8 ms·

Another point to show what Apple's true goal is: To kill general computing. If you buy an iPhone you should be able to run whatever app you want on it. But no,

Another point to show what Apple's true goal is: To kill general computing. If you buy an iPhone you should be able to run whatever app you want on it. But no, Apple knows best and will not permit you to do anything it doesn't approve of. As for the APIs being copyrightable see Google vs Oracle.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paulcole 4y ago
> If you buy an iPhone you should be able to run whatever app you want on it. I hear this sentiment quite often on HN. Maybe I’m missing something but was this tacked onto the end of those stone tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain? If not, then it seems like people want this to be a statement of fact when the reality is much closer to: > If I buy an iPhone I wish I could run whatever app I want on it.
- rchaud 4y ago
  Don't know about Moses, but here's what iJesus had to say: > The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today.. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
  - paulcole 4y ago
    Yeah it's almost like he changed his mind? I don't know, I'm not too bright. I'm also not in the habit of crying about what was said 15 years ago and what has clearly changed since then.
    - rchaud 4y ago
      I never made a comment about your intelligence, but you may wish to re-evaluate your comprehension if a simple refutation strikes you as 'crying'.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Apple's goal was to kill malware, not general-purpose computing[0] as a whole. Unfortunately it turns out that killing general-purpose computing is an instrumental goal[1] to killing malware: if you want a phone that cannot get a virus then you need someone pre-approving every line of code that hits the processor. Once you have any entity having control over your device, even if it is for your own benefit and you completely trust that entity, a whole bunch of other competing business considerations come into play. In the case of adversarial interoperability, that means business risks that Apple doesn't want to take on. Let's say that tomorrow Elon Musk goes absolutely insane[2] and decides that third-party Twitter clients are hacking as defined by the CFAA. If Apple knowingly distributes those clients, then they could be held criminally liable for signing and distributing the app. Less dramatically, adversarial operability implies a lot of support headaches. Apple wants to sell working software, not stuff that needs updates every few hours to keep ahead of updates done on Twitter's side to kill it. Even if they wanted to fight for adversarial interop in court, the underlying constraint of "pre-approve software updates to keep malware away" makes updating the software in real time to work around Twitter's workaround to the software untenable. For a non-Apple, pre-everything-being-locked-down example of how much of a pain adversarial interoperability is in practice, there's the time Microsoft tried to make MSN speak to AIM. They stopped once AOL started using buffer overflow exploits to validate that you were running AIM[3]. AOL did not need to actually sue Microsoft with a spurious application of the CFAA. They just needed to wrap their API and client in enough garbage to make interop monetarily painful to support. [0] In the Cory Doctorow sense [1] AI safety term for "thing you need to do to get to other things you want". [2] More than he already has [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7PjunSxLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7PjunSxLU
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Pretty sure Section 230 of the CDA shields Apple from liability when it comes to what apps users create and share via Apple's App Store platform. The truth is that the App Store lock-in is about securing Apple's moneyhose, and user "security" is an afterthought.
- tumult 4y ago
  The time of CFAA being wielded to suppress interoperability is over. The Supreme Court's 2021 ruling of Van Buren vs United States put an end to it.
nhtsamera 4y ago
You shouldn't even need to run an "app". A phone is no different from a laptop, except that it is smaller and the mouse/keyboard are part of the screen. On my phone, I should be able to: * Open an IDE and write some code. * Compile my code (depending on the language). * Run my code. The whole concept of "app stores" is absurd. In 10 years, will we be denied sudo rights on our laptops? Will we need to pay a 30% cut to Apple for every program that we install, plus $99/yr if we want the privilege of building code for our own device?
- rchaud 4y ago
  > In 10 years, will we be denied sudo rights on our laptops? More and more likely. In 10 years' time I'd love to be off the Intel/Apple Mx train and using devices that can run desktop Linux with with RISC-V and Raspberry PI-like SoCs.
- counttheforks 4y ago
  Yes, you're 100% right, of course. This just goes to show how much we've lost.
- fsflover 4y ago
  This is exactly why I bought Librem 5 smartphone, which can do all these things and can even serve as a laptop, if you connect a keyboard and a screen.
  - dzamo_norton 4y ago
    > which can do all these things and can even serve as a laptop If it could only also serve as a smartphone I'd have one already.
    - fsflover 4y ago
      Using it as my daily driver. Depends on your use case though. Sent from my Librem 5.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

paulcole 4y ago

> If you buy an iPhone you should be able to run whatever app you want on it. I hear this sentiment quite often on HN. Maybe I’m missing something but was this tacked onto the end of those stone tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain? If not, then it seems like people want this to be a statement of fact when the reality is much closer to: > If I buy an iPhone I wish I could run whatever app I want on it.

