4 ms·

> 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?

> 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
    We already know that Apple is more “trustworthy” than Facebook and Google. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-shuts-down-ios-research-app-it-used-to-access-user-data/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-shuts-down-ios-research-a...
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > We already know that Apple is more “trustworthy” than Facebook and Google. It's in Apple's interest now to position themselves for privacy, because that differentiates them from the major alternative. That said, it's irrelevant who is more trustworthy now. That may change over time, and just because Apple is trustworthy now doesn't mean their business can't change over the next decade. Should we allow a precedent that just because a company has been trustworthy so far that we allow them to ensconce themselves as thew arbiters of trust thereafter? People thought Google was very trustworthy in the past. I think Google was trustworthy in the past, but little by little they've been incentivized by their business model towards decisions and stances that are not as aligned with what I want anymore. Companies change, quite a bit and quite often actually. All it takes is different management and/or a different board for a public one. Allowing people to actually assign who they trust at a more granular level than "Apple or Google" is essential if we want a say in our future.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Apple has been in existence for over 40 years. They've always had a model where you give them money and they give you stuff. Google was about tracking and ads as their business model once they found one. As was Facebook.

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
  We already know that Apple is more “trustworthy” than Facebook and Google. https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-shuts-down-ios-research-app-it-used-to-access-user-data/ https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-shuts-down-ios-research-a...
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > We already know that Apple is more “trustworthy” than Facebook and Google. It's in Apple's interest now to position themselves for privacy, because that differentiates them from the major alternative. That said, it's irrelevant who is more trustworthy now. That may change over time, and just because Apple is trustworthy now doesn't mean their business can't change over the next decade. Should we allow a precedent that just because a company has been trustworthy so far that we allow them to ensconce themselves as thew arbiters of trust thereafter? People thought Google was very trustworthy in the past. I think Google was trustworthy in the past, but little by little they've been incentivized by their business model towards decisions and stances that are not as aligned with what I want anymore. Companies change, quite a bit and quite often actually. All it takes is different management and/or a different board for a public one. Allowing people to actually assign who they trust at a more granular level than "Apple or Google" is essential if we want a say in our future.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Apple has been in existence for over 40 years. They've always had a model where you give them money and they give you stuff. Google was about tracking and ads as their business model once they found one. As was Facebook.