4 ms·

99.9% of users are not capable of making an informed decision about whether to approve a third-party app store. That you are is statistically irrelevant to the

99.9% of users are not capable of making an informed decision about whether to approve a third-party app store. That you are is statistically irrelevant to the security of their platform. Fortunately, Apple has to date and clearly intends to continue offering a way to disable this functionality for the "statistically irrelevant" subset of their users that have good reasons to. EDIT: Users, given a way to sideload, will always be taken advantage of. At least the enterprise program lets them be cured quickly. https://www.wired.com/story/exodus-spyware-ios/ https://www.wired.com/story/exodus-spyware-ios/

kbenson 8y ago
> 99.9% of users are not capable of making an informed decision about whether to approve a third-party app store. There's a difference between "people are stupid so let's prevent them from doing stuff that might cause problems, even if sometimes it's useful" and "people are stupid so let's discourage them from doing stuff that might cause problems." > Fortunately, Apple has to date and clearly intends to continue offering a way to disable this functionality for the "statistically irrelevant" subset of their users that have good reasons to. For their OS, yes. But the trend of locking the desktop/notebook offerings down to be more like their phone offerings is clear. Maybe there's also drift from their phones/tablets to be more open like their offerings and I'm missing it, but if not, I'm pretty sure I can see where this will eventually end (if Apple gets their way).
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  Apple offers many ways to self-issue mobile apps, but they all have restrictions that prevent them from being used for malware attacks. That’s how they were able to globally kill that Facebook VPN scam app that used Enterprise Certificates, and that’s why all non-enterprise app distribution methods carry an expiry: either you’re a free sideload developer (one week), a TestFlight user (twelve weeks), or an enterprise user (no expiration unless your enterprise earn a revoke for distribution to the public). The scenario you describe, where my pocket brain can be enrolled in a third-party App Store, is hostile to my security requirements for my pocket device and I’m glad Apple prohibits it.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Apple offers many ways to self-issue mobile apps Do any of them allow a third party to certify a general purpose application from another developer as safe? > That’s how they were able to globally kill that Facebook VPN scam app that used Enterprise Certificates, and that’s why all non-enterprise app distribution methods carry an expiry: either you’re a free sideload developer (one week), a TestFlight user (twelve weeks), or an enterprise user (no expiration unless your enterprise earn a revoke for distribution to the public). To me, that sounds like they're happy to provide various levels of workarounds as long as there's absolutely no way it can compete with their app store. I suspect an enterprise signature used to sign various third party apps for distribution would not be looked upon kindly by them. What's more, I don't believe they should have final call over what software should be allowed on the phone, so even if they did allow a more general signing capability, what ecosystem is going to develop there when the metaphorical Sword of Damocles or Apple's arbitrary whims as to what is acceptable or not are continually reassessed (and possibly checked for conflict with Apple's future business ventures)? > The scenario you describe, where my pocket brain can be enrolled in a third-party App Store, is hostile to my security requirements for my pocket device and I’m glad Apple prohibits it. Possibility is not the same as certainty. It's only hostile to your security if utilized. If the ability to do so was gated by a settings toggle, you would be no worse off than you are if you did not enable it.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      > Do any of them allow a third party to certify a general purpose application from another developer as safe? I certainly hope not.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        And so do I, because without the user being able to carefully select who to trust (and there's no reason Apple is inherently more trustworthy than another company), that's almost the same as removing any vetting process. As a simple example, might you be willing to trust Mozilla to offer a service where they review and certify all submissions that pass review for apps that are willing to pay for the process (allowing Mozilla to use some of their credibility and engineering expertise to raise funds)? I would. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would allow for a company with different principles and motives than Apple to be used, and my sensibilities lie closer to Mozilla's than they do Apple's or Google's.
- scarface74 8y ago
  What is this “useful” stuff that most people care about that they can’t do.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    "Those who have never experienced freedom will not miss it."
    - scarface74 8y ago
      I think most people have experience or know someone who has malware, adware, ransomware, and 10 tool bars on IE. If the lack of “freedom” is killing innovation, where are all of the profitable businesses that take advantage of Android’s “openness”?
      - hesarenu 8y ago
        Why are you associating freedom with business to point out apple profits? Freedom is for the user do as he wants.
        scarface74 8y ago
        No, I’m not referring to Apple’s profits but that is a good gauge of what people find valuable enough to spend money on. If Apple’s “walled garden” is holding back innovation, there should be a lot of innovative, successful third party products that are available for Android that aren’t available for iOS. Those are the only two platforms we can compare right now when it comes to the “open” vs “closed” debate.
        hesarenu 8y ago
        Again why are you associating money with freedom? If there are not much innovations happening on other platforms then why are Apple afraid to allow side loading?

