6 ms·

Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

146 points by baobun 1y ago

al_borland 1y ago
[flagged]
baobun 1y ago
Relatedly, Eyes Up has been removed from AppStore by Apple. Unfortunately 404 Media are softbanned on HN and the ones reporting here. Apple Banned an App That Simply Archived Videos of ICE Abuses https://www.404media.co/apple-banned-an-app-that-simply-archived-videos-of-ice-abuses/ https://www.404media.co/apple-banned-an-app-that-simply-arch... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520110 https://eyesupapp.com/ https://eyesupapp.com/
- uhgseyjnn 1y ago
  Why is 404 media banned?
  - tyleo 1y ago
    I asked ChatGPT and it linked me to a post dang responded to. It’s related to their paywall. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.
      - estimator7292 1y ago
        If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
        DangitBobby 1y ago
        Because they need money to continue to exist
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them? Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine. The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free. So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.
    - garbagewoman 1y ago
      Their paywall is no different to any other paywall, so it is clearly not because of the paywall
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
    - baobun 1y ago
      "Softbanned" here means that it comes dead-on-submission without any users actually flagging it, requiring vouches from multiple other users to get back to baseline. Those submissions you saw likely either had enough vouchers lurching new with showdead or a mod blessing. EDIT: See sibling comment. In dangs words, they are banned.
    - garbagewoman 1y ago
      It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason
xg15 1y ago
Corporations are people and militarized police is a discriminated minority. Welcome to the right-wing funhouse mirror version of civil rights...
khelavastr 1y ago
It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.
- JohnTHaller 1y ago
  > not upsetting groups Have you been following Apple's China policies and decisions?
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Source: https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-agents https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-ag... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066)
cozzyd 1y ago
Maybe we should start calling it iceOS
- 8bitsrule 1y ago
  Maybe we should stop using its 'solutions'. All of them.
like_any_other 1y ago
For anyone remotely surprised: Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-china-tv-protesters-hong-kong-tim-cook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch... Apple quietly deletes nearly a hundred VPNs that allowed Russians to get around censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728 Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secret-deal-with-china/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr... Apple telemetry on every app opened - https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u... Apple is notoriously strict with App Store rules, but gives China’s WeChat a free pass - https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-app-store-wechat-china https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-app-store-wechat-china Apple drops Hong Kong police-tracking app used by protesters - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688 Last week, the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove several widely used messaging apps—WhatsApp, Threads, Signal, and Telegram—from its app store. [..] In a statement, Apple said that it was told to remove the apps because of “national security concerns,” adding that it is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” [but they don't disagree so much that they'd stop locking their devices against their users] - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_censorship.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_cen... Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.
- ksec 1y ago
  At the same time they are happy to play the defender of Human Right. Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is A Fundamental Human Right'. - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/445026470/apple-ceo-tim-cook-privacy-is-a-fundamental-human-right https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/44...
goatlover 1y ago
Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.
- NaomiLehman 1y ago
  I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime. I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?" > Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
  - Crushable-E 1y ago
    I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.
    - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
      They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws. If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.
      - tremon 1y ago
        Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.
        throwawaylaptop 1y ago
        What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously. Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years. A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16 year old into sex. Heavily contested). Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.
tyleo 1y ago
This headline feels loaded. “Protected class” has a legal definition. “Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use. This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
- intermerda 1y ago
  I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement. This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
  - tyleo 1y ago
    It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up. > This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
    - watwut 1y ago
      > Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.
      - tyleo 1y ago
        I’m sorry if that’s been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. Conversation here feels notably more fact-based than X or Facebook.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
There's a national security argument for the EU banning non-European app stores.
- 827a 1y ago
  100%. There is even a very strong national security argument for the US Government allowing Apple this level of control over the hardware that ~200 million Americans carry.
