9 ms·

But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! Even here I've had a lot of argume

But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! Even here I've had a lot of arguments with people who say it is a very good thing. And of course they don't care about people in countries like Russia or China where the Apple submits to government requests to remove certain apps - leaving their users unable to run them at all.

jve 5y ago
> But but but malware! It's a very valid statement, yet you make it sound like sarcasm. Consumer can makes choice by choosing platform after all (even niche Android distributions if you are after freedom). Ofcourse apple may be too tight by requiring to even identify test devices when you develop apps and no option to install .apk like on Android.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Imagine a phone virus that jumped from phone to phone over WiFi or BlueTooth and keylogged and screen grabbed everything. Imagine mobile ransomware. If the OS is hackable - and they always are, without strong security - all kinds of nasty things become possible. I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. I remember the virus wars of late 90s and early 2000s when you couldn't do anything on a Windows PC without worrying that it was going to be hacked - and most were. There were email vectors, web vectors, PDF vectors, Office macro vectors, banner ad vectors, even antivirus software vectors. It was a complete shit show. The hacking back then was relatively harmless. But now that people run their entire lives from these devices, the modern equivalent would be an economic disaster.
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    How do you know that an iOS app doesn't do this exact thing? A curated app store cannot prevent the exploitation of so-far undiscovered security holes in the operating system. Sandboxing is a technological problem, while app store monopolies are a social problem, those two problems must be separated from each other first before they can be fixed effectively.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    > I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. Fine as it is? Show me how to launch Signal app on an iPhone sold in China?
  - tempodox 5y ago
    Living in a free society necessarily entails a certain amount of risk. Leaving it to the megacorps alone to determine where the line between risk avoidance and freedom should be is at the very least undemocratic.
- amelius 5y ago
  > > But but but malware! > It's a very valid statement No. Perhaps it would be a valid statement if Apple and Google were held accountable for failing to protect the consumer here.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  It is not a valid statement. The ones who are afraid of malware might stay within the confines of the AppStore. Why do they think that everybody else should not have the freedom to run whatever the apps they want on their devices? Until the apple lifts off these restrictions, users of iOS devices can not be considered device owners: they are merely renting it from a true owner (Apple), who decides which apps are allowed to run on these devices.
Angostura 5y ago
I absolutely love the 'shiny handcuffs'. My phone is an appliance, I don't want to bother about thinking about keeping it patched, about threats, about malware. I want to use the thing. If I want a general purpose computing device, I've got one of those.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  You may love not having freedom to run whatever the app you please. But why are you fine with everyone else not having this freedom? There are people living in actual dictatorship countries who can't access the information vital to them, because Apple and Google happily do business with brutal dictators?
  - ericmay 5y ago
    This has been beaten to death, but at least for Apple it means degrading the user experience for those of us who love “not being free” or whatever silly slogans people want to use. Why can’t I have the “freedom” to buy an iPhone just how it is today? Why are you supporting courts infringing on a peaceful transaction between two entities? If you want to do the whole screening from the rooftop about rights thing then you’re going to have to respect the rights of others too, not just what you want. With the App Store mechanic Apple can collectively bargain on behalf of users. Do you think companies would allow anonymous signin on a third party App Store? Or post how they collect and use your data? Of course not. Apple makes that happen. If you want to use more than one App Store just buy an Android phone and get on with your day. If the Apple model of a single store is truly the inferior model Apple will be forced by market mechanics to allow others.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      > degrading the user experience for those of us who love “not being free” or whatever silly slogans people want to use. Speaking of silly slogans, how does my freedom to install an app on MY device degrade your experience?
quitit 5y ago