kbenson 8y ago

> 99.9% of users are not capable of making an informed decision about whether to approve a third-party app store. There's a difference between "people are stupid so let's prevent them from doing stuff that might cause problems, even if sometimes it's useful" and "people are stupid so let's discourage them from doing stuff that might cause problems." > Fortunately, Apple has to date and clearly intends to continue offering a way to disable this functionality for the "statistically irrelevant" subset of their users that have good reasons to. For their OS, yes. But the trend of locking the desktop/notebook offerings down to be more like their phone offerings is clear. Maybe there's also drift from their phones/tablets to be more open like their offerings and I'm missing it, but if not, I'm pretty sure I can see where this will eventually end (if Apple gets their way).

floatingatoll 8y ago
Apple offers many ways to self-issue mobile apps, but they all have restrictions that prevent them from being used for malware attacks. That’s how they were able to globally kill that Facebook VPN scam app that used Enterprise Certificates, and that’s why all non-enterprise app distribution methods carry an expiry: either you’re a free sideload developer (one week), a TestFlight user (twelve weeks), or an enterprise user (no expiration unless your enterprise earn a revoke for distribution to the public). The scenario you describe, where my pocket brain can be enrolled in a third-party App Store, is hostile to my security requirements for my pocket device and I’m glad Apple prohibits it.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Apple offers many ways to self-issue mobile apps Do any of them allow a third party to certify a general purpose application from another developer as safe? > That’s how they were able to globally kill that Facebook VPN scam app that used Enterprise Certificates, and that’s why all non-enterprise app distribution methods carry an expiry: either you’re a free sideload developer (one week), a TestFlight user (twelve weeks), or an enterprise user (no expiration unless your enterprise earn a revoke for distribution to the public). To me, that sounds like they're happy to provide various levels of workarounds as long as there's absolutely no way it can compete with their app store. I suspect an enterprise signature used to sign various third party apps for distribution would not be looked upon kindly by them. What's more, I don't believe they should have final call over what software should be allowed on the phone, so even if they did allow a more general signing capability, what ecosystem is going to develop there when the metaphorical Sword of Damocles or Apple's arbitrary whims as to what is acceptable or not are continually reassessed (and possibly checked for conflict with Apple's future business ventures)? > The scenario you describe, where my pocket brain can be enrolled in a third-party App Store, is hostile to my security requirements for my pocket device and I’m glad Apple prohibits it. Possibility is not the same as certainty. It's only hostile to your security if utilized. If the ability to do so was gated by a settings toggle, you would be no worse off than you are if you did not enable it.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    > Do any of them allow a third party to certify a general purpose application from another developer as safe? I certainly hope not.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      And so do I, because without the user being able to carefully select who to trust (and there's no reason Apple is inherently more trustworthy than another company), that's almost the same as removing any vetting process. As a simple example, might you be willing to trust Mozilla to offer a service where they review and certify all submissions that pass review for apps that are willing to pay for the process (allowing Mozilla to use some of their credibility and engineering expertise to raise funds)? I would. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would allow for a company with different principles and motives than Apple to be used, and my sensibilities lie closer to Mozilla's than they do Apple's or Google's.
scarface74 8y ago
What is this “useful” stuff that most people care about that they can’t do.
- userbinator 8y ago
  "Those who have never experienced freedom will not miss it."
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I think most people have experience or know someone who has malware, adware, ransomware, and 10 tool bars on IE. If the lack of “freedom” is killing innovation, where are all of the profitable businesses that take advantage of Android’s “openness”?
    - hesarenu 8y ago
      Why are you associating freedom with business to point out apple profits? Freedom is for the user do as he wants.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        No, I’m not referring to Apple’s profits but that is a good gauge of what people find valuable enough to spend money on. If Apple’s “walled garden” is holding back innovation, there should be a lot of innovative, successful third party products that are available for Android that aren’t available for iOS. Those are the only two platforms we can compare right now when it comes to the “open” vs “closed” debate.
        hesarenu 8y ago
        Again why are you associating money with freedom? If there are not much innovations happening on other platforms then why are Apple afraid to allow side loading?