Well, rarely completely forbidden, but e.g. I think OpenBSD has been W^X by default for quite some time (though IIRC with a WX allowed flag per… FS mount?). Now on FreeBSD it's not default but it's there, and if you turn it on, you have to mark WX-mapping binaries by running `elfctl -e +wxneeded`.

Firefox actually became W^X compliant all the way back in 2015: https://jandemooij.nl/blog/wx-jit-code-enabled-in-firefox/

They could block all execution for total security.

So if it didn’t (have this restriction), you’d be confused as to why? Or are you just praising a high-status decision for being high-status?

> arguments about third party browser security on iOS

Well, W^X is just one mitigation technique. But also, the "security" arguments have always been kinda dubious. I don't think there's that much difference (at least philosophically) between an interpreter bug causing arbitrary crap to happen inside your app's sandbox and a JIT bug doing the same.

I tried porting a much simpler JIT to M1 and ran into the problem that Rosetta 2 was simply better at translating an AMD64 JIT than my attempt at a JIT. It could’ve been related to W^X performance, but I actually suspect the real answer is that Rosetta’s optimization passes were doing things the JIT did not do natively. I don’t know how to debug that, though, because from the debugger’s PoV, emulated processes look just like native Intel processes.

* 9900k is boosting to 5ghz which is sacrificing efficiency.

* 9900k PC is delivering a much higher framerate, so it'd also have much higher GPU utilisation.

* Afaik RTX3090 will have high power draw even at low utilisation (large card, lots of memory).

From anandtech:

>Should users be interested, in our testing at 4C/4T and 3.0 GHz, the Core i9-9900K only hit 23W power. Doubling the cores and adding another 50%+ to the frequency causes an almost 7x increase in power consumption.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9...

Look at the 3090s power consumption during media playback: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/zotac-geforce-rtx-3090-tr...

To compare efficiency you need to control for performance. What Dolphin did here would be like trying to compare CPU coolers without controlling for power consumption.

What makes the M1 impressive is its performance relative to other CPUs in its power category (eg, the M1 vs. the i7-1185G7 in this chart: https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph16680/117493.png ), or when it manages to be both faster and use less power. That's impressive.

But using less power while also being significantly slower (which is what Dolphin's comparison is saying)? That's... not impressive or interesting. That's some "no shit sherlock" level stuff - just compare literally any mobile CPU from Intel or AMD vs. the desktop equivalent in the same generation. You'll see a chart that looks basically the same, with the mobile CPU many times more power efficient while also being a lot slower. Especially when you're taking the top-end desktop CPU for the comparison, the CPU where power efficiency isn't even remotely a design goal.

I will use another John Deere metaphor: a Prius can cover a much longer distance on the same amount of fuel, but if I need a John Deere it's because the Prius can't do the same job and I am willing to sacrifice fuel efficiency for raw power.

In other words: how much more does the i9 consumes to produce the same FPS of an M1?

We don't know, but we know power consumption increase on these CPUs is non linear, meaning that the 60-65% of the frame rate could potentially lead to 5-6 times less energy used.

From anandtech: «Should users be interested, in our testing at 4C/4T and 3.0 GHz, the Core i9-9900K only hit 23W power. Doubling the cores and adding another 50%+ to the frequency causes an almost 7x increase in power consumption»

The i9 4C/4T 3Ghz consumes 23 watt

how many FPS can that produce?

the one benchmarked consumes more than 7 times that (it's a 5 GHz 8C/16T), and it's sure it's not 7 times faster (not even close)

They are actually not doing the same job, they ate trying to go as fast as they can.

But what if they measured how much energy each one uses to produce the same score?

> We really didn't expect this to work or we probably would have tried it sooner.

The only game rosetta is beating native on is rogue squadron 2. Since Dolphin is a JIT, this seems to be a case of where Rosetta's JIT is smarter than Dolphin's in terms of which ARM instructions are chosen when converting from the Intel instructions than Dolphin when converting from the emulated PPC instructions.

Unless you're comparison is the 8559h and not the "native" bar. I mean, the 8559h is a mid range older Intel CPU and it's hard to understate how much Intel stagnated since Sandy Bridge (and especially since Skylake).

According to the article, the AArch64 JIT isn’t as complete as the x86 one so some less common instructions are emulated, not JITed. I imagine a game that uses a lot of these is slower with the native ARM version.

From reading this blog, Gamecube games often made heavy usage of the memory-sharing capability of the hardware - which made emulation on PCs a performance challenge.

From my understanding it's not that useful for reading back either as the main bottleneck there is the fact that you need to sync gpu and cpu rather than transfer speed.

A problem that I don’t think applies to consoles is that GPUs don’t use the same texture format CPUs do - they swizzle them in proprietary ways and it needs conversion even if there are no memory transfers.

