26 ms·

This isn't a big surprise, you should expect the tightening of the screws to continue and the pace of it to accelerate. The real issue here is general purpose c

This isn't a big surprise, you should expect the tightening of the screws to continue and the pace of it to accelerate. The real issue here is general purpose computing. General purpose computing makes it possible to block ads, to rip your CDs instead of the industry forcing you to buy the same music again, etc. and as a result it is THE major obstacle to unlimited rent seeking and squeezing the last penny out of every user. Expect the industry to keep working in this direction until everything is as locked down as an iPhone. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg

azinman2 8y ago
Except you can always turn this off, so you can still run the “features” you want. So while you’re assuming evil intensions, occam’s razor would suggest that instead this is actually about preventing ever increasing malware even for software that don’t originate from the App Store. It’s about creating a record that traces executables back to their authors.
- Schnitz 8y ago
  Assuming you are right then shouldn't there a switch on my iPad that allows me to run my own fully privileged code?
  - ronsor 8y ago
    Apple's security model believes the user is untrusted and a security risk.
    - xattt 8y ago
      A security risk to their business model.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Their business model being making devices that are easy to use and hard for the user to mess up.
        kbenson 8y ago
        ...and where all software is delivered through them, so they get a cut of any sales. I don't begrudge Apple the ability to make money. I do begrudge them for how they completely monopolize it, and try to present the security argument as if it's a binary choice, and not a spectrum along which there might be a solution different than we have currently which most people might consider better.
        hesarenu 8y ago
        Easy to use is debatable. There are so man hidden gestures.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        You don't need to know those to use your phone, though.
        hesarenu 8y ago
        You don't need to know in android as well. It's even easier.
  - eridius 8y ago
    That's a false equivalence. An iPad is not a Mac, it has a different security model and a different way of using it. The iPad is more locked-down than the Mac and always will be. Allowing people to disable protections on the Mac has no bearing on whether they should be able to disable them on iPad.
CharlesW 8y ago
> General purpose computing makes it possible to block ads, to rip your CDs instead of the industry forcing you to buy the same music again, etc. I understand the point you're trying to make, but (1) Apple has delivered software which rips CDs with the OS for 18 years now, and (2) this feature not only doesn't block any number of ways to block ads, but Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS. (For Safari)
  - scarface74 8y ago
    And for any third party app that uses the SafariViewController.
- bangonkeyboard 8y ago
  > (1) Apple has delivered software which rips CDs with the OS for 18 years now I would be surprised if iTunes survives this one. > (2) this feature not only doesn't block any number of ways to block ads, but Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS. Apple's content blocking API is less flexible and useful than the more powerful general purpose API it replaced in the Safari 12 lockdown, which proves the parent's point.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It doesn’t allow third party ad blockers to record or intercept your browsing history. And seeing that all music sold by Apple has been DRM free for a decade, are you thinking they are not only going to reenable DRM, they are going to make it more restrictive in 2020 than it was in 2003?
granshaw 8y ago
Point stands but maybe the immediate intentions aren’t that nefarious. For 95% of users protecting their devices “from themselves” and potential “dangerous app authors” is a real benefit and something they would pay for.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
userbinator 8y ago
Don't forget they will always say it's a "security" feature and have a list of all the things people will (usually?) agree with being protected against. What they don't say, however, are all the other things that it will also protect against, some of which you may actually disagree with.
ronnier 8y ago
This is just a other step in towards total control of our computing. We are seeing deplatforming, banning, blocking, etc, across large parts of the internet and this will only continue to grow. Britain is now proposing broad powers to regulate the internet to force removal of content they see not fit (not sure why this isn’t larger news on HN, maybe I missed it). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet...
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  It's probably not larger news because the reporting on this issue here in the UK is quite frankly shocking, especially coming from the BBC. They have been presenting it as a simple choice between letting big corporations kill our kids for profit and a safe internet where companies take responsibility. There is very little debate beyond that. No criticism. No questioning of causality. No journalism. No science. It's pure propaganda. Not even even the breathtaking logic of banning "harmful but not illegal content" is raising eyebrows.

azinman2 8y ago

Except you can always turn this off, so you can still run the “features” you want. So while you’re assuming evil intensions, occam’s razor would suggest that instead this is actually about preventing ever increasing malware even for software that don’t originate from the App Store. It’s about creating a record that traces executables back to their authors.

Schnitz 8y ago
Assuming you are right then shouldn't there a switch on my iPad that allows me to run my own fully privileged code?
- ronsor 8y ago
  Apple's security model believes the user is untrusted and a security risk.
  - xattt 8y ago
    A security risk to their business model.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Their business model being making devices that are easy to use and hard for the user to mess up.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        ...and where all software is delivered through them, so they get a cut of any sales. I don't begrudge Apple the ability to make money. I do begrudge them for how they completely monopolize it, and try to present the security argument as if it's a binary choice, and not a spectrum along which there might be a solution different than we have currently which most people might consider better.
      - hesarenu 8y ago
        Easy to use is debatable. There are so man hidden gestures.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        You don't need to know those to use your phone, though.
        hesarenu 8y ago
        You don't need to know in android as well. It's even easier.
- eridius 8y ago
  That's a false equivalence. An iPad is not a Mac, it has a different security model and a different way of using it. The iPad is more locked-down than the Mac and always will be. Allowing people to disable protections on the Mac has no bearing on whether they should be able to disable them on iPad.

CharlesW 8y ago

> General purpose computing makes it possible to block ads, to rip your CDs instead of the industry forcing you to buy the same music again, etc. I understand the point you're trying to make, but (1) Apple has delivered software which rips CDs with the OS for 18 years now, and (2) this feature not only doesn't block any number of ways to block ads, but Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS.

saagarjha 8y ago
> Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS. (For Safari)
- scarface74 8y ago
  And for any third party app that uses the SafariViewController.
bangonkeyboard 8y ago
> (1) Apple has delivered software which rips CDs with the OS for 18 years now I would be surprised if iTunes survives this one. > (2) this feature not only doesn't block any number of ways to block ads, but Apple provides an API for blocking content (including ads) with both macOS and iOS. Apple's content blocking API is less flexible and useful than the more powerful general purpose API it replaced in the Safari 12 lockdown, which proves the parent's point.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It doesn’t allow third party ad blockers to record or intercept your browsing history. And seeing that all music sold by Apple has been DRM free for a decade, are you thinking they are not only going to reenable DRM, they are going to make it more restrictive in 2020 than it was in 2003?

granshaw 8y ago

Point stands but maybe the immediate intentions aren’t that nefarious. For 95% of users protecting their devices “from themselves” and potential “dangerous app authors” is a real benefit and something they would pay for.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

userbinator 8y ago

Don't forget they will always say it's a "security" feature and have a list of all the things people will (usually?) agree with being protected against. What they don't say, however, are all the other things that it will also protect against, some of which you may actually disagree with.

ronnier 8y ago

This is just a other step in towards total control of our computing. We are seeing deplatforming, banning, blocking, etc, across large parts of the internet and this will only continue to grow. Britain is now proposing broad powers to regulate the internet to force removal of content they see not fit (not sure why this isn’t larger news on HN, maybe I missed it). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet...

fauigerzigerk 8y ago
It's probably not larger news because the reporting on this issue here in the UK is quite frankly shocking, especially coming from the BBC. They have been presenting it as a simple choice between letting big corporations kill our kids for profit and a safe internet where companies take responsibility. There is very little debate beyond that. No criticism. No questioning of causality. No journalism. No science. It's pure propaganda. Not even even the breathtaking logic of banning "harmful but not illegal content" is raising eyebrows.