4 ms·

>and as we all know that'll be the end of the world. I'll enjoy seeing all the accounts on MacRumors clawing their eyes out when that happens. It would be nai

>and as we all know that'll be the end of the world. I'll enjoy seeing all the accounts on MacRumors clawing their eyes out when that happens. It would be naive to think that Apple isn't funding sites and narratives on the internet to serve their economic interests. One of the most outlandish one being that freedom to use your phone however you want would necessarily compromise security and privacy for everyone. It's such a bizarre and indefencible take, and yet it's repeated over and over again on those Apple-worship platforms.

loa_in_ 1y ago
Freedom to use your phone however you like would make bug tracking on Apple's side more complicated and therefore more expensive and therefore it damages their profit bottom line. They would happily freeze development altogether if it was a feasible option.
nuker 1y ago
> ... freedom to use your phone however you want I want to use my phone locked down hard and apps reviewed by Apple. I sleep better with things as they are. I suspect 99% of normal users are in the same boat.
- zakki 1y ago
  Apple must provide opt-in or opt-out for the lockdown.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    The market provides these options already.
  - nuker 1y ago
    Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work.
    - input_sh 1y ago
      Are they doing that on Android right now?
      - GeoAtreides 1y ago
        OP, nuker, please answer, i'm genuinely curious what you think about this
        nuker 1y ago
        "Former Facebook insiders explain why the company is making such a big fuss over Apple's upcoming privacy change" https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset-about-apple-idfa-change-insiders-spill.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset... I have not heard similar tantrum from FB over Android. Makes sense as it is made by an Ad company.
        GeoAtreides 1y ago
        that was not the question the question was: You: >Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work. input_sh: > Are they doing that on Android right now? So is Facebook granting its app all permission entitlements, and directing all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work on Android?
        nuker 1y ago
        They don't, no need, Android works for them. They don't on iOS too, iOS alt app stores did not hit US yet. They will, if iOS alt stores will become global thing, or the hypothetical "lockdown opt-out", that started the whole thread.
        mvdtnz 1y ago
        They never answer this one.
    - 1y ago
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Opt-in is at time of purchase
  - didacusc 1y ago
    You can choose between a locked down system, iOS, and a free one, Android. No-one is forcing you to buy an Apple device.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      And you will get 20 times telemetry as a bonus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
- frankvdwaal 1y ago
  What you want is not relevant, because you have no choice. Apple depriving you of that choice may not inconvenience you, but you are still being deprived of that freedom in the first place. I suspect 100% of iPhone users are in the same boat.
  - nuker 1y ago
    > What you want is not relevant, because you have no choice. You got this backwards. I chose Apple because of the choices they made and it suited me.
    - frankvdwaal 1y ago
      Electing a dictator because you like their policies does not change the fact that you end up in a dictatorship. Likewise, having voted for a corporation that takes away freedoms does not make your opinion relevant: you are still not the one in control, and neither is anyone else who bought in.
- rchaud 1y ago
  Those "99%" wouldn't be affected by this change as they can continue to use Safari and the App Store exactly as they do now.
- const_cast 1y ago
  ... In which case literally nothing changes for you. You can keep using safari. I don't know what it is with this recent redefining of freedom to mean "the freedom to restrict others freedoms". Even if 99.9999% of users want to only use safari, ever, you don't need to only allow safari. There's no gun to your head making you download Firefox. Want to use a locked down browser? That's totally fine, that's always been allowed.
fennecfoxy 1y ago
The security thing is BS anyway; Apple aren't perfect at security and having only one option can make this worse. Google's Project Zero uncovered quite a few 0 days in Apple's "perfect" operating system. They're not magical wizard cult gods over there, they're just a buncha developers same as 'em all. And given the quality of what's been coming out of Apple _and_ Google recently sometimes I wonder if someone's dug a pit under their supposedly high bars they held in the 2010s. Even just Youtube is a disgustingly buggy app nowadays.
thewebguyd 1y ago
> One of the most outlandish one being that freedom to use your phone however you want would necessarily compromise security and privacy for everyone. I suppose in a round-a-bout way, it could, more specifically around iMessage, which is Apple's baby in the US and a big part of their lock in effect for US users. Right now, you can reasonably assume that using iMessage with another iPhone user that both ends are reasonably secure and private. Break open the walls of the garden and now you could say that you can't trust that the other end you are communicating with hasn't installed some random crapware or malware that's scraping their messages, or recording the screen during a facetime call, thereby compromising your own privacy by interacting with a bad devices. In that instance, Apple is correct - but what Apple doesn't tell people is that all other forms of digital communication are open to the same risks so they aren't special.
- mock-possum 1y ago
  Is iMessage really that big a deal to people, for privacy / security particularly? Practically speaking I can’t even tell the difference, apart from text messages sometimes failing to send, and getting the option to retry as SMS. If I want something private / secure, I use Signal.
  - Barbing 1y ago
    Folks do like renaming group chats, typing indicators, perhaps scheduled send (though too new to say without asking around). And it feels a little better, personally, sending an innocuous iMessage—even though I won't get in trouble if a stingray happens to pick up “gm” “Happy birthday!” “Kevin forgot the biscuits again!” over SMS. Self-destructing Signal for the most personal messages for sure. But SMS just feels dirty. Too exposed even if I’d shout the same message contents in a public square.
  - jandrewrogers 1y ago
    Yes, people use iMessage to securely share/collaborate on many objects in iOS, like a shared Apple Note. It is used for much more than just sending text messages back and forth. I use Signal but it leaves much to be desired relative to iMessage for a lot of uses.
Arainach 1y ago
>freedom to use your phone however you want would necessarily compromise security and privacy for everyone. For a large enough definition of "everyone", it would. "Everyone" has a Meta app installed. We've seen them pull evil tricks over and over to suck up data 24/7 - most recently running a local server on Android that their websites could talk to to bypass anonymization - and the moment a crack appears in the walled garden Meta will say "go install the FB/Instagram app from our app store with no privacy policy reviews" and a large enough definition of everybody will be much the worse for it.
- skeezyboy 1y ago
  i take it you dont use desktops or laptops then?
  - Arainach 1y ago
    I don't see the relevance of this question. Neither what I do nor whether I own a desktop/laptop impact the overwhelming trends of how society interacts with technology.
  - didacusc 1y ago
    Most people on desktops / laptops interact with these services via a web browser, which has very limited permissions on the system. Not sure how you could control that tightly on a fully open iOS.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      So iOS must allow web apps.
      - jmb99 1y ago
        It does, doesn't it? Even if you stretch "web app" to mean "PWA" iOS supports them. And it definitely supports the literal definition of "web app" (i.e. loading a website in a browser that runs JS or whatever to perform its "app" functionality).
Angostura 1y ago
You know what I got my parents an iPhone? To avoid having to worry about stuff. Now I have to worry about the inevitable phone call from ‘Apple Technical Support
resource_waste 1y ago
I remember when HN would literally shadowban you for suggesting they do this. Now with 'troll farms'/'reputation management' being so ubiquitous, we'd call Apple irresponsible to not be doing this.
didacusc 1y ago
On iOS, I can trust that pretty much everyone in my family won't download something silly that then creates a security hole in their devices. Not sure how you could guarantee that if you could load code post-review. What would be the point of the review, then? Wouldn't the App Store be littered with trojan horses in waiting?
- troupo 1y ago
  > Wouldn't the App Store be littered with trojan horses in waiting? It already is littered with outright scams, apps pretending to be other apps etc.

