4 ms·

"it's hard to imagine something less free than the app store" I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. The vast majority of App Store users ar

by sambeau 13y ago

"it's hard to imagine something less free than the app store" I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. The vast majority of App Store users are non-technical and therefore open to scams, viruses and malware. The walled garden may take some freedoms away from the highly-technical but it pays back freedom in spades to 'normal' people. (plus the highly technical can always choose to leave the walled garden if the want to either by jailbreaking or by buying an open device). We geeks have only ourselves to blame — if we won't police ourselves someone else will have to police us. We gave these freedoms away by using our talents to cheat and scam our customers. We're not the first to need it of course, if it wan't for Victorian scammers using suspect weights & measures and adulterating flour with dust and the like there's be no need for Trading Standards Officers. Trading Standards Officers give us all the freedom to buy food & drink safely and I don't believe anyone would truly see us return to a world without them.

JackC 13y ago
> I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. The vast majority of App Store users are non-technical and therefore open to scams, viruses and malware. That would make great sense, if there was a way for technical users to opt out of the walled garden. But it's the very opposite -- Apple spends a lot of time and money making it harder to jailbreak the phone, in ways that have nothing to do with defending against malware. If they do their best to make it impossible to opt out, then it's not about protecting your safety. It's about protecting the business model. There's an argument for protecting the business model, of course -- making jailbreaking more difficult also makes piracy more difficult. The App Store has funneled a ton of money to developers, which in turn makes for better apps for everyone. But the notion that Apple has gone to absurd lengths to prevent jailbreaking because ... "We [developers] gave these freedoms away by using our talents to cheat and scam our customers"? No. That's not how freedom works. This is about money, plain and simple.
- avar 13y ago
  To play devil's advocate, do you think in an alternative universe where Apple products have built-in easy to use native support for jailbreaking with the push of a button that some large malware outbreak that only affects those devices jailbroken devices won't be blamed on them anyway? Apple has other motivations to maintain their walled garden, but their goals of controlling the whole experience also extend to things like that. They want there to be no question that any Apple device is "safe", regardless of legitimate user configuration. And as long as users at large aren't demanding general purpose computers who can really blame them?
  - Shamanmuni 13y ago
    Well, we have millions and millions of people using Windows, and in my experience when viruses and malware affect them, they usually blame themselves more than Microsoft. So, no, I don't think they'd put the blame in Apple. And if that would have been the case, remember the Antennagate? First they told their customers to hold the phone differently, then they said it was a software problem, and finally they said the problem was the antenna, but that all smartphones had a similar problem (which was a lie). So, in that case I would have expected Steve Jobs' reality distortion field in full power blaming everyone except Apple.
    - avar 13y ago
      > they usually blame themselves more than Microsoft. Did you not see how back with the Mac/PC ads Apple very much played on the whole aspect of Windows PCs being vulnerable to viruses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 > remember the Antennagate I'm not saying Apple isn't capable of PR bullshit. I'm just saying that I can see why they don't see the benefit of allowing any kind of fragmentation on their platform.
- QSIITurbo 13y ago
  I would feel more safe buying second hand iPhone than I would feel when buying an Android. Sure, the iPhone can also be compromised, but it is less likely. In any case, it's not Apple's responsibility to make open hardware, since there already are open alternatives. It's not economically viable for a company to support non-inteded purposes of use.
- comex 13y ago
  > Apple spends a lot of time and money making it harder to jailbreak the phone, in ways that have nothing to do with defending against malware. I doubt the point matters much, but for the specific case of preventing iOS jailbreaking (as opposed to, say, the iPodhash crap), Apple seems to be pretty lax when malware isn't being enabled. For example, after a jailbreak is released, Apple often doesn't patch the vulnerabilities until an update is rolled out for some separate reason - with the exception of the jailbreaks that remotely exploited the device via Safari (as opposed to requiring physical access to the device), which were patched quickly. Of course, I would prefer if it were not necessary to use a vulnerability in the first place.
devcpp 13y ago
>I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. Sounds like every politician who tries to justify the current methods of the wars against terrorism, against drugs, against pedophilia and the general move towards censorship and surveillance. Look, safety is good, but if you believe in freedom, you should leave the choice. Just like the root user in Linux and Android, I should be able to unlock superuser abilities in iOS. The same applies in real life. There should indeed be certifications for food and drinks, but it's not a reason to remove rat poison or bleach and ammonia from supermarkets. Just put the proper notices and safeties. Choice is key.
- zaroth 13y ago
  How about their choice to develop the software how they like, and your choice whether to buy it or not! They are not a monopoly. Other than patents they haven't been given any special privlidges to get where they are today. As long as YOU as a consumer do in fact have a choice, and you DO, you don't get to tell Apple how to build their products. I think Apple is keenly aware of this, and they don't want to be a monopoly more than anyone, because having a minority market share gives them the freedom to bundle and integrate software which they otherwise would be prohibited from doing.
w1ntermute 13y ago
> They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin With a population lacking this mindset, no wonder this country is going to the dogs.
- sbuk 13y ago
  What a facile view of the world. EDIT: Not Franklin's!
- sambeau 13y ago
  "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." – Benjamin Franklin
- comex 13y ago
  Never mind the dubiousness of equating freedom to modify a particular gadget with fundamental civil liberties (there is certainly an analogy, but the parent referred to the former and you leapt at the latter)... the parent doesn't even live in the United States.
  - sambeau 13y ago
    the parent doesn't even live in the United States Nor did Benjamin Franklin for a large part of his life, too :) I won't ask how you know…
    - comex 13y ago
      I checked your post history after guessing based on the phrase "Trading Standards Officers". :)
Too 13y ago
An "App Store" is not a requirement for having a sandboxed environment. Consider these examples: 1. Your web browser. 2. Java and .NET programs can be run in different trust-modes only allowing certain functions from the standard library, and obviously disallowing external libraries then. This is mostly used on servers to isolate websites on the same server today but if given a better user interface could have been used to secure desktop programs. 3. User permission levels in operating systems

