You can install anything on your hardware you want, assuming you find a way to do that - apple doesn’t have an obligation to make it easy, but they can’t go after you legally for using https://projectsandcastle.org/ on a supported device.

That’s the thing - I bought a completely locked down device where a central authority dictates what can be installed since I trust them to verify the app’s capabilities and the source’s identity. I know the software isn’t impenetrable nor apple infallible, but it reduces my threat model a lot compared to if I were running Android.

You could get the same security if you voluntarily limited yourself to the app store, or never unlocked your iPhone.

> apple doesn’t have an obligation to make it easy

Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

> Nor do countries have an obligation to allow Apple access to their markets if Apple refuses to respect user freedom, should that be legally required.

Well, yes. Go look at China[0] and see just how far apple is willing to bend over backwards to stay in a market (although for China they pretty much had to unless they wanted to lose access to their entire existing supply chain). My point is that I should be able to purchase a device completely locked down and Apple should be allowed to make that device. People who don't like that can purchase something else.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

But you tacked on that your threat model is less than Android because Apple babysits your device. An alternative app store existing does not have the ability to compromise your device unless you use it. Android has many app stores and 95% of users use the platform's default one. Therefore it is the same level of security as your Apple product with more freedom should the user take advantage of it. Walled gardens are not secure.

If it wasn't for network and ecosystem effects, I'd agree with you. But much like I can't simply not visit websites with Facebook's or Google's trackers, without cutting myself off from a huge chunk of the modern world, allowing locked-down devices to take up a larger and larger chunk of consumer computers has effects beyond the initial purchase.

Well your want for a locked down device is restricting my freedom. Too bad.

The locks on my front door also restrict your freedom. Please feel free to try to enter a house that does not have locks on the door.

I do not agree. It's not because my door does not have locks that you can feel free to enter. And vice-versa, it's not because there are locks on a door, that you don't have the right to try to enter...

Your analogy is not exactly correct. With an iDevice, this is someone else installing locks on your own door and not giving you the key, and they monitor who is allowed into your house. Even if you wanted the key they won't give it to you nor let you replace the locks.

You should probably read the whole post before replying in clichés.

If you're in favor of a locked down operating system there's nothing else I need to know.

If you think I said that then there's likely a huge amount you need to know.

You're free to purchase something not locked down. If there's no market for a device like that, then you're out of luck.

Imagine being such an apple shill you make logical fallacies to try to prove your point. I have ZERO freedom to not own an apple device when someone gives it to me for free. Nor do I have any freedom to not own iOS toys garbage when working on it for work. Please fuck off with your bullshit. Apple is already flagrantly violating right to repair laws with shills like you cheering them on.

You are literally standing in the way of progress and you're NOT more secure on iOS. If anything you're a bigger and easier to break down target.

You can refuse to accept the device.

If you work at a place where part of the job description is that you must work on devices that you refuse to accept, then you can always choose to leave that job and go somewhere else.

Don’t pretend that you don’t have a choice here.

I'm literally staring at a stack of old work iPhones I had zero input into owning or having that I could easily turn into a mini distcc cluster and make use of their computing power but I can't cause there's no app for that so instead they are digital bricks waiting for the landfill.

This anti freedom nonsense must stop. The ability to side load does not make an eco system weak.

Your freedom to purchase a different product is not in qustion.

This makes no sense to me. I was under the impression that Android is essentially spyware for google.

You don't need a Google account to use an Android phone, and even if you choose to use one, you can turn off sensitive things like location and app tracking if you want.

I am not if Google (Facebook, etc.) always respect the location tracking preferences of users.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/27/18114111/google-location...

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-science-technology-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-location-data-violate...

All those articles seem to say if you leave App Tracking on, and use Google Maps, yes, Google will save your location. Someone who is anti-Google shouldn't be leaving any tracking on, and shouldn't be using Google's Apps.

If you have any evidence that someone who uses Android without a Google account and doesnt use Google Apps is still getting tracked by Google, I'd be interested to see it.

Apple also tracks your GPS trace just like Google Maps does, the difference is they don't seem to share it with you.

Apple Maps employees use these "anonymized" GPS traces to correct roads, show business hours, find new points of interest that are unmapped, etc

They don’t share it with you because they can’t. It’s anonymized.

The GPS trace is not practically anonymized, comparison with public and semipublic datasets would deanonymize a large portion of the GPS traces.

You don't have to use Android. You can use AOSP. You can use /e/. You can use LineageOS with microG. Even then, with microG, you don't have to use any Google services.

>I really don’t like the idea of the government dictating what a company does with it’s software.

Never ever understand this angle. Don't let a government put their toe in the business even when it's utterly unfair to the customer, the environment. Why not? The artificially ginormous and obscenely wealthy 'company' that brags about welfare, rights, privacy, can already almost do literally anything it wants, data mining, price gouging, holding back innovation, monopoly, screwing its users for every penny its AI can scrape from your children to your grandmother... stop me when I reach your melting point...