And why would software rendering be fast on the M1?

No one was competing for fastest single thread because no one needs it.

Well maybe marketers need it.

A big part of the reasons why web applications are so darn fast on the M1 is it’s single-threaded performance. Remember that JavaScript itself is single-threaded

Engineers making pronouncements like this bring me no end of amusement. Surely we've learned by now that we're pretty terrible at these sorts of guesses?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

There isn't one. Apple's silicon team is at least 1-2 years ahead of all the other ARM vendors when looking at mobile performance, and none of those vendors are even trying to do anything in the desktop space (yet).

> It isn't just because it is RISC, it's Apple magic?

It’s both. We’ve known for decades that RISC was the “right” design, but x86 was so far ahead of everyone else that switching architectures was completely infeasible (even Intel themselves tried and failed with Itanium). It would have taken years to design a new CPU core that could match existing x86 designs, and breaking backwards compatibility is a non-starter in the Windows world. So we ended up with a 20-year-long status quo where ARM dominated the embedded world (due to its simplicity and efficiency) and x86 dominated the desktop world due to its market position.

However, with Apple, all the stars lined up perfectly for them to be able to pull off this transition in a way that no other company was able to accomplish.

- Apple sells both PCs and smartphones, and the smartphone market gave them a reason to justify spending 10 years and billions of dollars on a high-performance ARM core. The A series slowly evolved from a regular smartphone processor, into a high-end smartphone processor, and then into a desktop-class processor in a smartphone.

- Apple (co-)founded ARM, giving them a huge amount of control over the architecture. IIRC they had a ton of influence on the design of AArch64 and beat ARM’s own chips to market by a year.

- Intel’s troubles lately have given Apple a reason to look for an alternative source of processors.

- Apple’s vertical integration of hardware and software means they can transition the entire stack at once, and they don’t have to coordinate with OEMs.

- Apple does not have to worry about backwards compatibility very much compared to a Windows-based manufacturer. Apple has a history of successfully pulling off several architecture transitions, and all the software infrastructure was still in place to support another one. Mac users also tend to be less reliant on legacy or enterprise software.

> It seems weird that you can emulate other instruction sets with RISC underneath and get the performance they do.

As far as I understand it, the only major distinction between RISC and CISC is in the instruction decoder. CISC processors do not typically have any more advanced “hardware acceleration” or special-purpose instructions; the distinction between CISC and RISC is whether you support advanced addressing modes and prefix bytes that let you cram multiple hardware operations into a single software instruction.

For instance, on x86 you can write an instruction like ‘ADD [rax + 0x1234 + 8*rbx], rcx’. In one instruction you’ve performed a multi-step address calculation with two registers, read from memory, added a third register, and written the result back to memory. Whereas on a RISC, you would have to express the individual steps as 4 or 5 separate instructions.

Crucially, you don’t have to do any more actual hardware operations to execute the 4 or 5 RISC as compared to the one CISC instruction. All modern processors convert the incoming instruction stream into a RISCy microcode anyway, so the only performance difference between the two is how much work the processor has to spend decoding instructions. x86 requires a very complex decoder that is difficult to parallelize, whereas ARM uses a much more modern instruction set (AArch64 was designed in 2012) that is designed to maximize decoder throughput.

So this helps us understand why Apple can emulate x86 code so efficiently: the JIT/AOT translator is essentially just running the expensive x86 decode stage ahead of time and converting it to a RISC instruction stream that is easier for a processor to digest. You’re right, though, that native code can always be more tightly optimized since the compiler knows much more about the program than the JIT does and can produce code bettor tailored to the quirks and features of the target processor.

All the experts I listened or read to, they told that instruction set doesn't matter and it is the insignificant thing. The part that matters is branch and data prediction, and caching. Also, even intel transforms an instruction into RISC like microinstructions internally.

> Apple does not have to worry about backwards compatibility very much compared to a Windows-based manufacturer

Windows is literal shit in backwards compatibility too. Try to run any windows 7 or before program in windows 10 and most of the time it won't work. Also, windows can also run in ARM and unlike mac the ARM windows didn't had emulation for years.

That's commonly repeated, but is a misunderstanding. Up until this point the difference was mostly that an x86 decoder took up more chip area, which given Intel's historical leads in process tech was no big deal to them.

However now we're pushing chips to go wider than ever. Intel and AMD haven't been able to push past a 4x superscalar decoder. The instruction set just has too many potential chained dependencies to make it work. You'd have to slow cycle time or introduce additional pipeline stages such that performance in the net is worse. Meanwhile M1 decodes at 8x.

This dovetails into what you're saying about stalls caused by prediction and caching. Once the stall is resolved M1 can race ahead, assigning work into the shadow registers at potentially twice the peak rate.

