5 ms·

> Swift Playgrounds is an exception too. Apple trusts itself to use JIT compilation safely, but not third-party developers. That’s not unreasonable — but I’m no

• nikanj 2y ago
  Are you implying Apple should limit Apple-made apps on the iPhone?
  • ginko 2y ago
    They should or allow other developers to use the same features.
  • kevingadd 2y ago
    In the past that was basically the rule OS vendors were expected to abide by
    • akmarinov 2y ago
      This has never been the case. Apple has always had non-core apps that use private APIs.
      • flohofwoe 2y ago
        ...which doesn't make it right. Even the existence of "private APIs" is a massive red flag. If an operating system feature is accessible from user space, then it should also be documented, supported and legal to use.
        • Zambyte 2y ago
          "Legal" is such a mind blowing term to use here. How can it be illegal for you to use the features that are designed into the device you bought? Limiting it arbitrarily for an artificial advantage should be illegal.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
        • doctor_eval 2y ago
          I just don’t agree with this for a moment. And ironically the topic was covered in Gruber’s WWDC talk. What you’re proposing is exactly the same as saying that Apple is not allowed to privately test their APIs and frameworks in their own software before they let others use them. Of course they should be able to do that. Of course they do not have an obligation to open everything to everyone at all times. This is not like the bad old days where Microsoft used private APIs to disadvantage third party software in an operating system that literally had 95% world wide market share. I don’t know what share iOS has, but it’s a tiny fraction of the installed base of all operating systems.
          • ginko 2y ago
            >This is not like the bad old days where Microsoft used private APIs to disadvantage third party software in an operating system that literally had 95% world wide market share. This is much worse than the bad old days. If an app is in a business Apple doesn't like or uses technology Apple doesn't approve of they just ban them outright.
            • doctor_eval 2y ago
              It’s not worse at all, that’s ridiculous. Most devices now run Linux. The world of software is far more open than it was in the 1990s. That doesn’t mean every device needs to be open.
              • ginko 2y ago
                >That doesn’t mean every device needs to be open. That's your opinion.
          • archagon 2y ago
            It’s my device. I should have the right to invoke any API, public or private, just as Apple has the right to change the private APIs out from under me. Same as on the Mac.
            • 2y ago
  • eptcyka 2y ago
    I argue that I’d like to use a JIT in apps on the app store.
  • flohofwoe 2y ago
    I would expect that of Apple, yes. Apple should eat its own dog food to make sure that the iOS security model doesn't require exceptions for their own applications.
  • wiseowise 2y ago
    Practice what you preach.
• JKCalhoun 2y ago
  They should pay Gruber more then to keep him from publicizing the issue at all. That aside, if Apple's sandboxing of the OS is solid, I don't see how a JIT would be problematic.
  • easton 2y ago
    There have been bugs that allowed you to do crazy things because of Safari’s JIT before (to the point they added a switch to the OS to disable it). Maybe they figure if Apple can’t write a safe one nobody else can either?
    • JKCalhoun 2y ago
      I should think proper sandboxing of the rest of the OS should contain the mayhem to the process/container though. I think most of us on HN understand that "safety" is something you just have to accept is never 100%. As an example a team responsible for security can test the standard image libraries (libjpeg, etc.) using file-fuzzing to find any bugs around buffer overflows, etc. It's good they do this but we all know that this is still a statistical shot in the dark that may still leave a vector somewhere in the framework.
      • admax88qqq 2y ago
        I am fairly confident that the JIT restriction is about preventing third party browser engines (chrome) from running on the iPhone, not about security. When Google looked like they were investing heavily in PWAs they could have become a threat to native apps
        • jgruber 2y ago
          Apple’s BrowserEngineKit allows for the use of JITs. I have a link to the docs in my article.
    • jgruber 2y ago
      Correct. If you enable Lockdown Mode, the JavaScript JIT compiler is disable by default in WebKit: https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120 So Apple considers its own trusted JIT a security threat surface.
• throwaway981236 2y ago
  Not directly, but for about 20 years the foundation of his career has been professional Apple fanboyism. So, if what you're really asking is "does Gruber have a financial incentive to speak well of Apple?", the answer is "yes".
• tl 2y ago
  I don't know about "paid" but his column has moved from "shill who sometimes has a point" to "rabid fanboy" recently. As a recent example [1], he claims Japan's primary reason to punish Apple and Google is protectionism for Sony and Nintendo. His point is so strained he (intentionally?) fails to mention Microsoft, a check notes American company. [1]: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/06/15/japan-app-stores https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/06/15/japan-app-store...
  • doctor_eval 2y ago
    I’m glad I’m not the only one who has noticed this. Gruber’s take on Apple is generally good but politically his comments are often cringeworthy, to the point I don’t read the website regularly any more. It’s not protectionist to force Apple to open up the App Store in your country. It might be disagreeable, for some people, and that’s fine, it’s ok to have an opinion. But if you’re going to throw around big words you should know what they mean.
