7 ms·

Apple's Unlawful Evil

164 points by treadump 1y ago

codyb 1y ago
Thank you for writing this! It is getting harder and harder to continue buying Apple products and I have moved to buying refurbs as the electronics space is quite limited in options and the ecosystem lock in is real. It's a shame, because I was a huge fan of Apple's privacy stances and their work on accessibility. I emailed tim.cook@apple.com directly the day he stood behind Trump at his inauguration. Didn't get a bounce back, so maybe someone read it. Stand up, fight back!
- greatgib 1y ago
  Emailing Tim is like pissing in the wind... Vote and impact them with your money. Just don't buy their stuff. Buying refurb is not much better, because it still raise the value of their products and brand by showing that devices have a big second hand value so it worth to buy as it will not lose value. And also, you will be proudly showing off your Apple devices all around instead of setting an example.
  - codyb 1y ago
    Absolutely! I plan to slow purchases to the bare minimum as well. Sadly, there's not a ton of competition in the electronics space. And yea, refurbs bolster the market since it increases resale value. That being said, I'm doing something, and all these small actions add up when they're done by many. If we all piss in the wind a little, it can add up to a waterfall.
  - happymellon 1y ago
    Although Android followed the same path. With them out of the way we have Jolla? Which banking services support them because I don't think anything else is practical, is it?
    - greatgib 1y ago
      I'm trying a FuriPhone that is nice so far. Obviously a few limitations like always but you still have the escape hatch to run android apps in a sandbox when needed.
- karmelapple 1y ago
  Just like the ideal political candidate to vote for generally does not exist for anyone, the ideal company with perfect stances and behavior on everything generally does not exist. So yes, scale back your purchasing, but as you said: the options are limited, just like political candidates. Choose who matches up best with you, support them, but unlike your relationship to Apple, political participation has a VERY different piece. You can't just show up and start influencing policy at Apple headquarters. But you CAN just show up to some local organizing meetings of local grassroots organizations and political parties and influence things. You can have a direct impact, and these groups are usually small enough with few enough participants in your town that you WILL have a decent impact.
  - codyb 1y ago
    100 percent!
xutopia 1y ago
Apple folded way too easily to authoritarian demands and gives us no option to circumvent their walled garden. I've been a long time iPhone user (since the first one) and I'm not going to be purchasing another one.
- touwer 1y ago
  Same here
- giancarlostoro 1y ago
  Worth pointing out that Google is doing the same thing Apple is with app removals from their app store, and in the near future it will be harder to install apps outside of their walled garden.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Google has the AOSP. They did remove the ICEBlock app from their store, but unlike iOS, that was never going to fully remove the app from their ecosystem. If Google forcibly revoked the signature of the app, Android users can still build and access versions of Android with the app. Alternative app stores are a huge boon, but the real coup-de-grace is an Open Source OS.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      > If Google forcibly revoked the signature of the app, Android users can still build and access versions of Android with the app. The admin would effectively achieve their goals if they took the user base down to the 6 people willing to do this for ICEBlock
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      AOSP is a joke. This is coming from a custom rom user. Google has been squeezing custom roms for the past 10 years. They barely work, and this is both on purpose and unavoidable. Google shoves DRM anywhere they can get their grubby little hands into. Also, AOSP doesn't even run on any devices. Anywhere. You need mountains of supplemental proprietary blobs and Google systems to get it onto a phone. Also, Google is trying to kill all apps outside the play store anyway.
ravenstine 1y ago
I wouldn't see this issue as a problem if it weren't for Apple's stance that everything that can be installed on iOS has to come through App Store. If multiple stores were possible/viable for iOS, then the answer would have been to get said app elsewhere. Fundamentally, this is an issue not about Apple removing apps from their store that they don't want to host, but one of the right to do what you want with the devices you supposedly own.
- davorak 1y ago
  > f multiple stores were possible/viable for iOS Or if PWA's were reasonably supported
  - madeofpalk 1y ago
    What APIs is Safari/iOS lacking for ICEBlock to function as a website?
    - bitpush 1y ago
      Many, but one that comes to mind right now - you cant have an "app" icon on the home page. Which reduces discoverability a lot.
      - madeofpalk 1y ago
        Yes you can. You’ve been able to do that since before the App Store.
  - watermelon0 1y ago
    Why would we want to limit ourselves to PWAs? Being able to run arbitrary executable file has been the core feature of general-purpose computers since the beginning. I'd consider smart phones as being general-purposes, same as laptops/desktops/servers.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