loa_in_ 1y ago

Freedom to use your phone however you like would make bug tracking on Apple's side more complicated and therefore more expensive and therefore it damages their profit bottom line. They would happily freeze development altogether if it was a feasible option.

nuker 1y ago

> ... freedom to use your phone however you want I want to use my phone locked down hard and apps reviewed by Apple. I sleep better with things as they are. I suspect 99% of normal users are in the same boat.

zakki 1y ago
Apple must provide opt-in or opt-out for the lockdown.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  The market provides these options already.
- nuker 1y ago
  Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work.
  - input_sh 1y ago
    Are they doing that on Android right now?
    - GeoAtreides 1y ago
      OP, nuker, please answer, i'm genuinely curious what you think about this
      - nuker 1y ago
        "Former Facebook insiders explain why the company is making such a big fuss over Apple's upcoming privacy change" https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset-about-apple-idfa-change-insiders-spill.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/11/why-facebook-is-so-upset... I have not heard similar tantrum from FB over Android. Makes sense as it is made by an Ad company.
        GeoAtreides 1y ago
        that was not the question the question was: You: >Then Facebook will grant its app all permission entitlements, and will direct all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work. input_sh: > Are they doing that on Android right now? So is Facebook granting its app all permission entitlements, and directing all users to opt-out lockdown for the app to work on Android?
        nuker 1y ago
        They don't, no need, Android works for them. They don't on iOS too, iOS alt app stores did not hit US yet. They will, if iOS alt stores will become global thing, or the hypothetical "lockdown opt-out", that started the whole thread.
      - mvdtnz 1y ago
        They never answer this one.
  - 1y ago
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Opt-in is at time of purchase
- didacusc 1y ago
  You can choose between a locked down system, iOS, and a free one, Android. No-one is forcing you to buy an Apple device.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    And you will get 20 times telemetry as a bonus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
frankvdwaal 1y ago
What you want is not relevant, because you have no choice. Apple depriving you of that choice may not inconvenience you, but you are still being deprived of that freedom in the first place. I suspect 100% of iPhone users are in the same boat.
- nuker 1y ago
  > What you want is not relevant, because you have no choice. You got this backwards. I chose Apple because of the choices they made and it suited me.
  - frankvdwaal 1y ago
    Electing a dictator because you like their policies does not change the fact that you end up in a dictatorship. Likewise, having voted for a corporation that takes away freedoms does not make your opinion relevant: you are still not the one in control, and neither is anyone else who bought in.
rchaud 1y ago
Those "99%" wouldn't be affected by this change as they can continue to use Safari and the App Store exactly as they do now.
const_cast 1y ago
... In which case literally nothing changes for you. You can keep using safari. I don't know what it is with this recent redefining of freedom to mean "the freedom to restrict others freedoms". Even if 99.9999% of users want to only use safari, ever, you don't need to only allow safari. There's no gun to your head making you download Firefox. Want to use a locked down browser? That's totally fine, that's always been allowed.