You're being a bit hyperbolic about Windows backwards compatibility. Much of the enterprise software world is still running programs that were written against windows XP just fine, and MS is not going to rock that boat any time soon.

The big difference with Apple's transition is precisely due to the translation (note not emulation). I've lived through 3 of their ISA changes now and they've all been nearly seamless. The big difference is Mac users have been ok with sunsetting the old apps ~5 years after the transition, something that's a total nonstarter in Windows land.

Rosetta2 is so stinking fast I have not even had to think one whip about what's native vs translated.

I've heard this before, but I've also seen sources which indicate that x86 instruction decoding is definitely a bottleneck [1-5]. The M1 has a significantly wider pipeline/OoO window/reorder buffer than any other processor, and most sources seem to agree that this is because the simplicity of the ARM ISA allowed Apple to build an 8-wide instruction decoder (as compared to around 4-wide for x86 chips). [1] also mentions that Apple's impressive branch-prediction capabilities are at least partially because ARM's 4-byte-aligned instructions greatly simplify the design of the branch predictor.

So yes, it's true that an x86 processor really runs RISC-like uops under the hood. However, the best out-of-order execution pipeline in the world is limited by how far ahead it can see, and that depends on how fast the instruction decoder can feed it instructions.

Once again though, I am not a microarchitecture expert. I just read bits of information from people who do know what they're talking about and try to form it into a coherent mental model. If you have knowledge or sources that disagree with me, I would be happy to be proven wrong :)

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25264384 [2]: https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=25 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26782213 [4]: https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-intel-or-AMD-design-an-x86-CP... [5]: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de...

  Processor: $300
  Motherboard: $200
  good 256 gb SSD: $100(doesn't seem to come close to apple's)
  8 GB RAM: $40
  Case/cooling: $100

But yeah, I agree if you want an upgrade of RAM and SSD, it is much expensive than the part.

On what metric? Single-thread performance seems to be comparable and in multi-threaded workloads Ryzen seems to be up to 50% faster.

>Motherboard: $200

Huh? AM4 motherboards seems to be available for around $70

>Case/cooling: $100

Processor includes box cooler, so you are now counting it twice.

This performance would've been available on iPads years ago if it wasn't for Apple's blanket ban on JIT and the likes.

Apple is one of those companies whose hardware I'd love to have if it wasn't for their software and general corporate decisions. Until I can run a proper version of Firefox on iPad, I'll have to stick with the objectively inferior hardware for the coming years.

It is there to prevent apps circumventing the review process and security model ie. apps pretending to do X during the review process and then doing Y when in use or obfuscating their use of private APIs. Now you can argue these restrictions are unreasonable but many of us don’t want our iPads or iPhones to be like our computers.

And many of us do. I would never buy a locked-down piece of hardware like that. But I don't think it matters either way what either side wants, because it's what Apple wants that matters. They want to keep their walled garden's walls air tight, and there are apparently enough people that are OK living in that garden that it works.

I'm positive that they have done the calculus that they'll make more money in the long/short term by behaving this way. Google did a similar calculus, with a different set of values (if not an entirely different set of variables altogether) and came up with a different answer. Although it's interesting to see how their position has shifted over the years to be a bit more like Apple in some regards. Regardless, the point is they don't care what you want once they've gotten to the point of getting your money. Past that, they only care about maximizing their profit.

So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.

Admittedly, the same problems exist on the App Store, but not to the same why-even-try level of anything goes.

The amount of kids apps, that are marketed as kids apps, certified as age appropriate, then contain ads for zombie gorefest horror was enough to make me give up trying with Android entirely.

I have every confidence Google will eventually address this (if they haven’t already in the intervening years).

In the meantime while I dislike how restrictive iOS is I’ve begrudgingly come to accept that I need it that way, at least until my kids are older.

That said, it's not clear if Apple will win or lose this Epic suit, so who knows what happens after that if they do?

From what I've seen, Epic's primary intention is to get Apple to publicly admit the compromises they make to maintain their ecosystem, and then use that to drive a wedge between the court's interpretation of the situation and Apple's defense.

The bottom line is that the internet is scary, and your kids are growing up faster than any generation before. The more you try to interfere with stuff like this, the more animosity they'll perceive in your relationship.

This is a false dilemma. You can have both.

That said, here's a challenge for everybody (including myself) who doesn't like Apple's app store monopoly and side-loading ban:

Apple now requires apps to ask for permission before tracking users. Facebook is _very_ unhappy about that. Imagine what would have happened if alternative app stores were allowed on iOS.

How long would it take before a Facebook/Google sponsored app store would emerge that would carry all ad funded apps? How would you prevent this from happening?

Very simply - enforce security permissions at the OS level, rather than the app store level.

There's no technical reason an app store also has to handle permissions. Leave the discoverability/reviews/curation functionality in the app store, and then just move the app installation functionality into the OS - the app store delivers an app package which the OS accepts, parses the manifest file, prompts user for permissions.

