5 ms·

> I love the fact I don’t have to muck about with my iPhone to get it to work... Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your

> I love the fact I don’t have to muck about with my iPhone to get it to work... Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Also, what if - as the owner of that device - you had full control over it's capabilities like you do with a desktop computer? Adding these abilities certainly would not be the downfall of phone ecosystems as we know them. People that want convenience wouldn't leave their app store. The fact that they are our interface to the world is exactly the reason why we need to take control of them away from the Apple/Google oligarchy. People need to stop comparing these devices to gaming consoles, which don't impact the world even a fraction as much as smartphones, when we're talking about making new rules for running smartphone platforms.

randcraw 6y ago
I would love to fully access the data on my phone. But of course it would also introduce security holes currently unimagined. Maybe someone can devise a secure sandbox model to enable this, but after Java's failure to resolve this problem, I'm not holding my breath.
- mikestew 6y ago
  But of course it would also introduce security holes currently unimagined I would argue that at least some of those holes were indeed imagined, that’s why iOS works the way it does and not the way parent would like.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    iOS works the way it does to make money for Apple. First it was to appease carriers to enable the devices to exist. Then it was to appease publishers to get content on the devices. Now it's to make that sweet, sweet app store commission. That there are benefits for device owners who are willing to give up their freedom is a happy accident.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Note that every stage you have described has been called "security". Security is inherently a multi-perspective endeavour, and the word gets abused by powerful entities looking to preserve their own security, likely at the expense of your own (eg the TSA). I do agree that end users receive benefits from Apple's security, but to insist that explains the whole story is hopelessly ignorant.
- mikewarot 6y ago
  Why is giving you a person, access to all of your data a problem? The root cause is the complete lack of facilities to quickly and simply delegate capabilities to applications. There is no way to tell the OS, give this file to this application. Instead of trusting nothing, and providing the PowerBox facility to allow the user to do this, all the popular OSs just trust the applications with everything that the user has permissions to access, by default. --- If you want to pay for a purchase at a store with cash, you carry a number of units of currency... and you only give the clerk the appropriate amount, and you can count the change to verify the transaction is correct. Giving you a person, access to your cash is a solved problem. 8) There is no equivalent way to work with an application on mainstream OSs. This is collective insanity, which I've been calling out for more than a decade.
a_c_s 6y ago
Nobody's permission is required to write apps for your own iOS device.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- idle_zealot 6y ago
  Maybe not to write them, but to run them you need Apple to sign them. A free developer account can be used to have Apple sign your app, but then Apple will only give you permission to run that app for 7 days, and only give you permission to install 3 apps signed that way at a given time. In any case, side loading iOS applications absolutely requires Apple's permission. Unless you were talking about jailbreaking.
  - brucehoult 6y ago
    So get a paid developer account. Freedom to modify is not the same as zero cost. You paid for the iPhone hardware, after all. Just pretend it cost $99 more and came with the right to load your own apps.
    - sjy 6y ago
      Freedom to modify is also not the same as a renewable 7-day licence to run up to 3 custom apps, as long as you maintain a $99/year subscription and a device that can run Xcode.
UncleMeat 6y ago
> Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Cool? I'm a software engineer and I have no desire to do this. The number of people who care about this feature is vanishingly low. I think it is reasonable to lament losing a particular feature for tinkerers, but it becomes unreasonable to demand that businesses cater to this very small niche. > Adding these abilities certainly would not be the downfall of phone ecosystems as we know them. People that want convenience wouldn't leave their app store. Downfall? No. But locked down systems are a somewhat effective way of keeping badware off of devices for the masses.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wayneftw 6y ago
  The key here is that it's "badware as defined by Apple and Google" though. Who watches the watchers?? If you're not advocating self reliance and self governance for people, you're not thinking long term. It's historically proven bad advice to willingly give all control to central powers. > ...locked down systems are a somewhat effective way of keeping badware off of devices for the masses. Developers are not the masses. The masses aren't installing the necessary tools and compiling their own programs and they never will. I'd settle for signing a written agreement with Apple and waiting a week for approval when I buy my phone so that I can actually control my own device. I'm not arguing for letting me put my apps on everyones iPhones, just mine.