This is one reason that it's important to keep the web free and open. In the inevitable one browser vendor future and every site on earth behind Cloudflare, it's not unthinkable that you'd be able to achieve this outside of Apple's walled garden too.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
abtinf 1y ago
It’s easy to blame private companies, like Apple and Disney. It’s harder to blame politicians, and harder still to blame the root of their power: the people. And it’s hardest of all to blame yourself. Show me the article that calls these companies evil for caving into political pressure and refusing to immolate themselves, that also argues to neuter government power so that the companies don’t face existential threats from the whims of whatever gang happens to run the show in the moment. Nope, instead every time there is an implicit argument that even more political power and guns and force are needed.
- Ar-Curunir 1y ago
  Yes, hidden in this post that complains against violent government thugs, there is actually an argument for more violent government thugs!
- NaomiLehman 1y ago
  Yes. I would say this is true for every corporation. And big corporations must abide by the rules of the system because they have A LOT to lose. They get a lot of free stuff from the government. And then there is pressure to make higher revenue every year.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    > And big corporations must abide by the rules of the system This wasn’t about written rules. Obeying a social media post by a joke of an attorney general is apparently now the standard Apple hold themselves to.
    - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
      Politics is rarely about written rules.
- troupo 1y ago
  You wrote this under an article which literally blames the government and literally opens with the following description of ICE "... masked snatch-squads who illegally terrorize brown people in America's cities, capitulating to a warrantless demand from Trump's DoJ boss Pam Bondi"
Terr_ 1y ago
> When China turned on Google's users, Google left the country. When the European Union ordered Apple to open up to third party app stores, Apple threatened to leave Europe[.] But when Pam Bondi ordered Apple and Google to help her round up their own customers, Brin and Cook didn't even ask for a court order. > You could not ask for a better example of the failure of feudal security. Nor could you ask for a better rebuttal to the "Surveillance Capitalism" claim that Google is a "rogue capitalist" (because it spies on you for profit) while Apple is a good capitalist (because they extract money, not private data): Hear-hear! As always, in many ways this isn't a "bad actor" problem (or at least, not just that) but rather a legal problem of monopolies and individuals not being able to really own what they bought.
troupo 1y ago
> Working VPN apps for the entire nation of China. And Russia: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/09/25/apple-removes-nearly-60-additional-vpns-from-its-russian-app-store-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/09/25/apple-removes-ne... There's only one government that Apple fights with every single weapon in its arsenal: the EU.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  People in Europe that buy Apple products are acting against their own best interests. Apple wouldn't need to make fake threats of leaving EU if people just didn't buy their shitty toys.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
gjsman-1000 1y ago
In recent discussions about technology, I've come to feel that there's a persistent and flawed belief in "technical utopianism" - not the beautiful future of 2050 kind - but the idea that we can use technology to solve political problems. For example, we might think that tools like ICEBlock can solve the issue of ICE, or that duress PINs on GrapheneOS can protect whistleblowers, or that VPNs in China can defeat censorship. While these technologies can certainly help mitigate specific challenges, they don't address the underlying political issues. They also often backfire - ICEBlock could theoretically be subpoenaed, duress PIN use can come with mandatory prison sentences, VPNs in China can be detected and blocked at a network level, then traced back to your SIM card. Historically, technological solutions alone have not resolved political problems. At best, they act as temporary workarounds. To believe otherwise risks oversimplifying complex social and political dynamics, which contributes to the us-versus-them, good-versus-evil narrative that almost never holds in reality. The banning of technological solutions does not necessarily push us towards a more authoritarian future, but forces us to confront reality without a band-aid. This also causes any restraint on such technological solutions to become rather confused. For example, the article calls out Apple for blocking and removing VPNs in China as "evil." Tell me, what's the alternative? Apple defies the Chinese government, allows VPNs, gets iPhones blocked from all carrier networks in seconds, has their Chinese employees arrested, and almost everyone is forced to use spyware-infested Huawei devices? Amazing moral stand there. Same with ICEBlock - if Apple didn't ban it, who is to say their server company, or the author himself, wouldn't receive a visit?
- xorvoid 1y ago
  That's not the issue in my view. It's an issue of fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech and freedom to control your own device and your own data. Freedom to decide for yourself how you use it to communicate with others. The problem boils down to Apple's consolidatation of power in their walled garden. The fact that they can unilaterally decide to ban an app that people want to run. The fact that an authotarian government can simply apply pressure to manifest their will. If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it. It's about separation/distribution of power.
