10 ms·

I like being able to trust my device and my kids device, if you wan't something to hack on get a pinephone or something the reality is that billions of people

I like being able to trust my device and my kids device, if you wan't something to hack on get a pinephone or something the reality is that billions of people need to trust their phones with their most personal information, fininaces and lives and apple's policies while sometimes annoying do a lot to build that trust they aren't a big secret and if you don't like it you're free to not buy their products

jonny_eh 4y ago
> the reality is that billions of people need to trust their phones with their most personal information Does this apply to Macs as well? Why can't iPhones be at least as open as a Mac?
returnInfinity 4y ago
You can have all your devices locked. I want the option to unlock my device and use it as I see fit.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  So use Android? One of the things I don't understand about this whole argument is the choice people want is already there. Why does Apple also need to provide that option? Yes I've heard the argument over the "cost of re-buying all of your apps" to switch, but is there seriously anyone out there who really cares about this that didn't already know about the restrictions and still bought into the iPhone ecosystem? If so, why? Why if freedom to install any software you want on your phone was a priority for you would you ever have bought an iPhone in the first place? It's not like they started wide open and got locked down.
sergiotapia 4y ago
How does the option of openness interrupt your curated lifecycle?
- fishcrackers 4y ago
  for me personally I don't care about it on my phone either way, I do on my laptop/desktop
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    If you have no personal objection to Apple making their products more open, why defend their 'privacy' facade? Have you missed the last major iPhone exploits?
  - sergiotapia 4y ago
    So again, how does an option to open the device affect you in any way?
    - TylerE 4y ago
      A big part of what makes the Apple ecosystem so compelling is the consistency and coherence.
      - root_axis 4y ago
        Nothing would change for you though, if someone wanted to sideload something they would just have the option to do so.
        schrodinger 4y ago
        That's just not true. Making some things impossible by a company with Apple's clout prevents the exploitation of people who will click "next, next" to disable protections without really understanding the implications. If you're truly a developer, you can add whatever apps you want to your phone from source via xcode, free now, so what's the issue?
- danaris 4y ago
  Not having the option forces companies like Facebook to play by some simple rules. Having the option would mean that many apps that are currently available through the App Store, and therefore broadly trustworthy, would suddenly become side-load-only and follow basically no rules at all.
dmix 4y ago
Apple could still have a "developer" mode you have to jump through a complicated technical process to enable...just like MacOS let's you disable system integrity protection by running a terminal command and rebooting into a boot disk then running another terminal command. It could void support plans so it's not Apple's problem. That wouldn't affect your kids and telling Grandma how to do that over the phone is very difficult. And at that point she could be handing over her credit card anyway.
- api 4y ago
  It’d be easy to gate this: require that the iOS device be connected to a Mac and a special app used to change “advanced” settings. These could include side loading, the ability to install alternate app stores, and low level OS access of various kinds. It would be very helpful to developers and debugging too.
  - dmix 4y ago
    So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen? Surely a developer or ten has suggested the same thing by now? My guess is focus: they are 100% focused on being the best closed platform that is easy to use and everything is handled for the user. A lively sideloading and 3rd party homebrew scene would be a massive distraction for the Dev team and most importantly the support side with little direct business ROI (indirect could be big but a harder sell). Possibly harming brand reputation showing people what they could have absent the paid wall. When the alternative exposes people to risk, and they'd rather not have to explain themselves?
    - root_axis 4y ago
      > So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen? lol i can think of a few billion other reasons why they don't want it to happen.
      - dmix 4y ago
        Such as...
Nullabillity 4y ago
Did your kids also have a free choice to get another device instead?
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  Sure, if they're buying...
m463 4y ago
You seem to be arguing that only apple (or google) has the ability to protect your device. Honestly, the best protection would be the ability to control your own device, and make apple just one of many ways to help you secure it. I would love to be able to firewall my device. To see what apps are doing and to prevent them from doing things you don't like. Then you can trust but verify. By the way, apple does TONS of stuff behind your back - rapant telemetry, allowing and even helping with tracking, and doing its own advertising. Look at deep linking, iBeacon, and lots of other silly things.
- surajrmal 4y ago
  One of the problems with giving users access means that they can forward such access to malicious actors. It's a tough choice and perhaps not the right one for some, but I think preventing people from shooting themselves in the foot is the right call for many. Many do not understand the consequences of their actions and will readily grant access incorrectly. While I agree that a single company shouldn't be unilaterally in charge of controlling access on behalf of users, I would say the industry doesn't do a good job of coming together to produce an option that works. Look at the software supply chain as an example of what tends to happen. The Linux distros do a pretty good job, but they maintain far fewer packages and getting your application into a distros repos isn't trivial.
- fingerlocks 4y ago
  > Look at deep linking, iBeacon, and lots of other silly things. iBeacon is 1-way read-only. Deep Linking is an app url scheme. Not much to look at.
  - m463 4y ago
    you don't know what they do because apple does not allow introspection into the device you own. afaict ibeacon allows apps to locate bluetooth beacons. think department store beacons and department store app. deep linking allows apps to (silently) intercept email/browsing/messages with specific urls. all of them and other schemes let apps wake up in the background.
- 4y ago

jonny_eh 4y ago

> the reality is that billions of people need to trust their phones with their most personal information Does this apply to Macs as well? Why can't iPhones be at least as open as a Mac?