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    I agree with you. We have these amazing devices in our pockets, but we can only install things on them that are approved by enormous, faceless corporations whose incentives are often misaligned with our own well-being. I don't advocate removing all safety checks from phones, but making somebody jump through 15 hoops to install a non-corporate-approved app is stupid. Secondly, these companies stop a lot of badware, but they also act as gatekeepers to stop anti-establishmentware that may be for the public benefit at the detriment of the gatekeepers' stranglehold on power. In other words, these devices are systems of perpetuating the status-quo and safeguarding the profits of the ones making them. This in itself I'm not upset about: of course capital seeks to cement its own power. The real issue I have is how much potential is destroyed as collateral damage.
CountSessine 6y ago
Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Or even better, imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to someone else’s iPhone, without asking anyone’s permission though? That’s kind of the problem, isn’t it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > That’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? But those aren't the same thing. Me being able to install what I want on my phone doesn't give me the ability to install it on other people's phones. I currently have the ability to install apps on my phone from the app store, but I can't make that decision for someone else's phone. So why would it be different for software that doesn't come from the app store?
  - CountSessine 6y ago
    The point is that these are security boundaries. Look at all the malware that was being spread by people posting bad Fortnite apks. I posted a Fortnite apk to a forum and I included some of my own custom code. I made a decision to install that on other people’s phones. (I didn’t really do this) Obviously this is a bit self-serving on Apple’s part - restricting software installs begins to feel like a protection racket. But it still serves as a security perimeter.
    - wtetzner 6y ago
      Sure, but users still have to make the decision to install that apk. Yes, there's a security risk, but what's really being said here is "we're going to decide what you're allowed to do so you won't hurt yourself". And I guess I just don't think that should be their decision to make. Or to put it another way: Apple can keep the app store, and even make it the default, but there should be a setting to allow installing things from outside the app store. It can even be behind a few scary popups warning the user of the danger.
halostatue 6y ago
Just as it’s not possible to provide “Lawful Access to Encryption” (master keys) without weakening crypto, it’s not possible to “quickly and easily add your own custom programs without asking permission” that _also_ provides the safety so your mom or grandfather don’t install something that allows crooks to drain their bank accounts. General purpose computers are great for people who know what they’re doing (although there are some _really_ good phishing scams out there that can even fool trained people), but they’re an absolute disaster for the vast majority of people who _don’t_ become specialists in computer security. I _just_ had a support ticket opened by someone who goes between different stores for a client…and this man sent his password in the clear in the support ticket. This man isn’t an idiot, it’s literally _not_ in his job description to be a computer security expert (his job has to do with hardware sales or lumber or something like that). This man would be better served with two things we’re building later this year (AD integration and an Android version of the employee app), because then he can just log in with the same (probably simple and insecure) password that he uses for his Windows log-in at work. He is the type of person that, when told to do something, would simply install program X because someone told him to do so (never mind that program X is actually malware). So no, while I think that Apple’s signing restrictions are a little on the draconian side, I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  So, you're saying that there is absolutely now way, no how that we can put up a fence to keep people with low understanding of tech from compiling and installing some random app? I don't buy it. > I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need. That's an extremely bad faith take on my argument because there's a very wide spectrum of possibilities between the Windows 95 free-for-all and what we have with iOS. You're presenting a false dichotomy. For one thing, iOS could easily put up tons of scary warnings before letting you sideload things. That would be enough to dissuade most people from doing it. However, I'd be willing to go to extremes to get control over the devices which I supposedly own. Make me come into the Apple store and sign away any rights to a warranty from Apple. Make me pay extra. Whatever you want - just don't put every single user in prison because a likely majority of people can't handle making good decisions on what software to install. The idea that we must remove any and all control from users to protect the innocent is just as bad as the idea to have a War on Drugs - and I highly suspect that these preventions are actually in place for the same reason: to actually control people and rake in profits, not to protect them.

