Hacker News Reader

Comment by cantrevealname | Hacker News Reader

> Apple Developer Enterprise Program should only be used to distribute apps within a company.

As much as I dislike the privacy invasive things that Clearview is doing, I don’t like Apple’s power to ban people from running whatever software they want if they’re not using the App Store or asking for endorsement or review by Apple. If you’re distributing your software privately and independently of Apple (i.e., not through the App Store), then you should be able to do whatever you want. We don’t want a world where car companies get to disable your car if you carried something in your car that they didn’t like.

View on HN

Apple is merely treating the phone like a console. I can't play third party games on my PS4 or Switch. Nor can I run add third party apps to my car, TV or microwave.

And given how many companies want to use the iPhone for nefarious means I like the fact that Apple is looking after me. Many other users feel the same.

Which is similarly unacceptable, you own it, you decide what runs on it. Madness that it could ever come to this.

I own it, and I delegated it to Apple to decide what can run on it.

No, you didn't. Else you could stop "delegating".

More like accepted their terms. You can't delegate what isn't yours to begin with.

You could still delegating the decision to Apple without restricting other people use of their general purpose computer[1] if Apple simply ran a curation service. Your choice to only use apps that have Apple's stamp of approval doesn't require forbidding other people from making a different choice.

A curation service that forbids people from using competing services (or making their own decisions without any curator) is a monopolist trying to control a new market.

edit:

[1] https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

Everybody who's chosen to use an iPhone has done so freely and without being coerced. Alternatives exist, including one that's wildly more popular than the iPhone itself.

Yes, we did. So what? Someone that buys an iPhone can use their property as they desire. Apple is selling a general purpose computer (even if they wish they were selling an appliance with a specific limited set of features). They can (and should) make recommendations about how to use their product safely, but they don't have any right to forbid people from using what is now the customer's property for an "unapproved" purpode.

A manufacturer looses control of their product after the first sale[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer? By definition Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please like a general purpose computer.

If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device.

The free market is great isn’t it? It’s surprising what intelligent people can do without giving the government more power.

I would go further and reject the phrase “general purpose computer” as overly vague to the point of being meaningless. Is a bicycle a general purpose vehicle? Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose?

> Who decides what qualifies as a general purpose

Alan Turing and Alanzo Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

However, my use of the term is an explicit (my previous [2]) reference to these important talks by Cory Doctorow about the War on General Purpose Computing, which I strongly recommend watching/reading:

https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

https://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html

That means a (properly) relational DBMS can be completely locked down because the relational model is not Turing complete.

While the DBMS itself isn't Turing complete, you probably need a Turing equivalent machine to implement the DBMS. Turing machines can implement less complex types of automation, but the underlying machine is still Turing complete.

I wonder how difficult it would be to make a purely electromechanical decision table. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table )

It wouldn't be turing complete if you simply load the application into ROM and restrict the CPU from executing pages in RAM.

You can implement the entire relational model with about 8 operators and graph transformations, mostly distribution. You can add math functions as virtual tables, e.g. join against the times table to do multiplciation.

I wrote a paper on how this works, and while it was about ten years ago, I'm pretty sure you could do the algebraic transformations needed with just a stack, so I think you could do it with a finite state automata.

But see my response to myself.

CTEs make SQL Turing-complete IIRC.

[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/queries/with-comm...

Procedural SQL definitely does, but see my response to myself.

The goal here is to find a criteria under which you can require that manufacturers open up general purpose systems. And the proposal is that a system that is Turing complete is also general purpose.

The relational model is hugely expressive, and yet it is not Turing complete. So you have something that is plainly general purpose, but would be exempt from such a law.

That you can modify the relational model to make it Turing complete is irrelevant, it's already hugely expressive.

And that you'd typically run it on a machine that is Turing complete doesn't save you. If a manufacturer wanted to bypass that restriction, they'd design a system that is entirely dedicated to it.

And by that standard, the avionics controller for a missile is general purpose.

I am aware of the origins of the term. The term certainly had relevance 30–90 years ago. What I reject is that the term has any meaning when attempting to form a distinction between an iPad and a MacBook.

> How is everything with a processor not a general purpose computer?

They are general purpose computers; this does apply to most products with a processor. However, there are practical differences in what you can implement on an iPhone compared to a tiny embedded CPU with a few kB or MB of RAM.

> Apple isn’t selling a device that you can do with as you please

Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply.

> If you don’t like Apple’s policies you are free to buy an Android device.

