3 ms·

I'm kind of curious how many general-purpose non-technical-HN-type people would want this with the connotation that you would need a signed untampered no-sidelo

by dylz 6y ago

I'm kind of curious how many general-purpose non-technical-HN-type people would want this with the connotation that you would need a signed untampered no-sideloading-allowed device to interact with many apps (such as any multiplayer game, all banking apps, any food ordering or delivery app, etc.), so you're permanently excluded from using or touching a significant amount of the ecosystem. Identical situation currently plays out on desktop gaming, where anticheat software does not run in WINE or equivalent and you can't connect, and VMs are blocked and will result in bans from multiplayer games, to the point where if you are running normal Windows, you will be removed from the game for having VMware or Docker or anything similar open or running in the background. If you attempt to block these, you are refused service.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The advantage of the unlocked device is, of course, that you can then have it forge all of the checks and run whatever apps you want anyway. The whole point is to run any apps you want to. You might end up with some cat and mouse there for the apps like anti-cheat, but they're Turing machines all the way down, and the user themselves doesn't have to develop the anti-fingerprinting technology. Moreover, how many games do you think will want the user to have an unlocked device, if it means they can distribute their game without paying 30% to Apple? It is also, of course, ridiculous for a bank or food delivery app to refuse to install their app on a device which is actually controlled by the user when they allow the same device to do the same things on its website, and companies doing such things would have a tendency to lose customers to smarter competitors who don't.
- dylz 6y ago
  Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". > how many games do you think will want the user to have an unlocked device Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. > It is also, of course, ridiculous for a bank or food delivery app to refuse to install their app on a device which is actually controlled by the user when they allow the same device to do the same things on its website Ridiculous, yes, but it's still done anyway. The same device is also often not allowed to do the same things on the website, or the website implements similar or identical fingerprinting code. Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". Which the developer will have a market incentive to not want to do, because they can't get money from you if you're not using their product, and unlike phone platforms, most app developers have aggressive competition. > Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. Not really. If the user has an unlocked device, turning them away isn't going to turn a profit because then you lose their business regardless. Better to get the users who don't pirate than to lose them all. And it's not as if the user is going to lock the device back up for most of these games -- especially when there will be other apps that only work on an unlocked device. > Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily. The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. Moreover, all this is all rather academic when we could get the actual result by allowing the user to do this to their device and seeing what happens, so it can't be an argument for not doing that. Worst case is not very many people do it, and then still what is it hurting?
    - dylz 6y ago
      > The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. If only. Every single major US bank and card company does this. It's terrible.
teddyh 6y ago
> I'm kind of curious how many general-purpose non-technical-HN-type people would want this It’s kind of like free speech or privacy. Most people don’t need free speech, since they don’t have anything important to say. And most people don’t really need privacy, since they have no important secrets. However, it is very important for a society that everyone has those things, since otherwise society turns into something very ugly. Likewise, most people probably wouldn’t sideload apps, manage their security keys, or anything else, but by not allowing those things, our society of computers and networking has turned rather ugly compared to what was originally imagined for it.

by dylz 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

The advantage of the unlocked device is, of course, that you can then have it forge all of the checks and run whatever apps you want anyway. The whole point is to run any apps you want to. You might end up with some cat and mouse there for the apps like anti-cheat, but they're Turing machines all the way down, and the user themselves doesn't have to develop the anti-fingerprinting technology. Moreover, how many games do you think will want the user to have an unlocked device, if it means they can distribute their game without paying 30% to Apple? It is also, of course, ridiculous for a bank or food delivery app to refuse to install their app on a device which is actually controlled by the user when they allow the same device to do the same things on its website, and companies doing such things would have a tendency to lose customers to smarter competitors who don't.

dylz 6y ago
Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". > how many games do you think will want the user to have an unlocked device Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. > It is also, of course, ridiculous for a bank or food delivery app to refuse to install their app on a device which is actually controlled by the user when they allow the same device to do the same things on its website Ridiculous, yes, but it's still done anyway. The same device is also often not allowed to do the same things on the website, or the website implements similar or identical fingerprinting code. Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Yes, it's a cat and mouse game, but you only need to fail a check once, then it's "your account has been suspended indefinitely, please contact support". Which the developer will have a market incentive to not want to do, because they can't get money from you if you're not using their product, and unlike phone platforms, most app developers have aggressive competition. > Many more will rather be able to attest that the user isn't pirating all IAP. Not really. If the user has an unlocked device, turning them away isn't going to turn a profit because then you lose their business regardless. Better to get the users who don't pirate than to lose them all. And it's not as if the user is going to lock the device back up for most of these games -- especially when there will be other apps that only work on an unlocked device. > Everything from polling tons of "logged in URLs" like facebook's favicon to detect what sites the user is logged into, to port scanning the user's LAN, none of this should be a thing and should be extremely illegal, but in practice it's abused heavily. The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. Moreover, all this is all rather academic when we could get the actual result by allowing the user to do this to their device and seeing what happens, so it can't be an argument for not doing that. Worst case is not very many people do it, and then still what is it hurting?
  - dylz 6y ago
    > The solution there being to stop patronizing anybody who does that, which everybody should already be doing as a general principle. If only. Every single major US bank and card company does this. It's terrible.

teddyh 6y ago

> I'm kind of curious how many general-purpose non-technical-HN-type people would want this It’s kind of like free speech or privacy. Most people don’t need free speech, since they don’t have anything important to say. And most people don’t really need privacy, since they have no important secrets. However, it is very important for a society that everyone has those things, since otherwise society turns into something very ugly. Likewise, most people probably wouldn’t sideload apps, manage their security keys, or anything else, but by not allowing those things, our society of computers and networking has turned rather ugly compared to what was originally imagined for it.