2 ms·

I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store.

by zaarn 8y ago

I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with them. Similarly, Apple spends a lot of money on making sure the PR image of the app store is clean. People should be able to fully trust Apple's app store, in Apple's opinion. That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like, it just means that malicious behavior is not allowed. If the user doesn't like it they can remove it without consequence.

mkirklions 8y ago
>Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. What about when they force devs to buy their multi-thousand dollar ecosystem? That has nothing to do with quality apps. Also, by excluding the poor from developing for iOS, they are widening income inequality.
- zaarn 8y ago
  That's an entirely separate decision from deciding to control what goes into the shop and by that not really part of the discussion, isn't it? And Apple asking for a fee to allow uploading apps is also a separate issue, after all, Mozilla is doing it without a fee by using volunteers to screen apps. Both points are true and a problem but it's distracting from what this is about, no?
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    These arent separate, situations do not exist in a bubble. These are Apple taking aggressive measures toward developers. Squeezing them and potentially blocking them from perfectly legitimate apps.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      They don't exist in a bubble, correct, they are however separate, but again, this is not what this is about. It still means you can separate the good ideas that apple has from the bad ideas. Not everything Apple does is inherently bad or evil because they do some evil or bad things, no? And this is simply extracting the good part of apple's store policy; patrolling and checking apps so that users can trust what is in the store.
- Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
  I develop for iOS on a secondhand Mac mini and commodity keyboard, mouse and monitor. Total cost well under £600, let alone “multi-thousands of dollars”.
  - mkirklions 8y ago
    That sounds like a potential solution to me. Still costs more than any other development. Where'd you get your's second hand?
    - Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
      Just eBay.
- megous 8y ago
  You can use qemu to run macOS. It's probably agaist ToS, but it works. But it's best to just ignore Apple if you can. It's their problem anyway, if they want to discourage cross-platform developers that don't own or have interest in their HW.
SilasX 8y ago
But what about the whole "give users control of their machines again"? What if I have an extension originating elsewhere -- say, because I'm a sympathetic person Mozilla claims they encourage learning to code -- and I want to bypass the usual protections. They still won't let me install it.
- zaarn 8y ago
  You can install it if you use the developer edition or unbranded version, this is fairly well documented.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Sure, if you're willing to forgo the updates and have to manually install each time, or have the updates convert you to the branded version: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing-availability-of-unbranded-builds/#comment-222290 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing... (Good luck compiling it yourself.)
    - zaarn 8y ago
      I compile a unbranded version of Firefox for each released version on my private repository for AUR packages, automated and without the need of intervention at all. I'm currently running the branded release but I could pick unbranded, beta, dev or nightly editions of Firefox if I wanted. It's not hard to automate and especially with the unbranded version you have permission to distribute the binary that results, a permission you don't have with the branded edition. You can also use the Nightly or Developer Edition of Firefox as well.
      - SilasX 8y ago
        Yes, you could. What about the person Mozilla claims to want to get into coding? They have to choose between getting the regular updates vs being able to tweak their addons. And do you plan to set that all up in the middle of your workday when a forced update disables your extensions?
1024core 8y ago
> Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. Nothing prevents me from compiling my own binaries and running them on my Mac. But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your own stuff on your browser. This is horribly broken.
- zaarn 8y ago
  You can install unsigned or foreign-signed addons, you simply need either the developer editino or you use a unbranded version of Firefox (ie, any Firefox binary that isn't branded for Mozilla). It's a compile option.
- dralley 8y ago
  >But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your own stuff on your browser. There's no way to allow that that doesn't also allow crapware / malware installers from injecting stuff into Firefox.
Mindwipe 8y ago
> Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. It really isn't. It's to prop up their own services through anti-competitive blocking, to maintain a level of terrifying censorship, and to rent seek on what remains.
- zaarn 8y ago
  That is a good side effect for apple but it's not the primary aim/goal of controlling the app store. They already control the ecosystem by virtue of not allowing sideloading easily so controlling the app store serves little additional effect other than cleaning it up and increasing trust. It's still bad overall though.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Not sure where you are getting your information, as Apple has publicly stated to its investors that the first and last of those 3 were their actual purposes behind the restrictions on the app store.
yholio 8y ago
>That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like But it certainly guarantees there won't be any apps Apple doesn't like and haven't paid the appropriate fee. It's incredibly naive to think the primary reason for Apple is trust and security. At least as far as their mobile ecosystem is concerned, their control over what the user can run is a major revenue source.
- zaarn 8y ago
  You are aware there is a difference between "primary" and "only", yes? I'm not saying Apple's intent is pure but there is a primary driving factor behind it, that to my knowledge, seems fairly pro-consumer. Doesn't mean it has other, anti-consumer motivations.
  - yholio 8y ago
    Let's see if I got the hang of this: The average iPhone user can only install software approved by Apple, and their primary motivation for that setup is an anti consumer one.

