4 ms·

"It's absurd that apps are subject to review by Apple. I know what I'm doing. I've thoroughly inspected the source code of this app that I want to install." No

by tgv 2y ago

"It's absurd that apps are subject to review by Apple. I know what I'm doing. I've thoroughly inspected the source code of this app that I want to install." Not even the most brilliant hacker can say so. In other words: I don't agree. Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. I don't want the Windows virus disaster all over again, especially because this time the stakes are considerably higher. You can disagree with the fees, but for the rest my opinion is: live with the pain.

troupo 2y ago
> Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. And we know for a fact that Apple despite all their claims to the contrary cannot do that.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Indeed, but in the same way that code reviews and QA testers can't catch all defects. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Swiss cheese model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Apple's (flawed!) review process still catches a lot of bad actors. Not all, and it has false-positives. That doesn't mean it's useless. The (legit) question is: is Apple also using security as an excuse to make more money at the expense of customer choice? Because Apple absolutely doesn't need to be the only entity performing this task — I don't trust Epic, I think their business model is predatory on gambling addiction, that doesn't mean they would be incapable of performing the same kinds of security review — and while Apple's smooshing of all the different expenses from API development to review and hosting and processing fees into a fixed sales percentage is convenient, it does make it harder for competitors to emerge for each of those separate tasks.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >Perfect is the enemy of the good. I think it goes both ways. Perfection is letting me control the hardware I bought and tweak the software to my liking. them throwing their hands up because of their motte argument of "security" doesn't resonate with me. Especially when the bailey argument is simply "we want to control everything you do". Here, it's "don't even try to achieve good, avoid bad at all costs". In my mind it's like closing a store down due to excessive theft in an area. That doesnt fix theft, it just takes away service from the honest customers.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Some call it "the Apple tax". To that end, I see this as more like the invention of courts and a police force in a world that was previously an anarchy. Yes, I lose the power to do things; in exchange, I genuinely gain the security of some measure of defence against other people doing things at my expense. I remember when we could actually read all the code on our computers — that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. Of course, corporations are not democracies, so the fight between Apple and Epic is to me as the fight between King John and his barons in 1215 A.D. — and my relative power compared to either corporation is as the power of a, I dunno, franklin or free peasants or something, as to the King and his barons.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >I genuinely gain the security of some measure of defence against other people doing things at my expense. If I need security, I buy anti-virus. But I can't opt out of Apples "security". I don't see that as a good thing. If apple wanted to offer that at checkout, I wouldn't mind at all. Worst case scenario, I backup all my stuff. My phone exploding should not ruin any more of my livliehood than losing a few days of phone calls would. I can protect myself without some non-consentual agreement from a vendor whose relationship should end after the device ships to my address. that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. >that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. I'm not going to pretend I consult the AOSP everytime I hit an odd quirk on my android. But I like the ease of mind knowing I can take my ball and go home if Google goes rogue (and I can argue thst it has already done so, years ago). I ultimate trust people mush smarter than me for that, but I like having more than one biased source to rely on. And heck, I might help contribute if angry enough. That's the power of open source. The best possible insurance when I go in loops under "official channels".
4rt 2y ago
The security model on modern OSes is vastly different to the win95 days.
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  So are the threat actors.
  - macintux 2y ago
    And the potential damage. Smartphones are radically more personal than a PC ever was.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
      I'd be hesitant to treat them this way. One is a trusted and controlled environment, the other is a pocket storefront run by Google/Apple and their partners.
    - archagon 2y ago
      My Mac contains exactly the same personal data as my iPhone.
      - macintux 2y ago
        Your Mac doesn’t know where you are at all times, whether you’re walking or running or in a vehicle. I also suspect it doesn’t know your social media habits as well, although everyone’s different in that regard.
ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
People who want to install only apps from the App Store are welcome to do so. Your point is misdirection.
- vmladenov 2y ago
  This only holds until a major player pulls its apps from the store and requires you to use their portal. It’s not exactly a “welcome” when the price is losing access to a major component of your social network.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
Android doesn’t seem to be a complete disaster in this sense? > and need to protected from harm Yet Apple has no issue working for authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to protect those regimes and fuck over their users. Is that what you’re talking about? People are to dumb and stupid for democracy and therefore corporations like Apple need to prop up dictators to protect them? I’m not even being facetious, looking at the actual facts and Apple’s behavior I don’t see how anyone can come to a different conclusion?

