14 ms·

Apple agrees too: it's a 100% locked-down computing device. Since when did geeks abandon the idea that you should be able to execute arbitrary code on a device

Apple agrees too: it's a 100% locked-down computing device. Since when did geeks abandon the idea that you should be able to execute arbitrary code on a device you own? Not have to ask permission from a multinational company--and accept the answer "no" when the code is deemed too dangerous, subversive, or undercuts their preferred business model.

wilg 7y ago
Many devices you own do not allow you to execute arbitrary code, such as my microwave and toaster.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  My toaster is so simple I could probably fix it with a soldering iron and parts I found in the dumpster. What's your point?
  - wilg 7y ago
    People do not (and should not) have an expectation of executing arbitrary code on all devices they own.
    - nixpulvis 7y ago
      I absolutely have an expectation of being able to run arbitrary code on my devices! This is what a general purpose computer is. If not, how should developers (and hackers) work on stuff then? How should the curious budding programmer get inspired to create? Moreover, how should the motivated user fix a problem they found that the developers didn't consider? Are they beholden to the powers that be? Should they be? General purpose computers sparked a revolution of ideas, products, and productivity; now you'd take that away from us! Why?!
      - wilg 7y ago
        Making devices that are not general purpose computers does not take away general purpose computers.
        Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
        When people start marketing iPads as replacements for notebook PCs, some users are expecting it to be able to do what they could do on their Mac OS or Linux machines.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So whose fault is that - the users or Apple?
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        Clearly Apple's for trying to sell us on this new vision for computing, which is just plain worse. Sorry.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So people who are suppose to be good with computers aren’t intelligent enough to know how the iOS platform - that’s been out for 13 years - works?
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        You're losing me in this line of reasoning... I know quite well how iOS works. The issue is, to make good software, you need users. If everyone is using iOS, there's no $/time/energy left for the others. To make progress with technology we can't be held hostage by our platforms, as Apple would have things. This is about having both the developers and the users put on the same playing field, and moving forward. Not backwards, like we've been going for years now. Sure there's been some steps in good directions, but ask yourself honestly if technology is truly working for you? Or are you working for technology?
    - polotics 7y ago
      Seriously? Why? Do you have any reason justifying this statement?
      - drivingmenuts 7y ago
        It would be more accurate to say that the desired customer for these devices has no expectation of running arbitrary code on these devices. Apple is not going to stop you from purchasing the iPad, but they’re not going to deviate from their plans to accommodate you, either.
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        > Apple is not going to stop you from purchasing the iPad Um... Apple makes the iPad, I'd sure hope they aren't trying to stop me from buying it. You could leave this whole sentence off. So you're just saying that it's about accommodation, which I think it where the argument lies. Who's to say what's accommodating the users better? Apple? The market? Since we drive the market, I think hearing the opinions of developers, hackers (any kind), and common users is all valuable. A balance must be struck, and I'd say that the current version of iOS does not strike this balance as a replacement for a traditional computer, making Apple's claim false.
        drivingmenuts 7y ago
        I’m saying you’re not the user the devices are targeted toward. There are far more people who want to do things that don’t have a need to run arbitrary code than there are people who do. You seem to be assuming that everyone wants to be like you and tinker with things, but I assume exactly the opposite. These are devices for service consumption, not for service development, or really, any other kind of development, beyond the superficial.
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        That's fine. That's the whole point of the word "general" in general purpose computer. It's good for me, it's good for you, it's good for us all! Rejoice, at the wisdom of our forefathers.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      It's not people executing arbitrary code vs. them not getting access to apps outside the ecosystem, or that some apps are really privileged over others, making it a very unfair competition. Similarly, most people aren't going to be reading the documented output that comes from various gov't institutions, but they're not missing the impact of individual documents as opposed to the aggregate products that emerge from such information.
- b215826 7y ago
  No one considers a microwave or toaster to be a general computing device. The iPad is at least marketed as one.
- wayneftw 7y ago
  This is a bad example if you consider that microwaves and toasters are to food as computers are to code. These kitchen appliances aren't marked as running code at all, but they do accept food as input and produce cooked food as output just as computers accept program code as input and produce running software. That I can put many different types of food and breads into my microwaves and toasters (I am only limited by the capacity of the hardware) means that these appliances are actually much more like general purpose computers than they are like a locked-down iPad. One kitchen appliance that I think we can aptly relate to an iPad is the line of Keurig coffee machines that will only work with Keurig brand K-cups.
  - wilg 7y ago
    Well, this analogy is not useful. The point is that it is okay for some devices to not run arbitrary code. There is no reason the iPad really needs to do that, other alternatives are available and most people do not need or want them. Building things requires tradeoffs, and the iPads make a reasonable tradeoff here.
nixpulvis 7y ago
It seems they'd rather take control, than invest in proper solutions. They'd rather compete than collaborate. They'd rather obscure, than truly secure. They're just in it for the jobs and money, not for the long haul. Fuck that.
- new_realist 7y ago
  Vetting binaries is the proper solution. Apple has never promised that the device could run your garage-built tinkercode, root kits, etc. Read the box before you buy.
  - nixpulvis 7y ago
    The first Apple computer was literally tinkercode built in a garage. Just saying. Nothing saying you can't still vet binaries, or better yet, the source itself.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So you inspect the source code of everything you run? Did you find the HeartBleed bug that was in open source code for over 18 months?
      - nixpulvis 7y ago
        No, surely I don't / didn't. That's not the point at all. Security issues will ALWAYS exist, no matter how many bots at Apple check over the submissions. But why couldn't Apple open source their automated scanning software so I could run it locally? Why couldn't they publish reports on the state of application ecosystem? Why not release lists of sponsored developers (with signatures)? A paranoid organization can still not give users root, or install access. And secure OS could in theory not install things without checking them locally. Problem solved?
        scarface74 7y ago
        Their “automated scanning software” basically just checks for calls to private methods. You don’t call private methods by accident.
new_realist 7y ago
Allowing arbitrary code execution on a consumer device is a recipe for a malware dumpster fire of epic proportions. You can’t run arbitrary code on a medical device, a car, or a jet aircraft, either. And yet they still work reliably, in no small part because of these restrictions.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  iPad is not a jet, it's a general purpose consumer computer. And for some reason I'm not allowed to run a webserver on it, or simply run a background service that does the computations I need without bringing it to the foreground. No, I don't need manufacturer to tell me that it's for my own good because background tasks waste my battery.
  - new_realist 7y ago
    It’s a productivity device for consumers. You can’t trade in your 4x4 diesel truck for a convertible two-seater Miata and expect to haul an Airstream with it (and it would be illegal if you could) just as you can’t expect to run industrial tasks on a personal device. Different tasks for different devices. If you want to run your own code within the framework of iOS, you can become an Apple registered developer.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
      The thing is, this "personal device" is quite capable of performing industrial tasks. It has great processing power, communication capabilities, storage and big battery. The only thing that prevents me from doing that is a set of restrictions imposed on me by Apple, and no, being a "registered developer" won't help me run a webserver on an iPad. Even Microsoft in their worst phase allowed users to do more with theirs PCs!
- rowanG077 7y ago
  Right... Because Macs are malware dumpsters fires of epic proportions.
scarface74 7y ago
Because as a geek, I have a computer that can run anything I want. My iPad is an appliance without all of the cruft of computers.
taylodl 7y ago
Not sure what you're talking about. You can run whatever software you want in iOS. You don't even have to have built the app yourself. We do this all the time where I work - we create our own apps we distribute to our employees and we receive apps from vendors that aren't distributed through the app store. Yes it's a different process than we're normally accustomed to but it's certainly doable. Bottom line - no Apple approval is required to run whatever software you want on an iOS device.