derbOac 1y ago
Ok so what do we do? I'm serious. I'm sick of this corruption.
- fsflover 1y ago
  Support https://eff.org https://eff.org and switch to a GNU/Linux phone.
  - SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
    Would be safer to use GrapheneOS and distribute these apps on F-Droid, using a custom repo if the main one won't allow them.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      I'm not sure it's safer if you consider their tight dependence on Google, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925
- deafpolygon 1y ago
  A good question. One I don't have any clean answers to. A lot of folks will have a knee-jerk 'switch to linux' response, but that's not exactly that simple - is it?
  - fsflover 1y ago
    It is, unless you rely on apps strongly tied to Apple (which you avoid anyway).
- onlyhumans 1y ago
  Can host it on a website. Why bother with an app?
  - cma 1y ago
    To get notifications one site says: "You’ll also need to configure some things (primarily service workers and integration with Apple's Push API) in the backend code of your Progressive Web App to handle push notifications (and permissions received from users)." Does Apple allow integration with the Push API for everyone or same limitations that got this removed from stores?
827a 1y ago
I'm generally very anti-Apple when it comes to their draconian control over the code I'm allowed to execute on hardware I've purchased. However, I'm going to devil's advocate this situation for a minute (and I do mean the devil, because that is what Apple is): Very broadly speaking, my position that I feel strongly on is: Apple should enjoy a right to distribute or restrict whatever apps they want through their app store. They might have a reasonable right to restrict what apps can be installed on their operating system and the means through which those apps are installed; I could be convinced either way depending on the day and I would not lose sleep if precedence is established in either direction. But they absolutely should not have any rights when it comes to restricting what operating systems I can run on their devices. I outline that only to state the context and framework within which the next paragraph is typed. If Apple doesn't want to carry and distribute the anti-ICE app, I think that's their right. Apple's problem right now is that this unilaterally now means that the native application can no longer be executed on iOS, and that is a problem, but let's pretend like it isn't and that this app is now only available through the Epic Games App Store (or wherever). Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities. Phrase this another way, flip this on its head: the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables, which I feel are not natural rights developers should have when making applications. Its similar to freedom of speech; you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be heard. You should have a right for your app to be available (not all apps can be web apps; but this can). You should not have a right to ultra-streamlined distribution through Apple's servers. I understand why this is a flashpoint, and I think its important that we push Apple on this issue because there should be more options when it comes to running code on mobile devices. However, functionally speaking: Y'all should just make this a web site.
- saurik 1y ago
  > ...but let's pretend like it isn't... You can't just do this. If you assume 1=2 all of math falls apart, and the same is true when you assume obviously un-true facts: the reason all of this matters at all is only because Apple wants to ban this kind of software from being native AT ALL, not merely because they don't want to themselves distribute something they dislike. I'd happily stand up to defend their right to do the latter if-and-only-if they stop doing the former, and you can't separate these two issues. > ...the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables... And so like, here: I don't care if the app doesn't get to be in the App Store, and I don't care if it gets "marketing" or "ease of distribution" from Apple. I do care that it gets to be a native app. I deeply deeply care about that. (BTW, the App Store in fact DOES NOT provide marketing, and if you ever go to any developer conference that focuses on mobile apps that's extremely common knowledge. Except in extremely narrow circumstances, users do not discover apps inside the App Store: they discover apps from advertisements, word of mouth / viral features, and searching for things on Google. The search engine inside of the App Store is pitiful and, to the extent to which it works at all, often surfaces your competitor's app before yours.) > Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities. I mean, in a perfect world, this app wouldn't be a web app, because a web app makes it really easy to go to the servers and shut it down, allows for a network choke-point to discover its users by traffic analysis, and generally harass (whether legally or illegally) the people who are paying for the service to exist. What you want here is a peer-to-peer service, which requires a native app that you can download from numerous sources, one that is published anonymously, one which uses DHTs to store information and which builds on a platform capable of hidden services... and yet you also want to have things like push notifications (possible from native apps using local notifications that are surfaced after background updates). Like, I dunno: this entire discussion is always so broken as it relies on so many assumptions made by people about what actually should happen... but every single one of these assumptions is buying into a narrative frame that Apple themselves have set through the years by choosing what to cripple in their quest to own app distribution.
Alejandro9R 1y ago
baffling that in this day and age Apple can have some sort of a dictatorship in deciding what people can or cannot install in their own phones they purchased with their own money, and Google taking similar steps towards that direction as well. I guess people just got used to this.
ddxv 1y ago
App Stores need to be taken away from the control of a single corporation and given to a larger non profit made up of multiple stakeholders to manage. Apple should have it's monopoly of the app store taken away.

