3 ms·

I think it's less about the review model, and more about the revenue model. For safety purposes, presumably code executing apps could just be sandboxed and onl

I think it's less about the review model, and more about the revenue model. For safety purposes, presumably code executing apps could just be sandboxed and only interact with the file system in very limited ways and be pretty safe. On the other hand, the App store is a revenue generating behemoth due to their internal monopoly. I think the reason Apple doesn't allow me to execute arbitrary code inside a container is that they're afraid of people circumventing their App store and distributing money makers like games and such without Apple collecting their cut of the revenue.

threeseed 5y ago
You didn't address my point at all. Code execution allows you to pretend to be a flashlight app during the app review process, pass any automated tests and then at runtime download code from the web to execute. And since this allows you to add new functionality on the fly pretty soon every app would move to this approach. This then opens up an entirely new security vector which is hijacking/MITM servers so that you can inject your code in place of the app developer's code. Thus instantly turning that app into one giant code execution farm for Bitcoin mining, DDOS etc. You can either have an app review process or code execution. Not both.
- eigenspace 5y ago
  My point was that I don't believe this is Apple's primary motivation. If Apple wanted to allow arbitrary code execution, they could have an entirely separate category of app for it that includes warning labels, and requires the developer to justify to Apple why their app requires arbitrary code execution in order to function. If someone submitted a flashlight app that requested this capability they could just deny it. E.g. they could say that the only valid justification for allowing arbitrary code to run is for developer applications that are meant to be running user written code. Apps in this category could be forced to pay extra to apple in order for Apple to pay for special, ongoing scrutiny for security reasons. They might even do things like require that the app publisher be well recognized and have some sort of provable, good track record of not releasing malware. Arbitrary execution is not incompatible with review, it makes it harder.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Arbitrary execution is not incompatible with review, it makes it harder. Given that nobody has solved the problem of malware, but Apple does better than anyone else. It’s fairly obvious that making it harder would make things worse. Having said that, I too would like to see some form of code execution on the iPad.

threeseed 5y ago

You didn't address my point at all. Code execution allows you to pretend to be a flashlight app during the app review process, pass any automated tests and then at runtime download code from the web to execute. And since this allows you to add new functionality on the fly pretty soon every app would move to this approach. This then opens up an entirely new security vector which is hijacking/MITM servers so that you can inject your code in place of the app developer's code. Thus instantly turning that app into one giant code execution farm for Bitcoin mining, DDOS etc. You can either have an app review process or code execution. Not both.

eigenspace 5y ago
My point was that I don't believe this is Apple's primary motivation. If Apple wanted to allow arbitrary code execution, they could have an entirely separate category of app for it that includes warning labels, and requires the developer to justify to Apple why their app requires arbitrary code execution in order to function. If someone submitted a flashlight app that requested this capability they could just deny it. E.g. they could say that the only valid justification for allowing arbitrary code to run is for developer applications that are meant to be running user written code. Apps in this category could be forced to pay extra to apple in order for Apple to pay for special, ongoing scrutiny for security reasons. They might even do things like require that the app publisher be well recognized and have some sort of provable, good track record of not releasing malware. Arbitrary execution is not incompatible with review, it makes it harder.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Arbitrary execution is not incompatible with review, it makes it harder. Given that nobody has solved the problem of malware, but Apple does better than anyone else. It’s fairly obvious that making it harder would make things worse. Having said that, I too would like to see some form of code execution on the iPad.