    • geodel 2y ago
      He mentions the reason for being protectionist because rules are not applicable to Sony and Nintendo. It might be disagreeable but you have not given any reasoning.
      • doctor_eval 2y ago
        If Japan applied tariffs to iPhones to raise the price of them relative to domestic phones then it would be protectionism. That is the dictionary definition of protectionism. They didn’t, in this case, so it’s not.
  • kartoffelmos 2y ago
    Sony Interactive Entertainment (which I believe is the "Sony" he's referring to) too is an American company.
  • madeofpalk 2y ago
    eh - I'm not a fan of Gruber, but Gruber is fairly consistent here. He strongly believes in low-government intervention into companies. He strongly dislikes regulation, especially of tech. You don't need to be an Apple shill to have those opinions.
• noirscape 2y ago
  Gruber is part of a strain of thought that masks anti-anti-monopolist beliefs behind the idea of "realism", as Cory Doctorow describes it[0] (the same category blogs like Techdirt belong to). Basically he's operating under the idea that big tech is so massive that any attempt to regulate big tech will fail and just eliminate the smaller competitors in the market (they're arguing that anti-monopolist actions fit the idea of a "compliance moat", where entry in the market is made so difficult by regulations to the point where only big players can exist. A basic example of a deliberate compliance moat are banks - there's an absolute truckload of laws and regulations before you can become a bank because if you're going to keep people's money, you need to be goddamn careful with what you do with it. At least in theory; enforcement of banking regulations has been spotty before and that's why the 2008 banking crisis both occurred and saw almost no legal punishment for those involved.) You can see this with his other articles on the DMA, where he argues that the EU (or Japan in the case of the recent law they passed, see other commenter) are doing this specifically because they want to punish US big tech[1][2][3], rather than acknowledging the fact that these companies all being US giants is a mere coincidence and this would have happened regardless. Even if the monopolist manages to mask himself behind good PR (which Apple has), they're still a monopolist. It's just that the digital age created a new type of monopoly: the platform/ecosystem monopoly, where a company that on paper has other options available in its market, is able to lock in it's business partners and make them unable to move because of the sheer size of it's existing customer network (whilst also keeping those same customers locked to the platform in a vicious cycle). Apple is but one example (and arguably the most egregious as they exploit and enforce theirs to a degree that's pretty extreme), but most of GAFAM operate their own platform monopolies with varying degrees of abuse. It also goes hand-in-hand with absolutely bizarre arguments and misunderstandings surrounding the GDPR[1]. In their heads the destruction of the EU digital tracking market while (US) big tech washes it's hands of the regulation presents itself as a failed anti-competitive measure rather than the clear intent which is to well, destroy the digital tracking market in the EU, which is what the GDPR is entirely about. (Since the EU considers digital tracking to be unethical and a violation of the right to privacy.) The weird thing is that both Techdirt and Gruber are otherwise pretty clearly pro-consumer rights but have this almost absurd belief in the free market self-regulating without laws while a free market without laws (well, they're mostly unenforced or weakly enforced) is what got us here to begin with. [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/ https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/ [1]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/04/edpb_meta_pay_or_ok https://daringfireball.net/2024/04/edpb_meta_pay_or_ok [2]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/apples_plans_for_the_dma https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/apples_plans_for_the_dma [3]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/ec_non_compliance_investigations https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/ec_non_compliance_investi...
• drowntoge 2y ago
  The short answer is "Yes." and the long and detailed answer is one that is longer and translates to "Yes."
• ryandrake 2y ago
  Perhaps he's just calling it "not unreasonable" from the point of view of Apple, not from some objective definition of reasonableness. Of course, Apple is not going to consider itself an attacker in its own security model. Very few software companies are honest/realistic enough to consider "inside threats" from their own software. So if (and only if) you are Apple, it's reasonable for you to trust Apple to use JIT safely. Of course, as an end user, you need to consider third party apps and your operating system as potential attackers in your own threat model. So, from a user's point of view, allowing the OS vendor to do something that a third party app can't do, doesn't make much sense.
  • eptcyka 2y ago
    As a user, I would like to use a Firefox that is a real Firefox, not some chrome on top of a Safari instance. Similarily, I'd like to develop apps that make use of NFC without paying apple a 100$ a year. As a user, I'd like to use JIT compilers in emulators. Maybe I'd like to run a Linux VM on an iPad Pro, we know full well the chipset supports this wonderfully. As far as safety is concerned, memory safe JITs are a thing. If they're worried about secret APIs, an ACL can be enforced in many different ways. If they're worried about syscalls, apps with JITs in them can be sandboxed.
• raydev 2y ago
  Every time Apple's restrictions come up here there are dozens of people who defend it and claim they love it. Why would Gruber need to be paid to have the same opinion?