146 points by baobun 1y ago

[flagged]

Relatedly, Eyes Up has been removed from AppStore by Apple. Unfortunately 404 Media are softbanned on HN and the ones reporting here. Apple Banned an App That Simply Archived Videos of ICE Abuses https://www.404media.co/apple-banned-an-app-that-simply-archived-videos-of-ice-abuses/ https://www.404media.co/apple-banned-an-app-that-simply-arch... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520110 https://eyesupapp.com/ https://eyesupapp.com/

uhgseyjnn 1y ago
Why is 404 media banned?
- tyleo 1y ago
  I asked ChatGPT and it linked me to a post dang responded to. It’s related to their paywall. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.
    - estimator7292 1y ago
      If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
      - DangitBobby 1y ago
        Because they need money to continue to exist
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them? Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine. The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free. So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.
  - garbagewoman 1y ago
    Their paywall is no different to any other paywall, so it is clearly not because of the paywall
- JohnMakin 1y ago
  It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
  - baobun 1y ago
    "Softbanned" here means that it comes dead-on-submission without any users actually flagging it, requiring vouches from multiple other users to get back to baseline. Those submissions you saw likely either had enough vouchers lurching new with showdead or a mod blessing. EDIT: See sibling comment. In dangs words, they are banned.
  - garbagewoman 1y ago
    It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason

xg15 1y ago

Corporations are people and militarized police is a discriminated minority. Welcome to the right-wing funhouse mirror version of civil rights...

khelavastr 1y ago

It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.

JohnTHaller 1y ago
> not upsetting groups Have you been following Apple's China policies and decisions?

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Source: https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-agents https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-ag... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066)

cozzyd 1y ago

Maybe we should start calling it iceOS

8bitsrule 1y ago
Maybe we should stop using its 'solutions'. All of them.

like_any_other 1y ago

For anyone remotely surprised: Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-china-tv-protesters-hong-kong-tim-cook https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch... Apple quietly deletes nearly a hundred VPNs that allowed Russians to get around censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728 Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secret-deal-with-china/ https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr... Apple telemetry on every app opened - https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/ Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u... Apple is notoriously strict with App Store rules, but gives China’s WeChat a free pass - https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-app-store-wechat-china https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-app-store-wechat-china Apple drops Hong Kong police-tracking app used by protesters - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688 Last week, the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove several widely used messaging apps—WhatsApp, Threads, Signal, and Telegram—from its app store. [..] In a statement, Apple said that it was told to remove the apps because of “national security concerns,” adding that it is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” [but they don't disagree so much that they'd stop locking their devices against their users] - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_censorship.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_cen... Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.

ksec 1y ago
At the same time they are happy to play the defender of Human Right. Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is A Fundamental Human Right'. - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/445026470/apple-ceo-tim-cook-privacy-is-a-fundamental-human-right https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/44...

goatlover 1y ago

Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.

NaomiLehman 1y ago
I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime. I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?" > Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
- Crushable-E 1y ago
  I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.
  - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
    They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws. If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.
    - tremon 1y ago
      Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.
      - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
        What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously. Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years. A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16 year old into sex. Heavily contested). Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.

tyleo 1y ago

This headline feels loaded. “Protected class” has a legal definition. “Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use. This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.

intermerda 1y ago
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement. This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
- tyleo 1y ago
  It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up. > This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
  - watwut 1y ago
    > Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.
    - tyleo 1y ago
      I’m sorry if that’s been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. Conversation here feels notably more fact-based than X or Facebook.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

There's a national security argument for the EU banning non-European app stores.

827a 1y ago
100%. There is even a very strong national security argument for the US Government allowing Apple this level of control over the hardware that ~200 million Americans carry.

derbOac 1y ago

Ok so what do we do? I'm serious. I'm sick of this corruption.

fsflover 1y ago
Support https://eff.org https://eff.org and switch to a GNU/Linux phone.
- SpaghettiCthulu 1y ago
  Would be safer to use GrapheneOS and distribute these apps on F-Droid, using a custom repo if the main one won't allow them.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    I'm not sure it's safer if you consider their tight dependence on Google, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925
deafpolygon 1y ago
A good question. One I don't have any clean answers to. A lot of folks will have a knee-jerk 'switch to linux' response, but that's not exactly that simple - is it?
- fsflover 1y ago
  It is, unless you rely on apps strongly tied to Apple (which you avoid anyway).
onlyhumans 1y ago
Can host it on a website. Why bother with an app?
- cma 1y ago
  To get notifications one site says: "You’ll also need to configure some things (primarily service workers and integration with Apple's Push API) in the backend code of your Progressive Web App to handle push notifications (and permissions received from users)." Does Apple allow integration with the Push API for everyone or same limitations that got this removed from stores?

