4 ms·

Why are you so desperate to break the iPhone experience? Because you can have that. You can have a Pine phone, you can have an Android device, you can have Sail

Why are you so desperate to break the iPhone experience? Because you can have that. You can have a Pine phone, you can have an Android device, you can have Sailfin. Why are you unhappy with all the choices for phones that provide everything you say you want?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wwweston 3y ago
What about any suggestion made so far "breaks" the iOS experience for those who are satisfied with it the way it is?
- wiseowise 3y ago
  That’s different™.
justinclift 3y ago
Isn't it the other way around? Allowing side loading on iOS doesn't seem like it would impact anyone that doesn't side load. (?)
- smiley1437 3y ago
  Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found, that could then exploit other IOS users. If I had a well designed bank vault I still wouldn't want would-be burglars unrestricted access to probe the lock design which could then be used to exploit other vaults of the same design. In this model, I would put a cage or bars or say, a walled garden around the lock mechanism to prevent unwanted hacking or characterization.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Ahhh. Sounds like it's mostly fear of potential loss rather than something easy to pin down and fix. Yeah, I'm not aware of any good way to counter that kind of fear unless Apple wants to do so. Unfortunately, countering that fear is 100% the opposite of what Apple want, so they're likely going to try and amplify it to the maximum extent instead.
  - oynqr 3y ago
    > Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found That's actually a good thing.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    > Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found Security by obscurity has been debunked for decades. This is not an acceptable argument for anyone who actually cares about security.
    - smiley1437 3y ago
      > Security by obscurity has been debunked for decades. This is not an acceptable argument for anyone who actually cares about security. Information about nuclear weapons are kept obscure and I'm pretty sure the US government cares about security. Defense in depth is a thing.
      - jadamson 3y ago
        With nukes I don't have the device in my hand, or a hotline on which to try every possible launch code. I can purchase an iPhone and a developer account and find the same exploits I could if sideloading was enabled. The "obscurity" doesn't exist to begin with.
        smiley1437 3y ago
        > I can purchase an iPhone and a developer account and find the same exploits I could if sideloading was enabled. The "obscurity" doesn't exist to begin with. Obscurity DID exist - you said yourself that you have to get a developer account. That's a barrier to entry, which is defense in depth. Dev accounts are a tiny proportion of iOS users. Also, if alternate app stores were permitted, any exploits discovered via sideload could be deployed at scale. By not having alternate app stores the risk is reduced. As well, assuming no alternate app stores exist and you managed to deploy your 0-day in an app on the original App store, Apple could discover it and have the means to remove the app quickly to mitigate damage. If alternate app stores existed, it adds additional red tape to get the exploit app removed and potentially allowing more damage to occur. Defense in depth matters.
        justinclift 3y ago
- jimmydorry 3y ago
  Except every large player in the space is then incentivised to drag their audience out of the walled garden. "Want the Facebook app? Follow these three easy steps to sideload our app." -> Now the rest of the iOS users lose the nice payment rails that Apple setup which result in higher privacy and lower fraud. "Want to play Fortnite or any other Epic game? Get it in 3 simple steps."
  - bpfrh 3y ago
    Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies. It seems that companies don't want to risk users not install their apps because the installation is complicated. If there is really a fear of this, make it so you can only sideload apps if the development mode is enabled, which requires a few steps. This alone would it make it so most users won't use it for e.g. facebook, instagramm.
    - krger 3y ago
      >Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies. 1. Epic. 2. Unlike Google, Apple each year pours thousands of hours of developer effort into making it harder for Facebook to track users without their consent. The difference between "what is allowed in the store" and "what is possible on the device" is greater on iOS.
      - bpfrh 3y ago
        In the case of epic it was not about the privacy settings but about the percentage they had to pay for on every transaction which is a different issue. I do think that it is a rare case that a company decides to not use the official appstore and the risk of all companies switching to their own appstore is minor. Android does restrict more and more things you can do and there seems to be no strong movement to alternative appstores, which makes it difficult to know what impact the strong privacy settings on ios would be with an alternative appstore. I kind of agree that less privacy protection this is a concern, but I think that should be solved by additional privacy laws.
flangola7 3y ago
That should be the default. The onus is on the one arguing for restrictions of user freedom.
scrozart 3y ago
I thought we were on "hacker" news ...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wwweston 3y ago

