6 ms·

Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.

by jayd16 6y ago

scarface74 6y ago
That is a provably false claim. Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music Books - Kindle. Maps - Google Maps Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail ...
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Those are security restrictions. Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely. And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps. If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages? Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted. > Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Also known as "private APIs" etc. > Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave? Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
        threeseed 6y ago
        You have random apps intercepting your text messages and you wonder why that is a security issue ? I am so glad we have companies like Apple who actually take privacy and security seriously.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Not random apps, only the ones you've given permission to do so.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Until someone else puts spyware on your phone....
      - threeseed 6y ago
        No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content. When dealing with security issues you don't just imagine the perfect case scenario. And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    > Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality. So now it went from Apple “bans” apps to it has tighter security restrictions?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      When the effect of the "security restrictions" is in practice to ban the competing apps while Apple exempts its own apps from the security restrictions, it's the same thing.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        How is Apple not going to “exempt” itself from having privileged access to its own operating system? Signal is not “banned” from the App Store neither is Chrome - they both exist on the App Store.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Signal is an app for sending text messages and Apple doesn't allow it to send SMS text messages. Example of why this is a security vulnerability rather than a security feature: Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted. The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc? Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted. So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jayd16 6y ago
  Its not that they do it in all cases. Neither did Microsoft. Here's an article that goes over some of it (although it oversells Apple's first party advantage I think) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app... Apple also has a no Copy-Cats guideline that has been used to push out some apps, although maybe its not wide spread enough to be a concern.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Your citation has nothing to do with Apple banning apps and the idea the article cites is as old as dirt and has been discussed since way before the App Store. There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
    - jayd16 6y ago
      >There is no copy cats rule. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#copycats https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...
      - scarface74 6y ago
        That is not what they are referring to. For some strange reason there is a myth that you can’t ship an app on iOS if Apple has a competing service. Even though there are all sorts of existence proofs that it isn’t truth.

Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.

by jayd16 6y ago

Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality.

That is a provably false claim. Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music Books - Kindle. Maps - Google Maps Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail ...

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Signal can't send SMS on iPhones (it can on Android). Firefox has to use Apple's browser engine. Just because they don't do it in 100% of cases doesn't mean they don't do it.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Those are security restrictions. Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely. And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Signal doesn't auto-sign up kids for premium content. Firefox doesn't run local apps. If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages? Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > You don’t think it’s a security issue for apps to be able to intercept your text messages Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted. > Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Also known as "private APIs" etc. > Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave? Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
        threeseed 6y ago
        You have random apps intercepting your text messages and you wonder why that is a security issue ? I am so glad we have companies like Apple who actually take privacy and security seriously.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Not random apps, only the ones you've given permission to do so.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Until someone else puts spyware on your phone....
    - threeseed 6y ago
      No but having an SMS API allows dodgy apps to signup kids for premium content. When dealing with security issues you don't just imagine the perfect case scenario. And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
- scarface74 6y ago
  > Apple does ban apps that replace built in functionality. So now it went from Apple “bans” apps to it has tighter security restrictions?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    When the effect of the "security restrictions" is in practice to ban the competing apps while Apple exempts its own apps from the security restrictions, it's the same thing.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      How is Apple not going to “exempt” itself from having privileged access to its own operating system? Signal is not “banned” from the App Store neither is Chrome - they both exist on the App Store.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Signal is an app for sending text messages and Apple doesn't allow it to send SMS text messages. Example of why this is a security vulnerability rather than a security feature: Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted. The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Someone with an iPhone uses Signal to communicate with someone with an Android phone but they still have to use iMessage for SMS with others. How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc? Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted. So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jayd16 6y ago
Its not that they do it in all cases. Neither did Microsoft. Here's an article that goes over some of it (although it oversells Apple's first party advantage I think) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-apple-uses-its-app-store-copy-best-ideas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app... Apple also has a no Copy-Cats guideline that has been used to push out some apps, although maybe its not wide spread enough to be a concern.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Your citation has nothing to do with Apple banning apps and the idea the article cites is as old as dirt and has been discussed since way before the App Store. There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
  - jayd16 6y ago
    >There is no copy cats rule. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#copycats https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...
    - scarface74 6y ago
      That is not what they are referring to. For some strange reason there is a myth that you can’t ship an app on iOS if Apple has a competing service. Even though there are all sorts of existence proofs that it isn’t truth.