7 ms·

If only life had been as simple as dropping an .apk on their phone... I don't expect Facebook to get a whole lot of sympathy, but really, Apple's power on devi

If only life had been as simple as dropping an .apk on their phone... I don't expect Facebook to get a whole lot of sympathy, but really, Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
FB Employees do get the choice of either 2 Android phones (a Galaxy S9 or a Pixel 3, IIRC) or an iPhone so I'd wager they're just going to make a build system for their iPhone employees to sideload the apps through their internal build process or something.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  You can only sideload to devices that are registered in your Apple Developer account, and there's a 100-count limit per each device class (iPhone/iPad, i.e.). This doesn't seem feasible. Another option is TestFlight, but for devices that aren't registered (so-called "external beta") the app has to go through some App Store review.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    That's true, don't know how their developer accounts work. I guess then they'll have to beg for forgiveness or just spin the native apps into web apps. I feel sorry for their Enterprise Engineering team!
  - curt15 8y ago
    Does this mean there is ultimately no way of running your own code on your iDevices without first going through Apple?
    - wool_gather 8y ago
      Essentially, yes. The OS enforces that an app bundle is signed by a cert that was issued by Apple. Without going through Apple at all, the only option is jailbreaking, to bypass the signing check. No one's figured out (publicly) how to jailbreak the last two major versions, though, as far as I know (there were some jailbreaks that worked for iOS 11 betas). Another option still involves getting a cert from Apple, but it's free. You just need to create an Apple ID. The limitation here is that you have to re-install the app (IIRC) every seven days.
wmeredith 8y ago
> Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous It's a feature.
pentae 8y ago
Right. I love hating on FB as much as the next person but the stronghold Apple has over the hardware is absolutely unreal. Imagine buying $10M worth of iPhones every year for your workforce and then Apple pulling your critical software because there's no alternative way to side load apps for the market research department. Which, by the way, might be a bit scummy but as far as I can see theres no indication they have broken any laws there either. Makes you wonder who really owns the phone?
- dijit 8y ago
  I don't agree. FB can still side load apps all they want, they just can't do it on an enterprise scale like they currently do because they've abused their enterprise agreement. This is not different than abusing (say) Microsofts MSSQL to host on a 10,000 core machine when you have a 2 core license. "Who really owns the phone" is a misnomer, because you've licensed the OS. The physical hardware is of course yours but the OS remains property of Apple, your data remains the property of you. This is especially clear if you take the time to read the EULA. (Although EULA's have questionable legality in many parts of the world)
  - zaroth 8y ago
    It’s a very good point that a less efficient way to side load apps onto an iPhone exists. The enterprise cert program and associated software and infrastructure allows efficient internal side-loading under specific licensing conditions. If you break the license you don’t get to keeping using the product just because you bought the hardware that that licensed software happens to run on!
    - pentae 8y ago
      What less efficient way to side load apps exist? Flying the person to FB HQ and plugging their phone into a developers machine by USB? Yeah, right.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
jonknee 8y ago
> Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous It's a feature I appreciate. Malware is a serious problem and one I'd rather not deal with on my phone.
- sneakernets 8y ago
  Then, learn to check what you install? Make it require XCode or something, that may solve the problem.
  - jakear 8y ago
    iPhone users pay a premium to have a third party evaluate apps before they’re out on the App Store. If they wanted to do the evaluation themselves, they wouldn’t pay that premium.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      > iPhone users pay a premium to have a third party evaluate apps before they’re out on the App Store. And I appreciate that they provide that service and happily pay premium for it. But I'd still like a way to load apps that they don't approve.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        I would like the ability as well, but I can see the argument against it. If you provide that vector, there will be plenty of people trying to attack it. If you are staking a claim on privacy and security, you want to minimize the number of attack vectors on your devices.
      - evgen 8y ago
        Download XCode, compile the app yourself, load it onto your phone. Now you have apps on your phone that do not need Apple approval.
        jedberg 8y ago
velobro 8y ago
Then don't buy an iPhone? I don't understand why people keep bringing up this point. Yes, it's your phone but it's not your app store. One can use an iPhone without ever opening the app store.
- F_r_k 8y ago
  I agree, but try using an Apple TV without an account...
- pmontra 8y ago
  That level of control is exactly one of the reasons why I don't buy devices from Apple. If FB think they can use iPhones and mess with Apple's licensing terms they are very delusional. Hopefully this was (another) wake up call for everybody.
- codebook 8y ago
  That's why I don't buy iPhone. But I keep blaiming so that I can use iPhone after it is resolved.

