5 ms·

I'm generally curious and somewhat ignorant on this subject. I would appreciate if you could explain why it is irrelevant.

mullingitover 6y ago
The original complaint was that you can't run your own unapproved code on your iDevice. I explained why this was false, and then the goalposts were moved to to some other concern.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  If it only works until Apple stops signing your certificate, then it's not "unapproved".
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    This is not a realistic scenario, but even if it was there's a trivial workaround: sign up for a new account. And at the end of the day, what made you buy that iDevice? Raw hardware? You can buy any old ARM tablet if that's what you want. You probably bought that iDevice because you want the secure device, with a full stack and ecosystem, which includes ongoing work from Apple to provide OS patches for security holes and OS bugs. I don't get the pearl-clutching over the limitations for a fundamentally secure computing appliance by design (which is a major selling point of the device in the first place).
    - hda2 6y ago
      If a comet hits CA tomorrow and the company collapses, do you think I would still be able to "control" my device? What about patching it up or installing a new system? People who buy iOS devices don't control them. Full stop.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        Apple has multiple regional data centers, if they’re all wiped out it probably means the collapse of civilization anyway. So another implausible scenario. Just saying “you don’t control your device” doesn’t make it true, and regardless: the limitations have been a known quantity for a long time, and most people are fine with them. Apple’s secure, locked-down device experience is so popular that we’re complaining about their monopoly.
        josephcsible 6y ago
        Why do you keep saying "secure" and "locked-down" like they go together, when the opposite is true?
        mullingitover 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that opening up iDevices to run arbitrary, unsigned code would be a security win. Can you elaborate on that?
        josephcsible 6y ago
        That's not what I said. It's fine for devices to only run signed code. It only becomes bad when the owner isn't in control of whose code signatures are trusted.
        mullingitover 6y ago
        Android devices generally fall into this category you're describing. Are you saying that Android has superior security to iOS?
    - arvinsim 6y ago
      That's a bit presumptuous to generalize people's motivation to buy an iDevice.
saagarjha 6y ago
Apple generally will not revoke your developer signing certificate for signing things for personal use.

mullingitover 6y ago

The original complaint was that you can't run your own unapproved code on your iDevice. I explained why this was false, and then the goalposts were moved to to some other concern.

josephcsible 6y ago
If it only works until Apple stops signing your certificate, then it's not "unapproved".
- mullingitover 6y ago
  This is not a realistic scenario, but even if it was there's a trivial workaround: sign up for a new account. And at the end of the day, what made you buy that iDevice? Raw hardware? You can buy any old ARM tablet if that's what you want. You probably bought that iDevice because you want the secure device, with a full stack and ecosystem, which includes ongoing work from Apple to provide OS patches for security holes and OS bugs. I don't get the pearl-clutching over the limitations for a fundamentally secure computing appliance by design (which is a major selling point of the device in the first place).
  - hda2 6y ago
    If a comet hits CA tomorrow and the company collapses, do you think I would still be able to "control" my device? What about patching it up or installing a new system? People who buy iOS devices don't control them. Full stop.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Apple has multiple regional data centers, if they’re all wiped out it probably means the collapse of civilization anyway. So another implausible scenario. Just saying “you don’t control your device” doesn’t make it true, and regardless: the limitations have been a known quantity for a long time, and most people are fine with them. Apple’s secure, locked-down device experience is so popular that we’re complaining about their monopoly.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        Why do you keep saying "secure" and "locked-down" like they go together, when the opposite is true?
        mullingitover 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that opening up iDevices to run arbitrary, unsigned code would be a security win. Can you elaborate on that?
        josephcsible 6y ago
        That's not what I said. It's fine for devices to only run signed code. It only becomes bad when the owner isn't in control of whose code signatures are trusted.
        mullingitover 6y ago
        Android devices generally fall into this category you're describing. Are you saying that Android has superior security to iOS?
  - arvinsim 6y ago
    That's a bit presumptuous to generalize people's motivation to buy an iDevice.

saagarjha 6y ago

Apple generally will not revoke your developer signing certificate for signing things for personal use.