6 ms·

I've directly installed hundreds of apps on my PC. No disasters have happened.

acdha 3y ago
“I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I need to pay for seatbelts?” These are population level decisions which require you to think about mainstream use. For example, you probably have been safe because you know what to look for. This is not true of the general public and there are millions of people who _thought_ they were making a safe choice and only realized later that the polite person in the call center was not actually trying to help them, etc.
- leereeves 3y ago
  > “I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I need to pay for seatbelts?” Bad analogy. A better analogy is: I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I still need Toyota's permission to drive? I'm absolutely in favor of "seatbelts" for computers, but that means sandboxing, not censorship or rent seeking. It also means you can remove the "seatbelt" when you need to.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I used seatbelts because every car safety measure you can think of has had someone complaining about having to pay a cost for something they’re too good a driver to need. Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal & safety standards seems similar: it definitely costs more than zero, it definitely is a restriction on absolute freedom, but it helps prevent things which are statistically certain to keep happening otherwise.
    - repelsteeltje 3y ago
      > Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal & safety standards seems similar. Which things, exactly?
      - acdha 3y ago
        Consider how well malware and adware has done where the authors can impersonate legitimate developers (remember when people got faux-Firefox as the first Google hit?) or can run distribution campaigns from shady web hosts for years? Notarization and domain limits mean Apple can block malware almost instantly and the developers have to burn a real company identity on each attack campaign.
        celticninja 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 Not exactly blocking immediately are they.
    - jajko 3y ago
      That's a very weak argument in favor of apple, and I respectfully disagree. Just another variation of 'think about the children' meme without much substance, repeated in every single apple discussion ad nausea. Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your device, your choices (here we are already very far from apple mindset). Why the obsessive need to push this on literally everybody and not even giving the choice? Maybe you have some serious impulse control issues, but most of us don't. It can even be part of purchase process - choose ultra secure more locked down model, or on-your-risk more free. But we all know all this is just about 1 singular thing - revenue via customer/market capture. Oracle stuff indeed.
      - vundercind 3y ago
        > Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your device, your choices (here we are already very far from apple mindset) It keeps software and service vendors from going around security and privacy protections. Folks don’t always have a choice of what they have to install, so “just don’t install their stuff if you don’t like it” isn’t sufficient to achieve the same results, even if we ignore the inherent difference in UX between “100% of the software for this goes through the App Store” and “some software is not on the App Store”. Doesn’t mean you have to agree that path is better, of course, but it’s also definitely not so easily dismissed as ridiculous.
        dns_snek 3y ago
        Software and service vendors can't "go around security and privacy protections", they can do exactly what the operating system and Apple allow them to do (short of actual bugs and vulnerabilities which would exist regardless of distribution method). Either those protections are technological, baked into the OS, and therefore apply equally to all installation sources, or they don't exist. There's no in between.
        vundercind 3y ago
        There’s in-fact an in between, which is humans enforcing rules. It’s what’s in place now. It does have an actual effect, it’s not like it’s imaginary or doesn’t do anything. Some of the rules aren’t practically enforceable by software alone, at least so far (things like “don’t try to fingerprint the user or device in unauthorized ways”)
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      Analogies don’t really work in arguments, it always just devolves into an argument about the analogy. They are useful in other contexts (like teaching, where it might be necessary to simplify something). Overuse of analogies is one of the worst things the internet has done to discussion in general.
- skeaker 3y ago
  The implication that restricting user freedom to the degree that Apple does is as vital as the seatbelt in your car is hilarious to me. A better analogy would be "how come my Apple car can only drive on Apple-owned toll roads but every other car can drive wherever it wants?"
  - acdha 3y ago
    “Why are people buying safer cars than the brand I am emotionally attached to?” Read through what’s actually happening: https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ > Apps offered through Web Distribution must meet Notarization requirements to protect platform integrity, like all iOS apps, and can only be installed from a website domain that the developer has registered in App Store Connect. If you can’t see a safety benefit, go look at the Windows or Chrome extension malware industry and the billions of dollars it costs people every year. You don’t have to like Apple or agree with everything they’re doing to understand that there is a real problem here.
    - beeboobaa 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - josephg 3y ago
      Right; but the whole point of a browser extension is that it interferes with how other webpages work. But iOS apps can’t do that. They’re more like webpages themselves - sandboxed and run as isolated processes. In the absence of browser bugs, it should be safe to click any web link. Websites can impersonate one another. But my device stays secure. iOS apps already work like that. Why does Apple have so little trust in their own security model?
    - celticninja 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- celticninja 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 Making a safe choice by downloading an app from the app store where Apple reviews all apps for user safety and security.
m-p-3 3y ago
Some people need to be protected from themselves though. I don't receive support requests anymore from my grandparents since they switched from a Windows-based computer to a ChromeOS system. It suits their needs while being locked down, and it limits the amount of damage that can be done.
- dlubarov 3y ago
  Isn't ChromeOS secure because of sandboxing, not because of curation? And isn't the situation similar with iOS? I wouldn't really expect Apple's curators (or automated analysis) to reliably detect malware, but I expect the OS to limit what kind of damage can be done.
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  > I don't receive support requests anymore from my grandparents... And yet the ChromeOS platform still supports putting hardware into developer mode. Apple's policy is about protecting profits.