I never said the government should get involved in anything. I actually said:

>However as far as installing your own OS on the hardware, that seems like something we could require without a downside.

I just don't think they should be involved in dictating how software works at the level a lot of people seem to be hoping for.

Getting the government involved in this stuff brings a lot of negatives along with it, so it needs a damn good reason to go that far in my opinion.

What I said and what you are saying, no person could argue against. On paper, it looks great.

But look at reality, and what we do have and it doesn't look so useful a list of ideals anymore.

I am very much against Gov toes. But it really is way past the time something needs to be reined in. Nothing is being done, or has been done, for decades and hope for change to come from the people 'up', has been sold for short term, looping, distraction.

To think my children's children will no longer use the word 'search', they will use the word 'google' but google is google, its not searching. This is the reality.

Politicians are in their pockets so deep before too long there will no one with any power, in power. That's what I see. It makes my skin crawl when Tim Cook talks about how green the Apple Campus is. This is base irony, and not enough people bat eyelids, imho.

In my opinion, a large portion of the benefit I get from iOS is due to the fact it’s a secure, locked down platform. If there were a way to run unsigned code on iOS, people would build exploits around it and malicious apps would just tell you to enable whatever “advanced mode” or be able to install a bootloader that transparently loads the OS but with a malware layer between the bootloader and the kernel. By disallowing unsigned code, these less-technical exploits become impossible, which also limits the blast radius of any exploits that are found.

If I want general purpose computing, I have other devices that allow more freedom (like a laptop or cloud server). I don’t need to be able to do everything with one device.

It's fine if you want to run iOS or iPadOS on your device, that shouldn't exclude other people from installing an OS of their own choosing though.

I would argue that being able to easily do that would be a security issue in itself - imagine an evil maid attack that is just installing iOS with a change that sends all keychain items to a remote server or makes it easy to obtain the encryption key that protects all user data.

As these systems rely on trusted hardware, it's straightforward to do things like require the device be plugged in and in some low-level diag mode for 72 hours before allowing the root signing key to be changed.

Trusted hardware could be interesting if companies actually developed it to be legible to the user-owner, rather than their current approach of doing the bare minimum to bake in their own fixed root keys.

There can be other mechanisms here. For example requiring a notification or 2FA before replacing a non Apple sourced iOS with something else. If your device is encrypted it should require the keys to install something new.

With this it might be easier to just “gift” someone the latest iPhone on which you installed an hardware exploit.

The idea is that every physical device has some sort of trust root, whether well defined or not.

Traditionally this has been physical possession of the device.

The treacherous computing model is to make the trust root a key that only the manufacturer has.

I'm proposing that the trust root should be "possession of the device for X days", which doesn't privilege the manufacturer with indefinite control over something they've supposedly sold.

I don't understand what you're describing. Things like "2FA" and "notifications" aren't part of a bootloader, and therefore would have to be implemented externally. Keeping the manufacturer as part of the privileged base is still the dark ages.

FWIW the answer to the gifted trojan iPhone is to make the bootloader report the signing key that it is trusting. If you receive an iPhone from someone else and you want to assure integrity, you either plug it into another device of yours which checks the Apple signing key (possibly needing to wait X days to load it), or you bring the device to an Apple store where they do it for you.

Regarding the notifications and 2FA I was thinking along the following lines. Every device is unique. In order to get an unlock key and get the phone to unlock itself you need some signed payload by Apple. In order to obtain the unlock you would need to prove you own the iCloud account attached to the phone. That is where 2FA comes in. The notifications will go to all your other devices similar to the “your iCloud account is now being used on device x” messages.

Thanks for explaining. I do see how that could work, and would lead to perhaps even a better system if your average person could transfer stewardship of their device to a different service and away from Apple.

Some fallback to possession of a device for a time fallback would be good to avoid needless e-waste though. It's pretty ridiculous to have a perfectly good item that you can't actually use because it got software bricked.

Re: the gifted trojan device scenario, I think the primary line of defense would be to display a prominent boot time warning in the bootloader where a non-Apple root of trust has been used, just as many Android devices do already -- perhaps similar to the recovery screen, but with more warning signs and an open lock symbol or something.

So they steal the device from me, lock it in a Faraday cage for a few days, and suddenly now it becomes their rightful property with which to do whatever they want?

There’s something wrong with that model.

That's the way the world generally works with literally everything else, so yes. Physical crimes like theft are punished after the fact and for the most part that works. It's definitely much less common than the recently-created version of theft whereby a device is falsely "sold" while still retaining control over it.

But sure, go ahead and design a different system where say the device's current key can be used to replace itself with a new key - the important part is that there are no permanent privileged keys that cannot be changed by the owner. But then you have to mandate that this procedure is carried out when a device is sold, otherwise it's not really a sale.

