8 ms·

> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping iDevices safe or protecting the user's best Its amazing that people right here on hac

• zepto 6y ago
  I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. However I’m also someone who thinks app recommendation apps are a good thing and should be allowed on the store. I think the author of the PDF is not only trying to provide a valuable service, but is also right in pointing out that there are problems. These things are not mutually exclusive.
  • Hamuko 6y ago
    >I actually think it’s about keeping iDevices safe. How are Hey or xCloud about keeping iDevices safe?
    • richardwhiuk 6y ago
      xCloud deliberately avoids the app review process AIUI by allowing it to be an umbrella for any game.
      • Hamuko 6y ago
        Yeah, but the technology used for all of the games is the same isn't it? It's just streaming. And if it's about content, I doube Apple is pre-approving every Netflix show. I bet some of the offerings on Netflix even show female nipples. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freethenipple-2015-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-instagram-bans-freetheni...
        • zepto 6y ago
          Apps and videos pose different security risks, but I assume you know this.
          • Hamuko 6y ago
            Do you think xCloud copies a binary executable of Halo Infinite on every Android and iOS device?
            • zepto 6y ago
              Do you think it’s possible to enter a credit card number into a steaming video of ‘friends’? A steaming app (game or not) can pop up a fraudulent credit card payment interface at any time.
              • Hamuko 6y ago
                I don't see the point you are making. If video streaming is so bad, Netflix should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security". If video game streaming is so bad, Twitch should not be on the App Store for "iDevice security".
                • zimpenfish 6y ago
                  > If video game streaming is so bad It's not just streaming, it's interactive streaming where it could well happen that PayToWin / LootBox / etc games can appear. Now, of course, they already exist on the App Store (and I honestly wish Apple would ban them outright) but there, at least, Apple has some kind of leverage - with xCloud, they have none.
              • seslaire 6y ago
                What capabilities would the streamed app have for deception that a website lacks?
                • zepto 6y ago
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    • zepto 6y ago
      The mechanisms used by Hey and xCloud would clearly be used by less trustworthy companies for nefarious purposes. Hey was able to alter their app trivially to comply with the guidelines, so it actually represents nothing at all here. xCloud can’t be altered to comply, but nevertheless if app steaming were allowed in general, all of App review could be bypassed by bad actors.
      • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        > The mechanisms used by Hey and xCloud would clearly be used by less trustworthy companies for nefarious purposes. Sorry but no. What mechanism was “Hey” using that could possibly be abused by a malicious app or malicious app author? If “Hey” advertised themselves as B2B without any self-service option then Apple, by their own words, would have let the app on the store. Being B2C or having self-service (even if the self-service is outside of the app!) means Apple requires you to have a sign-up form in the app - and if you take punters’ money then that means you need to use IAP and so give Apple their 30% rent. The outrage isn’t over this requirement itself, but because Apple arbitrarily carved-out undocumented exceptions for Netflix, Amazon Kindle, and other “reader” apps even though they’re B2C and self-service - which we can tell is because Apple would get into a worse spat and lose public opinion if they tried to pull Netflix or Amazon’s apps for the same reason.
        • zepto 6y ago
          They aren’t undocumented carve outs. Anyone can produce a reader app.
          • DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
            Anyone can make a B2C reader app, but those reader-apps must have built-in self-service sign-up, including accepting payment through Apple. There is no way around that unless you offer a free tier and never prompt your users to upgrade or tell them that they can upgrade through their web-browser. Logically this extends to free-trials-without-payment-details because when the free trial ends what are you supposed to display in the app? Netflix, Kindle and others are exempted from the self-service sign-up requirement because Apple knows they can’t win a PR fight against them. Spotify has self-service sign-up in the app, but that’s because they’ve always had a free tier, where’s there’s no free/gratis membership tier for Netflix or Kindle. If you try it yourself right now Apple will require you to have a self-service signup flow in your app, which is only viable if you have a free tier - otherwise you’ll have to pay the 30% rent or let your iOS users use your service for free indefinitely because you can’t put up a “your free trial has ended” message.
  • saagarjha 6y ago
    App Store review doesn't really do all that much there.
  • kbenson 6y ago
    Security is a goal, but the purpose is control. For example, this is different than in Microsoft, where the purpose is security, and more control is sometimes a goal, but mostly comes along for the ride because it's needed (at least traditionally, we'll see how much that continues to change for Microsoft). This is obvious in all Apple's decisions. Metal/OpenGL, UI changes, custom CPUs, etc. Apple long ago latched onto control as their path to success, and it's worked quite well for them. It's only natural for them to reach for more control wherever they can. Sometimes that doesn't really affect users or developers much, other times it does.
