Hacker News Reader

Comment by madeofpalk | Hacker News Reader

Yup. That's fine. Apple's made an opinionated decision (which IMHO probably suits the masses). If you want to make a different decision and don't want Apple to handle your notifications you can disable push notifications system wide, or switch to another platform.

This is of course ignoring that the user doesn't get much of a say in what push notification delivery mechanism is used - that's up to the developer.

But, to be honest, if you don't trust Apple to handle your push notifications then I doubt you would trust them to do much else, and you should choose another platform.

View on HN

> that's up to the developer

Most of the time my concern isn't with apps that have a dedicated service backing them, but with apps which don't. I don't want Apple notifying me when something changes on my SSH session because I sent my SSH credentials to some 3rd party server that notified Apple to notify me.

I trust absolutely no one to handle those credentials properly, I need my device to do it. And I need it to do it by interacting directly with the server.

Then iOS isn't for you. I feel like this is a weird argument.

As a user, I trust Apple far more with push notifications than I would a third party.

Think about what you're saying more.

Android solution: You own the server. Your server pushes directly to you.

iOS solution: No ability to maintain SSH connections, instead you need to get a 3rd party app to open an SSH connection for you and send you a push notification via an Apple service when a change occurs.

See the problem? Trusting Apple alone isn't an option - Apple doesn't offer a service to send you a push notification for your SSH session. You need to involve a 3rd party.

That's the way you see it, how about the way I see it?

iOS solution: everything goes through Apple, I generally trust them and know that they try to look out for me.

Android solution: every app goes through someone else's server, every app needs individual vetting because I have no idea what they're doing or how hard they're trying with their privacy. Where is the trying at all. That's the way you see it, how about the way I see it?

iOS solution: everything goes through Apple, I generally trust them and know that they try to look out for me.

I like the iOS solution. You have it framed for my developer point of you, and I can understand that. But from your point of you, your solution has a lot of potential issues around privacy alone.

For the most part thought the Android solution matches the iOS solutions there though, devs use GCM. You're however missing the part where app devs have their own servers that have to talk to Apple or Google. You have to trust those 3rd parties too, all Apple or Google does is get notifications from their servers to your phone.

I'm not talking about general push notifications though, nor am I speaking as a developer. I'm speaking as a user, who also wants to connect to ssh, imap, xmpp and sip. The standard Apple/Google model is fine for most push notifications but absolutely not for things like this where a direct connection to a server is something that you as a user want.

That's the part I'm complaining about, not the general push message system, but the system of not being able to keep a persistent connection to a SIP or IMAP server without giving my credentials to a 3rd party so they can handle push and forward that off to Apple or Google.

   iOS solution: everything goes through Apple,

...ka-ching! says the cash register at Apple...

   I generally trust them...

...ka-ching ka-ching!...

   and know that they try to look out for me.

...ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching...

Apple looks out for their bottom line. If your interest happens to cross that path, bummer.

Don't just assume a commercial interest 'looks out for you' because they don't. If your needs, or at least your perceived needs (due to effective marketing) fit with a company's strategy you might get the idea that said company does it all for you and your fellow users. This does not imply any causality, the company just does what it thinks is best for its bottom line. As long as a company serves the needs of its users they are in a position to do well. Vendor lock-in serves companies in that they have more freedom to choose their own path without bothering all that much about whether that path coincides with their users' needs as those users face a steep cost if they choose to change vendor. As long as the company keeps the extra costs - in money, limited features or usability - lower than what it would cost a user to switch vendor they stand to gain from this strategy.

I mean, what he said is true. Look how many rogue apps on Android start spamming you with notifications and even worse, apps that push notifications that are purely advertising. Since I switched to iOS this hasn't happened once, and I'm prompted on first use of the app if I want to allow notifications or not.

You honestly believe that Google don't look out for their bottom line either?

   You honestly believe that Google don't look out for their bottom line either?

I did not mention Google, nor any other company (other than Apple) for that matter. Instead I used the words 'a commercial interest' to indicate this goes for _any_ company which exists to make money - and that means nearly every company in existence.

But, to get back to your Google example, of course Google looks out for their bottom line. It just so happens that Google is not nearly as aggressive in herding their users into fenced corrals as Apple is. Google moves fast and often discontinues services so it is unwise to base your (company's) future on the existence of any specific Google service. Fortunately Google generally makes it easy to get data out of their services so a viable exit strategy is usually feasible. Apple is not that fast a mover which also implies they don't discontinue services at the rate at which Google does. Where Apple fails miserably is in their support for migrating data out of their services. This, again, fits the description I gave at the start of this sub-thread: Apple wants to raise the cost of leaving their services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com