4 ms·

Of course you should. It's my device, I should be able to do what I want with it. The default should be protected but root should be available.

SubuSS 8y ago
I don't understand: Do you expect to be able to run any programs you want on the micro-controller on your washing machine? That's what Apple is doing here. Pushing iPhone as a commodity, not a replacement for your macbook. This way they get the benefits of controlling the experience as much as they want. (I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that many people are fine with commodity phones and don't care for the loss of configurability).
- RandomBK 8y ago
  If the washing machine was internet connected, then yes. If not, I'd still like the JTAG interface intact. Now, _will_ I do that? Probably not, but my opinion is that as the owner of the device, I should have the ability to do so if I so choose.
  - SubuSS 8y ago
    how does connectivity matter in relation to ability to custom program?
    - RandomBK 8y ago
      On second thought, it doesn't. I just wanted a easy way to distinguish complex IoT devices from simpler ones.
  - xvector 8y ago
    > I should have the ability to do so if I so choose. And what about the manufacturer? Why should it be their legal responsibility to satisfy your whims for programmable interfaces? Not to mention what you're mentioning that what you're suggesting will make the iPhone incredibly insecure.
    - RandomBK 8y ago
      I'm not sure where you're getting the "legal responsibility" part from - I'm not advocating legislation, simply stating my personal preferences as a consumer. I do what I can to try and bring others to my point of view, but I am in no part trying to push this as a legal burden on manufacturers. Please don't bring strawman arguments into this, this topic is complex and nuanced enough as-is. Regarding security, that very much depends on your threat model and definition of "secure". Indeed, I see this general trend of decreasing user control over increasingly complex and connected hardware as a massive security threat where I am forced to trust multiple 3rd parties who may arbitrarily disrupt my life anytime new "features" or "policies" get pushed out. It is perfectly possible to securely implement a tamper-evident "I know what I'm doing" switch/fuse that enables advanced control by device owners. However, I'm well aware that I'm in the minority on this topic, so I'm not holding my breath for such features to be implemented.
- Natanael_L 8y ago
  You haven't seen Apple's commercials? "what's a computer"? This is the ONLY experience they want everybody expect
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Except, you know, they still sell Macs.
- Legogris 8y ago
  JTAG interfaces on washing machines are not that uncommon, so this is absolutely a thing.
- stale2002 8y ago
  > Do you expect to be able to run any programs you want on the micro-controller on your washing machine? Yes. It is within my full legal right to install whatever programs I want on my washing machine. Apple lost a bunch of lawsuits, when it tried to sue people for doing this. The courts proved that yes, you do have a legal right to do whatever you want with hardware that you own.
- driverdan 8y ago
  I don't use a washing machine controller as a general purpose computing device. I don't install apps on a washing machine and would never buy one that had that feature. It's not a reasonable comparison. That said, I doubt washing machine microcontrollers use signed code. It's easier to modify them than your phone which is completely backwards.
CodeWriter23 8y ago
And you can. You just can’t do what you want with your _customer’s_ device, according to Apple’s TOS.
- emiliosic 8y ago
  However you could get a developer license and load anything you want on your phone. Granted it's not for everybody, but if you're so incline to sideload apps on your phone you can pretend to be a developer (Meaning you just need to know enough to use the tools available, not in a demeaning way).
  - kngspook 8y ago
    I don't think you even need a developer license. IIRC, I think if you just plug your iPhone into Xcode, you can load whatever code you want on to it.
    - CodeWriter23 8y ago
      You don't have to pay but you do have to register to get to the tools download.
jyrkesh 8y ago
I 100% agree with you. I should be able to run any code on my device (after I flip a bit and it gets wiped). The first thing I've done with every Nexus or Pixel purpose is to wipe and root it. But that's not what this is about. Apple has been enforcing these rules for years. F.lux tried to get around the App Store by reaching users how to sideload via Xcode. Apple killed it. The big players should be subject to the same rules. If they want to run their own code, they can't just flagrantly ignore Apple's TOS. I'm also onboard with the Nielsen metaphor but not for kids. And both were scummy in targeting kids (though FB was definitely worse judging from marketing materials).
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > F.lux tried to get around the App Store by reaching users how to sideload via Xcode. Apple killed it. Specifically, Apple killed it because f.lux decided to distribute their app in a really sketchy manner where they essentially pushed an opaque binary blob to the phone rather than compiling the app from source and installing the build product from that.
- 0x54D5 8y ago
  None of this would be an issue if you could run whatever app you want on an iOS device. There's many uses cases for kids that are not nefarious in nature. Say a parental lock feature that goes above and beyond what Apple provides out of the box.
peteretep 8y ago
Sure. And Apple aren’t going to sue you if manage to. It sounds like you’re confused between “I should be able to” and “Apple should make it easy for me to”.
zimpenfish 8y ago
> The default should be protected but root should be available. How do you protect against that backdoor being used by hostiles?