rchaud 4y ago
Don't know about Moses, but here's what iJesus had to say: > The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today.. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
- paulcole 4y ago
  Yeah it's almost like he changed his mind? I don't know, I'm not too bright. I'm also not in the habit of crying about what was said 15 years ago and what has clearly changed since then.
  - rchaud 4y ago
    I never made a comment about your intelligence, but you may wish to re-evaluate your comprehension if a simple refutation strikes you as 'crying'.

kmeisthax 4y ago

Apple's goal was to kill malware, not general-purpose computing[0] as a whole. Unfortunately it turns out that killing general-purpose computing is an instrumental goal[1] to killing malware: if you want a phone that cannot get a virus then you need someone pre-approving every line of code that hits the processor. Once you have any entity having control over your device, even if it is for your own benefit and you completely trust that entity, a whole bunch of other competing business considerations come into play. In the case of adversarial interoperability, that means business risks that Apple doesn't want to take on. Let's say that tomorrow Elon Musk goes absolutely insane[2] and decides that third-party Twitter clients are hacking as defined by the CFAA. If Apple knowingly distributes those clients, then they could be held criminally liable for signing and distributing the app. Less dramatically, adversarial operability implies a lot of support headaches. Apple wants to sell working software, not stuff that needs updates every few hours to keep ahead of updates done on Twitter's side to kill it. Even if they wanted to fight for adversarial interop in court, the underlying constraint of "pre-approve software updates to keep malware away" makes updating the software in real time to work around Twitter's workaround to the software untenable. For a non-Apple, pre-everything-being-locked-down example of how much of a pain adversarial interoperability is in practice, there's the time Microsoft tried to make MSN speak to AIM. They stopped once AOL started using buffer overflow exploits to validate that you were running AIM[3]. AOL did not need to actually sue Microsoft with a spurious application of the CFAA. They just needed to wrap their API and client in enough garbage to make interop monetarily painful to support. [0] In the Cory Doctorow sense [1] AI safety term for "thing you need to do to get to other things you want". [2] More than he already has [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7PjunSxLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7PjunSxLU

heavyset_go 4y ago
Pretty sure Section 230 of the CDA shields Apple from liability when it comes to what apps users create and share via Apple's App Store platform. The truth is that the App Store lock-in is about securing Apple's moneyhose, and user "security" is an afterthought.
tumult 4y ago
The time of CFAA being wielded to suppress interoperability is over. The Supreme Court's 2021 ruling of Van Buren vs United States put an end to it.

nhtsamera 4y ago

You shouldn't even need to run an "app". A phone is no different from a laptop, except that it is smaller and the mouse/keyboard are part of the screen. On my phone, I should be able to: * Open an IDE and write some code. * Compile my code (depending on the language). * Run my code. The whole concept of "app stores" is absurd. In 10 years, will we be denied sudo rights on our laptops? Will we need to pay a 30% cut to Apple for every program that we install, plus $99/yr if we want the privilege of building code for our own device?

rchaud 4y ago
> In 10 years, will we be denied sudo rights on our laptops? More and more likely. In 10 years' time I'd love to be off the Intel/Apple Mx train and using devices that can run desktop Linux with with RISC-V and Raspberry PI-like SoCs.
counttheforks 4y ago
Yes, you're 100% right, of course. This just goes to show how much we've lost.
fsflover 4y ago
This is exactly why I bought Librem 5 smartphone, which can do all these things and can even serve as a laptop, if you connect a keyboard and a screen.
- dzamo_norton 4y ago
  > which can do all these things and can even serve as a laptop If it could only also serve as a smartphone I'd have one already.
  - fsflover 4y ago
    Using it as my daily driver. Depends on your use case though. Sent from my Librem 5.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]