by tgv 2y ago

troupo 2y ago

> Users are dumb, and need to protected from harm. And we know for a fact that Apple despite all their claims to the contrary cannot do that.

ben_w 2y ago
Indeed, but in the same way that code reviews and QA testers can't catch all defects. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Swiss cheese model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model Apple's (flawed!) review process still catches a lot of bad actors. Not all, and it has false-positives. That doesn't mean it's useless. The (legit) question is: is Apple also using security as an excuse to make more money at the expense of customer choice? Because Apple absolutely doesn't need to be the only entity performing this task — I don't trust Epic, I think their business model is predatory on gambling addiction, that doesn't mean they would be incapable of performing the same kinds of security review — and while Apple's smooshing of all the different expenses from API development to review and hosting and processing fees into a fixed sales percentage is convenient, it does make it harder for competitors to emerge for each of those separate tasks.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >Perfect is the enemy of the good. I think it goes both ways. Perfection is letting me control the hardware I bought and tweak the software to my liking. them throwing their hands up because of their motte argument of "security" doesn't resonate with me. Especially when the bailey argument is simply "we want to control everything you do". Here, it's "don't even try to achieve good, avoid bad at all costs". In my mind it's like closing a store down due to excessive theft in an area. That doesnt fix theft, it just takes away service from the honest customers.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Some call it "the Apple tax". To that end, I see this as more like the invention of courts and a police force in a world that was previously an anarchy. Yes, I lose the power to do things; in exchange, I genuinely gain the security of some measure of defence against other people doing things at my expense. I remember when we could actually read all the code on our computers — that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. Of course, corporations are not democracies, so the fight between Apple and Epic is to me as the fight between King John and his barons in 1215 A.D. — and my relative power compared to either corporation is as the power of a, I dunno, franklin or free peasants or something, as to the King and his barons.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >I genuinely gain the security of some measure of defence against other people doing things at my expense. If I need security, I buy anti-virus. But I can't opt out of Apples "security". I don't see that as a good thing. If apple wanted to offer that at checkout, I wouldn't mind at all. Worst case scenario, I backup all my stuff. My phone exploding should not ruin any more of my livliehood than losing a few days of phone calls would. I can protect myself without some non-consentual agreement from a vendor whose relationship should end after the device ships to my address. that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. >that time has passed even when the source code is fully published simply because the volume is too great, and we must either trust someone to do it for us (or at least that someone has liability if it goes wrong), or have some manner of insurance because doing so is impractical. I'm not going to pretend I consult the AOSP everytime I hit an odd quirk on my android. But I like the ease of mind knowing I can take my ball and go home if Google goes rogue (and I can argue thst it has already done so, years ago). I ultimate trust people mush smarter than me for that, but I like having more than one biased source to rely on. And heck, I might help contribute if angry enough. That's the power of open source. The best possible insurance when I go in loops under "official channels".

4rt 2y ago

The security model on modern OSes is vastly different to the win95 days.

SiempreViernes 2y ago
So are the threat actors.
- macintux 2y ago
  And the potential damage. Smartphones are radically more personal than a PC ever was.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 2y ago
    I'd be hesitant to treat them this way. One is a trusted and controlled environment, the other is a pocket storefront run by Google/Apple and their partners.
  - archagon 2y ago
    My Mac contains exactly the same personal data as my iPhone.
    - macintux 2y ago
      Your Mac doesn’t know where you are at all times, whether you’re walking or running or in a vehicle. I also suspect it doesn’t know your social media habits as well, although everyone’s different in that regard.

ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago

People who want to install only apps from the App Store are welcome to do so. Your point is misdirection.

vmladenov 2y ago
This only holds until a major player pulls its apps from the store and requires you to use their portal. It’s not exactly a “welcome” when the price is losing access to a major component of your social network.

ffgjgf1 2y ago

Android doesn’t seem to be a complete disaster in this sense? > and need to protected from harm Yet Apple has no issue working for authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to protect those regimes and fuck over their users. Is that what you’re talking about? People are to dumb and stupid for democracy and therefore corporations like Apple need to prop up dictators to protect them? I’m not even being facetious, looking at the actual facts and Apple’s behavior I don’t see how anyone can come to a different conclusion?