Some privacy advocates think that people shouldn’t have the freedom to do that, because they can make bad choices. They aren’t wrong that a locked down system like iOS is safer overall for users, as long as you’re ok with Apple controlling what content you can use.

Then you usually get the "facebook is turning on my microphone without asking me" people. They just can't fathom that the precision with which they get ads could be the result of anything else.

Mostly, there's a whole bunch of stuff to know. I think i'm on board for things that are transparent and trustworthy. Where did this egg come from? how was the hen cared for? It would be super sweet if the history of every object i interact with (or consider purchasing) was available in a tamper proof way.

So, if your argument is, i can get source for whatever and put it on my phone, i am 100% on board.

But that's a pretty big ask. generally my only option is to rely on the supplier, and whatever regulations/inspections they're subject to.

The other thing that sorta ticks me off is, this is Facebook and Google. This isn't some 419 scam. These are real, grown up businesses that chose to ask children to do these things.

children should be informed, children should be educated. but, uh, how high of a standard do you want to hold a 14 year old to?

If they're willing to download and compile the source, and install the software, ok. i think i'm on board. A one click (oh by the way we're activating the mic when you have your first kiss) install is, unseemly. it's gross.

Taking candy from a baby is easy, but despicable.

I don't mean this to be a THINK OF THE CHILDREN post.

it's just as despicable to manipulate adults like that. children just put a special emotional point on the argument.

feel free to throw all that out and tell me why it's ok to ask a middle aged person that has about 15 free minutes a week to research why this app is 'safe'.

What difference is there, in practice? The world is getting more complicated every day. The amount of information being created in a single day is more than a person could consume in a lifetime.

At some point we should ask ourselves whether it's possible for anyone to have a fully informed opinion on every issue that could ever effect them.

Asking users to make informed decisions about infosec is something from the Windows XP era. Ever since then it’s become clear that platforms will have to be opinionated about their security choices.

For instance allowing users to side-load apps also allows carriers to install crapware and certain governments to mandate monitoring apps. Platform designers need to figure out if that’s worth it — I’m sure different people will reach different conclusions.

Government, in an ideal scenario, takes care of situations where the individual person is likely to make a bad choice and screw themselves over because the ability to understand the problem domain is so much work that they are unlikely to make the effort.

This whole conversation in this thread is basically about the nanny-state vs freedom to make your own choices, even if they're more than likely to end up in a bad situation for the end user.

I think everyone is constantly trying to thread the needle on that tension in a way that is acceptable to the broader culture.

So that, should be the job of the OS (Apple in this case), rather than limiting the user's choices of where he/she can install an app from.

The problem is that mobile devices can say "This app changes your VPN settings and installs a root cert". The general public says "Whatever, I want my olive garden gift card." It could could maybe say "This app could see everything you do online", but it really needs to explain "This app can see very site you visit, every message you send, every porn link you click, etc". Until the OS can actually inform the user what they're trading, it's not choice, it's deception.

And that brings us back to Apple. Until devices can do this for themselves, someone needs to be the gate keeper. Letting users willingly install some candy-themed clicker game that steals your contacts, location, and photos is _objectively bad_ in the same way that BonzaiBuddy and CometCursor were bad twenty years ago. Right now, the only answer we have to this problem is Apple and Google playing the role of the good guy and working towards better solutions.

We have Knox on work Android devices, but because our IT team also offer iOS, people just choose iOS, because it results in a nicer experience.

Letting other people root your system to accomplish something is great for flexibility and gives you short-term wins. But it can result in massive damage to the platform if left unchecked -- kind of like how OEMs turned Windows into a hellish experience with pre-installed apps like WildTangent Games and the like. End-users won't blame the IT department or the OEM, they'll blame the platform.

This is already happening on Android today. There's a reason Google's Pixel marketing hardly ever mentions "Android".

But I want my phone to just work reliably. I actually don't want it to be a full-fledged computer.

"I just want my phone to make calls and send plain text messages reliably. Don't want videos and gifs and camera in it."

"I just want a smartphone to make calls, send sms, basic whatsapp and take average pictures. Don't want it to become a DSLR".

"I want my phone to just work reliably. I actually don't want it to be a full-fledged computer. "

Interesting you say that, because your phone is already much (, much) more powerful than the full-fledged computers from just a few years back. The only reason you don't want it to be like 'traditional' full fledged computers because it doesn't work great that way right now. Once it does, you'll not want your phone to become something else.

For instance a lot of friends using Android phones are shocked about iOS lack of a global filesystem.

But to me, this absence is a feature, not a bug. Having every app sandboxed at the OS level is a great thing to limit what can go wrong. I explicitely don't want a global filesystem on iOS.

To be clear, I would hate a full computer without a global filesystem. But I'm really fine with a phone not having one.

(By the way Apple did take tiny steps towards a public filesystem on iOS and I'm not super happy about that)

Why do you think Wesnoth is on iOS?

In this case, you're effectively dual-licensing your software.

Seems to be the right thing long-term, though it prevents you having that piece of GPL software that you want today.

Sad to see pieces of software relicensing so they weren't affected by such a clause, all because of the lure of being in the Mac app store.

What are the regulation you are referring?