I am also free to use the goods I bought in violation of those policies. That's what it means to own something.

> giving the government more power.

Who is giving the government which new powers? I'm talking about basic property rights.

So by that standard, an Apple //e with 128KB of RAM and 1Mhz processor wasn’t a general purpose computer?

Transferring ownership of property is the very definition of "selling" something. If Apple want to restrict what people do with their device, they shouldn't be selling it. They can rent/license it, and a very different set of laws would apply

So does the same rule apply to game consoles? My TV with an embedded Roku?

> Transferring ownership of property

Whilst you might buy the phone, I believe you effectively "rent/license" iOS, no? Which means Apple are restricting not what you do with "your device" but "their OS". No ownership of iOS has been transferred.

(I know the two are intimately tangled and this is nitpicking but we're well into the legal nitpicking weeds here.)

> You could still delegating the decision to Apple without restricting other people use of their general purpose computer[1] if Apple simply ran a curation service. Your choice to only use apps that have Apple's stamp of approval doesn't require forbidding other people from making a different choice.

You have a much greater ability to inspect any code / processes that run on a general purpose computer running Windows and the like. With an iOS device, you have it on trust that the app isn’t doing anything nefarious. In that context, Apple’s role as benevolent guardian as to what is and isn’t allowed makes more sense.

Sure thing, I would not object to your freedom to root your phone or something. I object to being portrayed as a victim [1] - I like the arrangement as it is, and I entered it willingly, having a choice.

[1] "Which is similarly unacceptable, you own it, you decide what runs on it. Madness that it could ever come to this."

That quote does not portray you as the victim. In fact, it reinforces that you should have the right to choose as you like. If everyone had the choice, there would be nothing wrong with anyone choosing, just as you have, to give up your control.

If you believe this, then surely you believe that what is delegated to Apple can be relegated back to you, which is what the company in question was attempting.

Then don't buy an iOS device. This is no different from game consoles.

Or a tractor that refuses to run with custom modifications/repairs.

Until it's impossible because all tractor makers sell with the same terms. And they've enough money to buy or sue any liberal alternatives out of existence.

For those who haven't been paying attention to the comedic effects of intellectual property taken to the extreme (or logical conclusion, I'd argue): just punch "tractor dmca" into your favorite search engine. We often take for granted that people in this sphere are aware of this sort of insanity, but unfortunately that really isn't even close to being true.

It is madness. What's the solution? We can always go back to older computing platforms that don't have this problem with a third party exercising arbitrary its iron grip over our possessions.

Sure, but in the end a phone by now is not like a console.

A console is a pure luxus good with many alternatives, one which is pretty open (the computer).

A phone is a by now pretty much necessary(1) equipment for the daily live majorly affecting it. With just two "viable" alternatives Android and iOs and a ecosystem+patent mess which make it close to impossible to create a 3 competitor (besides niche markets).

So it's ok if a game console is looked up, it's not if a phone is looked up. (EDIT: REMOVED misleading sentence)

---------------------------------

(1): Yes you can live with old style phones and I know even one person which does so. But it's a major impact onto your live making it hard in many often subtitle ways so not really viable for the general population. E.g. for Banks in the EU to buy anything over Credit Card which is not little risk (mid or higher amount, untrusted shop in Asia, etc.) it will enforce second factor authentication of the transaction. The gotcha is that for some (?many?most?) banks this can only be done through a phone app only available on iOs and _Unrooted_ Android, but not Windows or rooted Android or over a web interface or OS X or Desktop Linux. So basically you can't any longer properly use a credit card without a locked up smartphone with some (?many?most?) European banks...

I've been living without a mobile phone for about 5 years. The only time it has ever registered as slightly inconvenient for me is while travelling - specifically the airport pickup coordination. I simply don't use services that rely on thoroughly busted mobile phone 2FA - and I'm honestly dumbfounded that anyone with any understanding of 2FA and the insecurity of telecom networks would, given the fact that a lot of services use it for password reset.

So you use taxis and landlines instead?

Nope, just advanced planning and VoIP. You'd be amazed how much you save in both service fees and distraction. Friends and family quickly adapt as well, knowing to call in the evening - which leads to better conversations in my experience (no more "...so whatcha doin?", they've collected their thoughts and I'm not distracted). Obviously it doesn't work for everyone... but unless you are a doctor or a volunteer firefighter, I encourage people to give it a try for a month or two - you won't want to go back to lugging that privacy invading media consumption device around after that.

Wait till you get a kindle. Amazon even locks your screensaver. You can't change it.

