4 ms·

Browsers are huge attack vectors as they allow you to run arbitrary code. I wouldn't say there isn't a case to not allow third parties to run a platform in your

by dep_b 8y ago

Browsers are huge attack vectors as they allow you to run arbitrary code. I wouldn't say there isn't a case to not allow third parties to run a platform in your platform.

shmerl 8y ago
It's not an excuse to violate anti-trust. MS were blasted for this, but Apple got away with this foul behavior.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Microsoft got hit for using their monopoly in one market (the market for operating systems) illegally to try to obtain better/monopoly status in another market (the market for web browsers. If you have an evidence-based argument to make that Apple has a monopoly in the market for mobile operating systems and has illegally used it to try to obtain a monopoly in the market for web browsers, I would be intrigued to hear it. (in other words, not every bundled web browser is automatically a violation of antitrust law; nor is every attempt to forbid something on iOS automatically a violation)
  - shmerl 8y ago
    In other words, you are giving an excuse to Apple, based on the current handicapped anti-trust practice by the courts. I don't see it as a valid excuse. Apple are clearly damaging the industry and market with their behavior. By blocking major features in their browser and banning all other browsers, they are forcing others into supporting their specific requirements, because otherwise they won't be able to reach iOS users. Examples like trying to sabotage DASH for video streaming by not supporting MSE on iOS are quite obvious. Anti-trust was intended to prevent such kind of outcomes. But it was diluted to the point of being practically useless, allowing the likes of Apple to run amok with their monopolistic garbage.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Your argument is based on what you personally think the law should be, and that's not the same as what the law is. Microsoft did things that actually broke the law. Nobody's yet convinced a court that Apple has done things that broke the law. And Apple is demonstrably not doing the thing Microsoft got in trouble for. So you're free to argue that in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. But you're not free to argue that that's what the actual laws in the real world say to do.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        So you are saying "since the law is full of holes, don't blame Apple for being crooks". I disagree. Whitewashing monopolistic abuse based on how neutered by years of lobbying by monopolists anti-trust laws are, is quite bad in itself. > in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. In the ideal world with functional anti-trust, they'd be held accountable for their disgusting anti-competitive behavior and they'd fix it. In the current world their monopolistic abuse runs unchecked, causing damage to the industry and progress.
TheForumTroll 8y ago
Are you okay with Microsoft doing the same thing then or do other rules apply for non-Apple?
kllrnohj 8y ago
Nonsense. If Apple was worried about arbitrary code they wouldn't have allowed apps in the first place. Browsers are restricted to the same security context that Apple trusts anyone who pays them $99 with. They just don't want competition on their platform, and Apple is typically remain small enough to get away with that position. Particularly in stronger pro-anti-trust places like the EU, where iOS is less than 30% market share.
- dep_b 8y ago
  Either you don't understand what arbitrary code is or you're just too angry with Apple to want to understand it. But apps either run static code or use the Safari JS engine to run code. That's all the flavors you have. Statically compiled Swift code is much easier to deal with than whatever creative things somebody can come up with with JS.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    All browsers should care about security. All browsers can have vulnerabilities. It's not an excuse to ban competing browsers if users want to install them. That's the essence of the matter. Apple's behavior is anti-competitive in doing it. In fact, I'd argue that it reduces security, since users can't install more secure browsers than Apple's own one (and no one would care to even make one since it won't be usable).
  - kllrnohj 8y ago
    Static code IS arbitrary code. Apple didn't author it and didn't vet it. They ran a static analyzer over it (not remotely foolproof) and then trusted the actual security to the process sandbox. Besides, nothing stops you from still running arbitrary code in iOS downloaded from the web. You're simply restricted to doing that either interpreted or via Apple's JIT. In either case you're still getting arbitrary execution that Apple never statically analyzed, interacting with any APIs that the app wants that code to have access to (intentionally or not).

by dep_b 8y ago

Browsers are huge attack vectors as they allow you to run arbitrary code. I wouldn't say there isn't a case to not allow third parties to run a platform in your platform.

shmerl 8y ago

It's not an excuse to violate anti-trust. MS were blasted for this, but Apple got away with this foul behavior.

ubernostrum 8y ago
Microsoft got hit for using their monopoly in one market (the market for operating systems) illegally to try to obtain better/monopoly status in another market (the market for web browsers. If you have an evidence-based argument to make that Apple has a monopoly in the market for mobile operating systems and has illegally used it to try to obtain a monopoly in the market for web browsers, I would be intrigued to hear it. (in other words, not every bundled web browser is automatically a violation of antitrust law; nor is every attempt to forbid something on iOS automatically a violation)
- shmerl 8y ago
  In other words, you are giving an excuse to Apple, based on the current handicapped anti-trust practice by the courts. I don't see it as a valid excuse. Apple are clearly damaging the industry and market with their behavior. By blocking major features in their browser and banning all other browsers, they are forcing others into supporting their specific requirements, because otherwise they won't be able to reach iOS users. Examples like trying to sabotage DASH for video streaming by not supporting MSE on iOS are quite obvious. Anti-trust was intended to prevent such kind of outcomes. But it was diluted to the point of being practically useless, allowing the likes of Apple to run amok with their monopolistic garbage.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Your argument is based on what you personally think the law should be, and that's not the same as what the law is. Microsoft did things that actually broke the law. Nobody's yet convinced a court that Apple has done things that broke the law. And Apple is demonstrably not doing the thing Microsoft got in trouble for. So you're free to argue that in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. But you're not free to argue that that's what the actual laws in the real world say to do.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      So you are saying "since the law is full of holes, don't blame Apple for being crooks". I disagree. Whitewashing monopolistic abuse based on how neutered by years of lobbying by monopolists anti-trust laws are, is quite bad in itself. > in your ideal world, if you made all the laws, Apple would be put out of business. In the ideal world with functional anti-trust, they'd be held accountable for their disgusting anti-competitive behavior and they'd fix it. In the current world their monopolistic abuse runs unchecked, causing damage to the industry and progress.

TheForumTroll 8y ago

Are you okay with Microsoft doing the same thing then or do other rules apply for non-Apple?

kllrnohj 8y ago

Nonsense. If Apple was worried about arbitrary code they wouldn't have allowed apps in the first place. Browsers are restricted to the same security context that Apple trusts anyone who pays them $99 with. They just don't want competition on their platform, and Apple is typically remain small enough to get away with that position. Particularly in stronger pro-anti-trust places like the EU, where iOS is less than 30% market share.

dep_b 8y ago
Either you don't understand what arbitrary code is or you're just too angry with Apple to want to understand it. But apps either run static code or use the Safari JS engine to run code. That's all the flavors you have. Statically compiled Swift code is much easier to deal with than whatever creative things somebody can come up with with JS.
- shmerl 8y ago
  All browsers should care about security. All browsers can have vulnerabilities. It's not an excuse to ban competing browsers if users want to install them. That's the essence of the matter. Apple's behavior is anti-competitive in doing it. In fact, I'd argue that it reduces security, since users can't install more secure browsers than Apple's own one (and no one would care to even make one since it won't be usable).
- kllrnohj 8y ago
  Static code IS arbitrary code. Apple didn't author it and didn't vet it. They ran a static analyzer over it (not remotely foolproof) and then trusted the actual security to the process sandbox. Besides, nothing stops you from still running arbitrary code in iOS downloaded from the web. You're simply restricted to doing that either interpreted or via Apple's JIT. In either case you're still getting arbitrary execution that Apple never statically analyzed, interacting with any APIs that the app wants that code to have access to (intentionally or not).