Hacker News Reader

Comment by i_like_apis | Hacker News Reader

> You really like the idea of a company controlling property you own after you bought it???

> right of exclusion when it comes to what code can run on that ARM cpu

Yes I like it for the phone. The walled garden has very little malware and has high quality apps. I am never pestered to install crapware or malware and I don't have to be paranoid about it. You can still run your own development software on these machines, and software distributed in controlled channels outside of the store. The controls are reasonably convenient and necessary to keep unwanted software out.

Compare it to Android Play Store or much worse the Galaxy store situation. The grass is much greener in the walled garden.

For the Mac, it's a different story, you can and should be able to run whatever you want on it. But iPhone as a product is a well tended garden (controlled but quite wide and powerful) and I can appreciate that.

View on HN

You're confusing two different things:

- Apple giving a shit about app curation versus Google Play being a trash heap

- Android having the ability to install third-party-signed apps

Nothing about having the ability to install software outside of Google Play necessitates Google Play itself being a tire fire. Same with Apple: if they tomorrow decided to open up iOS to non-App-Store apps, it wouldn't impact the quality of curation on the iOS App Store.

For the record, I daily drive both an Android phone and an iPad, and don't really worry about malware on either of them. My main gripe is not having any good virtualization options to really stretch the iPad's legs on more developer-centric workflows. That's a particular category of app where App Review has ranged from somewhat hostile to extremely hostile. The end result is that not a lot of people actually bother working on such tools because the chances of actually getting into the App Store and being useful to a wide swath of people is marginal.

> if they tomorrow decided to open up iOS to non-App-Store apps, it wouldn't impact the quality of curation on the iOS App Store

Yes, it would. Developers who are today forced to go through the app store would self publish rather than use the app store. Whether or not they use this power well is a different question but there is no question that opening up other distribution channels would directly impact the app store, (which is a huge part of the value add for an iOS device to me)

If its optional dont enable it/use it. I would be more concerned with companies using extralegal means to effectively infringe your property rights...

Sounds like different issues. I love options. Well designed options are a feature, I use them. Malware/Crapware is something different, it's a contagion that should be controlled.

I agree that malware and such should be dealt with but at the expense of your own property rights is far too far.

Secondly, if apple just allowed loading your own signing key it’s not like malware writers can sign their crap with their own key, and expect it to run.

What is malware to you, and what is malware to Apple, can and will disagree.

Then shady apps will include instructions on how to bypass the security mechanisms. You already see this in Windows where game hacks (or just really shitty game mod sites) often request you disable security features to ensure they don't interfere with the hack.

This is a big misconception. Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers.

We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.

a) If it’s optional then apps will simply demand it be enabled in order to use their apps. And then it’s no longer optional in practice.

b) You need to stop using the term extralegal. You agree to the terms when you first use the phone. Apple is not doing anything without your explicit permission.

It is extralegal though. The boot-rom will enforce these restrictions, and you don’t have to agree to the iOS TOS to buy an iDevice. Further, one may want to use the device without iOS.

Extralegal just means outside of the scope of law or a legal framework. Here apple using cryptography starting from the boot loader to effectively retain the right of exclusion regarding what code may or may not run on the ARM CPU. The sale of the tangible property should include the right of exclusion to the buyer short of a legal agreement at the time of sale allowing the seller to retain some rights. Thats why its extralegal there is no contract just apple using public key cryptography in rather hostile manner that diminishes the property rights of buyers.

Here is a simple test if you have to ask 3rd party to do something with something you “own” you don’t fully own it or your rights are diminished in some manner.

> I am never pestered to install crapware or malware and I don't have to be paranoid about it

You still wouldn’t need to be paranoid if sideloading became possible. Sideloading doesn’t imply that app isolation (sandboxing) is also going away, nor does it imply that any app would ever be able to trick the user into running it with escalated privileges (sudo/root) as is the case on most computers.

We’re not talking about going back to the old Windows security model where you were always one wrong click away from damaging other apps or the OS, or having your data stolen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com