returnInfinity 4y ago

You can have all your devices locked. I want the option to unlock my device and use it as I see fit.

tpmoney 4y ago
So use Android? One of the things I don't understand about this whole argument is the choice people want is already there. Why does Apple also need to provide that option? Yes I've heard the argument over the "cost of re-buying all of your apps" to switch, but is there seriously anyone out there who really cares about this that didn't already know about the restrictions and still bought into the iPhone ecosystem? If so, why? Why if freedom to install any software you want on your phone was a priority for you would you ever have bought an iPhone in the first place? It's not like they started wide open and got locked down.

sergiotapia 4y ago

How does the option of openness interrupt your curated lifecycle?

fishcrackers 4y ago
for me personally I don't care about it on my phone either way, I do on my laptop/desktop
- smoldesu 4y ago
  If you have no personal objection to Apple making their products more open, why defend their 'privacy' facade? Have you missed the last major iPhone exploits?
- sergiotapia 4y ago
  So again, how does an option to open the device affect you in any way?
  - TylerE 4y ago
    A big part of what makes the Apple ecosystem so compelling is the consistency and coherence.
    - root_axis 4y ago
      Nothing would change for you though, if someone wanted to sideload something they would just have the option to do so.
      - schrodinger 4y ago
        That's just not true. Making some things impossible by a company with Apple's clout prevents the exploitation of people who will click "next, next" to disable protections without really understanding the implications. If you're truly a developer, you can add whatever apps you want to your phone from source via xcode, free now, so what's the issue?
danaris 4y ago
Not having the option forces companies like Facebook to play by some simple rules. Having the option would mean that many apps that are currently available through the App Store, and therefore broadly trustworthy, would suddenly become side-load-only and follow basically no rules at all.

dmix 4y ago

Apple could still have a "developer" mode you have to jump through a complicated technical process to enable...just like MacOS let's you disable system integrity protection by running a terminal command and rebooting into a boot disk then running another terminal command. It could void support plans so it's not Apple's problem. That wouldn't affect your kids and telling Grandma how to do that over the phone is very difficult. And at that point she could be handing over her credit card anyway.

api 4y ago
It’d be easy to gate this: require that the iOS device be connected to a Mac and a special app used to change “advanced” settings. These could include side loading, the ability to install alternate app stores, and low level OS access of various kinds. It would be very helpful to developers and debugging too.
- dmix 4y ago
  So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen? Surely a developer or ten has suggested the same thing by now? My guess is focus: they are 100% focused on being the best closed platform that is easy to use and everything is handled for the user. A lively sideloading and 3rd party homebrew scene would be a massive distraction for the Dev team and most importantly the support side with little direct business ROI (indirect could be big but a harder sell). Possibly harming brand reputation showing people what they could have absent the paid wall. When the alternative exposes people to risk, and they'd rather not have to explain themselves?
  - root_axis 4y ago
    > So why do you think Apple doesn't want that to happen? lol i can think of a few billion other reasons why they don't want it to happen.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Such as...

Nullabillity 4y ago

Did your kids also have a free choice to get another device instead?

bastardoperator 4y ago
Sure, if they're buying...

m463 4y ago

You seem to be arguing that only apple (or google) has the ability to protect your device. Honestly, the best protection would be the ability to control your own device, and make apple just one of many ways to help you secure it. I would love to be able to firewall my device. To see what apps are doing and to prevent them from doing things you don't like. Then you can trust but verify. By the way, apple does TONS of stuff behind your back - rapant telemetry, allowing and even helping with tracking, and doing its own advertising. Look at deep linking, iBeacon, and lots of other silly things.

surajrmal 4y ago
One of the problems with giving users access means that they can forward such access to malicious actors. It's a tough choice and perhaps not the right one for some, but I think preventing people from shooting themselves in the foot is the right call for many. Many do not understand the consequences of their actions and will readily grant access incorrectly. While I agree that a single company shouldn't be unilaterally in charge of controlling access on behalf of users, I would say the industry doesn't do a good job of coming together to produce an option that works. Look at the software supply chain as an example of what tends to happen. The Linux distros do a pretty good job, but they maintain far fewer packages and getting your application into a distros repos isn't trivial.
fingerlocks 4y ago
> Look at deep linking, iBeacon, and lots of other silly things. iBeacon is 1-way read-only. Deep Linking is an app url scheme. Not much to look at.
- m463 4y ago
  you don't know what they do because apple does not allow introspection into the device you own. afaict ibeacon allows apps to locate bluetooth beacons. think department store beacons and department store app. deep linking allows apps to (silently) intercept email/browsing/messages with specific urls. all of them and other schemes let apps wake up in the background.
4y ago