4 ms·

What are you referring to when you say “scummy developers preying on users”? Honestly asking.

Razengan 7y ago
If you check the news at any frequency it's hard to miss all the reports of this and that software overextending or abusing its privileges to intrude into the user's computer and privacy. See all the recent news about Chrome, Dropbox, Zoom etc. installing malware on our systems. Steam wiping your disk on Linux when you uninstalled a game. Uber recording your screen. And those are the big players, caught because they're under constant scrutiny (but still try to act as if they're above the "law"). Life before the "walled gardens" was rife with cases like that, from developers on all scales. There was no single authority for your platform to complain to. It was chaotic and miserable even for techie people. This is actually what Apple capitalized on during the "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" days, and it gave them the credibility to carry on to the App Store. Now I see mostly developers complaining about the walled garden, which makes me wary of their true intentions.
- immigrantsheep 7y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You say it's better now that we have walled gardens but then you make a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway. This to me sounds like the worse of both worlds. Some people are still doing whatever they want and at the same time we're prevented to install software from different sources. I agree that at some level it prevents everyone to do it, meaning you have to have at least some basic knowledge to do that but that doesn't seem much from a freedom/security standpoint. For the most part and for most users, those walled gardens are nice but I still think users should have the option to install whatever they want. Put on seven disclaimers about it, but let me do it since, well, I paid for that device.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    > a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway. Do note that almost all of those examples are of apps that are -NOT- delivered via the App Store.
    - echelon 7y ago
      > App Store Now you're picking favorites. So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't? I don't own Apple devices, so I lack familiarity, but I find it hard to believe that Apple is so good this doesn't happen. Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us? Apple and Google do not care if users are taken advantage of as long as they don't complain in volume. Both platforms allow play to win games that are designed around extorting "whales". They knowingly allow at-risk individuals to pour thousands of dollars into games, which is an outright travesty. These companies have too much power and they're abusing it.
      - Razengan 7y ago
        > So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't? Apps downloaded via the App Store (and I assume Google Play) are sandboxed. Chrome on the desktop, Steam, etc. are not sandboxed. Most malicious activity is not possible from within a sandbox. For example Steam wouldn't have been able to delete the user's entire disk if it only had access to its own folder. > Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us? Why should we put our faith in random individual developers to do right by us? I'd rather have to trust just one corporation instead of thousands of developers who may pack up and disappear overnight. > These companies have too much power and they're abusing it. See comments above. Much of the recent malware is in apps that are not distributed via the App Store. Developers have always abused their power, and still do. "Walled gardens" check that abuse.
- ajscanlan 7y ago
  How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)? Can't install anything they don't pre-approve, either from DMG or Brew or whatever, only from the Mac App Store. I don't know if it's just me and the people i work with, but we think the Mac App Store is fucking useless, to the point we actively go out of our way to download Xcode through other means. I for one would not be happy with only being able to install apps through the Mac App Store, and I don't see why iOS should be treated any differently.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    > How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)? I wouldn't be OK with that, and I've said so in other comments here (like when they announced the additional security features in macOS during this year's WWDC - which I appreciate, with concerns), but the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices, and I'm fine with their restrictions. They make sense there. I do prefer the Mac App Store to downloading from random websites or manual updates. How is it "fucking useless?" Matters of convenience aside, see the Transmission BitTorrent client ransomware fiasco for a grave example. If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs.
    - ajscanlan 7y ago
      > the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices I suppose I just don't understand why, they seem just like computers with a different form factor. "Fucking useless" might have been a bit too passionate, but it's happened multiple times with me and the people I work with that Xcode installed through the App Store updates itself but gets stuck in the update forcing a full re-download. First time it happens ok it's just a bug, by the 3rd time I'd just given up on the App Store altogether. > If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs. Those aren't really feasible though, external testing on Testflight requires a review (plus it might need the $99 developer fee to put it on Testflight?). And the source code route is the same issue, either pay $99 or reinstall the app every 7 days. I suppose I just don't see the downside other than "Some people need to be protected from themselves" which I don't agree with in this case.