dllrr 1y ago
[flagged]
ntoskrnl_exe 1y ago
It's rooted in what smartphones are and have been since 2007, locked-down rectangles where the user has minimal control over the software. On a PC anybody can install anything, be it a program or operating system, this wouldn't be an issue if smartphones worked the same way. I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before somebody tries to extend this to the world of computers.
floundy 1y ago
Lmao, any comments critical of the piece are being flagged immediately, faster than anybody can even write a reply to them. Remind me again how HN isn't just Reddit-lite? This is a political soapbox piece falsely equivocating the author's opinions with facts and reasonable interpretations. Google also deleted ICEBlock, where's Doctorow's "Google's Unlawful Evil" piece? Did anybody seriously still think that mega tech companies are anybody's friends?
- soapdog 1y ago
  He literally mentions google doing the same in the article...
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  I don’t care for the sneering tone either, but the fact is people expect more from Apple due to their marketing.
legitster 1y ago
This reminds me of that incident in 2015 where two police officers were shot and killed in a targeted stack after someone tracked them down using Waze. Police unions put a bunch of pressure on Google to remove the police tracking functionality. So on one hand, there is a legitimate precedent to be concerned about this being used for targeted attacks. But also Google never caved to pressure in that situation, and the benefits and legal rights seem much more important than the risks.
robotresearcher 1y ago
Perhaps someone could release a source code app that fills this gap. Apple provides the tools to sideload software you build from source in Xcode, whether it’s your own code or someone else’s. You have to use a Mac, and with an unpaid account there are limitations like app signing timing out after a week. It’s much more hassle than the App Store, but you can run whatever you want for free if you build it yourself. I know it’s not the same as ‘download app and tap on it’, but it’s possible. iPhone developers do it all the time.
- watermelon0 1y ago
  Some entitlements require developer account and getting explicit approval from Apple before you can actually use them in a development build on an actual iOS device. Granted, the vast majority of apps don't have such needs, but it's something to keep in mind.
- lemoncucumber 1y ago
  The app in question relies on the network effect (lots of people crowdsourcing information) so introducing that much friction would kill its usefulness. 99% of users wouldn’t jump through the hoops, and without enough users the app is useless.
drcongo 1y ago
I will never understand why this bloke's awful hot takes get posted here so often, especially when he's doing the old "Apple" in the headline for the clickbait despite eventually admitting Google have done exactly the same thing.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  I personally despise Doctorow's writing, but this seems pretty damn pertinent to the status quo of computing.
tantalor 1y ago
This article is a bit hyperbolic. > Apple claims that it must be able to override its customers' choices about which software they'd like to run, lest those customers make foolish software choices and compromise their own security This is putting words in their mouth. Here's their actual statement: > We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place to discover apps. Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store This is a perfectly reasonable and cogent statement, and you can easily challenge this on multiple points: 1. Apple is being too credulous with the claim about any safety risk. This should meet a high burden such as demonstrated actual harm, not hypothetical ponderings. 2. The current administration has been proven as liars many times, and deals in misinformation, so their claims can be dismissed a priori. 3. There is a legitimate use even for apps that pose a "safety risk". Users can make informed choices whether they want to engage with those apps. Some examples: generative AI can be used to create false and misleading images; ride-sharing and dating apps can put users in risky situations with strangers.
- lapcat 1y ago
  Or: 4. Apple is simply lying. The reality is that Apple has a corrupt financial relationship with the administration, involving both carrots and sticks. Billions of dollars are at stake. Trump can offer Apple exemption from tariffs, protection from regulation and regulatory action (for example, labor laws), threats to the EU to protect Apple from DMA fines, massive corporate tax cuts, etc. Trump can also punish Apple in various ways that we've seen him punish others. The underlying issue has nothing specifically to do with ICEBlock. The administration wanted to get rid of the app, and Apple did them a favor, helping to preserve Apple's overall financial interests.
  - tantalor 1y ago
    Yes I think this is the most likely answer. But I was trying to give Apple a little more credibility. They have the right to police the app store, but they need to be careful with that power.
crossroadsguy 1y ago
I am not sure whether people defending Apple (or trying to play the devil's advocate here; or a "rational" voice) is plain simple naivety, or part of the ingrained corporate worship culture, or just good old insensitive. Maybe a bit of all — a healthy mix, you know.
