4 ms·

> [article] editing your /etc/hosts file. Personally, I wouldn’t suggest doing that as it prevents an important security feature from working. Exactly the apol

> [article] editing your /etc/hosts file. Personally, I wouldn’t suggest doing that as it prevents an important security feature from working. Exactly the apologetic that you are talking about. Everyone has a different security update cadence (e.g. patch Tuesday for Microsoft), but each application launch is not a reasonable one. Given Apple's recent propensity for banning developers who stand against them (whether you agree with those developers or not), this is aimed squarely at dissent.

zepto 6y ago
Apple hasn’t banned any developers who stand against them.
- novok 6y ago
  I've noticed you have a very apple apologetic stance about this issue and are very active in replying to these articles, far more than the typical HN user. It's gotten to the point where I've noticed your username now. Why is that?
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    You'd be more aligned with HN values by refuting parent's point with examples than making ad hom attacks.
    - brabel 6y ago
      The accuser should also be held to the same standard. Without evidence those are just empty words.
      - novok 6y ago
        Just look at our comment history, it's pretty easy lol
    - angry_octet 6y ago
      It is nevertheless the case that some users are VERY LOUD on particular topics, essentially repeating themselves on many leafs of the discussion. I find this very tiresome. It isn't an ad hom to point this out.
      - zepto 6y ago
        This is true. I’d be totally up for a ‘no repetition’ rule, however that’s completely impractical. I find myself repeating certain points, usually because I am responding to repeated points. Having said this, I do it because sometimes the person I am responding to says something new. It sounds like their point is a repeat, but they turn out to have a point of view that is different when you challenge them about it.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  They have used security features of their OSs to ban developers who were simply in breach of contract with Apple, but not distributing malware or any other kind of content harmful to users. Sure, Apple was completely in the right to stop distributing Epic software after they breached their contract with Apple. But Epic didn't breach any contract with their users, so there was no reason to remove Epic's software from user devices, or affect companies redistributing Epic software. Those are obvious overreach.
  - zepto 6y ago
    “Simply in breach of contract with Apple” Epic lied about the content of their software. If Apple doesn’t remove software from suppliers who lie about the contents, people will continue to exploit this. There was no overreach. This was the consequence of Epic intentionally lying about the content a software update. It’s also worth pointing out that Epic expected this result, and caused it on purpose. Both Apple, and the court gave them the chance to rectify the situation which they refused. That makes Epic responsible for the outcome. No one else.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Didn't Epic actually create an entire presentation video advertising the contents of their update? Again, I fully agree that Epic was knowingly in breach of their contract with Apple, and wanted to use the public as leverage. But that doesn't, in any way, make their update malicious for the end user.
      - zepto 6y ago
        The presentation video was released after the update was submitted to the store with the contents hidden and activated later. As for whether the update was malicious for the end user, we could say we trust epic to operate a payment method, and therefore the update was not malicious. But there are many actors who would use this exact same methodology, and the update is malicious. Such Trojans exist on Android. Security policies always prevent behaviors that could be used for non-malicious purposes. If the argument is that the end users should be the ones to decide, it’s really just another way of saying that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to enforce any security policy. Of course there are those who believe that Apple shouldn’t be able to enforce security policies, but there is no overreach here.
avalys 6y ago
I don’t see how you can so confidently reach that conclusion. It seems perfectly plausible that Apple wants a way to quickly quash malware, worms, etc.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > I don’t see how you can so confidently reach that conclusion. I'm not going to 100% say that control is the reason Apple is doing this. I'm sure that they do genuinely want a way to quickly quash malware, worms, etc... But we've also seen that Apple is clearly willing to use security features to ban developers that stand against them, so I don't understand how people can be so confident that they wouldn't be willing to use this feature in the same way, even if they did internally think of it as primarily a security tool. It would be very consistent to how we've seen app signing evolve from a pure security feature into a contract-enforcement tool.
  - martimarkov 6y ago
    Can you remind me of which developers have been banned for standing against Apple AND haven’t broken their contract with Apple?
    - danShumway 6y ago
      Security features should not be used for contract enforcement. My point stands, Apple introduced a security feature then used it for contract enforcement against a company that opposed them. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing here. Whether or not you believe that Epic was the villain in that story is irrelevant to the current conversation.
      - martimarkov 6y ago
        Oh, Epic broke their contract and therefore I think can be seen as bad for security. If they are willing to break their contract for money what is to stop them from harvesting my data for money? The security feature is a part of the apple ecosystem. I bought a Mac because of that not desire of it.
martimarkov 6y ago
Apple didn’t not ban them for standing against them. Apple banned them for breaching their contract. It’s not each application launch. It’s from time to time. It’s for each application as it might be detected to have malware in the future. Also if the app isn’t signed there is no check.