SubuSS 8y ago

I don't understand: Do you expect to be able to run any programs you want on the micro-controller on your washing machine? That's what Apple is doing here. Pushing iPhone as a commodity, not a replacement for your macbook. This way they get the benefits of controlling the experience as much as they want. (I am not saying it is right or wrong, just that many people are fine with commodity phones and don't care for the loss of configurability).

RandomBK 8y ago
If the washing machine was internet connected, then yes. If not, I'd still like the JTAG interface intact. Now, _will_ I do that? Probably not, but my opinion is that as the owner of the device, I should have the ability to do so if I so choose.
- SubuSS 8y ago
  how does connectivity matter in relation to ability to custom program?
  - RandomBK 8y ago
    On second thought, it doesn't. I just wanted a easy way to distinguish complex IoT devices from simpler ones.
- xvector 8y ago
  > I should have the ability to do so if I so choose. And what about the manufacturer? Why should it be their legal responsibility to satisfy your whims for programmable interfaces? Not to mention what you're mentioning that what you're suggesting will make the iPhone incredibly insecure.
  - RandomBK 8y ago
    I'm not sure where you're getting the "legal responsibility" part from - I'm not advocating legislation, simply stating my personal preferences as a consumer. I do what I can to try and bring others to my point of view, but I am in no part trying to push this as a legal burden on manufacturers. Please don't bring strawman arguments into this, this topic is complex and nuanced enough as-is. Regarding security, that very much depends on your threat model and definition of "secure". Indeed, I see this general trend of decreasing user control over increasingly complex and connected hardware as a massive security threat where I am forced to trust multiple 3rd parties who may arbitrarily disrupt my life anytime new "features" or "policies" get pushed out. It is perfectly possible to securely implement a tamper-evident "I know what I'm doing" switch/fuse that enables advanced control by device owners. However, I'm well aware that I'm in the minority on this topic, so I'm not holding my breath for such features to be implemented.
Natanael_L 8y ago
You haven't seen Apple's commercials? "what's a computer"? This is the ONLY experience they want everybody expect
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Except, you know, they still sell Macs.
Legogris 8y ago
JTAG interfaces on washing machines are not that uncommon, so this is absolutely a thing.
stale2002 8y ago
> Do you expect to be able to run any programs you want on the micro-controller on your washing machine? Yes. It is within my full legal right to install whatever programs I want on my washing machine. Apple lost a bunch of lawsuits, when it tried to sue people for doing this. The courts proved that yes, you do have a legal right to do whatever you want with hardware that you own.
driverdan 8y ago
I don't use a washing machine controller as a general purpose computing device. I don't install apps on a washing machine and would never buy one that had that feature. It's not a reasonable comparison. That said, I doubt washing machine microcontrollers use signed code. It's easier to modify them than your phone which is completely backwards.

CodeWriter23 8y ago

And you can. You just can’t do what you want with your _customer’s_ device, according to Apple’s TOS.

emiliosic 8y ago
However you could get a developer license and load anything you want on your phone. Granted it's not for everybody, but if you're so incline to sideload apps on your phone you can pretend to be a developer (Meaning you just need to know enough to use the tools available, not in a demeaning way).
- kngspook 8y ago
  I don't think you even need a developer license. IIRC, I think if you just plug your iPhone into Xcode, you can load whatever code you want on to it.
  - CodeWriter23 8y ago
    You don't have to pay but you do have to register to get to the tools download.

jyrkesh 8y ago

I 100% agree with you. I should be able to run any code on my device (after I flip a bit and it gets wiped). The first thing I've done with every Nexus or Pixel purpose is to wipe and root it. But that's not what this is about. Apple has been enforcing these rules for years. F.lux tried to get around the App Store by reaching users how to sideload via Xcode. Apple killed it. The big players should be subject to the same rules. If they want to run their own code, they can't just flagrantly ignore Apple's TOS. I'm also onboard with the Nielsen metaphor but not for kids. And both were scummy in targeting kids (though FB was definitely worse judging from marketing materials).

saagarjha 8y ago
> F.lux tried to get around the App Store by reaching users how to sideload via Xcode. Apple killed it. Specifically, Apple killed it because f.lux decided to distribute their app in a really sketchy manner where they essentially pushed an opaque binary blob to the phone rather than compiling the app from source and installing the build product from that.
0x54D5 8y ago
None of this would be an issue if you could run whatever app you want on an iOS device. There's many uses cases for kids that are not nefarious in nature. Say a parental lock feature that goes above and beyond what Apple provides out of the box.

peteretep 8y ago

Sure. And Apple aren’t going to sue you if manage to. It sounds like you’re confused between “I should be able to” and “Apple should make it easy for me to”.

zimpenfish 8y ago

> The default should be protected but root should be available. How do you protect against that backdoor being used by hostiles?