hedora 1y ago
This article is currently flagged for some reason, but here’s a productive suggestion. Maybe it’ll get unflagged: If you’re building a phone app, make sure the progressive web app version has feature parity. I’m extremely late to the party, but recently found react native, and my software runs on android, ios, pwa, macos, windows and linux, “for free”. This not only bypasses potential future app store censorship, but, with critical mass, is an enabling technology for “daily driver” quality open source (or at least not ios/android) phones. Are there other enabling technologies like this that I should know about?
- throw0101a 1y ago
  > If you’re building a phone app, make sure the progressive web app version has feature parity. The problem in this specific case is privacy protections: > Aaron told The Verge ICEBlock is built around a single database in iCloud. When a user taps on the map to report ICE sightings, the location data is added to that database, and users within five miles are automatically sent a push notification alerting them. Push notifications require developers to have some way of designating which devices receive them, and while Aaron declined to say precisely how the notifications function, he said alerts are sent through Apple’s system, not ICEBlock’s, letting him avoid keeping his own database of users or their devices. “We utilized iCloud in kind of a creative way,” Aaron said. [...] * https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/707116/iceblock-data-privacy-security-android-version https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/707116/iceblock-data... The app developer does not want to keep a database of people on who to notify (and track their location for "near-by" locations).
  - hedora 1y ago
    So, turn off the web server logs. I wonder if there are tor proxies that accept incoming https, and forward to service endpoints that opt in. That’d help. Anyway, the first step is getting it working at all.
    - throw0101a 1y ago
      > So, turn off the web server logs. You need a database of everyone who signs up for the service so you can know who to send notifications to. That database needs some kind of unique ID plus a regular location updates. That's a tempting target to go after, as it's a list of potential ICE targets plus 'political sympathizers'. The app developer does not (AIUI) want the responsibility of keeping that database secure against attack, exposure, or warrant requests.
frizlab 1y ago
> Apple also uses its app store control to block rival browser engines (every browser on iOS is just a reskinned version of Safari). Yeah, that’s a good thing to prevent browser monopoly. > Apple's own browser engine, Webkit, is riddled with longstanding, grave security vulnerabilities, and there is no way to distribute more secure browsers on iOS. Adding a new browser will just increase the attack vector. Especially since webkit is used everywhere in iOS, not just in Safari…
- bruckie 1y ago
  > Adding a new browser will just increase the attack vector. More potential ways to attack? Sure. More actual attacks in practice? Not necessarily. Let's imagine we have a hypothetical 100% secure browser, and we can get people to use it 50% of the time on on iOS. Then 50% of potential attacks become impossible. It doesn't matter that vulnerable Safari is hanging out in another part of the OS if attackers can't actually get their code to run in that context.
  - frizlab 1y ago
    Except you ignored my second point which is the browser is in use throughout the system anyway. Yes it would be less likely to attack but still possible. Also a 100% safe browser does not and will never happen.
    - bruckie 1y ago
      I didn't ignore it, but perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is that if Safari is in use throughout the system, but used, say, 50% less often (vs. a hypothetical 100% secure browser), then 50% of the time attacks that were previously feasible become infeasible. Frequency / probability of usage matters, not just whether something is installed. And yes, a 100% safe browser is a fiction (thus "imagine" and "hypothetical"). But I think it's possible that another browser could be vulnerable to fewer attacks than Safari. I think we're in agreement: adding a new browser increases the number of vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited (assuming the new browser isn't 100% secure, which will always be the case in practice). And at the same time, moving some usage to a more secure browser makes attacks less likely in practice. I think the latter is more important than the former.
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333
b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
People are blaming the locked down nature of the App Store but if the government really wanted to stop a specific online activity, making it a website or PWA isn't gonna save it. The issue is the government having this type of control.
- hedora 1y ago
  How so? This was a clearly illegal takedown order from a government agency with zero authority in this matter. Also, plenty of sites survive legitimate US court orders.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dang 1y ago
Related. Others? Legal experts condemn Apple bowing to White House's request to remove ICEBlock - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45480422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45480422 - Oct 2025 (32 comments) Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45472799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45472799 - Oct 2025 (128 comments) Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 - Oct 2025 (560 comments)