I use the Boox Nova which runs Android and is completely customizable.

Vote with your dollars.

Where did you get it and for how much?

And look at the screaming fit when Amazon reached into devices and deleted content. But somehow this is different, because it’s Apple?

I don't like it when consoles do it either, but a console is fundamentally a single purpose device.

A cell phone is increasingly people's primary computer for everything. And many times their only computer!

“I don’t like it when car companies don’t allow subcompact crossovers to do heavy towing. Such cars are increasingly people’s primary vehicle for everything. And many times their only vehicle!”

Seriously, most people don’t need their phone to qualify as a computer under your definition. You’re actually being somewhat presumptuous when you infer that people must own at least one “proper” computer.

If China forces Apple to pull an app for protesters from a game console, it really doesn't matter.

If China forces Apple to pull an app for protesters from those protester's primary computer, it's a huge issue.

I simply don’t agree. It’s not Apple’s responsibility to make products that compensate for bad national governments.

And I reject the claim that the scale of the issue is different between a phone and a games console. Who are you to say that a games console can’t be used for secure communications by protesters? That is equivalent to saying that we should be more concerned about crackdowns against journalists than against political satirists.

"I don’t like it when car companies don’t allow subcompact crossovers to do heavy towing"

Unintentional irony? You are apparently not aware that this is a perennial topic among car enthusiasts, because people noticed that small vehicles usually have much smaller tow ratings (if any) in the US than Europe, even though they seem to be mechanically the same. In the US, people use massive trucks to tow, and from what I've read, in Europe, they don't seem to need them.

Not irony at all, the analogy still fits. I can defy vehicle towing restrictions, I can weld extra metal to the sub-frame, I can fit a larger radiator to the engine and stiffer springs to the rear axle. I can do many things to make my subcompact crossover physically capable of towing a large load.

And I can jailbreak an iPhone.

————————

You could also buy a proper truck suited to the task.

And you can buy a proper computer suited to the task.

Ok, so isn't it reasonable to acknowledge that society may bear real costs if towing capacities are arbitrarily reduced in US jurisdiction? People are discouraged and lose the benefit of towing which has economic value. People learn one more reason to doubt what they are officially told. Some people waste resources on bigger vehicles than they need. On the flip side, maybe fewer people have accidents from incorrect loading, going too fast, etc. But we can at least speculate that restrictive policies have consequences, which might be worse than other, less restrictive policies.

You seem to be assuming that the differences don't have a rational basis. Cars are generally homologated for a large geographic area, which might include Arizona even if the car is sold in Canada. Towing limit standards may also be defined differently in law.

Hypothetically the regulations might specify that the vehicle must be capable of safely towing the stated load without overheating at X incline at Y speed for Z time at A altitude, be able to stop in B meters, plus C overall safety margin. It's entirely reasonable and rational that the values of X, Y, Z, A, B and C might be different in Europe and North America.

Absurd comparison. A subcompact is just not designed to tow a large load. But no one tries to keep you from modifying it. Apple purposely restricts your freedom.

I reject the distinction as entirely semantics. It's equally true to say that a car maker "purposely restricts" towing capacity in its small, lightweight models by making them small and lightweight.

Apple designs its iOS products to have a fully managed software-hardware ecosystem. That has a direct consequence of limiting libre freedom, but that doesn't mean Apple opposes the idea of giving customers freedom. They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom.

The car maker designs its subcompact crossover to have low cost and good fuel economy. That has the direct consequence of limiting towing capacity, but that doesn't mean the car maker opposes the idea of giving customers towing capacity. They'll happily sell you a different vehicle with more towing capacity.

Let's review:

Managed ecosystem <————> Able to execute whatever

Small and lightweight <————> Able to tow heavy loads

The analogy holds. More fundamentally I care more about customers having the right to choose the best product for themselves, rather than having @anoncake decide what's best for all of us.

"Managed ecosystem" is just a euphemism for restricting freedom.

> They'll happily sell you a different computer with more freedom.

Not one that fulfills the same purpose. Macs hardly fill the same niche as iPhones. If Apple sold both restricted and free iPhones at the same price, no one would object. Then customers would have a choice rather than Apple deciding what's best.

"Small and lightweight" is just a euphemism for can't tow for shit.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand how capitalism works. Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy an iPhone, other brands are available. And Apple isn't forced to make products which comply with your personal desires.

Now that you brought up capitalism, what do you think about the level of competition in the cell phone (OS) market?

