4 ms·

So if they don't give you an apple dev account, or close yours, you can't. Case in point.

brookst 5mo ago
Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”?
- engeljohnb 5mo ago
  Anything that needs Apple to say "yes" before it runs is not "arbitrary."
- jlokier 5mo ago
  As with Google accounts, it's not hypothetical, it's a risk. People do occasionally get locked out of being an Apple developer for reasons they cannot foresee. > Apple has locked my Apple ID, and I have no recourse. A plea for help* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 > Apple bans entire dev account, no reason given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548
  - brookst 5mo ago
    It’s still rhetorical sleight of hand. I could have a stroke that leaves me unable to program. Does that mean I am not truly free to program today? Those are risks, but they do not change the on-the-ground reality today, and the claim was that users, today, cannot use these device as general purpose computers.
    - ulrikrasmussen 5mo ago
      No it's not. I need permission by a third-party to be able to program a device I supposedly own. I need to give them money, I need to give them my identity, and I need to tie my identity to any distribution of the software I make if other people are to be able to install it. This is not a rhetorical sleight of hand, this is just saying that I am not truly in control of the device that I have bought.
    - ivell 5mo ago
      We can use them today as general purpose computers, if we make a large effort to do so. In my Linux and Mac, I dont think twice to quickly write a script to automate some pain-in-the-butt issues. But with my phone, it is pain-in-the-butt to write anything. It becomes not worth the effort. Moreover, we can argue if technically it is a general purpose computer for whole day long. But that's not the point. The point is that we are allowing gradually the big organizations to restrict general purpose computing, the internet and other previously free systems. It is happening slowly, where we can still give them the benefit of doubt. We are the frogs in the kettle where we are arguing that the temperature is just one degree more than earlier, so it is not actually boiling. We can keep on arguing about the temperature or step back and see the big picture where it is going.
    - tremon 5mo ago
      The rhetorical sleight of hand is yours, by claiming that a device requiring pre-authorization (by virtue of needing a developer account) is an open computing platform.
- yunwal 5mo ago
  No, hypothetically apple lets you run arbitrary code. In practice, they lock people out of their developer accounts all the time.

Did you just move the goalposts from “you can’t run arbitrary code today” to “hypothetically, in the future, Apple could prevent running arbitrary code”?

engeljohnb 5mo ago
Anything that needs Apple to say "yes" before it runs is not "arbitrary."
jlokier 5mo ago
As with Google accounts, it's not hypothetical, it's a risk. People do occasionally get locked out of being an Apple developer for reasons they cannot foresee. > Apple has locked my Apple ID, and I have no recourse. A plea for help* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46252114 > Apple bans entire dev account, no reason given https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44601548
- brookst 5mo ago
  It’s still rhetorical sleight of hand. I could have a stroke that leaves me unable to program. Does that mean I am not truly free to program today? Those are risks, but they do not change the on-the-ground reality today, and the claim was that users, today, cannot use these device as general purpose computers.
  - ulrikrasmussen 5mo ago
    No it's not. I need permission by a third-party to be able to program a device I supposedly own. I need to give them money, I need to give them my identity, and I need to tie my identity to any distribution of the software I make if other people are to be able to install it. This is not a rhetorical sleight of hand, this is just saying that I am not truly in control of the device that I have bought.
  - ivell 5mo ago
    We can use them today as general purpose computers, if we make a large effort to do so. In my Linux and Mac, I dont think twice to quickly write a script to automate some pain-in-the-butt issues. But with my phone, it is pain-in-the-butt to write anything. It becomes not worth the effort. Moreover, we can argue if technically it is a general purpose computer for whole day long. But that's not the point. The point is that we are allowing gradually the big organizations to restrict general purpose computing, the internet and other previously free systems. It is happening slowly, where we can still give them the benefit of doubt. We are the frogs in the kettle where we are arguing that the temperature is just one degree more than earlier, so it is not actually boiling. We can keep on arguing about the temperature or step back and see the big picture where it is going.
  - tremon 5mo ago
    The rhetorical sleight of hand is yours, by claiming that a device requiring pre-authorization (by virtue of needing a developer account) is an open computing platform.
yunwal 5mo ago
No, hypothetically apple lets you run arbitrary code. In practice, they lock people out of their developer accounts all the time.