I wanted a sedan, not a 4WD - if I wanted a 4WD I would have bought that instead. I’m pretty tired of people telling me what is “good” for me. When they don’t know my situation or how I use my tools. The product you’re advocating for exists - I didn’t buy it on purpose. I know it exists, I looked into it and it wasn’t for me. I don’t want the product I chose to turn into that other product - that would be a bad thing. That would be anti-consumer and anti-choice - I don’t regret the choices I made and I’m regularly reminded that they were the correct choice to make. I’m educated and mature enough to know what is good for me, I don’t need a random telling me what is good for me. Stop pretending to know what is good for me - you don’t know what is good for me and using jail metaphors doesn’t make you sound convincing - it makes you sound biased with a predetermined outcome. Don’t try to “market” to me using such words, they are transparent. Contrary to your hand waving of the concerns of others - there remains legitimate issues with that approach, and arguably it’s good that both options exist in the market.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  > I wanted a sedan, not a 4WD - if I wanted a 4WD I would have bought that instead. I have said this a dozen times and I will keep saying it: being able to exercise the same level of control (on a device you own) as the company that manufactured it and sold it is a matter of consumer rights, not choice. In the same way that the law requires car makers to adhere to certain standards and make parts available, the same thing should happen with electronics that have any sort of chip capable of running any code. It should be straight up outlawed that a company can have more control over a device than its end user, even after the end user has bought it.
  - acoard 5y ago
    So to be clear, your argument is that I have the right to full control of my devices, and that right entails that I _don't_ have the right to buy a locked down iOS device? I understand that I don't have the right to take an unsafe vehicle on the road. That's logical, as it impacts others. But saying that I have a right I must exercise in a certain way (i.e. must have full ownership of devices), even when it affects no-one else, isn't a right, it's a duty.
thereddaikon 5y ago
Except time and time again Google and Apple have proven themselves incapable of preventing malware from getting on their stores.
criddell 5y ago
> Russia or China where the Apple submits to government requests to remove certain apps - leaving their users unable to run them at all If an iOS device doesn't support the software they want to run, why would they buy an iPhone? Would you also complain that you can't run Microsoft Word on a PS5?
- queuebert 5y ago
  Because advertising has convinced people that's better to be cool and have an iPhone than have all of the apps they want.
d3nj4l 5y ago
You're making it seem like it's a travesty that Apple doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with your phone, but you're dodging everyone who correctly points out that Apple is far and away in the minority of smartphones in the world. People who want to run whatever they want on a mobile device have their choice: they can buy Android phones and sideload APKs, or buy experimental cutting edge devices running Linux. If anything, the example you cite - that of Apple removing apps in Russia or China - should be in your favour: if people in Russia and China want to run apps without their Government's approval, they should not buy iPhones, thereby hurting Apple's position in the market. Those who don't clearly don't care, and who are you to decide what they should care about?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  People in Russia trusted Apple to allow apps to run when they were buying the phones, but THEN found out that Apple decided to cooperate with Putin and removed certain apps they were using. It IS a travesty. Apple didn't advertise beforehand that they would cooperate with dictators and block apps which dictators don't like.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Were people in Russia hoping that Apple would pull out entirely, or that they should have the power to contend with Russia? If Apple pulled out entirely, people in Russia still wouldn't have their smart voting app. If Apple resisted the Russian government, they would've been banned. And you still wouldn't have your smart voting app. Do people imagine a world where Apple has the power to forcefully ask the Russian government to yield on their domestic affairs?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      If apple wouldn't insist on controlling what users are allowed to run on the devices that apple sold to them, users wouldn't have this problem. Seriously, Apple acts as if still owns the devices after selling them. If that's so, maybe they should refund the devices to users and honestly call such devices 'rented'? It is perfectly understandable why you can't install the music system of your choice on a rented car. Not quite understandable if you bought that car.
the_other 5y ago
> But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! It's less about harming yourself and more about harming your phone. This is your personal emergency lifeline device. It cannot go down. I know they do, but my point is that everything about the software experience should tend towards 100% uptime. This is key. It's more important than almost any other aspect of the device. It's way more important on mobile than it is on a desktop. If your desktop locks up, you can hit reboot and make a tea, or go chat to your boss. If your mobile locks up, you might stay buried in that avalanche longer than is healthy.
petre 5y ago
Bezos' phone was trojaned with malware, supposedly using a mp4 video file and WhatsApp, despite being an iPhone which doesn't allow sideloading. https://www.wired.com/story/bezos-phone-hack-mbs-saudi-arabia/ https://www.wired.com/story/bezos-phone-hack-mbs-saudi-arabi...
- skoskie 5y ago
  It’s a perfectly valid point in general, but most of us aren’t up against state actors, who seem capable of getting into any target.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    While not against state actors, if you're a U.S. resident/citizen, you're still actively being spied on regardless.