Put APIs behind a sane, capabilities-like model where the OS has to approve everything.

Facebook and Google can make their own app stores - but they still won't be able to spy on you by using privileged APIs without your consent.

(yes, they'll still be able to spy on you using data collection and aggregation - but then Apple's App Store privacy labels becomes a differentiating feature that build user trust and add value to the system, and Apple could add a warning when you install another App Store "privacy labels don't transfer, etc.")

In order to view your facebook timeline and newsfeed, we need access to your address book. Please allow access.

Allow/Deny"

There's no automated capabilities-based OS-level permissions model that can protect against this. Accessing the address book is a legitimate app request - just not for Facebook Inc. in my opinion. But they can gate access to your timeline and friends by demanding it. And I guarantee you that 9/10 smartphone users will grant it. This is why you need curation and app store rules.

Or, Google and Apple tell me to f*cking cut it out and threaten to toss me out of the App Store.

At some point they can just tell you to upload your contacts and drivers license via email or a web form if you want to use the app, WTF do you plan on doing then?

Probably for the best. Social media is poison.

At some point they can just tell you to upload your contacts and drivers license via email or a web form if you want to use the app, WTF do you plan on doing then?

I'm really trying to help you understand why Google and Apple can't rely on OS-level caps and perms. If you don't understand how app devs can cheat you blind regardless of what system-level perms you set, you're clearly not an app dev. I can ID your device and send it encrypted back to my server. I can find your non-standard address book and read it off the user partition by nicely offering you a utility service like backup. It's gzipped and encrypted and sent back to my db and forget about your privacy. I can do a lot more on your ROM'ed android device than you expect, and I can do it all with permissions and a bit of social engineering.

Now just imagine what I can do with your grandma.

No amount of careful OS design could fix that and the two companies running App Stores are unwilling to perform the curation required to fix it.

At this point the only safe curated app store is F-Droid.

I agree with you that permissions and a sandbox that actually works would have to be part of any solution.

But you can rest assured that Facebook wouldn't have made such a fuss if all that was at stake is losing access to IDFA and getting slapped with some unenforceable privacy warning.

What's creating a real problem for Facebook is the enforceable legal obligation that Apple has put in place as a precondition for being allowed on iOS devices at all.

It works exactly because it is not a technology based solution. It has created a choice that we didn't previously have.

So I wonder how we can keep this choice without making Apple this all powerful, rent seeking, patronising overlord that also happens to be an ideal attack vector for censorship happy authoritarian governments all over the world.

Similarly, Apple’s new, much-lauded anti-tracking policy does have a technical component to it, but it would be easy enough for motivated developers to get around it. All that stops them is app review, or more precisely, the threat of app review.

In both cases, I assert that such editorial control cannot survive store diversification. Right now the App Store policies are able to nudge developers towards pro-consumer behaviours. Any substantive amount of store competition flips the script and means stores will compete to appease developers, rather than apply principles in the long term interest of consumers. The nanosecond after Apple is forced to change their product, big names like Google and Facebook will be the first to set up their own shops, specifically to escape Apple’s pro-consumer editorial policies.

Yes, and they can also nudge us to pro-Apple business model behaviours such as direct payment instead of ad funding or force us to mislead consumers into paying higher prices than are available elsewhere.

They can also enforce random cultural biases such as "no porn" and threaten our human and civil rights as a side-effect of banning side-loading. In other cases they help to protect our civil rights.

So that's the dilemma. Apple can make arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons, sometimes helping us, sometimes hurting us. Taking away Apple's right to make those arbitrary rules would allow other companies to impose their own rules without giving users a real choice.

One way or another, users and small developers are left with very little choice and very little freedom.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have an iPhone I can install anything on - but there is _no_ way I would ever install anything from the open internet on the same device use to read my email or log in to my bank.

iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/

[2] http://zerodium.com/program.html

Nor is security just about "can the device be exploited or not?".

What are you trying to explain with these articles? How does the existence of iOS exploits support your thesis that Security and Openness can co-exist?

Wage fixing aside, and that was years ago, the companies don’t appear to collaborate a lot anymore, much less conspire, other than the payments Google makes to retain its position as the default search engine.

You must realize that this is a meaningless comparison, since F-droid is barely used and not a target comparable to iOS.

I’m quite sure you are aware of the relative sizes of the stores. If that is a mistaken assumption, please say.

On the other hand, Google's and Amazon's app stores are not open source but built for an open source platform, together have far more users than the Apple App Store and far fewer malware installations. Discovery in the Epic case dug up some documents showing that Apple had no dynamic analysis for App Store apps at all. Google and Amazon both run Android VMs in their datacenters to catch fishy behavior that can't be found via static analysis.