by zaarn 8y ago

mkirklions 8y ago

>Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. What about when they force devs to buy their multi-thousand dollar ecosystem? That has nothing to do with quality apps. Also, by excluding the poor from developing for iOS, they are widening income inequality.

zaarn 8y ago
That's an entirely separate decision from deciding to control what goes into the shop and by that not really part of the discussion, isn't it? And Apple asking for a fee to allow uploading apps is also a separate issue, after all, Mozilla is doing it without a fee by using volunteers to screen apps. Both points are true and a problem but it's distracting from what this is about, no?
- mkirklions 8y ago
  These arent separate, situations do not exist in a bubble. These are Apple taking aggressive measures toward developers. Squeezing them and potentially blocking them from perfectly legitimate apps.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    They don't exist in a bubble, correct, they are however separate, but again, this is not what this is about. It still means you can separate the good ideas that apple has from the bad ideas. Not everything Apple does is inherently bad or evil because they do some evil or bad things, no? And this is simply extracting the good part of apple's store policy; patrolling and checking apps so that users can trust what is in the store.
Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
I develop for iOS on a secondhand Mac mini and commodity keyboard, mouse and monitor. Total cost well under £600, let alone “multi-thousands of dollars”.
- mkirklions 8y ago
  That sounds like a potential solution to me. Still costs more than any other development. Where'd you get your's second hand?
  - Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
    Just eBay.
megous 8y ago
You can use qemu to run macOS. It's probably agaist ToS, but it works. But it's best to just ignore Apple if you can. It's their problem anyway, if they want to discourage cross-platform developers that don't own or have interest in their HW.

SilasX 8y ago

But what about the whole "give users control of their machines again"? What if I have an extension originating elsewhere -- say, because I'm a sympathetic person Mozilla claims they encourage learning to code -- and I want to bypass the usual protections. They still won't let me install it.

zaarn 8y ago
You can install it if you use the developer edition or unbranded version, this is fairly well documented.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Sure, if you're willing to forgo the updates and have to manually install each time, or have the updates convert you to the branded version: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing-availability-of-unbranded-builds/#comment-222290 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/07/29/extension-signing... (Good luck compiling it yourself.)
  - zaarn 8y ago
    I compile a unbranded version of Firefox for each released version on my private repository for AUR packages, automated and without the need of intervention at all. I'm currently running the branded release but I could pick unbranded, beta, dev or nightly editions of Firefox if I wanted. It's not hard to automate and especially with the unbranded version you have permission to distribute the binary that results, a permission you don't have with the branded edition. You can also use the Nightly or Developer Edition of Firefox as well.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Yes, you could. What about the person Mozilla claims to want to get into coding? They have to choose between getting the regular updates vs being able to tweak their addons. And do you plan to set that all up in the middle of your workday when a forced update disables your extensions?

1024core 8y ago

> Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. Nothing prevents me from compiling my own binaries and running them on my Mac. But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your own stuff on your browser. This is horribly broken.

zaarn 8y ago
You can install unsigned or foreign-signed addons, you simply need either the developer editino or you use a unbranded version of Firefox (ie, any Firefox binary that isn't branded for Mozilla). It's a compile option.
dralley 8y ago
>But the issue here (AFAICT) is that Mozilla won't even let you sideload your own stuff on your browser. There's no way to allow that that doesn't also allow crapware / malware installers from injecting stuff into Firefox.

Mindwipe 8y ago

> Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. It really isn't. It's to prop up their own services through anti-competitive blocking, to maintain a level of terrifying censorship, and to rent seek on what remains.

zaarn 8y ago
That is a good side effect for apple but it's not the primary aim/goal of controlling the app store. They already control the ecosystem by virtue of not allowing sideloading easily so controlling the app store serves little additional effect other than cleaning it up and increasing trust. It's still bad overall though.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Not sure where you are getting your information, as Apple has publicly stated to its investors that the first and last of those 3 were their actual purposes behind the restrictions on the app store.

yholio 8y ago

>That doesn't mean there won't be addons you don't like But it certainly guarantees there won't be any apps Apple doesn't like and haven't paid the appropriate fee. It's incredibly naive to think the primary reason for Apple is trust and security. At least as far as their mobile ecosystem is concerned, their control over what the user can run is a major revenue source.

zaarn 8y ago
You are aware there is a difference between "primary" and "only", yes? I'm not saying Apple's intent is pure but there is a primary driving factor behind it, that to my knowledge, seems fairly pro-consumer. Doesn't mean it has other, anti-consumer motivations.
- yholio 8y ago
  Let's see if I got the hang of this: The average iPhone user can only install software approved by Apple, and their primary motivation for that setup is an anti consumer one.