jve 5y ago

> But but but malware! It's a very valid statement, yet you make it sound like sarcasm. Consumer can makes choice by choosing platform after all (even niche Android distributions if you are after freedom). Ofcourse apple may be too tight by requiring to even identify test devices when you develop apps and no option to install .apk like on Android.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Imagine a phone virus that jumped from phone to phone over WiFi or BlueTooth and keylogged and screen grabbed everything. Imagine mobile ransomware. If the OS is hackable - and they always are, without strong security - all kinds of nasty things become possible. I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. I remember the virus wars of late 90s and early 2000s when you couldn't do anything on a Windows PC without worrying that it was going to be hacked - and most were. There were email vectors, web vectors, PDF vectors, Office macro vectors, banner ad vectors, even antivirus software vectors. It was a complete shit show. The hacking back then was relatively harmless. But now that people run their entire lives from these devices, the modern equivalent would be an economic disaster.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  How do you know that an iOS app doesn't do this exact thing? A curated app store cannot prevent the exploitation of so-far undiscovered security holes in the operating system. Sandboxing is a technological problem, while app store monopolies are a social problem, those two problems must be separated from each other first before they can be fixed effectively.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  > I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. Fine as it is? Show me how to launch Signal app on an iPhone sold in China?
- tempodox 5y ago
  Living in a free society necessarily entails a certain amount of risk. Leaving it to the megacorps alone to determine where the line between risk avoidance and freedom should be is at the very least undemocratic.
amelius 5y ago
> > But but but malware! > It's a very valid statement No. Perhaps it would be a valid statement if Apple and Google were held accountable for failing to protect the consumer here.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
It is not a valid statement. The ones who are afraid of malware might stay within the confines of the AppStore. Why do they think that everybody else should not have the freedom to run whatever the apps they want on their devices? Until the apple lifts off these restrictions, users of iOS devices can not be considered device owners: they are merely renting it from a true owner (Apple), who decides which apps are allowed to run on these devices.

Angostura 5y ago

I absolutely love the 'shiny handcuffs'. My phone is an appliance, I don't want to bother about thinking about keeping it patched, about threats, about malware. I want to use the thing. If I want a general purpose computing device, I've got one of those.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
You may love not having freedom to run whatever the app you please. But why are you fine with everyone else not having this freedom? There are people living in actual dictatorship countries who can't access the information vital to them, because Apple and Google happily do business with brutal dictators?
- ericmay 5y ago
  This has been beaten to death, but at least for Apple it means degrading the user experience for those of us who love “not being free” or whatever silly slogans people want to use. Why can’t I have the “freedom” to buy an iPhone just how it is today? Why are you supporting courts infringing on a peaceful transaction between two entities? If you want to do the whole screening from the rooftop about rights thing then you’re going to have to respect the rights of others too, not just what you want. With the App Store mechanic Apple can collectively bargain on behalf of users. Do you think companies would allow anonymous signin on a third party App Store? Or post how they collect and use your data? Of course not. Apple makes that happen. If you want to use more than one App Store just buy an Android phone and get on with your day. If the Apple model of a single store is truly the inferior model Apple will be forced by market mechanics to allow others.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    > degrading the user experience for those of us who love “not being free” or whatever silly slogans people want to use. Speaking of silly slogans, how does my freedom to install an app on MY device degrade your experience?