Such schemes seem likely to have pitfalls for losing or corrupting the key though, and I'm personally more comfortable with falling back on physical reality which we've learned how to deal with over thousands of years rather than ending up with perfectly good devices that cannot be used.

Next headline would be: "Apple cripple iPads, force Linux installs to take 72 hours"

It's becoming more and more clear that 'tech journalism' is essentially the same thing as the celebrity news rags.

Some tech news websites like The Register are completely self aware of that fact and lean into it completely and utterly

Is this a common issue for MacOS?

It's not. They made it all up.

Since iOS isn't flawless and it is ubiquitous across Apple devices, think of the damage that can be done by a single virus. iOS lacks diversity and is therefore a fantastic target for malware.

You advocate breaking the first link in the chain of security.

If anyone can install any OS they want on any device in their possession, even if it’s a device they stole from me, then that reduces my security.

I prefer to keep all the links in the chain of security as unbroken and undamaged as possible, and if the only way to do that is to have a company like Apple run a closed walled garden, then I’m okay with that.

Give me an alternative that doesn’t require the Apple solution but still actually works, and I’ll be happy to take a look at it. But so far, the market hasn’t come up with anything that can compare or compete.

Yes it should, because being able to install an OS on their device means they can install one on mine.

And people will come up with all kinds of farcical workarounds for this, like that nonsense about 72 hrs in diag another comment made (right, because someone can't hold a device from you for 72 hrs), but I'm not interested.

Jailbreaks are security flaws, I like that they're patched and I like that there's no blessed equivalent. I liked that I can trust my iPhone in ways I can't trust the Android devices I'm paid to develop for.

The same freedom that makes developing for Android fun is the same freedom that ruins them for any reasonable use I might have.

I’m of the same opinion, and I wouldn’t be looking to install a different OS personally. But I think it would be a good general rule that that you can run whatever software you want on your own hardware, but not expect the manufacturing to help you, just not actively hinder you.

Seems like “not expect the manufacturing to help you, just not actively hinder you” risks a lot of “interesting” interpretations.

Is my Microwave’s manufacturer actively hindering me by sealing access to its firmware behind a wall of plastic with no external port? If it’s not, could Apple just remove the iPhone’s port, throw a wireless charger in the box, and call it a day?

Yes the microwave should have accessible firmware. All electronics should have accessible firmware, software and hardware. Because it prevents abuse of powers (like Epson printers, for example) and, most importantly, it prevents waste.

Apple, due to its war on repair, locked software and influence among its peers is an environmental catastrophe.

The minute you buy something, what you do with it has to do with your rights and not the rights of the company that created that thing. I don't get it this line of argumentation.

Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights.

Because this is what you are advocating here. That a company should have the right even to break your rights because they are a "good willing actor" or that they are doing it thinking in your well being (which you are inclined to think with tons of well crafted and manipulative propaganda towards this goal).

And its even worse because, its not the third party that its at fault according to your point of view, but the government that is trespassing by trying to force with laws, approved in a democratic regime, that your rights have to be respected and there are limits into how they can limit you or forbid what you can do with something that you bought and therefore its your property.

I don’t think the laboured kidnap scenario is useful. Neither is the song and dance about democratic regimes, I’m not arguing the government shouldn’t regulate, I’m saying that I don’t think they should regulate like this.

But I do think you should be able to do whatever you want with what you purchased. I just don’t think that includes forcing them, or using the government to force them, to make changes to their software to suit you.

So yes run your own OS, but if you bought a product and expect its software to do things its creators are clear it doesn’t do, then that’s on you.

> So yes run your own OS, but if you bought a product and expect its software to do things its creators are clear it doesn’t do, then that’s on you.

That's the point being argued here. They doing all they can to not let this happen. You are saying as if there's still an option to do this.

It gets even worse, because inside the OS, you are their lap dog. They are enforcing options to curb any form of competition. Technology is being forcefully crippled so they can resort monopolistic forms of control.

And with the other hand they teach you to like it in a paternalistic way.

Don't bother. Apple zealots will tie themselves into knots defending Daddy Apple.

My problem with all this, is that they don't get it where this is taking us all.

Big Tech have a tremendous power all over the world. Lack of regulation and civil rights enforcement is taking us into a era o digital feudalism..

So its not just about their rights to let Apple strip their rights, but the rights of us all.

It's about our future, because governments are getting weaker and big tech companies are start to take over with power that transcend territory.

So its our duty, to not let this happen, because they are not really seeing, being selfish and thinking about their own convenience.

The worst part is that, it will not change anything to them, but the marketing machinery whisper all the time how this is bad for them, making they fear any sort of change in that direction.