So you compared the absolute numbers, knowing it would be misleading.

> Are you aware that the relative amount of malware is is not merely proportionally less?

You wouldn’t expect them to be merely proportionally less.

You’d expect malware authors to put their efforts where the money is.

> People using an iOS device can never be sure they are installing the secure app they wanted to install or some switcheroo.

This is complete bullshit. Apps are signed by developed and by Apple. Were you not aware of that?

> Google's and Amazon's app stores are not open source but built for an open source platform, together have far more users than the Apple App Store and far fewer malware installations.

Doesn’t seem remotely true - here’s just one recent example:

https://threatpost.com/unpatched-android-app-billion-downloa...

And while we are at it, what’s your source for the half billion malware installs you claim on iOS?

I gave the absolute numbers thinking you were smart enough to convert 0 proportionally. I certainly didn't know that it would confuse you.

> You’d expect malware authors to put their efforts where the money is.

That would be a good point if the stores were incompatible. However, it is possible to write an app that you can publish to the Amazon App Store, the Google Play Store, F-Droid, and the hundreds of Chinese app stores. Despite this, F-Droid has had zero infections. Despite the Play Store having far more users than the App Store, it has infected far fewer users.

> This is complete bullshit. Apps are signed by developed and by Apple. Were you not aware of that?

You are clearly not aware that the package submitted to Apple is signed by the the developer, and the package delivered to the user is signed only by Apple. Apple (or China) determines what app actually gets to the device. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/12880

> Doesn’t seem remotely true - here’s just one recent example:

Your example is a vulnerability in an app that can be exploited to access that app's data. It is not a malware app, and there is no evidence that any users had malware that attacked that app, let alone that any such malware was being distributed by any of the stores. By that standard, 100% of iOS users are exploited because Safari is so bugridden.

Half billion was an external estimate for xcodeghost. Apple's internal estimate pegged the number of users infected by just half of the identified malware apps at 125 million. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...

It doesn’t matter. Your claim: “Google's and Amazon's app stores are not open source but built for an open source platform, together have far more users than the Apple App Store and far fewer malware installations.” is still bullshit.

https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security...

> I gave the absolute numbers thinking you were smart enough to convert 0 proportionally.

We’ve established that this the targets are not proportionally attractive.

> I certainly didn't know that it would confuse you.

This is a public conversation, I’m sure you didn’t expect It would confuse me, but it would obviously mislead casual readers. Have you considered this?

> That would be a good point if the stores were incompatible. However, it is possible to write an app that you can publish to the Amazon App Store, the Google Play Store, F-Droid, and the hundreds of Chinese app stores. Despite this, F-Droid has had zero infections.

That still doesn’t mean it’s worth targeting f-droid. Unless you have numbers on attempted malware that has been blocked from the f-droid store, and similar numbers for the other Android stores, this like of reasoning is complete bullshit.

> Despite the Play Store having far more users than the App Store, it has infected far fewer users.

How do you know?

>> This is complete bullshit. Apps are signed by developed and by Apple. Were you not aware of that?

>> You are clearly not aware that the package submitted to Apple is signed by the the developer, and the package delivered to the user is signed only by Apple.

What makes you think I’m not aware of this?

> Apple (or China)

Are you suggesting that China gets to re-sign software going to devices either a) inside and/or b) outside China?

Everyone knows that all governments can legally require Apple to block apps. Unless you are claiming that China can do more than this, this is another obviously misleading statement.

> determines what app actually gets to the device. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/12880

Yes, Apple determines what app gets to the device. Who in the world would think otherwise? - it’s part of their marketing for the iPhone.

> Yes, Apple determines what app gets to the device. Who in the world would think otherwise? - it’s part of their marketing for the iPhone.

You used to think otherwise. You claimed that the package sent to the device was signed by the developer. It is not. Apple (or China) works as a MITM who can modify the package however they like with no way for the user to verify that malware hasn't been inserted. F-Droid allows the user to verify that the package contents hash the same as what they would build locally.

> Are you suggesting that China gets to re-sign software going to devices either a) inside and/or b) outside China?

Yes. Because the App Store has this MITM vulnerability and China gets to MITM all US services (with blessed MITM status for iCloud that even defeats Apple's "E2E" encryption for their other services), they can replace the Signal package with a compromised one.

>> Despite the Play Store having far more users than the App Store, it has infected far fewer users.

> How do you know?

Unlike Apple; F-Droid, Google, and Amazon allow security researchers to analyze apps on their respective stores instead of blocking their access. Lower case count despite higher test rate isn't a guarantee that fewer people have been infected, but it is strong evidence for that conclusion.

False. If I claimed that, you’d be able to quote me.

> … (or China) works as a MITM who can modify the package however they like

Seems like this is total bullshit. Do you have any evidence that China can modify the packages?

