6 ms·

Not a very popular position among Apple users because everything must come only from the App Store for some reason Because "security" is a great marketing poin

Not a very popular position among Apple users because everything must come only from the App Store for some reason Because "security" is a great marketing point and they've bought into that completely, thinking that trusting Apple and having it control your life is a good thing.

t0md4n 2y ago
I would argue that that’s better than having multiple devices from multiple manufactures and multiple software applications from multiple companies.
- rodgerd 2y ago
  You can buy open hardware running Linux today. Why don't you? Oh right, the mobile Linux experience is so bad only the most devoted will subject themselves to it.
- luuurker 2y ago
  The option to buy devices from different brands is there, but you don't have to. Samsung or Google is happy to sell you a phone, a watch, earphones, and maybe some speakers for your home. Heck, Samsung will even sell you a TV, washing machine, and a fridge if you want. In any case, what I struggle to understand is the position some have when it comes to install apps on iOS. I understand the security angle, but you can do it right (with Apple always in control of the OS and the permissions apps get), still be in the Apple ecosystem, and having the option to install a VPN app after Apple receives a court order to block said app.
qeternity 2y ago
Why do people do this? Name a device with comparable mass market success that is remotely close to being as secure as the iPhone.
- userbinator 2y ago
  A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Y... yes? That has always been the premise of Unix systems security?
    - userbinator 2y ago
      Not if the user is the one who actually owns the machine.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Yes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      What GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is. You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made. Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
- luuurker 2y ago
  Google's Pixel phones are usually known for having good security (from on-device hardware to fast and long - 7 years - security updates). And in this case you'd able to install the app even if it was banned from the official store... and no, my grandma never sideloaded malware, she uses the Play Store like everyone else. It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.
  - qeternity 2y ago
    > Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone. You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
    - luuurker 2y ago
      The thing is, your iPhone would still work very well if you sideloaded this app that was banned in Brazil. Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates. But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    > to fast and long - 7 years - security updates It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations. https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel
darkhelmet 2y ago
Playing devils advocate for a moment: One reason why is that many app developers truly do not have your best interests at heart. Taking heat for being a gatekeeper sucks, but the downsides of the alternatives are potentially limitless. Random example: the fuss about the facebook advertising/tracking SDKs back in the day. When apple started giving unique device IDs to each app, this cross-app tracking mesh imploded and they were screaming about lost revenue. Maybe you find billions of dollars worth of tracking to be creepy, maybe not. But if facebook had the option of getting that functionality and revenue back via an easy sideloading or some other frictionless alternative mechanism then the entire app ecosystem that was even remotely related to facebook tracking would have been off the app store in a heartbeat. Instead of being at the mercy of apple, you, and your extended tech-support family would have been at the mercy of facebook. Apple is no angel, but the potential downsides are limitless. Instead of the facebook tracking example, consider partially or overtly malicious apps that your parents are now installing on their phones (as well as their malware-ridden PCs). On the other hand, sideloading is a fairly low barrier for technically competent folks. Stuff like iResign and other tools have been around forever. You can grab any pirated/hacked/etc app package, sign it yourself, and sideload it via your dev credentials. But at least you don't have to worry about your parents doing that. Or facebook telling your parents to do that. Anyway, that's a "for some reason" example. The readership of HN are not the target audience that the app store gatekeeping is there for. (But don't get me started on fees/commissions/etc - that's indefensible IMO)
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The downsides to not having a vpn in an oppressive regime are limitless
  - 1over137 2y ago
    iOS has IPSec VPN support built-in, you don’t need the App Store or even an Apple ID to have a VPN.
    - WheatMillington 2y ago
      In which case Apple's move here is anti competitive and monopolistic.
judge2020 2y ago
Part of the appeal is security for those who really need it. As a kid on Windows Vista i eagerly seeked out random hacks for the games I was playing, and ended up getting a few viruses here and there, resulting in my paypal balance being drained a few times (back when Paypal didn't have KYC or when it was easy to defeat). Maybe this was a good learning experience, but getting those viruses could've been much more consequential in a lot of ways and if I had really needed that money it would've been better if I was running something more locked down.
bdw5204 2y ago
Giving up freedom for "security" is the surest way to end up with neither of them. This situation where the government of Brazil has outlawed VPNs and Apple is collaborating with it to deprive the people of Brazil of their access to a free and open internet is a perfect illustration of this. The difference between Apple's response and Twitter's response[0] to internet censorship efforts by the Brazilian government also shows why privately owned companies are more likely to stand on principle than publicly traded (i.e. stock market owned) companies which mainly answer to the pension funds and gamblers who control the stock market. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjv857plevo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjv857plevo
rodgerd 2y ago
Yeah, remember how great computers were in the 90s? So secure and usable. I get that a lot of nerds long for the day when "desktop computer janitor" was a well-paid job and normal people couldn't use a computer effectively for any length of time. But that doesn't mean it was a good time.