I’d be hard pressed to call Apple a monopoly given their market share, but obviously market dominance isn’t a black/white thing (since even a real monopoly may have 99% market share and 1% competition). By some metrics that are relevant to certain markets (like app store revenue) Apple may have a majority market share, which probably gives them quite a lot of leverage and ability to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

More broadly it’s a market dominated by two trillion dollar companies with big network effects, which is a reduced level of competition compared to most other things, and it may be harmful for consumer choice for competition to also be reduced in other markets (like non-OS software or marketplaces for such) due to tying products together.

I don’t personally have a strong opinion on this but I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for regulation on those grounds. The challenge would be finding rules that are simple and clear cut without micro managing what companies can build.

The thing is, ios apps have been doing nefarious things since forever.

Apple takes away the ability to:

- see what the apps on your phone are doing

- let you prevent them from doing it.

The big one is networking. Apps can use the network without restriction. apps can link in SDKs that can contact any and all online advertisers. Apple does not allow firewall apps.

I feel comfort knowing I have to try very hard to install non approved apps. If anyone can distribute their own software through their own channels, surely people are going to be tricked into downloading it without understanding the consequences.

If you want flexibility, don’t buy an iPhone. Simple.

Some people like their orderly walled gardens, some don’t like them. You may not like the iPhone but I don’t see why you want to deny that to others? Surely they can decide for themselves.

How does having the ability to personally opt out of the walled garden prevent others from staying in the garden? You may not want to opt out of the garden but I don't see why you would want to deny that the others? Surely they can decide for themselves.

well, I can see an argument against this. Non tech user sees an app they want, they download it, app says you have to do this and this, OK the user says, and they've just opened their phone to everything.

This has already been abused with simple things like location and microphone, with people giving apps access to everything.

I think the current solution is sub optimal, but I like having the security on my iPhone to download anything and be fairly confident it won't send all my details to some credit acrd number collecting hacker.

This is a (unpleasant) app that can only be installed on devices which this company already has full device control of. We aren’t talking about your security from unwittingly downloading something nefarious.

This is no different from you writing a pornhub app on your own iOS device using your own developer account and Apple reaching in and saying “nuh uh, not on our, I mean your device”...

But that's okay! People are allowed to make stupid decisions. Can we stop treating non-technical users like children please?

Fair enough.

Your snark is unwarranted though.

You are probably right. I apologize.

thanks

I agree.

But the enterprise program IS using the App Store. An enterprise distribution just sets up a virtual App Store within the larger App Store. It's still a service that Apple provides that comes with a business agreement and terms of service (that these terms may be ethically uncool is an orthogonal point that we both probably agree on).

No one is stopping Clearview from hosting their code on GitHub with a Readme.md that makes it clear how to download XCode, and how to build an install the app on their own phone. Not even Apple.

No, it isn't using the app store. A company rents an enterprise certificate from Apple for $299/year. The company can then sign as many apps as they want using that certificate, and distribute the apps through MDM, itms-services links or manually using IPA files installed with iTunes. Apple can remotely revoke these certificates. However, Apple does not know which apps are being signed, unless they are informed through (in this case) the media.

On the other hand, something like this means that the app itself can be rendered moot. There is a power there that may be worth having - it's all a balancing act.

What does disabling the app actually mean in this context? I don’t think it’s unreasonable if Apple is preventing them from using Apple owned toolchains / software / any signing that Apple provides.

Can they, in theory, opt out of the Apple ecosystem entirely, root the phone and develop their own software outside of Apple entirely?

Whereas I from the Curated Garden fanclub want the ability to wander through the garden to enjoy the scenery and eat the fruit without having to understand the first thing about gardening, or how to identify fruit that are not safe to eat (the gardener does that) or which plants aren’t safe to touch (gardener takes care of not letting dangerous plants into the garden).

Does this mean that certain attractive but dangerous plants will be excluded from the garden? Yes, but that is by design.

If you want to bear the risk of toxic fruit and poisonous plants and feel that you can do as good a job as my gardener, go ahead and build your own garden. I won’t visit because I do my care for spending time to distinguish grass that is safe to lay on from grass that will poison me.

Developers who don't want to go through the App Store can release source code to their customers and then those customers can compile and install it themselves. This is obviously unreasonable for consumer apps but will work fine for enterprise customers.

For seven days, unless that’s changed.

Or developers can not write iOS apps and only support Android and they have all of the “freedom” they want.

Then don't use an iPhone? If you're in the DEP, you know there are rules. Don't like them? Don't join.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com