> Are you suggesting that China gets to re-sign software going to devices either a) inside and/or b) outside China? Yes. Because the App Store has this MITM vulnerability and China gets to MITM all US services (with blessed MITM status for iCloud that even defeats Apple's "E2E" encryption for their other services), they can replace the Signal package with a compromised one.

The seems like bullshit. There is no indication of an MITM vulnerability between the developers and Apple, nor is there one between Apple and users. China cannot MITM packages based on what you have said so far.

Yes, Apple can change package contents. Numerous App Store features make use of this to deliver partial packages and device specific binaries.

Nothing about this mechanism gives China an MITM.

>> Despite the Play Store having far more users than the App Store, it has infected far fewer users. > How do you know? Unlike Apple; F-Droid, Google, and Amazon allow security researchers to analyze apps on their respective stores instead of blocking their access. Lower case count despite higher test rate isn't a guarantee that fewer people have been infected, but it is strong evidence for that conclusion.

So you misled people by claiming this as fact, when it’s actually just speculation.

How do you know the case count is lower, and the test rate is higher?

Your claim about aggregate Android malware numbers being lower than iOS was false: https://www.pandasecurity.com/en/mediacenter/mobile-security...

Here you go:

>> People using an iOS device can never be sure they are installing the secure app they wanted to install or some switcheroo.

>This is complete bullshit. Apps are signed by developed and by Apple. Were you not aware of that?

If you are now going to claim that when you said apps were signed by the developer, you didn't mean the apps sent to the device, that quoted response makes no sense in that context. I interpreted your response as charitably as possible.

> Seems like this is total bullshit. Do you have any evidence that China can modify the packages?

I explained how app distribution works and assumed you could work it out. It looks like my assumption was mistaken, so here it is step by step: 1. The package sent to the device is not signed by the developer but by Apple or China. https://www.quora.com/Is-iMessage-encrypted-in-China 2. China's firewall sits between users and servers outside of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall 3. The Great Firewall routes the app store download request to a proxy that injects malware and resigns the package with their own key, which is trusted by the device.

Interesting that you seem unworried that Apple's own privileged MITM position allows it to insert malware, which governments can request.

> There is no indication of an MITM vulnerability between the developers and Apple, nor is there one between Apple and users.

Once again, the biggest MITM is between the developer and users, which F-Droid's reproducible builds prevent.

> Your claim about aggregate Android malware numbers being lower than iOS was false:

My claim was about malware from the Play Store and the Amazon App Store.

Please stop calling claims bullshit (you've done this five times now) just because you are unwilling to follow the logic and want me to spell it out. If you need help understanding an argument, just ask for it.

It makes perfect sense. The apps are signed by the developer and uploaded to Apple. Apple signs them for delivery to the device. Importantly. Both paths are protected.

Nothing I said before or after contradicts that.

> I interpreted your response as charitably as possible.

No. You read something into it that simply isn’t there.

> Seems like this is total bullshit. Do you have any evidence that China can modify the packages?

> 1. The package sent to the device is not signed by the developer but by Apple or China.

This is a false statement. There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.

> https://www.quora.com/Is-iMessage-encrypted-in-China 2. China's firewall sits between users and servers outside of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

> 3. The Great Firewall routes the app store download request to a proxy that injects malware and resigns the package with their own key, which is trusted by the device.

None of the links you have supplied substantiate the claim that iOS devices trust a key from the great firewall.

If you have a link that does, I would be interested to see one, otherwise I think we can safely assume for now that this a lie. You know there is no evidence for it, but you are claiming it anyway.

> Interesting that you seem unworried that Apple's own privileged MITM position allows it to insert malware, which governments can request.

I’m not unconcerned about that, but your claim is that China can sign iOS packages without Apple’s knowledge, which is a very different issue.

>> Your claim about aggregate Android malware numbers being lower than iOS was false:

> My claim was about malware from the Play Store and the Amazon App Store.

Yes and it is false.

> Please stop calling claims bullshit (you've done this five times now) just because you are unwilling to follow the logic

I have followed the logic. It relies on unsupported claims, some of which appear may be outright lies. I think that is bullshit.

To repeat myself, not in the context of what you replied to. If you understood that it works the way you now clearly understand it to, you would immediately see that it does not solve the problem you claimed it did.

> This is a false statement. There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.

I provided link from an Apple employee saying as much.

> None of the links you have supplied substantiate the claim that iOS devices trust a key from the great firewall.

The quora link says iOS devices trust a key from the Chinese government. Where that key exists is irrelevant. What I showed is that your claim that China cannot MITM iOS packages is false.

> your claim is that China can sign iOS packages without Apple’s knowledge, which is a very different issue.

I showed how they can, and you have not disputed it. You only said that I haven't given evidence that they are, which I never claimed.