What about any suggestion made so far "breaks" the iOS experience for those who are satisfied with it the way it is?

wiseowise 3y ago
That’s different™.

justinclift 3y ago

Isn't it the other way around? Allowing side loading on iOS doesn't seem like it would impact anyone that doesn't side load. (?)

smiley1437 3y ago
Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found, that could then exploit other IOS users. If I had a well designed bank vault I still wouldn't want would-be burglars unrestricted access to probe the lock design which could then be used to exploit other vaults of the same design. In this model, I would put a cage or bars or say, a walled garden around the lock mechanism to prevent unwanted hacking or characterization.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Ahhh. Sounds like it's mostly fear of potential loss rather than something easy to pin down and fix. Yeah, I'm not aware of any good way to counter that kind of fear unless Apple wants to do so. Unfortunately, countering that fear is 100% the opposite of what Apple want, so they're likely going to try and amplify it to the maximum extent instead.
- oynqr 3y ago
  > Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found That's actually a good thing.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > Allowing sideloading increases the potential for exploits in IOS to be found Security by obscurity has been debunked for decades. This is not an acceptable argument for anyone who actually cares about security.
  - smiley1437 3y ago
    > Security by obscurity has been debunked for decades. This is not an acceptable argument for anyone who actually cares about security. Information about nuclear weapons are kept obscure and I'm pretty sure the US government cares about security. Defense in depth is a thing.
    - jadamson 3y ago
      With nukes I don't have the device in my hand, or a hotline on which to try every possible launch code. I can purchase an iPhone and a developer account and find the same exploits I could if sideloading was enabled. The "obscurity" doesn't exist to begin with.
      - smiley1437 3y ago
        > I can purchase an iPhone and a developer account and find the same exploits I could if sideloading was enabled. The "obscurity" doesn't exist to begin with. Obscurity DID exist - you said yourself that you have to get a developer account. That's a barrier to entry, which is defense in depth. Dev accounts are a tiny proportion of iOS users. Also, if alternate app stores were permitted, any exploits discovered via sideload could be deployed at scale. By not having alternate app stores the risk is reduced. As well, assuming no alternate app stores exist and you managed to deploy your 0-day in an app on the original App store, Apple could discover it and have the means to remove the app quickly to mitigate damage. If alternate app stores existed, it adds additional red tape to get the exploit app removed and potentially allowing more damage to occur. Defense in depth matters.
        justinclift 3y ago
jimmydorry 3y ago
Except every large player in the space is then incentivised to drag their audience out of the walled garden. "Want the Facebook app? Follow these three easy steps to sideload our app." -> Now the rest of the iOS users lose the nice payment rails that Apple setup which result in higher privacy and lower fraud. "Want to play Fortnite or any other Epic game? Get it in 3 simple steps."
- bpfrh 3y ago
  Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies. It seems that companies don't want to risk users not install their apps because the installation is complicated. If there is really a fear of this, make it so you can only sideload apps if the development mode is enabled, which requires a few steps. This alone would it make it so most users won't use it for e.g. facebook, instagramm.
  - krger 3y ago
    >Facebook doesn't use sideloading on the android platform, neither does any of the other big companies. 1. Epic. 2. Unlike Google, Apple each year pours thousands of hours of developer effort into making it harder for Facebook to track users without their consent. The difference between "what is allowed in the store" and "what is possible on the device" is greater on iOS.
    - bpfrh 3y ago
      In the case of epic it was not about the privacy settings but about the percentage they had to pay for on every transaction which is a different issue. I do think that it is a rare case that a company decides to not use the official appstore and the risk of all companies switching to their own appstore is minor. Android does restrict more and more things you can do and there seems to be no strong movement to alternative appstores, which makes it difficult to know what impact the strong privacy settings on ios would be with an alternative appstore. I kind of agree that less privacy protection this is a concern, but I think that should be solved by additional privacy laws.

flangola7 3y ago

That should be the default. The onus is on the one arguing for restrictions of user freedom.

scrozart 3y ago

I thought we were on "hacker" news ...