Regarding console I'm happy with you to have a device like a console. On the other hand I don't like that such an important worldwide ecosystem is closed and in the hand of one company. Would Apple e.g. have restored certificates for a much smaller company than Google? (but this is getting a bit offtopic here)

I also don't like good hardware becoming just bricks because you can't repair it or you can't install a different OS but mentioning this opinion here will cause it getting downvoted (yeah all my post about Apple and right to repair and publishing schematics got downvoted)

It’s actually got more open than its original launch, but it is clearly sold as an appliance.

I don't think many people think about it, so it6 is not like people are tricked to think is an open computer but they are not even consider the implication. Does average iOS user know that at any moment Apple can brick his device, can remove stuff from his device, can install whatever they want, do they consider that in future this devices will be just briks without the software/cloud part(at least with consoles you may be able to use games on disks for now)

I don't think people realize that it can just go away at any time. I'm sure the terms and conditions allow a clause which shows the company to shut down these services at any time without facing a requirement to buy back these (now useless) gadgets.

My point is that incidents show regular people the things that are usually "hidden" in big EULAs, is good to have such big incidents we can link to, like when someone tells ypou that is better to keep your data on Google servers since they have brilliant engineers you can link to incidents like the Google+ leaks to show that even Google can ignore security or make mistakes.

The EULA that was breached here was an Enterprise agreement between Google and Apple. It will have been poured over by teams of lawyers. An individual at Google had decided, “fuck it, whats the worst that could happen?” and found out.

I’ve seen people frequently be accused of being “Apple apologist” on this site. What I’m reading is the exact opposite. Google are responsible for their actions, no-one else. As is constantly pointed out, there is an alternative to iPhone, where choice and “freedom” exist, but it comes at a non-financial cost.

Not all people change their device every 2 years, there should be no reason why you could not use (or give to someone else to continue using) a device(phone,tablet, TV, watch) until it just falls apart.

My point is that big EULAs are bad, not controlling your hardware is bad (no matter if is Apple,MS or Google), this incident makes it clear what rights you have with this kind of EULAs

https://www.imore.com/how-configure-vpn-access-your-iphone-o...

Yes there is. It's called Android.

I'm not being glib here, I'm totally serious. If you don't like the security restrictions that iOS has, then use Android.

I get your point and I'm not for forcing Apple to allow free side loading apps yet (I have an android partially because of this reason) but it is infuriating that when I had an iphone, I could not use any apps not allowed by them and annoying that i don't have that ability if I ever want to go back to an Iphone (and a major blocker for going back to be honest now that phone upgrades don't mean much these days).

I'm certain that Apple could do even better with iOS since they have the advantage of not needing to maintain compatibility with an existing ecosystem of software being distributed outside of the App Store.

If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that their choice, not yours? If apps are trying to steal information without informing the users, those could be blacklisted outside of the App Store just as well as they can be blacklisted inside it if Apple requires centrally managed signing certificates... but I would still favor an option of allowing unsigned software to be installed. The user's choice should be their choice.

Being outside of the App Store wouldn't necessarily be carte blanche, although it would hopefully enable developers to do more and better stuff, as well as make development more accessible to hobbyists who don't want to pay to distribute their stuff on the App Store.

They also give up the information of anybody they communicate with.

I don't want my personal data leaked because my landlord wanted to cash in a $20 gift card.

My perspective - NO. When I choose to share something personal with someone, there is obviously an implicit understanding that I don't want it shared with others.

Yes, you have the right to share your data. But you do not have the right to share my (or other people's data) without their consent.

(Side note: This is why privacy conscious email providers, like Tutanota and Protonmail, provide you an option to send a password protected email to parasitic providers like Gmail, so that Google / Gmail can't "read" it and create a profile on you even if you don't use their service).

It's not quite a non-issue, but it's a small one, mostly due to the small userbase and Apple's efforts to quickly blacklist malware.

> they have a clean slate to design a security model "the right way" for apps distributed outside of the App Store

Apple's solution is very clearly "don't distribute outside the App Store".

> If users willingly choose to give up their information in exchange for a $20 gift card, isn't that their choice? I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, but as long as they're adults, isn't that kind of their choice?

One argument that I have heard (and am presenting without attaching my views on its validity) is that if anything goes wrong with someone's iPhone, they will blame Apple for their messed-up device rather than themselves. So it's in Apple's best interest to prevent people from being able to do stupid things.

If developers do sign theirs Apps Apple have no issue with side loading as they’ll have a mean to nuke theses Apps via cert revocation if one of theses App turn out to be a malware.

Maybe it’s that middle ground that is currently missing from iOS.

However one could rightly argue that for the sake of overall system performance on a mobile device preemptive curation is a better choice. It’s would be perceived equally (if not more) harsh is Apple nuked side loaded signed Apps for the reason of "Impairing performance". On MacOS they’re resorted to nuke only for security reason which is more acceptable.

Is Apple's best interest something it's customers should be striving for, or is freedom (even to shoot yourself in the foot) the higher priority one?

Annecdotes probably aren't that useful here though.

I could never trust an Apple or Google run app store to serve MY interests.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnites-battle-royale-with-andro...