> I’m not unconcerned about that

Then your statement about app signing makes even less sense in the context of the user not knowing if they are installing the secure app they wanted to install. It can only make sense if you trust Apple completely (which I found unlikely for anybody to trust any intermediary completely) or if you erroneously thought that the package sent the device was signed by the developer (which seemed to me comparatively more likely). Now you've admitted that the first case isn't true, which only leaves the second case (that I had assumed) or opens a third case, which is that you are arguing in bad faith, knowing that what I said is true but calling it bullshit anyway.

> Yes and it is false.

You say this on the basis of zero evidence. I gave you over a hundred million infections on the App Store from xcodeghost alone that Apple did not have the ability to scan for.

> It relies on unsupported claims, some of which appear may be outright lies.

If that is what you believe, then point them out. You have repeatedly failed to do so, so perhaps you should reconsider whether I am bullshitting.

> To repeat myself, not in the context of what you replied to. If you understood that it works the way you now clearly understand it to, you would immediately see that it does not solve the problem you claimed it did.

It solves the problem of China MITMimg iOS packages. That is the context.

>> This is a false statement. There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.

> I provided link from an Apple employee saying as much.

That’s a lie. They don’t say anything of the kind. If they did you’d be able to quote them

> None of the links you have supplied substantiate the claim that iOS devices trust a key from the great firewall.

> The quora link says iOS devices trust a key from the Chinese government.

A browser certificate. This has nothing to do with packages from the iOS App Store. I believe you understand the difference.

> Where that key exists is irrelevant.

It is relevant. The Chinese key iOS devices trust doesn’t enable them to MITM App Store packages..

> What I showed is that your claim that China cannot MITM iOS packages is false.

You haven’t shown this. It’s seems like just a lie.

You have pointed to a key which can’t sign packages, and a conversation where nobody says anything indicating that China can MITM packages.

Neither of these are evidence they can do this. If you have real evidence feel free to present it.

>> your claim is that China can sign iOS packages without Apple’s knowledge, which is a very different issue.

> I showed how they can, and you have not disputed it.

You have claimed China can MITM iOS packages but you have provided no evidence to support this claim. The links you provided don’t support the claim. It looks like you’re just lying.

> You only said that I haven't given evidence that they are, which I never claimed.

Also false. You said the link to the Apple employee’s statements supported this claim.

Me: “There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.” You: “I provided link from an Apple employee saying as much.”

Lie. Here is the context to which you replied that packages are signed by Apple and the developer: "People using an iOS device can never be sure they are installing the secure app they wanted to install or some switcheroo."

As you've admitted, Apple can do the switcheroo.

> They don’t say anything of the kind.

Lie. Here's what they said:

"All of the major iPhone vendors in China do this by using an enterprise enrollment certificate to adda new certificate to the code signing certificate chain of trust.

"And then when they repackage the government malware, they do so by signing it with the enterprise signing certificate, which allows them to bypass the Apple signing certificate for code execution on the device."

> A browser certificate

Lie. See above.

>> Where that key exists is irrelevant.

> It is relevant.

Then why don't you explain why where the keys are is relevant to whether something is possible instead of ignoring where the keys are and saying the following?

> The Chinese key iOS devices trust doesn’t enable them to MITM App Store packages..

Lie. See above.

> You have pointed to a key which can’t sign packages

Lie. See above.

> You have claimed China can MITM iOS packages but you have provided no evidence to support this claim.

Lie. See above together with my description of how to use that key together with the Great Firewall and a proxy.

> Also false. You said the link to the Apple employee’s statements supported this claim.

Lie. I used the Apple employee's statements to say that they can, not that they do. Quote: "they can [emphasis added] replace the Signal package with a compromised one."

> Me: “There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.” You: “I provided link from an Apple employee saying as much.”

I sort of understand how you would be confused. The statement I was responding to here was not about China MITMing the App Store but about China signing iOS packages delivered to devices. The quote above shows that they do.

It makes perfect sense. The apps are signed by the developer and uploaded to Apple. Apple signs them for delivery to the device. Importantly. Both paths are protected.

Nothing I said before or after contradicts that.

> I interpreted your response as charitably as possible.

No. You misrepresented my response.

> Seems like this is total bullshit. Do you have any evidence that China can modify the packages?

> 1. The package sent to the device is not signed by the developer but by Apple or China.

This is a false statement. There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.

https://www.quora.com/Is-iMessage-encrypted-in-China 2. China's firewall sits between users and servers outside of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

3. The Great Firewall routes the app store download request to a proxy that injects malware and resigns the package with their own key, which is trusted by the device.

None of the links you have supplied substantiate the claim that iOS devices trust a key from the great firewall. If you have a link that does, I would be interested to see one, otherwise I think we can safely call this a lie. You know there is no evidence for it, but you are claiming it anyway.