“I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I need to pay for seatbelts?” These are population level decisions which require you to think about mainstream use. For example, you probably have been safe because you know what to look for. This is not true of the general public and there are millions of people who _thought_ they were making a safe choice and only realized later that the polite person in the call center was not actually trying to help them, etc.

leereeves 3y ago
> “I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I need to pay for seatbelts?” Bad analogy. A better analogy is: I’ve driven many miles and never crashed. Why do I still need Toyota's permission to drive? I'm absolutely in favor of "seatbelts" for computers, but that means sandboxing, not censorship or rent seeking. It also means you can remove the "seatbelt" when you need to.
- acdha 3y ago
  I used seatbelts because every car safety measure you can think of has had someone complaining about having to pay a cost for something they’re too good a driver to need. Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal & safety standards seems similar: it definitely costs more than zero, it definitely is a restriction on absolute freedom, but it helps prevent things which are statistically certain to keep happening otherwise.
  - repelsteeltje 3y ago
    > Having apps notarized to enforce some basic legal & safety standards seems similar. Which things, exactly?
    - acdha 3y ago
      Consider how well malware and adware has done where the authors can impersonate legitimate developers (remember when people got faux-Firefox as the first Google hit?) or can run distribution campaigns from shady web hosts for years? Notarization and domain limits mean Apple can block malware almost instantly and the developers have to burn a real company identity on each attack campaign.
      - celticninja 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 Not exactly blocking immediately are they.
  - jajko 3y ago
    That's a very weak argument in favor of apple, and I respectfully disagree. Just another variation of 'think about the children' meme without much substance, repeated in every single apple discussion ad nausea. Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your device, your choices (here we are already very far from apple mindset). Why the obsessive need to push this on literally everybody and not even giving the choice? Maybe you have some serious impulse control issues, but most of us don't. It can even be part of purchase process - choose ultra secure more locked down model, or on-your-risk more free. But we all know all this is just about 1 singular thing - revenue via customer/market capture. Oracle stuff indeed.
    - vundercind 3y ago
      > Look, you lock your phone as much as you like, your device, your choices (here we are already very far from apple mindset) It keeps software and service vendors from going around security and privacy protections. Folks don’t always have a choice of what they have to install, so “just don’t install their stuff if you don’t like it” isn’t sufficient to achieve the same results, even if we ignore the inherent difference in UX between “100% of the software for this goes through the App Store” and “some software is not on the App Store”. Doesn’t mean you have to agree that path is better, of course, but it’s also definitely not so easily dismissed as ridiculous.
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        Software and service vendors can't "go around security and privacy protections", they can do exactly what the operating system and Apple allow them to do (short of actual bugs and vulnerabilities which would exist regardless of distribution method). Either those protections are technological, baked into the OS, and therefore apply equally to all installation sources, or they don't exist. There's no in between.
        vundercind 3y ago
        There’s in-fact an in between, which is humans enforcing rules. It’s what’s in place now. It does have an actual effect, it’s not like it’s imaginary or doesn’t do anything. Some of the rules aren’t practically enforceable by software alone, at least so far (things like “don’t try to fingerprint the user or device in unauthorized ways”)
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Analogies don’t really work in arguments, it always just devolves into an argument about the analogy. They are useful in other contexts (like teaching, where it might be necessary to simplify something). Overuse of analogies is one of the worst things the internet has done to discussion in general.
skeaker 3y ago
The implication that restricting user freedom to the degree that Apple does is as vital as the seatbelt in your car is hilarious to me. A better analogy would be "how come my Apple car can only drive on Apple-owned toll roads but every other car can drive wherever it wants?"
- acdha 3y ago
  “Why are people buying safer cars than the brand I am emotionally attached to?” Read through what’s actually happening: https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ https://developer.apple.com/support/web-distribution-eu/ > Apps offered through Web Distribution must meet Notarization requirements to protect platform integrity, like all iOS apps, and can only be installed from a website domain that the developer has registered in App Store Connect. If you can’t see a safety benefit, go look at the Windows or Chrome extension malware industry and the billions of dollars it costs people every year. You don’t have to like Apple or agree with everything they’re doing to understand that there is a real problem here.
  - beeboobaa 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - josephg 3y ago
    Right; but the whole point of a browser extension is that it interferes with how other webpages work. But iOS apps can’t do that. They’re more like webpages themselves - sandboxed and run as isolated processes. In the absence of browser bugs, it should be safe to click any web link. Websites can impersonate one another. But my device stays secure. iOS apps already work like that. Why does Apple have so little trust in their own security model?
  - celticninja 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
celticninja 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 Making a safe choice by downloading an app from the app store where Apple reviews all apps for user safety and security.

m-p-3 3y ago

Some people need to be protected from themselves though. I don't receive support requests anymore from my grandparents since they switched from a Windows-based computer to a ChromeOS system. It suits their needs while being locked down, and it limits the amount of damage that can be done.

dlubarov 3y ago
Isn't ChromeOS secure because of sandboxing, not because of curation? And isn't the situation similar with iOS? I wouldn't really expect Apple's curators (or automated analysis) to reliably detect malware, but I expect the OS to limit what kind of damage can be done.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
> I don't receive support requests anymore from my grandparents... And yet the ChromeOS platform still supports putting hardware into developer mode. Apple's policy is about protecting profits.