wilg 7y ago

Many devices you own do not allow you to execute arbitrary code, such as my microwave and toaster.

nixpulvis 7y ago
My toaster is so simple I could probably fix it with a soldering iron and parts I found in the dumpster. What's your point?
- wilg 7y ago
  People do not (and should not) have an expectation of executing arbitrary code on all devices they own.
  - nixpulvis 7y ago
    I absolutely have an expectation of being able to run arbitrary code on my devices! This is what a general purpose computer is. If not, how should developers (and hackers) work on stuff then? How should the curious budding programmer get inspired to create? Moreover, how should the motivated user fix a problem they found that the developers didn't consider? Are they beholden to the powers that be? Should they be? General purpose computers sparked a revolution of ideas, products, and productivity; now you'd take that away from us! Why?!
    - wilg 7y ago
      Making devices that are not general purpose computers does not take away general purpose computers.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
        When people start marketing iPads as replacements for notebook PCs, some users are expecting it to be able to do what they could do on their Mac OS or Linux machines.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So whose fault is that - the users or Apple?
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        Clearly Apple's for trying to sell us on this new vision for computing, which is just plain worse. Sorry.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So people who are suppose to be good with computers aren’t intelligent enough to know how the iOS platform - that’s been out for 13 years - works?
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        You're losing me in this line of reasoning... I know quite well how iOS works. The issue is, to make good software, you need users. If everyone is using iOS, there's no $/time/energy left for the others. To make progress with technology we can't be held hostage by our platforms, as Apple would have things. This is about having both the developers and the users put on the same playing field, and moving forward. Not backwards, like we've been going for years now. Sure there's been some steps in good directions, but ask yourself honestly if technology is truly working for you? Or are you working for technology?
  - polotics 7y ago
    Seriously? Why? Do you have any reason justifying this statement?
    - drivingmenuts 7y ago
      It would be more accurate to say that the desired customer for these devices has no expectation of running arbitrary code on these devices. Apple is not going to stop you from purchasing the iPad, but they’re not going to deviate from their plans to accommodate you, either.
      - nixpulvis 7y ago
        > Apple is not going to stop you from purchasing the iPad Um... Apple makes the iPad, I'd sure hope they aren't trying to stop me from buying it. You could leave this whole sentence off. So you're just saying that it's about accommodation, which I think it where the argument lies. Who's to say what's accommodating the users better? Apple? The market? Since we drive the market, I think hearing the opinions of developers, hackers (any kind), and common users is all valuable. A balance must be struck, and I'd say that the current version of iOS does not strike this balance as a replacement for a traditional computer, making Apple's claim false.
        drivingmenuts 7y ago
        I’m saying you’re not the user the devices are targeted toward. There are far more people who want to do things that don’t have a need to run arbitrary code than there are people who do. You seem to be assuming that everyone wants to be like you and tinker with things, but I assume exactly the opposite. These are devices for service consumption, not for service development, or really, any other kind of development, beyond the superficial.
        nixpulvis 7y ago
        That's fine. That's the whole point of the word "general" in general purpose computer. It's good for me, it's good for you, it's good for us all! Rejoice, at the wisdom of our forefathers.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    It's not people executing arbitrary code vs. them not getting access to apps outside the ecosystem, or that some apps are really privileged over others, making it a very unfair competition. Similarly, most people aren't going to be reading the documented output that comes from various gov't institutions, but they're not missing the impact of individual documents as opposed to the aggregate products that emerge from such information.
b215826 7y ago
No one considers a microwave or toaster to be a general computing device. The iPad is at least marketed as one.
wayneftw 7y ago
This is a bad example if you consider that microwaves and toasters are to food as computers are to code. These kitchen appliances aren't marked as running code at all, but they do accept food as input and produce cooked food as output just as computers accept program code as input and produce running software. That I can put many different types of food and breads into my microwaves and toasters (I am only limited by the capacity of the hardware) means that these appliances are actually much more like general purpose computers than they are like a locked-down iPad. One kitchen appliance that I think we can aptly relate to an iPad is the line of Keurig coffee machines that will only work with Keurig brand K-cups.
- wilg 7y ago
  Well, this analogy is not useful. The point is that it is okay for some devices to not run arbitrary code. There is no reason the iPad really needs to do that, other alternatives are available and most people do not need or want them. Building things requires tradeoffs, and the iPads make a reasonable tradeoff here.