If only life had been as simple as dropping an .apk on their phone... I don't expect Facebook to get a whole lot of sympathy, but really, Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

FB Employees do get the choice of either 2 Android phones (a Galaxy S9 or a Pixel 3, IIRC) or an iPhone so I'd wager they're just going to make a build system for their iPhone employees to sideload the apps through their internal build process or something.

wool_gather 8y ago
You can only sideload to devices that are registered in your Apple Developer account, and there's a 100-count limit per each device class (iPhone/iPad, i.e.). This doesn't seem feasible. Another option is TestFlight, but for devices that aren't registered (so-called "external beta") the app has to go through some App Store review.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  That's true, don't know how their developer accounts work. I guess then they'll have to beg for forgiveness or just spin the native apps into web apps. I feel sorry for their Enterprise Engineering team!
- curt15 8y ago
  Does this mean there is ultimately no way of running your own code on your iDevices without first going through Apple?
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    Essentially, yes. The OS enforces that an app bundle is signed by a cert that was issued by Apple. Without going through Apple at all, the only option is jailbreaking, to bypass the signing check. No one's figured out (publicly) how to jailbreak the last two major versions, though, as far as I know (there were some jailbreaks that worked for iOS 11 betas). Another option still involves getting a cert from Apple, but it's free. You just need to create an Apple ID. The limitation here is that you have to re-install the app (IIRC) every seven days.

wmeredith 8y ago

> Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous It's a feature.

pentae 8y ago

Right. I love hating on FB as much as the next person but the stronghold Apple has over the hardware is absolutely unreal. Imagine buying $10M worth of iPhones every year for your workforce and then Apple pulling your critical software because there's no alternative way to side load apps for the market research department. Which, by the way, might be a bit scummy but as far as I can see theres no indication they have broken any laws there either. Makes you wonder who really owns the phone?

dijit 8y ago
I don't agree. FB can still side load apps all they want, they just can't do it on an enterprise scale like they currently do because they've abused their enterprise agreement. This is not different than abusing (say) Microsofts MSSQL to host on a 10,000 core machine when you have a 2 core license. "Who really owns the phone" is a misnomer, because you've licensed the OS. The physical hardware is of course yours but the OS remains property of Apple, your data remains the property of you. This is especially clear if you take the time to read the EULA. (Although EULA's have questionable legality in many parts of the world)
- zaroth 8y ago
  It’s a very good point that a less efficient way to side load apps onto an iPhone exists. The enterprise cert program and associated software and infrastructure allows efficient internal side-loading under specific licensing conditions. If you break the license you don’t get to keeping using the product just because you bought the hardware that that licensed software happens to run on!
  - pentae 8y ago
    What less efficient way to side load apps exist? Flying the person to FB HQ and plugging their phone into a developers machine by USB? Yeah, right.
    - saagarjha 8y ago

jonknee 8y ago

> Apple's power on device owned by customers is ridiculous It's a feature I appreciate. Malware is a serious problem and one I'd rather not deal with on my phone.

sneakernets 8y ago
Then, learn to check what you install? Make it require XCode or something, that may solve the problem.
- jakear 8y ago
  iPhone users pay a premium to have a third party evaluate apps before they’re out on the App Store. If they wanted to do the evaluation themselves, they wouldn’t pay that premium.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    > iPhone users pay a premium to have a third party evaluate apps before they’re out on the App Store. And I appreciate that they provide that service and happily pay premium for it. But I'd still like a way to load apps that they don't approve.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      I would like the ability as well, but I can see the argument against it. If you provide that vector, there will be plenty of people trying to attack it. If you are staking a claim on privacy and security, you want to minimize the number of attack vectors on your devices.
    - evgen 8y ago
      Download XCode, compile the app yourself, load it onto your phone. Now you have apps on your phone that do not need Apple approval.
      - jedberg 8y ago

velobro 8y ago

Then don't buy an iPhone? I don't understand why people keep bringing up this point. Yes, it's your phone but it's not your app store. One can use an iPhone without ever opening the app store.

F_r_k 8y ago
I agree, but try using an Apple TV without an account...
pmontra 8y ago
That level of control is exactly one of the reasons why I don't buy devices from Apple. If FB think they can use iPhones and mess with Apple's licensing terms they are very delusional. Hopefully this was (another) wake up call for everybody.
codebook 8y ago
That's why I don't buy iPhone. But I keep blaiming so that I can use iPhone after it is resolved.