zepto 6y ago

Apple hasn’t banned any developers who stand against them.

novok 6y ago
I've noticed you have a very apple apologetic stance about this issue and are very active in replying to these articles, far more than the typical HN user. It's gotten to the point where I've noticed your username now. Why is that?
- ethbr0 6y ago
  You'd be more aligned with HN values by refuting parent's point with examples than making ad hom attacks.
  - brabel 6y ago
    The accuser should also be held to the same standard. Without evidence those are just empty words.
    - novok 6y ago
      Just look at our comment history, it's pretty easy lol
  - angry_octet 6y ago
    It is nevertheless the case that some users are VERY LOUD on particular topics, essentially repeating themselves on many leafs of the discussion. I find this very tiresome. It isn't an ad hom to point this out.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This is true. I’d be totally up for a ‘no repetition’ rule, however that’s completely impractical. I find myself repeating certain points, usually because I am responding to repeated points. Having said this, I do it because sometimes the person I am responding to says something new. It sounds like their point is a repeat, but they turn out to have a point of view that is different when you challenge them about it.
tsimionescu 6y ago
They have used security features of their OSs to ban developers who were simply in breach of contract with Apple, but not distributing malware or any other kind of content harmful to users. Sure, Apple was completely in the right to stop distributing Epic software after they breached their contract with Apple. But Epic didn't breach any contract with their users, so there was no reason to remove Epic's software from user devices, or affect companies redistributing Epic software. Those are obvious overreach.
- zepto 6y ago
  “Simply in breach of contract with Apple” Epic lied about the content of their software. If Apple doesn’t remove software from suppliers who lie about the contents, people will continue to exploit this. There was no overreach. This was the consequence of Epic intentionally lying about the content a software update. It’s also worth pointing out that Epic expected this result, and caused it on purpose. Both Apple, and the court gave them the chance to rectify the situation which they refused. That makes Epic responsible for the outcome. No one else.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Didn't Epic actually create an entire presentation video advertising the contents of their update? Again, I fully agree that Epic was knowingly in breach of their contract with Apple, and wanted to use the public as leverage. But that doesn't, in any way, make their update malicious for the end user.
    - zepto 6y ago
      The presentation video was released after the update was submitted to the store with the contents hidden and activated later. As for whether the update was malicious for the end user, we could say we trust epic to operate a payment method, and therefore the update was not malicious. But there are many actors who would use this exact same methodology, and the update is malicious. Such Trojans exist on Android. Security policies always prevent behaviors that could be used for non-malicious purposes. If the argument is that the end users should be the ones to decide, it’s really just another way of saying that Apple shouldn’t be allowed to enforce any security policy. Of course there are those who believe that Apple shouldn’t be able to enforce security policies, but there is no overreach here.

avalys 6y ago

I don’t see how you can so confidently reach that conclusion. It seems perfectly plausible that Apple wants a way to quickly quash malware, worms, etc.

danShumway 6y ago
> I don’t see how you can so confidently reach that conclusion. I'm not going to 100% say that control is the reason Apple is doing this. I'm sure that they do genuinely want a way to quickly quash malware, worms, etc... But we've also seen that Apple is clearly willing to use security features to ban developers that stand against them, so I don't understand how people can be so confident that they wouldn't be willing to use this feature in the same way, even if they did internally think of it as primarily a security tool. It would be very consistent to how we've seen app signing evolve from a pure security feature into a contract-enforcement tool.
- martimarkov 6y ago
  Can you remind me of which developers have been banned for standing against Apple AND haven’t broken their contract with Apple?
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Security features should not be used for contract enforcement. My point stands, Apple introduced a security feature then used it for contract enforcement against a company that opposed them. There is no reason to believe that they wouldn't do the same thing here. Whether or not you believe that Epic was the villain in that story is irrelevant to the current conversation.
    - martimarkov 6y ago
      Oh, Epic broke their contract and therefore I think can be seen as bad for security. If they are willing to break their contract for money what is to stop them from harvesting my data for money? The security feature is a part of the apple ecosystem. I bought a Mac because of that not desire of it.

martimarkov 6y ago

Apple didn’t not ban them for standing against them. Apple banned them for breaching their contract. It’s not each application launch. It’s from time to time. It’s for each application as it might be detected to have malware in the future. Also if the app isn’t signed there is no check.