nixpulvis 7y ago

It seems they'd rather take control, than invest in proper solutions. They'd rather compete than collaborate. They'd rather obscure, than truly secure. They're just in it for the jobs and money, not for the long haul. Fuck that.

new_realist 7y ago
Vetting binaries is the proper solution. Apple has never promised that the device could run your garage-built tinkercode, root kits, etc. Read the box before you buy.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  The first Apple computer was literally tinkercode built in a garage. Just saying. Nothing saying you can't still vet binaries, or better yet, the source itself.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So you inspect the source code of everything you run? Did you find the HeartBleed bug that was in open source code for over 18 months?
    - nixpulvis 7y ago
      No, surely I don't / didn't. That's not the point at all. Security issues will ALWAYS exist, no matter how many bots at Apple check over the submissions. But why couldn't Apple open source their automated scanning software so I could run it locally? Why couldn't they publish reports on the state of application ecosystem? Why not release lists of sponsored developers (with signatures)? A paranoid organization can still not give users root, or install access. And secure OS could in theory not install things without checking them locally. Problem solved?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Their “automated scanning software” basically just checks for calls to private methods. You don’t call private methods by accident.

new_realist 7y ago

Allowing arbitrary code execution on a consumer device is a recipe for a malware dumpster fire of epic proportions. You can’t run arbitrary code on a medical device, a car, or a jet aircraft, either. And yet they still work reliably, in no small part because of these restrictions.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
iPad is not a jet, it's a general purpose consumer computer. And for some reason I'm not allowed to run a webserver on it, or simply run a background service that does the computations I need without bringing it to the foreground. No, I don't need manufacturer to tell me that it's for my own good because background tasks waste my battery.
- new_realist 7y ago
  It’s a productivity device for consumers. You can’t trade in your 4x4 diesel truck for a convertible two-seater Miata and expect to haul an Airstream with it (and it would be illegal if you could) just as you can’t expect to run industrial tasks on a personal device. Different tasks for different devices. If you want to run your own code within the framework of iOS, you can become an Apple registered developer.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    The thing is, this "personal device" is quite capable of performing industrial tasks. It has great processing power, communication capabilities, storage and big battery. The only thing that prevents me from doing that is a set of restrictions imposed on me by Apple, and no, being a "registered developer" won't help me run a webserver on an iPad. Even Microsoft in their worst phase allowed users to do more with theirs PCs!
rowanG077 7y ago
Right... Because Macs are malware dumpsters fires of epic proportions.

scarface74 7y ago

Because as a geek, I have a computer that can run anything I want. My iPad is an appliance without all of the cruft of computers.

taylodl 7y ago

Not sure what you're talking about. You can run whatever software you want in iOS. You don't even have to have built the app yourself. We do this all the time where I work - we create our own apps we distribute to our employees and we receive apps from vendors that aren't distributed through the app store. Yes it's a different process than we're normally accustomed to but it's certainly doable. Bottom line - no Apple approval is required to run whatever software you want on an iOS device.