randcraw 6y ago

I would love to fully access the data on my phone. But of course it would also introduce security holes currently unimagined. Maybe someone can devise a secure sandbox model to enable this, but after Java's failure to resolve this problem, I'm not holding my breath.

mikestew 6y ago
But of course it would also introduce security holes currently unimagined I would argue that at least some of those holes were indeed imagined, that’s why iOS works the way it does and not the way parent would like.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  iOS works the way it does to make money for Apple. First it was to appease carriers to enable the devices to exist. Then it was to appease publishers to get content on the devices. Now it's to make that sweet, sweet app store commission. That there are benefits for device owners who are willing to give up their freedom is a happy accident.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Note that every stage you have described has been called "security". Security is inherently a multi-perspective endeavour, and the word gets abused by powerful entities looking to preserve their own security, likely at the expense of your own (eg the TSA). I do agree that end users receive benefits from Apple's security, but to insist that explains the whole story is hopelessly ignorant.
mikewarot 6y ago
Why is giving you a person, access to all of your data a problem? The root cause is the complete lack of facilities to quickly and simply delegate capabilities to applications. There is no way to tell the OS, give this file to this application. Instead of trusting nothing, and providing the PowerBox facility to allow the user to do this, all the popular OSs just trust the applications with everything that the user has permissions to access, by default. --- If you want to pay for a purchase at a store with cash, you carry a number of units of currency... and you only give the clerk the appropriate amount, and you can count the change to verify the transaction is correct. Giving you a person, access to your cash is a solved problem. 8) There is no equivalent way to work with an application on mainstream OSs. This is collective insanity, which I've been calling out for more than a decade.

a_c_s 6y ago

Nobody's permission is required to write apps for your own iOS device.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
idle_zealot 6y ago
Maybe not to write them, but to run them you need Apple to sign them. A free developer account can be used to have Apple sign your app, but then Apple will only give you permission to run that app for 7 days, and only give you permission to install 3 apps signed that way at a given time. In any case, side loading iOS applications absolutely requires Apple's permission. Unless you were talking about jailbreaking.
- brucehoult 6y ago
  So get a paid developer account. Freedom to modify is not the same as zero cost. You paid for the iPhone hardware, after all. Just pretend it cost $99 more and came with the right to load your own apps.
  - sjy 6y ago
    Freedom to modify is also not the same as a renewable 7-day licence to run up to 3 custom apps, as long as you maintain a $99/year subscription and a device that can run Xcode.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Cool? I'm a software engineer and I have no desire to do this. The number of people who care about this feature is vanishingly low. I think it is reasonable to lament losing a particular feature for tinkerers, but it becomes unreasonable to demand that businesses cater to this very small niche. > Adding these abilities certainly would not be the downfall of phone ecosystems as we know them. People that want convenience wouldn't leave their app store. Downfall? No. But locked down systems are a somewhat effective way of keeping badware off of devices for the masses.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wayneftw 6y ago
The key here is that it's "badware as defined by Apple and Google" though. Who watches the watchers?? If you're not advocating self reliance and self governance for people, you're not thinking long term. It's historically proven bad advice to willingly give all control to central powers. > ...locked down systems are a somewhat effective way of keeping badware off of devices for the masses. Developers are not the masses. The masses aren't installing the necessary tools and compiling their own programs and they never will. I'd settle for signing a written agreement with Apple and waiting a week for approval when I buy my phone so that I can actually control my own device. I'm not arguing for letting me put my apps on everyones iPhones, just mine.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  I agree with you. We have these amazing devices in our pockets, but we can only install things on them that are approved by enormous, faceless corporations whose incentives are often misaligned with our own well-being. I don't advocate removing all safety checks from phones, but making somebody jump through 15 hoops to install a non-corporate-approved app is stupid. Secondly, these companies stop a lot of badware, but they also act as gatekeepers to stop anti-establishmentware that may be for the public benefit at the detriment of the gatekeepers' stranglehold on power. In other words, these devices are systems of perpetuating the status-quo and safeguarding the profits of the ones making them. This in itself I'm not upset about: of course capital seeks to cement its own power. The real issue I have is how much potential is destroyed as collateral damage.

