4 ms·

> 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 A

by 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.

by jve 5y ago

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.