If you check the news at any frequency it's hard to miss all the reports of this and that software overextending or abusing its privileges to intrude into the user's computer and privacy. See all the recent news about Chrome, Dropbox, Zoom etc. installing malware on our systems. Steam wiping your disk on Linux when you uninstalled a game. Uber recording your screen. And those are the big players, caught because they're under constant scrutiny (but still try to act as if they're above the "law"). Life before the "walled gardens" was rife with cases like that, from developers on all scales. There was no single authority for your platform to complain to. It was chaotic and miserable even for techie people. This is actually what Apple capitalized on during the "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" days, and it gave them the credibility to carry on to the App Store. Now I see mostly developers complaining about the walled garden, which makes me wary of their true intentions.

immigrantsheep 7y ago
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You say it's better now that we have walled gardens but then you make a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway. This to me sounds like the worse of both worlds. Some people are still doing whatever they want and at the same time we're prevented to install software from different sources. I agree that at some level it prevents everyone to do it, meaning you have to have at least some basic knowledge to do that but that doesn't seem much from a freedom/security standpoint. For the most part and for most users, those walled gardens are nice but I still think users should have the option to install whatever they want. Put on seven disclaimers about it, but let me do it since, well, I paid for that device.
- Razengan 7y ago
  > a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway. Do note that almost all of those examples are of apps that are -NOT- delivered via the App Store.
  - echelon 7y ago
    > App Store Now you're picking favorites. So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't? I don't own Apple devices, so I lack familiarity, but I find it hard to believe that Apple is so good this doesn't happen. Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us? Apple and Google do not care if users are taken advantage of as long as they don't complain in volume. Both platforms allow play to win games that are designed around extorting "whales". They knowingly allow at-risk individuals to pour thousands of dollars into games, which is an outright travesty. These companies have too much power and they're abusing it.
    - Razengan 7y ago
      > So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't? Apps downloaded via the App Store (and I assume Google Play) are sandboxed. Chrome on the desktop, Steam, etc. are not sandboxed. Most malicious activity is not possible from within a sandbox. For example Steam wouldn't have been able to delete the user's entire disk if it only had access to its own folder. > Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us? Why should we put our faith in random individual developers to do right by us? I'd rather have to trust just one corporation instead of thousands of developers who may pack up and disappear overnight. > These companies have too much power and they're abusing it. See comments above. Much of the recent malware is in apps that are not distributed via the App Store. Developers have always abused their power, and still do. "Walled gardens" check that abuse.
ajscanlan 7y ago
How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)? Can't install anything they don't pre-approve, either from DMG or Brew or whatever, only from the Mac App Store. I don't know if it's just me and the people i work with, but we think the Mac App Store is fucking useless, to the point we actively go out of our way to download Xcode through other means. I for one would not be happy with only being able to install apps through the Mac App Store, and I don't see why iOS should be treated any differently.
- Razengan 7y ago
  > How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)? I wouldn't be OK with that, and I've said so in other comments here (like when they announced the additional security features in macOS during this year's WWDC - which I appreciate, with concerns), but the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices, and I'm fine with their restrictions. They make sense there. I do prefer the Mac App Store to downloading from random websites or manual updates. How is it "fucking useless?" Matters of convenience aside, see the Transmission BitTorrent client ransomware fiasco for a grave example. If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs.
  - ajscanlan 7y ago
    > the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices I suppose I just don't understand why, they seem just like computers with a different form factor. "Fucking useless" might have been a bit too passionate, but it's happened multiple times with me and the people I work with that Xcode installed through the App Store updates itself but gets stuck in the update forcing a full re-download. First time it happens ok it's just a bug, by the 3rd time I'd just given up on the App Store altogether. > If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs. Those aren't really feasible though, external testing on Testflight requires a review (plus it might need the $99 developer fee to put it on Testflight?). And the source code route is the same issue, either pay $99 or reinstall the app every 7 days. I suppose I just don't see the downside other than "Some people need to be protected from themselves" which I don't agree with in this case.