164 points by treadump 1y ago

Thank you for writing this! It is getting harder and harder to continue buying Apple products and I have moved to buying refurbs as the electronics space is quite limited in options and the ecosystem lock in is real. It's a shame, because I was a huge fan of Apple's privacy stances and their work on accessibility. I emailed tim.cook@apple.com directly the day he stood behind Trump at his inauguration. Didn't get a bounce back, so maybe someone read it. Stand up, fight back!

greatgib 1y ago
Emailing Tim is like pissing in the wind... Vote and impact them with your money. Just don't buy their stuff. Buying refurb is not much better, because it still raise the value of their products and brand by showing that devices have a big second hand value so it worth to buy as it will not lose value. And also, you will be proudly showing off your Apple devices all around instead of setting an example.
- codyb 1y ago
  Absolutely! I plan to slow purchases to the bare minimum as well. Sadly, there's not a ton of competition in the electronics space. And yea, refurbs bolster the market since it increases resale value. That being said, I'm doing something, and all these small actions add up when they're done by many. If we all piss in the wind a little, it can add up to a waterfall.
- happymellon 1y ago
  Although Android followed the same path. With them out of the way we have Jolla? Which banking services support them because I don't think anything else is practical, is it?
  - greatgib 1y ago
    I'm trying a FuriPhone that is nice so far. Obviously a few limitations like always but you still have the escape hatch to run android apps in a sandbox when needed.
karmelapple 1y ago
Just like the ideal political candidate to vote for generally does not exist for anyone, the ideal company with perfect stances and behavior on everything generally does not exist. So yes, scale back your purchasing, but as you said: the options are limited, just like political candidates. Choose who matches up best with you, support them, but unlike your relationship to Apple, political participation has a VERY different piece. You can't just show up and start influencing policy at Apple headquarters. But you CAN just show up to some local organizing meetings of local grassroots organizations and political parties and influence things. You can have a direct impact, and these groups are usually small enough with few enough participants in your town that you WILL have a decent impact.
- codyb 1y ago
  100 percent!

xutopia 1y ago

Apple folded way too easily to authoritarian demands and gives us no option to circumvent their walled garden. I've been a long time iPhone user (since the first one) and I'm not going to be purchasing another one.

touwer 1y ago
Same here
giancarlostoro 1y ago
Worth pointing out that Google is doing the same thing Apple is with app removals from their app store, and in the near future it will be harder to install apps outside of their walled garden.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Google has the AOSP. They did remove the ICEBlock app from their store, but unlike iOS, that was never going to fully remove the app from their ecosystem. If Google forcibly revoked the signature of the app, Android users can still build and access versions of Android with the app. Alternative app stores are a huge boon, but the real coup-de-grace is an Open Source OS.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    > If Google forcibly revoked the signature of the app, Android users can still build and access versions of Android with the app. The admin would effectively achieve their goals if they took the user base down to the 6 people willing to do this for ICEBlock
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    AOSP is a joke. This is coming from a custom rom user. Google has been squeezing custom roms for the past 10 years. They barely work, and this is both on purpose and unavoidable. Google shoves DRM anywhere they can get their grubby little hands into. Also, AOSP doesn't even run on any devices. Anywhere. You need mountains of supplemental proprietary blobs and Google systems to get it onto a phone. Also, Google is trying to kill all apps outside the play store anyway.

ravenstine 1y ago

I wouldn't see this issue as a problem if it weren't for Apple's stance that everything that can be installed on iOS has to come through App Store. If multiple stores were possible/viable for iOS, then the answer would have been to get said app elsewhere. Fundamentally, this is an issue not about Apple removing apps from their store that they don't want to host, but one of the right to do what you want with the devices you supposedly own.

davorak 1y ago
> f multiple stores were possible/viable for iOS Or if PWA's were reasonably supported
- madeofpalk 1y ago
  What APIs is Safari/iOS lacking for ICEBlock to function as a website?
  - bitpush 1y ago
    Many, but one that comes to mind right now - you cant have an "app" icon on the home page. Which reduces discoverability a lot.
    - madeofpalk 1y ago
      Yes you can. You’ve been able to do that since before the App Store.
- watermelon0 1y ago
  Why would we want to limit ourselves to PWAs? Being able to run arbitrary executable file has been the core feature of general-purpose computers since the beginning. I'd consider smart phones as being general-purposes, same as laptops/desktops/servers.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago

fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago

This is one reason that it's important to keep the web free and open. In the inevitable one browser vendor future and every site on earth behind Cloudflare, it's not unthinkable that you'd be able to achieve this outside of Apple's walled garden too.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

abtinf 1y ago

It’s easy to blame private companies, like Apple and Disney. It’s harder to blame politicians, and harder still to blame the root of their power: the people. And it’s hardest of all to blame yourself. Show me the article that calls these companies evil for caving into political pressure and refusing to immolate themselves, that also argues to neuter government power so that the companies don’t face existential threats from the whims of whatever gang happens to run the show in the moment. Nope, instead every time there is an implicit argument that even more political power and guns and force are needed.