fennecfoxy 1y ago

The security thing is BS anyway; Apple aren't perfect at security and having only one option can make this worse. Google's Project Zero uncovered quite a few 0 days in Apple's "perfect" operating system. They're not magical wizard cult gods over there, they're just a buncha developers same as 'em all. And given the quality of what's been coming out of Apple _and_ Google recently sometimes I wonder if someone's dug a pit under their supposedly high bars they held in the 2010s. Even just Youtube is a disgustingly buggy app nowadays.

thewebguyd 1y ago

> One of the most outlandish one being that freedom to use your phone however you want would necessarily compromise security and privacy for everyone. I suppose in a round-a-bout way, it could, more specifically around iMessage, which is Apple's baby in the US and a big part of their lock in effect for US users. Right now, you can reasonably assume that using iMessage with another iPhone user that both ends are reasonably secure and private. Break open the walls of the garden and now you could say that you can't trust that the other end you are communicating with hasn't installed some random crapware or malware that's scraping their messages, or recording the screen during a facetime call, thereby compromising your own privacy by interacting with a bad devices. In that instance, Apple is correct - but what Apple doesn't tell people is that all other forms of digital communication are open to the same risks so they aren't special.

mock-possum 1y ago
Is iMessage really that big a deal to people, for privacy / security particularly? Practically speaking I can’t even tell the difference, apart from text messages sometimes failing to send, and getting the option to retry as SMS. If I want something private / secure, I use Signal.
- Barbing 1y ago
  Folks do like renaming group chats, typing indicators, perhaps scheduled send (though too new to say without asking around). And it feels a little better, personally, sending an innocuous iMessage—even though I won't get in trouble if a stingray happens to pick up “gm” “Happy birthday!” “Kevin forgot the biscuits again!” over SMS. Self-destructing Signal for the most personal messages for sure. But SMS just feels dirty. Too exposed even if I’d shout the same message contents in a public square.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Yes, people use iMessage to securely share/collaborate on many objects in iOS, like a shared Apple Note. It is used for much more than just sending text messages back and forth. I use Signal but it leaves much to be desired relative to iMessage for a lot of uses.

Arainach 1y ago

>freedom to use your phone however you want would necessarily compromise security and privacy for everyone. For a large enough definition of "everyone", it would. "Everyone" has a Meta app installed. We've seen them pull evil tricks over and over to suck up data 24/7 - most recently running a local server on Android that their websites could talk to to bypass anonymization - and the moment a crack appears in the walled garden Meta will say "go install the FB/Instagram app from our app store with no privacy policy reviews" and a large enough definition of everybody will be much the worse for it.

skeezyboy 1y ago
i take it you dont use desktops or laptops then?
- Arainach 1y ago
  I don't see the relevance of this question. Neither what I do nor whether I own a desktop/laptop impact the overwhelming trends of how society interacts with technology.
- didacusc 1y ago
  Most people on desktops / laptops interact with these services via a web browser, which has very limited permissions on the system. Not sure how you could control that tightly on a fully open iOS.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    So iOS must allow web apps.
    - jmb99 1y ago
      It does, doesn't it? Even if you stretch "web app" to mean "PWA" iOS supports them. And it definitely supports the literal definition of "web app" (i.e. loading a website in a browser that runs JS or whatever to perform its "app" functionality).

Angostura 1y ago

You know what I got my parents an iPhone? To avoid having to worry about stuff. Now I have to worry about the inevitable phone call from ‘Apple Technical Support

resource_waste 1y ago

I remember when HN would literally shadowban you for suggesting they do this. Now with 'troll farms'/'reputation management' being so ubiquitous, we'd call Apple irresponsible to not be doing this.

didacusc 1y ago

On iOS, I can trust that pretty much everyone in my family won't download something silly that then creates a security hole in their devices. Not sure how you could guarantee that if you could load code post-review. What would be the point of the review, then? Wouldn't the App Store be littered with trojan horses in waiting?

troupo 1y ago
> Wouldn't the App Store be littered with trojan horses in waiting? It already is littered with outright scams, apps pretending to be other apps etc.