quitit 5y ago

I wanted a sedan, not a 4WD - if I wanted a 4WD I would have bought that instead. I’m pretty tired of people telling me what is “good” for me. When they don’t know my situation or how I use my tools. The product you’re advocating for exists - I didn’t buy it on purpose. I know it exists, I looked into it and it wasn’t for me. I don’t want the product I chose to turn into that other product - that would be a bad thing. That would be anti-consumer and anti-choice - I don’t regret the choices I made and I’m regularly reminded that they were the correct choice to make. I’m educated and mature enough to know what is good for me, I don’t need a random telling me what is good for me. Stop pretending to know what is good for me - you don’t know what is good for me and using jail metaphors doesn’t make you sound convincing - it makes you sound biased with a predetermined outcome. Don’t try to “market” to me using such words, they are transparent. Contrary to your hand waving of the concerns of others - there remains legitimate issues with that approach, and arguably it’s good that both options exist in the market.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
> I wanted a sedan, not a 4WD - if I wanted a 4WD I would have bought that instead. I have said this a dozen times and I will keep saying it: being able to exercise the same level of control (on a device you own) as the company that manufactured it and sold it is a matter of consumer rights, not choice. In the same way that the law requires car makers to adhere to certain standards and make parts available, the same thing should happen with electronics that have any sort of chip capable of running any code. It should be straight up outlawed that a company can have more control over a device than its end user, even after the end user has bought it.
- acoard 5y ago
  So to be clear, your argument is that I have the right to full control of my devices, and that right entails that I _don't_ have the right to buy a locked down iOS device? I understand that I don't have the right to take an unsafe vehicle on the road. That's logical, as it impacts others. But saying that I have a right I must exercise in a certain way (i.e. must have full ownership of devices), even when it affects no-one else, isn't a right, it's a duty.

thereddaikon 5y ago

Except time and time again Google and Apple have proven themselves incapable of preventing malware from getting on their stores.

criddell 5y ago

> Russia or China where the Apple submits to government requests to remove certain apps - leaving their users unable to run them at all If an iOS device doesn't support the software they want to run, why would they buy an iPhone? Would you also complain that you can't run Microsoft Word on a PS5?

queuebert 5y ago
Because advertising has convinced people that's better to be cool and have an iPhone than have all of the apps they want.

d3nj4l 5y ago

You're making it seem like it's a travesty that Apple doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with your phone, but you're dodging everyone who correctly points out that Apple is far and away in the minority of smartphones in the world. People who want to run whatever they want on a mobile device have their choice: they can buy Android phones and sideload APKs, or buy experimental cutting edge devices running Linux. If anything, the example you cite - that of Apple removing apps in Russia or China - should be in your favour: if people in Russia and China want to run apps without their Government's approval, they should not buy iPhones, thereby hurting Apple's position in the market. Those who don't clearly don't care, and who are you to decide what they should care about?

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
People in Russia trusted Apple to allow apps to run when they were buying the phones, but THEN found out that Apple decided to cooperate with Putin and removed certain apps they were using. It IS a travesty. Apple didn't advertise beforehand that they would cooperate with dictators and block apps which dictators don't like.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Were people in Russia hoping that Apple would pull out entirely, or that they should have the power to contend with Russia? If Apple pulled out entirely, people in Russia still wouldn't have their smart voting app. If Apple resisted the Russian government, they would've been banned. And you still wouldn't have your smart voting app. Do people imagine a world where Apple has the power to forcefully ask the Russian government to yield on their domestic affairs?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    If apple wouldn't insist on controlling what users are allowed to run on the devices that apple sold to them, users wouldn't have this problem. Seriously, Apple acts as if still owns the devices after selling them. If that's so, maybe they should refund the devices to users and honestly call such devices 'rented'? It is perfectly understandable why you can't install the music system of your choice on a rented car. Not quite understandable if you bought that car.

the_other 5y ago

> But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! It's less about harming yourself and more about harming your phone. This is your personal emergency lifeline device. It cannot go down. I know they do, but my point is that everything about the software experience should tend towards 100% uptime. This is key. It's more important than almost any other aspect of the device. It's way more important on mobile than it is on a desktop. If your desktop locks up, you can hit reboot and make a tea, or go chat to your boss. If your mobile locks up, you might stay buried in that avalanche longer than is healthy.

petre 5y ago

Bezos' phone was trojaned with malware, supposedly using a mp4 video file and WhatsApp, despite being an iPhone which doesn't allow sideloading. https://www.wired.com/story/bezos-phone-hack-mbs-saudi-arabia/ https://www.wired.com/story/bezos-phone-hack-mbs-saudi-arabi...

skoskie 5y ago
It’s a perfectly valid point in general, but most of us aren’t up against state actors, who seem capable of getting into any target.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway946513 5y ago
  While not against state actors, if you're a U.S. resident/citizen, you're still actively being spied on regardless.