Ar-Curunir 1y ago
Yes, hidden in this post that complains against violent government thugs, there is actually an argument for more violent government thugs!
NaomiLehman 1y ago
Yes. I would say this is true for every corporation. And big corporations must abide by the rules of the system because they have A LOT to lose. They get a lot of free stuff from the government. And then there is pressure to make higher revenue every year.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > And big corporations must abide by the rules of the system This wasn’t about written rules. Obeying a social media post by a joke of an attorney general is apparently now the standard Apple hold themselves to.
  - b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
    Politics is rarely about written rules.
troupo 1y ago
You wrote this under an article which literally blames the government and literally opens with the following description of ICE "... masked snatch-squads who illegally terrorize brown people in America's cities, capitulating to a warrantless demand from Trump's DoJ boss Pam Bondi"

Terr_ 1y ago

> When China turned on Google's users, Google left the country. When the European Union ordered Apple to open up to third party app stores, Apple threatened to leave Europe[.] But when Pam Bondi ordered Apple and Google to help her round up their own customers, Brin and Cook didn't even ask for a court order. > You could not ask for a better example of the failure of feudal security. Nor could you ask for a better rebuttal to the "Surveillance Capitalism" claim that Google is a "rogue capitalist" (because it spies on you for profit) while Apple is a good capitalist (because they extract money, not private data): Hear-hear! As always, in many ways this isn't a "bad actor" problem (or at least, not just that) but rather a legal problem of monopolies and individuals not being able to really own what they bought.

troupo 1y ago

> Working VPN apps for the entire nation of China. And Russia: https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/09/25/apple-removes-nearly-60-additional-vpns-from-its-russian-app-store-en-news https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/09/25/apple-removes-ne... There's only one government that Apple fights with every single weapon in its arsenal: the EU.

surgical_fire 1y ago
People in Europe that buy Apple products are acting against their own best interests. Apple wouldn't need to make fake threats of leaving EU if people just didn't buy their shitty toys.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

gjsman-1000 1y ago

In recent discussions about technology, I've come to feel that there's a persistent and flawed belief in "technical utopianism" - not the beautiful future of 2050 kind - but the idea that we can use technology to solve political problems. For example, we might think that tools like ICEBlock can solve the issue of ICE, or that duress PINs on GrapheneOS can protect whistleblowers, or that VPNs in China can defeat censorship. While these technologies can certainly help mitigate specific challenges, they don't address the underlying political issues. They also often backfire - ICEBlock could theoretically be subpoenaed, duress PIN use can come with mandatory prison sentences, VPNs in China can be detected and blocked at a network level, then traced back to your SIM card. Historically, technological solutions alone have not resolved political problems. At best, they act as temporary workarounds. To believe otherwise risks oversimplifying complex social and political dynamics, which contributes to the us-versus-them, good-versus-evil narrative that almost never holds in reality. The banning of technological solutions does not necessarily push us towards a more authoritarian future, but forces us to confront reality without a band-aid. This also causes any restraint on such technological solutions to become rather confused. For example, the article calls out Apple for blocking and removing VPNs in China as "evil." Tell me, what's the alternative? Apple defies the Chinese government, allows VPNs, gets iPhones blocked from all carrier networks in seconds, has their Chinese employees arrested, and almost everyone is forced to use spyware-infested Huawei devices? Amazing moral stand there. Same with ICEBlock - if Apple didn't ban it, who is to say their server company, or the author himself, wouldn't receive a visit?

xorvoid 1y ago
That's not the issue in my view. It's an issue of fundamental freedoms. Freedom of speech and freedom to control your own device and your own data. Freedom to decide for yourself how you use it to communicate with others. The problem boils down to Apple's consolidatation of power in their walled garden. The fact that they can unilaterally decide to ban an app that people want to run. The fact that an authotarian government can simply apply pressure to manifest their will. If Apple didn't have such a closed walled-gardrn, they'd be unable to do it even if they wanted to; even if an authotarian regime demanded it. It's about separation/distribution of power.