    • zepto 6y ago
      I agree with much of this except for the arbitrary conclusion ‘the purpose is control’. The strategy is control, most definitely. The goal is to deliver desirable end user features, security being an essential one of these. I worked in consumer electronics software development during the early 2000s, when Microsoft was still considered the dominant force. There were many parts of the software stack where no individual entity had control and standards and features were beholden to consortia and standards bodies which were essentially political bodies, all about capturing leverage over one part of the platform or another. The result was that the user was simply not in the picture, and obvious ways to improve the user experience just couldn’t be executed because every decision about how to do so was a political battle. Apple’s strategy of vertical integration allowed them to avoid all of this and simply deliver proprietary features that users wanted. The problem in this case was not Apple delivering proprietary features. It was Apple’s competitors failure to cooperate to deliver what consumers wanted. Android is where it is because it became simply a repeat of that early 2000’s failure, and of course Google was forced to abandon “Open always wins” in favor of progressively trying to take back control. If we want a more open alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, we need to be honest about why they has been successful, and how the alternatives underperformed. I think Apple’s continued success is contingent on there being no low end disruption (which is definitely not a given), and would be competitors continuing to fail to create a healthy alternative ecosystem of their own. My contention is that the lack of a healthy alternative is not due to anything Apple has done. Apple has been on this upward trajectory for nearly 20 years, and for most of that time they were not dominant. The problem is that the comparing ecosystems haven’t figured out how to work together to make an alternative yet. If Apple is failing to allow people to play the games they want, and gaming is an increasingly relevant cultural activity, this is an opportunity for growth outside of Apple’s control. Just as the music industry and the cellphone industry fell to Apple giving customers what they wanted and what was possible, Apple can fall to a competitor to does understand the value of games. The arguments about not being able to get people to switch are moot. It’s always true that there are switching costs to overcome. Competing with Apple would take patience, good management, and a lot of capital being deployed. There is no shortage of capital looking for a place to invest - there is only a shortage of management talent and imagination. If we don’t hobble Apple artificially, someone will figure this out, and the whole industry will be better off for it. Remember Apple’s renaissance began with Steve Jobs saying “We have been thinking that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We need to stop thinking that way.”
  • wvenable 6y ago
    Security or freedom, chose one. You can't have both.
    • umvi 6y ago
      I think we are slowly coming to the consensus (as a society) that security is preferable to freedom because it maximizes harm reduction (harm reduction being the ultimate metric by which to measure the value of something). I don't agree at all, but the way our government is, it's a one way ratchet to get new laws passed. Speech laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Gun laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Intellectual property laws only get stricter (one inch at a time) over the years, never looser. Lives are saved every time the ratchet torques an inch of freedom into security, so I guess that's the upside. I just worry that life won't be as fulfilling when we are perfectly secure.
      • jacobush 6y ago
        The Disney Copyright term actually ended
      • bluquark 6y ago
        We are in the middle of a pandemic that the US has been singularly unable/unwilling among the world's developed countries to apply the necessary measures to solve, and still you argue that the real problem is too much harm reduction... I'm sure enjoying my fulfilling free life as I make plans to sit alone in my apartment for another entire year because I live in the land of freedom, where people can dine in indoor restaurants without a mask.
        • umvi 6y ago
          Are you saying you'd rather live in a country where the police will chokeslam you if you are caught not properly wearing a mask outside of your house[0]? If yes => you prefer security over freedom. And that's okay. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7JnT3JaQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7JnT3JaQk
• donor20 6y ago
  It's not amazing. If the regulatory and govt moves against apple succeed apple will be shipping devices with back door / root access for intercept purposes within months. The idea that the govt is going to do more to protect your privacy than apple is is a joke. If you are the out group -> govt will be after you (depending on which administration is in power the out groups may change). I'm all for subpoena's and access to records, but there is a whole secondary national security letter / secret process you never get to challenge. And yes, there are agents harassing ex-girlfriends using their existing tools. So what's amazing to some of us is that there are folks looking to gobble up whatever garbage is coming from the regulatory movements against apple. There is a reason Apple get to charge so much. They are TRUSTED - trusted FAR FAR more than tump admin political appointees running DOJ / FTC etc despite the fact the govt spends trillions and should be most trusted player out there. Heads up - look to australia to see govt "succeeding" - pretty soon we will all have to pay a mandatory murdoch license fee if the regulatory lovers get their way.
• scarface74 6y ago
  We also see government “movements” against them Post Office, voting, the right to have encrypted messages, net neutrality, citizens being able to film police misconduct, etc. So am I suppose to trust the government?
  • tlogan 6y ago
    The government is not some imaginary person in the sky: it is me and you. You can influence it - but you cannot influence Apple. Of course, being involved in government / politic is hard and takes time. You cannot change things by posting on internet forums. I'm trying to be involved in politic on local, state and federal level. And here are some hints if you are in interested: - Call a member of congress. Try to get someone on the phone, rather than leaving a voicemail (which, like an email, can be ignored). Ask to speak to the member of Congress. - Find (or make) a group for key your issue - Show up on town hall meetings (with your friends, group) - Volunteer
    • scarface74 6y ago
      How much good will that do when the government doesn’t represent the people, by design? If you live in California or Texas, you have the same number of Senators as someone who lives in Rhode Island. Any power given to the government is worse than the power of a corporation. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, you should be way more concerned about the power of the government. Have you seen what the government can do with its power? How effective was the consent decree in the MS case two decades ago? Apple can keep me from side loading apps. The government can literally reach into my bank account and take my money without any kind of trial through civil forfeiture and imminent domain. They can take away my liberty. They can actually compel me to do something.
    • Nasrudith 6y ago
      You certainly can influnce a company - it is called being or not being a customer. There is no such opt out option for government as much as sovereign citizens may believe otherwise.
      • 6y ago
• arvinsim 6y ago
  The line between company and customers is now blurred due to a lot of people being shareholders. As such, the feedback from customers to companies that is part of the “invisible handle of the market” is now distorted.