100%. They are diving head first into a digital dystopian nightmare where no one is allowed to install anything without approval. I wouldn't be in tech if I couldn't experiment and tinker when I was younger. iOS is more of a toy than an actual useful OS.

> I just don’t think that includes forcing them, or using the government to force them, to make changes to their software to suit you.

I don't want to force them to make changes! I want to force them to not make changes. These devices are not locked down by default, the manufacturer implements these locked down restrictions in software manually. Rip that out and I'll be happy.

> if you bought a product and expect its software to do things its creators are clear it doesn’t do, then that’s on you.

I'd expect a computer to compute, whether it's scheduled by Windows, Linux, or iOS; whether Apple thinks I should install a software package or not. It should compute what I want it to, after all, it's using the electricity that I paid for.

It does compute, using iOS. If you want to use Linux or Windows why would you buy a device known to not work with them?

It can work with them, only Apple has locked down the bootloader.

This particular part of your argument is overwrought IMHO:

"Imagine someone was kidnapped against their will, and once we were to discuss the rights of the person being kidnapped the person kidnapped with stockholm syndrome have argued in favor of the kidnapper, as if it was within his rights to break its own rights."

1. Apple did not kidnap anyone here. Their customers _voluntarily_ buy Apple products. Don't like Apple's products? Do not buy them. Pretty simple stuff.

2. The government forcing Apple to do certain things is closer to your kidnapping argument. Apple doesn't want to relinquish software control on the devices they make. That is their right. They invented it, created it, and marketed it. Just because they are popular doesn't give anyone the right to control them.

3. You have the right to not buy Apple products.

This. I really don't understand why people both buy their products knowing what iOS allows them to do and what not, then still complain.

Don't like iPhone/iOS? Don't buy it, go and buy Android. Simple as that.

>Don't like iPhone/iOS? Don't buy it, go and buy Android. Simple as that.

That's a completely disingenuous response to any criticism. I'm allowed to dislike and like features of both iOS and Android. Anything I don't like shouldn't just be disregarded with 'Just get an Android'. iOS isn't perfect, and wanting it to improve is not wrong.

It’s fine to not like things but that doesn’t mean we need to use government force to make people do what we want.

That's exactly what governments and politicians are for isn't it? Making laws (governing) based on what people want.

> Don't like iPhone/iOS? Don't buy it, go and buy Android

Two choices is not enough. And, there are more choices than these 2. AltStore being an example.

You are correct, two choices are not enough. The problem is that both of those choices are significantly influenced by big business.

Google has a "free/open" version you can use if you like and also on their more restricted version allows you a fair amount of freedom.

Apple takes a more constrained approach and assumes that if you are purchasing the product you want to live within the ecosystem it supplies. No effort is made to allow you to move out of that ecosystem even though this may be possible through the exploitation of software/system bugs. Once those bugs have been identified, Apple feels it has a responsibility to lock down those loopholes in the name of creating a more secure system.

This can (and maybe should) be interpreted as Apple restricting your rights to jail break the system. Others interpret this as a responsible company maintaining a secure system.

The question is if Apple allowed side loading of software would that, as per their current claim, reduce the security of the entire system? I don't think that there should be any debate on this. Assuming Apple software has bugs, then allowing side loading of potentially compromised software inevitably increases the attack service available to a malicious actor. The OS now has to defend against untrusted loaded software, not only external network based attacks. Not only that, I would assume people would still want random software to be able to access their iCloud drive and other apple shared infrastructure, even more attack surface.

My feeling is that for most people with Apple devices, the devices are pretty much working as they desire and in a way that is easier (and potentially more secure) the alternative. Are there things that people don't like, sure, but the pain is lower than the pain of the alternative.

I don't think most people care a toss about the ability to side load apps, there are millions of apps on the ios store, more than can be found. The only people who don't like it are the ones who are having to comply with Apples rules and are missing out of $$$ because of it.

> No effort is made to allow you to move out of that ecosystem

That's an understatement. They actively deny you the possibility of moving out of their ecosystem. They disallow mentioning alternative payment systems in applications, FFS. If that isn't anti-competitive, I don't know what is.

I got Apple devices, and I've been worried the past 10+ years that macOS (or Mac OS X as it was called) is moving towards the closed down iOS platform. Slowly but surely, its getting done. But remember: go sloooowwwww. They won't notice it then, less resistance.

Apple can’t and probably will not try to stop you from performing any physical transformations to your Apple hardware after you buy it. You’re free to do whatever you want with it. That’s totally separate from whether Apple has to provide tools to make certain things easy.

> I really don’t like the idea of the government dictating what a company does with it’s software

And I really don’t like the idea that an entity more powerful than most countries should be able to do whatever it wants and be unaccountable to the public just because it is not called “government”.

Software, especially closed source, literally dictates what your device does, and you don't know what most of that is. But you're sure that you wouldn't want the government regulating it any way ... whatever it is doing.