dllrr 1y ago

[flagged]

ntoskrnl_exe 1y ago

It's rooted in what smartphones are and have been since 2007, locked-down rectangles where the user has minimal control over the software. On a PC anybody can install anything, be it a program or operating system, this wouldn't be an issue if smartphones worked the same way. I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before somebody tries to extend this to the world of computers.

floundy 1y ago

Lmao, any comments critical of the piece are being flagged immediately, faster than anybody can even write a reply to them. Remind me again how HN isn't just Reddit-lite? This is a political soapbox piece falsely equivocating the author's opinions with facts and reasonable interpretations. Google also deleted ICEBlock, where's Doctorow's "Google's Unlawful Evil" piece? Did anybody seriously still think that mega tech companies are anybody's friends?

soapdog 1y ago
He literally mentions google doing the same in the article...
mixmastamyk 1y ago
I don’t care for the sneering tone either, but the fact is people expect more from Apple due to their marketing.

legitster 1y ago

This reminds me of that incident in 2015 where two police officers were shot and killed in a targeted stack after someone tracked them down using Waze. Police unions put a bunch of pressure on Google to remove the police tracking functionality. So on one hand, there is a legitimate precedent to be concerned about this being used for targeted attacks. But also Google never caved to pressure in that situation, and the benefits and legal rights seem much more important than the risks.

robotresearcher 1y ago

Perhaps someone could release a source code app that fills this gap. Apple provides the tools to sideload software you build from source in Xcode, whether it’s your own code or someone else’s. You have to use a Mac, and with an unpaid account there are limitations like app signing timing out after a week. It’s much more hassle than the App Store, but you can run whatever you want for free if you build it yourself. I know it’s not the same as ‘download app and tap on it’, but it’s possible. iPhone developers do it all the time.

watermelon0 1y ago
Some entitlements require developer account and getting explicit approval from Apple before you can actually use them in a development build on an actual iOS device. Granted, the vast majority of apps don't have such needs, but it's something to keep in mind.
lemoncucumber 1y ago
The app in question relies on the network effect (lots of people crowdsourcing information) so introducing that much friction would kill its usefulness. 99% of users wouldn’t jump through the hoops, and without enough users the app is useless.

drcongo 1y ago

I will never understand why this bloke's awful hot takes get posted here so often, especially when he's doing the old "Apple" in the headline for the clickbait despite eventually admitting Google have done exactly the same thing.

bigyabai 1y ago
I personally despise Doctorow's writing, but this seems pretty damn pertinent to the status quo of computing.

tantalor 1y ago

This article is a bit hyperbolic. > Apple claims that it must be able to override its customers' choices about which software they'd like to run, lest those customers make foolish software choices and compromise their own security This is putting words in their mouth. Here's their actual statement: > We created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place to discover apps. Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store This is a perfectly reasonable and cogent statement, and you can easily challenge this on multiple points: 1. Apple is being too credulous with the claim about any safety risk. This should meet a high burden such as demonstrated actual harm, not hypothetical ponderings. 2. The current administration has been proven as liars many times, and deals in misinformation, so their claims can be dismissed a priori. 3. There is a legitimate use even for apps that pose a "safety risk". Users can make informed choices whether they want to engage with those apps. Some examples: generative AI can be used to create false and misleading images; ride-sharing and dating apps can put users in risky situations with strangers.

lapcat 1y ago
Or: 4. Apple is simply lying. The reality is that Apple has a corrupt financial relationship with the administration, involving both carrots and sticks. Billions of dollars are at stake. Trump can offer Apple exemption from tariffs, protection from regulation and regulatory action (for example, labor laws), threats to the EU to protect Apple from DMA fines, massive corporate tax cuts, etc. Trump can also punish Apple in various ways that we've seen him punish others. The underlying issue has nothing specifically to do with ICEBlock. The administration wanted to get rid of the app, and Apple did them a favor, helping to preserve Apple's overall financial interests.
- tantalor 1y ago
  Yes I think this is the most likely answer. But I was trying to give Apple a little more credibility. They have the right to police the app store, but they need to be careful with that power.

crossroadsguy 1y ago

I am not sure whether people defending Apple (or trying to play the devil's advocate here; or a "rational" voice) is plain simple naivety, or part of the ingrained corporate worship culture, or just good old insensitive. Maybe a bit of all — a healthy mix, you know.