t0md4n 2y ago

I would argue that that’s better than having multiple devices from multiple manufactures and multiple software applications from multiple companies.

rodgerd 2y ago
You can buy open hardware running Linux today. Why don't you? Oh right, the mobile Linux experience is so bad only the most devoted will subject themselves to it.
luuurker 2y ago
The option to buy devices from different brands is there, but you don't have to. Samsung or Google is happy to sell you a phone, a watch, earphones, and maybe some speakers for your home. Heck, Samsung will even sell you a TV, washing machine, and a fridge if you want. In any case, what I struggle to understand is the position some have when it comes to install apps on iOS. I understand the security angle, but you can do it right (with Apple always in control of the OS and the permissions apps get), still be in the Apple ecosystem, and having the option to install a VPN app after Apple receives a court order to block said app.

qeternity 2y ago

Why do people do this? Name a device with comparable mass market success that is remotely close to being as secure as the iPhone.

userbinator 2y ago
A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".
- tptacek 2y ago
  Y... yes? That has always been the premise of Unix systems security?
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Not if the user is the one who actually owns the machine.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Yes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    What GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is. You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made. Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
luuurker 2y ago
Google's Pixel phones are usually known for having good security (from on-device hardware to fast and long - 7 years - security updates). And in this case you'd able to install the app even if it was banned from the official store... and no, my grandma never sideloaded malware, she uses the Play Store like everyone else. It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.
- qeternity 2y ago
  > Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone. You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
  - luuurker 2y ago
    The thing is, your iPhone would still work very well if you sideloaded this app that was banned in Brazil. Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates. But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  > to fast and long - 7 years - security updates It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations. https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel

darkhelmet 2y ago

Playing devils advocate for a moment: One reason why is that many app developers truly do not have your best interests at heart. Taking heat for being a gatekeeper sucks, but the downsides of the alternatives are potentially limitless. Random example: the fuss about the facebook advertising/tracking SDKs back in the day. When apple started giving unique device IDs to each app, this cross-app tracking mesh imploded and they were screaming about lost revenue. Maybe you find billions of dollars worth of tracking to be creepy, maybe not. But if facebook had the option of getting that functionality and revenue back via an easy sideloading or some other frictionless alternative mechanism then the entire app ecosystem that was even remotely related to facebook tracking would have been off the app store in a heartbeat. Instead of being at the mercy of apple, you, and your extended tech-support family would have been at the mercy of facebook. Apple is no angel, but the potential downsides are limitless. Instead of the facebook tracking example, consider partially or overtly malicious apps that your parents are now installing on their phones (as well as their malware-ridden PCs). On the other hand, sideloading is a fairly low barrier for technically competent folks. Stuff like iResign and other tools have been around forever. You can grab any pirated/hacked/etc app package, sign it yourself, and sideload it via your dev credentials. But at least you don't have to worry about your parents doing that. Or facebook telling your parents to do that. Anyway, that's a "for some reason" example. The readership of HN are not the target audience that the app store gatekeeping is there for. (But don't get me started on fees/commissions/etc - that's indefensible IMO)

jncfhnb 2y ago
The downsides to not having a vpn in an oppressive regime are limitless
- 1over137 2y ago
  iOS has IPSec VPN support built-in, you don’t need the App Store or even an Apple ID to have a VPN.
  - WheatMillington 2y ago
    In which case Apple's move here is anti competitive and monopolistic.

judge2020 2y ago

Part of the appeal is security for those who really need it. As a kid on Windows Vista i eagerly seeked out random hacks for the games I was playing, and ended up getting a few viruses here and there, resulting in my paypal balance being drained a few times (back when Paypal didn't have KYC or when it was easy to defeat). Maybe this was a good learning experience, but getting those viruses could've been much more consequential in a lot of ways and if I had really needed that money it would've been better if I was running something more locked down.

bdw5204 2y ago

Giving up freedom for "security" is the surest way to end up with neither of them. This situation where the government of Brazil has outlawed VPNs and Apple is collaborating with it to deprive the people of Brazil of their access to a free and open internet is a perfect illustration of this. The difference between Apple's response and Twitter's response[0] to internet censorship efforts by the Brazilian government also shows why privately owned companies are more likely to stand on principle than publicly traded (i.e. stock market owned) companies which mainly answer to the pension funds and gamblers who control the stock market. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjv857plevo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgjv857plevo

rodgerd 2y ago

Yeah, remember how great computers were in the 90s? So secure and usable. I get that a lot of nerds long for the day when "desktop computer janitor" was a well-paid job and normal people couldn't use a computer effectively for any length of time. But that doesn't mean it was a good time.