827a 1y ago

I'm generally very anti-Apple when it comes to their draconian control over the code I'm allowed to execute on hardware I've purchased. However, I'm going to devil's advocate this situation for a minute (and I do mean the devil, because that is what Apple is): Very broadly speaking, my position that I feel strongly on is: Apple should enjoy a right to distribute or restrict whatever apps they want through their app store. They might have a reasonable right to restrict what apps can be installed on their operating system and the means through which those apps are installed; I could be convinced either way depending on the day and I would not lose sleep if precedence is established in either direction. But they absolutely should not have any rights when it comes to restricting what operating systems I can run on their devices. I outline that only to state the context and framework within which the next paragraph is typed. If Apple doesn't want to carry and distribute the anti-ICE app, I think that's their right. Apple's problem right now is that this unilaterally now means that the native application can no longer be executed on iOS, and that is a problem, but let's pretend like it isn't and that this app is now only available through the Epic Games App Store (or wherever). Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities. Phrase this another way, flip this on its head: the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables, which I feel are not natural rights developers should have when making applications. Its similar to freedom of speech; you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to be heard. You should have a right for your app to be available (not all apps can be web apps; but this can). You should not have a right to ultra-streamlined distribution through Apple's servers. I understand why this is a flashpoint, and I think its important that we push Apple on this issue because there should be more options when it comes to running code on mobile devices. However, functionally speaking: Y'all should just make this a web site.

saurik 1y ago
> ...but let's pretend like it isn't... You can't just do this. If you assume 1=2 all of math falls apart, and the same is true when you assume obviously un-true facts: the reason all of this matters at all is only because Apple wants to ban this kind of software from being native AT ALL, not merely because they don't want to themselves distribute something they dislike. I'd happily stand up to defend their right to do the latter if-and-only-if they stop doing the former, and you can't separate these two issues. > ...the anti-ICE app wants in the App Store because of the marketing and ease of distribution it enables... And so like, here: I don't care if the app doesn't get to be in the App Store, and I don't care if it gets "marketing" or "ease of distribution" from Apple. I do care that it gets to be a native app. I deeply deeply care about that. (BTW, the App Store in fact DOES NOT provide marketing, and if you ever go to any developer conference that focuses on mobile apps that's extremely common knowledge. Except in extremely narrow circumstances, users do not discover apps inside the App Store: they discover apps from advertisements, word of mouth / viral features, and searching for things on Google. The search engine inside of the App Store is pitiful and, to the extent to which it works at all, often surfaces your competitor's app before yours.) > Why is this situation better for the anti-ICE app than just being a web app? This should be a web app, right? It shouldn't really rely on any native capabilities. I mean, in a perfect world, this app wouldn't be a web app, because a web app makes it really easy to go to the servers and shut it down, allows for a network choke-point to discover its users by traffic analysis, and generally harass (whether legally or illegally) the people who are paying for the service to exist. What you want here is a peer-to-peer service, which requires a native app that you can download from numerous sources, one that is published anonymously, one which uses DHTs to store information and which builds on a platform capable of hidden services... and yet you also want to have things like push notifications (possible from native apps using local notifications that are surfaced after background updates). Like, I dunno: this entire discussion is always so broken as it relies on so many assumptions made by people about what actually should happen... but every single one of these assumptions is buying into a narrative frame that Apple themselves have set through the years by choosing what to cripple in their quest to own app distribution.

Alejandro9R 1y ago

baffling that in this day and age Apple can have some sort of a dictatorship in deciding what people can or cannot install in their own phones they purchased with their own money, and Google taking similar steps towards that direction as well. I guess people just got used to this.

ddxv 1y ago

App Stores need to be taken away from the control of a single corporation and given to a larger non profit made up of multiple stakeholders to manage. Apple should have it's monopoly of the app store taken away.