hedora 1y ago

This article is currently flagged for some reason, but here’s a productive suggestion. Maybe it’ll get unflagged: If you’re building a phone app, make sure the progressive web app version has feature parity. I’m extremely late to the party, but recently found react native, and my software runs on android, ios, pwa, macos, windows and linux, “for free”. This not only bypasses potential future app store censorship, but, with critical mass, is an enabling technology for “daily driver” quality open source (or at least not ios/android) phones. Are there other enabling technologies like this that I should know about?

throw0101a 1y ago
> If you’re building a phone app, make sure the progressive web app version has feature parity. The problem in this specific case is privacy protections: > Aaron told The Verge ICEBlock is built around a single database in iCloud. When a user taps on the map to report ICE sightings, the location data is added to that database, and users within five miles are automatically sent a push notification alerting them. Push notifications require developers to have some way of designating which devices receive them, and while Aaron declined to say precisely how the notifications function, he said alerts are sent through Apple’s system, not ICEBlock’s, letting him avoid keeping his own database of users or their devices. “We utilized iCloud in kind of a creative way,” Aaron said. [...] * https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/707116/iceblock-data-privacy-security-android-version https://www.theverge.com/cyber-security/707116/iceblock-data... The app developer does not want to keep a database of people on who to notify (and track their location for "near-by" locations).
- hedora 1y ago
  So, turn off the web server logs. I wonder if there are tor proxies that accept incoming https, and forward to service endpoints that opt in. That’d help. Anyway, the first step is getting it working at all.
  - throw0101a 1y ago
    > So, turn off the web server logs. You need a database of everyone who signs up for the service so you can know who to send notifications to. That database needs some kind of unique ID plus a regular location updates. That's a tempting target to go after, as it's a list of potential ICE targets plus 'political sympathizers'. The app developer does not (AIUI) want the responsibility of keeping that database secure against attack, exposure, or warrant requests.

frizlab 1y ago

> Apple also uses its app store control to block rival browser engines (every browser on iOS is just a reskinned version of Safari). Yeah, that’s a good thing to prevent browser monopoly. > Apple's own browser engine, Webkit, is riddled with longstanding, grave security vulnerabilities, and there is no way to distribute more secure browsers on iOS. Adding a new browser will just increase the attack vector. Especially since webkit is used everywhere in iOS, not just in Safari…

bruckie 1y ago
> Adding a new browser will just increase the attack vector. More potential ways to attack? Sure. More actual attacks in practice? Not necessarily. Let's imagine we have a hypothetical 100% secure browser, and we can get people to use it 50% of the time on on iOS. Then 50% of potential attacks become impossible. It doesn't matter that vulnerable Safari is hanging out in another part of the OS if attackers can't actually get their code to run in that context.
- frizlab 1y ago
  Except you ignored my second point which is the browser is in use throughout the system anyway. Yes it would be less likely to attack but still possible. Also a 100% safe browser does not and will never happen.
  - bruckie 1y ago
    I didn't ignore it, but perhaps I wasn't clear. My point is that if Safari is in use throughout the system, but used, say, 50% less often (vs. a hypothetical 100% secure browser), then 50% of the time attacks that were previously feasible become infeasible. Frequency / probability of usage matters, not just whether something is installed. And yes, a 100% safe browser is a fiction (thus "imagine" and "hypothetical"). But I think it's possible that another browser could be vulnerable to fewer attacks than Safari. I think we're in agreement: adding a new browser increases the number of vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited (assuming the new browser isn't 100% secure, which will always be the case in practice). And at the same time, moving some usage to a more secure browser makes attacks less likely in practice. I think the latter is more important than the former.

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

People are blaming the locked down nature of the App Store but if the government really wanted to stop a specific online activity, making it a website or PWA isn't gonna save it. The issue is the government having this type of control.

hedora 1y ago
How so? This was a clearly illegal takedown order from a government agency with zero authority in this matter. Also, plenty of sites survive legitimate US court orders.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dang 1y ago

Related. Others? Legal experts condemn Apple bowing to White House's request to remove ICEBlock - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45480422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45480422 - Oct 2025 (32 comments) Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45472799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45472799 - Oct 2025 (128 comments) Apple takes down ICE tracking apps after pressure from DOJ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45457333 - Oct 2025 (560 comments)