3 ms·

> outright stalling web innovation with Safari Not adopting technologies at the rate of the market leader who is pushing for more and more control over the web

by least 5y ago

> outright stalling web innovation with Safari Not adopting technologies at the rate of the market leader who is pushing for more and more control over the web might be "stalling web innovation" but the alternative universe is one where Chrome has no meaningful check against its hegemony of the web and can freely create new technology in support of Google's mission to harvest private information and serve advertisements to its users. > Sideloading in this case is eliminating choice There is nothing on MacOS that is preventing installing and running arbitrary code on your machine. Elevation of privileges is required for some of that code, but it is there for those that need or want it and a sane default exists for everyone else. This is the case with every modern operating system, including free ones.

Jcowell 5y ago
> There is nothing on MacOS that is preventing installing and running arbitrary code on your machine. Elevation of privileges is required for some of that code, but it is there for those that need or want it and a sane default exists for everyone else. This is the case with every modern operating system, including free one Actually, there is but not In the way you expect. When the M1 Mac’s we’re released, you could sideline iOS and iPadOS apps but that was blocked by Apple in a later update. On the surface this is a means of clamping down on app piracy and unauthorized use of an app but also a a blockage all the same.
- djrogers 5y ago
  Any app creator can release their iOS / iPadOS app for Apple Silicon Macs if they choose to, I'm not sure I'd paint Apple as the bad guy here if a vendor doesn't want their iOS app running on macOS.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    I’m not taking about Availability of iOS App in the MacOS App Store that devs can opt in and out of. I’m talking explicitly about side loading iOS/iPadOS apps to MacOS. This was possible when M1 apps were released and then explicitly blocked by Apple after an update.
- least 5y ago
  That's a good point and it's something I did overlook, despite complaining about it when they changed this. I would argue though that this is DRM just like Denuvo is for video games or widevine for a lot of streaming content and wouldn't really consider it the same thing as Apple restricting running arbitrary code in the traditional sense. If something like Gatekeeper made things unsigned by Apple impossible to run rather than simply being annoying (which I mean, is kind of the point of it) then I'd be more inclined to agree with the sentiment.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Personally I don’t see the difference between a local MacOS system doing it and a system phoned by MacOS doing it
    - least 5y ago
      The difference is that Apple runs the App Store and agreed to allow app developers to opt out of publishing their apps to the Mac App Store. In order to facilitate that they had to implement DRM. Being able to run arbitrary code doesn't really mean you get to run other people's code without their permission, which is essentially what running those applications on a mac was. You can argue the merits of DRM and copyright of course, but ultimately that's not the same thing as "running arbitrary code." You can run the code and that code includes a check to make sure the platform is one that the developer approved of. If you find a way to remove that check it probably still runs.

by least 5y ago

Jcowell 5y ago

> There is nothing on MacOS that is preventing installing and running arbitrary code on your machine. Elevation of privileges is required for some of that code, but it is there for those that need or want it and a sane default exists for everyone else. This is the case with every modern operating system, including free one Actually, there is but not In the way you expect. When the M1 Mac’s we’re released, you could sideline iOS and iPadOS apps but that was blocked by Apple in a later update. On the surface this is a means of clamping down on app piracy and unauthorized use of an app but also a a blockage all the same.

djrogers 5y ago
Any app creator can release their iOS / iPadOS app for Apple Silicon Macs if they choose to, I'm not sure I'd paint Apple as the bad guy here if a vendor doesn't want their iOS app running on macOS.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  I’m not taking about Availability of iOS App in the MacOS App Store that devs can opt in and out of. I’m talking explicitly about side loading iOS/iPadOS apps to MacOS. This was possible when M1 apps were released and then explicitly blocked by Apple after an update.
least 5y ago
That's a good point and it's something I did overlook, despite complaining about it when they changed this. I would argue though that this is DRM just like Denuvo is for video games or widevine for a lot of streaming content and wouldn't really consider it the same thing as Apple restricting running arbitrary code in the traditional sense. If something like Gatekeeper made things unsigned by Apple impossible to run rather than simply being annoying (which I mean, is kind of the point of it) then I'd be more inclined to agree with the sentiment.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  Personally I don’t see the difference between a local MacOS system doing it and a system phoned by MacOS doing it
  - least 5y ago
    The difference is that Apple runs the App Store and agreed to allow app developers to opt out of publishing their apps to the Mac App Store. In order to facilitate that they had to implement DRM. Being able to run arbitrary code doesn't really mean you get to run other people's code without their permission, which is essentially what running those applications on a mac was. You can argue the merits of DRM and copyright of course, but ultimately that's not the same thing as "running arbitrary code." You can run the code and that code includes a check to make sure the platform is one that the developer approved of. If you find a way to remove that check it probably still runs.