do not want to open that pandora's box. Our government may truly want to solve real crimes, and this may frustrate them, but there are governments who very concretely want that same power to lock up opposition voices and witch hunts.

wmeredith 8y ago

I assume that Apple is seeing some traction in their latest push to be the consumer privacy company and are putting more wood behind that arrow.

rphlx 8y ago

In most circumstances it's not clear to me that a >48 hour timeout is really a major impediment to law enforcement in a major metro. Of course, if they arrest like 10,000 people on the same day from a major protest or something it could create a capacity problem, but otherwise it seems like more of an irritant - a new time constraint - rather than a truly effective countermeasure to vulns in their LI/USB stack. I would be much more impressed if they allowed users to wholesale disable all non-charging functionality.

saagarjha 8y ago
The reason why this is annoying for law enforcement is because it effectively shuts down many forms of brute-force password cracking attacks, which take time to perform.

phatfish 8y ago

Apple's direction on privacy and using their premium brand image to look after their customers first is refreshing. I just wish there was some way they could also play fair with their tax responsibilities. Rather than having the EU force their hand and showing the Irish deal to be illegal for example. Granted the governments that enter into such deals (or refuse to fix the loop holes) are also part of the problem. Considering the pile of cash they sit on if anyone can set a good example it's Apple.

gcb0 8y ago

it is NOT about law enforcement. Law enforcement could get this before 1 week (NSA) or force the company to add a backdoor (FBI) This is more likely about reducing the market for stolen phones.