by sambeau 13y ago

JackC 13y ago

> I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. The vast majority of App Store users are non-technical and therefore open to scams, viruses and malware. That would make great sense, if there was a way for technical users to opt out of the walled garden. But it's the very opposite -- Apple spends a lot of time and money making it harder to jailbreak the phone, in ways that have nothing to do with defending against malware. If they do their best to make it impossible to opt out, then it's not about protecting your safety. It's about protecting the business model. There's an argument for protecting the business model, of course -- making jailbreaking more difficult also makes piracy more difficult. The App Store has funneled a ton of money to developers, which in turn makes for better apps for everyone. But the notion that Apple has gone to absurd lengths to prevent jailbreaking because ... "We [developers] gave these freedoms away by using our talents to cheat and scam our customers"? No. That's not how freedom works. This is about money, plain and simple.

avar 13y ago
To play devil's advocate, do you think in an alternative universe where Apple products have built-in easy to use native support for jailbreaking with the push of a button that some large malware outbreak that only affects those devices jailbroken devices won't be blamed on them anyway? Apple has other motivations to maintain their walled garden, but their goals of controlling the whole experience also extend to things like that. They want there to be no question that any Apple device is "safe", regardless of legitimate user configuration. And as long as users at large aren't demanding general purpose computers who can really blame them?
- Shamanmuni 13y ago
  Well, we have millions and millions of people using Windows, and in my experience when viruses and malware affect them, they usually blame themselves more than Microsoft. So, no, I don't think they'd put the blame in Apple. And if that would have been the case, remember the Antennagate? First they told their customers to hold the phone differently, then they said it was a software problem, and finally they said the problem was the antenna, but that all smartphones had a similar problem (which was a lie). So, in that case I would have expected Steve Jobs' reality distortion field in full power blaming everyone except Apple.
  - avar 13y ago
    > they usually blame themselves more than Microsoft. Did you not see how back with the Mac/PC ads Apple very much played on the whole aspect of Windows PCs being vulnerable to viruses? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Z386vXrt4 > remember the Antennagate I'm not saying Apple isn't capable of PR bullshit. I'm just saying that I can see why they don't see the benefit of allowing any kind of fragmentation on their platform.
QSIITurbo 13y ago
I would feel more safe buying second hand iPhone than I would feel when buying an Android. Sure, the iPhone can also be compromised, but it is less likely. In any case, it's not Apple's responsibility to make open hardware, since there already are open alternatives. It's not economically viable for a company to support non-inteded purposes of use.
comex 13y ago
> Apple spends a lot of time and money making it harder to jailbreak the phone, in ways that have nothing to do with defending against malware. I doubt the point matters much, but for the specific case of preventing iOS jailbreaking (as opposed to, say, the iPodhash crap), Apple seems to be pretty lax when malware isn't being enabled. For example, after a jailbreak is released, Apple often doesn't patch the vulnerabilities until an update is rolled out for some separate reason - with the exception of the jailbreaks that remotely exploited the device via Safari (as opposed to requiring physical access to the device), which were patched quickly. Of course, I would prefer if it were not necessary to use a vulnerability in the first place.

devcpp 13y ago

>I would argue that if you are not safe you are not free. Sounds like every politician who tries to justify the current methods of the wars against terrorism, against drugs, against pedophilia and the general move towards censorship and surveillance. Look, safety is good, but if you believe in freedom, you should leave the choice. Just like the root user in Linux and Android, I should be able to unlock superuser abilities in iOS. The same applies in real life. There should indeed be certifications for food and drinks, but it's not a reason to remove rat poison or bleach and ammonia from supermarkets. Just put the proper notices and safeties. Choice is key.

zaroth 13y ago
How about their choice to develop the software how they like, and your choice whether to buy it or not! They are not a monopoly. Other than patents they haven't been given any special privlidges to get where they are today. As long as YOU as a consumer do in fact have a choice, and you DO, you don't get to tell Apple how to build their products. I think Apple is keenly aware of this, and they don't want to be a monopoly more than anyone, because having a minority market share gives them the freedom to bundle and integrate software which they otherwise would be prohibited from doing.

w1ntermute 13y ago

> They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin With a population lacking this mindset, no wonder this country is going to the dogs.

sbuk 13y ago
What a facile view of the world. EDIT: Not Franklin's!
sambeau 13y ago
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." – Benjamin Franklin
comex 13y ago
Never mind the dubiousness of equating freedom to modify a particular gadget with fundamental civil liberties (there is certainly an analogy, but the parent referred to the former and you leapt at the latter)... the parent doesn't even live in the United States.
- sambeau 13y ago
  the parent doesn't even live in the United States Nor did Benjamin Franklin for a large part of his life, too :) I won't ask how you know…
  - comex 13y ago
    I checked your post history after guessing based on the phrase "Trading Standards Officers". :)

Too 13y ago

An "App Store" is not a requirement for having a sandboxed environment. Consider these examples: 1. Your web browser. 2. Java and .NET programs can be run in different trust-modes only allowing certain functions from the standard library, and obviously disallowing external libraries then. This is mostly used on servers to isolate websites on the same server today but if given a better user interface could have been used to secure desktop programs. 3. User permission levels in operating systems