CountSessine 6y ago

Imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to your iPhone without asking anyone's permission though? Or even better, imagine being able to quickly and easily add your own custom programs to someone else’s iPhone, without asking anyone’s permission though? That’s kind of the problem, isn’t it?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wtetzner 6y ago
> That’s kind of the problem, isn’t it? But those aren't the same thing. Me being able to install what I want on my phone doesn't give me the ability to install it on other people's phones. I currently have the ability to install apps on my phone from the app store, but I can't make that decision for someone else's phone. So why would it be different for software that doesn't come from the app store?
- CountSessine 6y ago
  The point is that these are security boundaries. Look at all the malware that was being spread by people posting bad Fortnite apks. I posted a Fortnite apk to a forum and I included some of my own custom code. I made a decision to install that on other people’s phones. (I didn’t really do this) Obviously this is a bit self-serving on Apple’s part - restricting software installs begins to feel like a protection racket. But it still serves as a security perimeter.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    Sure, but users still have to make the decision to install that apk. Yes, there's a security risk, but what's really being said here is "we're going to decide what you're allowed to do so you won't hurt yourself". And I guess I just don't think that should be their decision to make. Or to put it another way: Apple can keep the app store, and even make it the default, but there should be a setting to allow installing things from outside the app store. It can even be behind a few scary popups warning the user of the danger.

halostatue 6y ago

Just as it’s not possible to provide “Lawful Access to Encryption” (master keys) without weakening crypto, it’s not possible to “quickly and easily add your own custom programs without asking permission” that _also_ provides the safety so your mom or grandfather don’t install something that allows crooks to drain their bank accounts. General purpose computers are great for people who know what they’re doing (although there are some _really_ good phishing scams out there that can even fool trained people), but they’re an absolute disaster for the vast majority of people who _don’t_ become specialists in computer security. I _just_ had a support ticket opened by someone who goes between different stores for a client…and this man sent his password in the clear in the support ticket. This man isn’t an idiot, it’s literally _not_ in his job description to be a computer security expert (his job has to do with hardware sales or lumber or something like that). This man would be better served with two things we’re building later this year (AD integration and an Android version of the employee app), because then he can just log in with the same (probably simple and insecure) password that he uses for his Windows log-in at work. He is the type of person that, when told to do something, would simply install program X because someone told him to do so (never mind that program X is actually malware). So no, while I think that Apple’s signing restrictions are a little on the draconian side, I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need.

wayneftw 6y ago
So, you're saying that there is absolutely now way, no how that we can put up a fence to keep people with low understanding of tech from compiling and installing some random app? I don't buy it. > I don’t think that that Windows 95-like “permissions” are what most people want or need. That's an extremely bad faith take on my argument because there's a very wide spectrum of possibilities between the Windows 95 free-for-all and what we have with iOS. You're presenting a false dichotomy. For one thing, iOS could easily put up tons of scary warnings before letting you sideload things. That would be enough to dissuade most people from doing it. However, I'd be willing to go to extremes to get control over the devices which I supposedly own. Make me come into the Apple store and sign away any rights to a warranty from Apple. Make me pay extra. Whatever you want - just don't put every single user in prison because a likely majority of people can't handle making good decisions on what software to install. The idea that we must remove any and all control from users to protect the innocent is just as bad as the idea to have a War on Drugs - and I highly suspect that these preventions are actually in place for the same reason: to actually control people and rake in profits, not to protect them.