> Interesting that you seem unworried that Apple's own privileged MITM position allows it to insert malware, which governments can request.

I’m not unconcerned about that, but your claim is that China can sign iOS packages without Apple’s knowledge, which is a very different issue.

>> Your claim about aggregate Android malware numbers being lower than iOS was false:

> My claim was about malware from the Play Store and the Amazon App Store.

Yes and it is false.

> Please stop calling claims bullshit (you've done this five times now) just because you are unwilling to follow the logic and want me to spell it out. If you need help understanding an argument, just ask for it.

I will continue to call out lies and bullshit when it’s clear that is what is being presented. You have so far not substantiated the facts you have been challenged on, and your arguments rely on claims which you can’t support.

It makes perfect sense. The apps are signed by the developer and uploaded to Apple. Apple signs them for delivery to the device. Importantly. Both paths are protected.

Nothing I said before or after contradicts that.

> I interpreted your response as charitably as possible.

No. You misrepresented my response.

> Seems like this is total bullshit. Do you have any evidence that China can modify the packages?

> 1. The package sent to the device is not signed by the developer but by Apple or China.

This is a false statement. There is literally no evidence anywhere to support the idea that China is signing iOS packages delivered to devices.

https://www.quora.com/Is-iMessage-encrypted-in-China 2. China's firewall sits between users and servers outside of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall

3. The Great Firewall routes the app store download request to a proxy that injects malware and resigns the package with their own key, which is trusted by the device.

None of the links you have supplied substantiate the claim that iOS devices trust a key from the great firewall. If you have a link that does, I would be interested to see one, otherwise I think we can safely call this a lie. You know it’s not true, but you are saying it anyway.

> Interesting that you seem unworried that Apple's own privileged MITM position allows it to insert malware, which governments can request.

I’m not unconcerned about that, but your claim is that China can sign iOS packages without Apple’s knowledge, which is a very different issue.

>> Your claim about aggregate Android malware numbers being lower than iOS was false:

> My claim was about malware from the Play Store and the Amazon App Store.

Yes and it is false.

> Please stop calling claims bullshit (you've done this five times now) just because you are unwilling to follow the logic and want me to spell it out. If you need help understanding an argument, just ask for it.

I will continue to call out lies and bullshit when it’s clear that is what is being presented. You have so far not substantiated the facts you have been challenged on, and your arguments rely on claims which you can’t support.

Apple does all that for you. That's why they win. "General purpose computing" is for nerds -- ordinary people would much rather have an iPhone.

They're just asses about it.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/programs/security-research-devic...

Of course they have internal builds that are signed and allow you to do whatever they want internally, but having a shipping GA with the normal protects and support for all the work and validations that would go into supporting 3rd party installations.

Your resume says you where an Intern at Apple, so I am sure you are correct in the fact that they have an unlocked internal build, however my points are valid about the difference between that and a GA PRODUCTION release.

Note, Apple has some pretty strict NDAs so...

Sure this would complicate things a bit (Apple would have to have different keys for different hardware revisions), but it would allow devices to be "officially" jailbroken after support ends.

Windows Phone is dead. And what happens if Android decides to be like Apple and lock down sideloading more? There is nothing forcing them to continue allowing this "freedom of choice" for consumers if they decide it would be better for their bottom line.

So, what would be the next best choice after Android in that scenario? Basically nothing, because smartphone operating systems are a duopoly.

> So even though I wish iPhone would become more open, I find it strange that people are saying that we must break the iPhones App Store requirement to increase choice, even though that removes the choice to have a safer but locked down experience from the market.

I know many people (including Apple) prefer the iPhone ecosystem to be more locked down, but given the market realities (monopoly) it seems like a compromise would make more sense than forcing everyone to pay 30% and lose out on things like cloud gaming, emulation, "objectionable" content, etc. to cater to the lowest common denominator.

A few possible compromises that Apple likely will never agree to without being forced to via regulation:

- Apple could probably keep the singular App Store model, but lower their fee to closer to cost, add more types of parental controls and/or special "expert only" areas of the store. This way they are more of a neutral hosting platform that still enforces security via app review (frankly, if they had done this to begin with, people probably would have let the whole singular App Store thing slide).

- Apple could allow alternate payment processors and let the user decide if they want the convenience of Apple Pay vs alternatives. This would let the market dictate the real value of their IAP infra. (Hell - at least let subscription apps link to their web site to purchase if they don't want to do IAP! This seems highly anti-competitive.)

- Apple could allow federated third party app stores to enforce certain levels of spam and security prevention (even off the App Store) - if one of these trusted third party app stores falls short in terms of security they get removed.

- Apple could just go the Android route and allow sideloading, but put it behind a ton of warnings etc. Continued investment in app sandboxing and permission prompts for each and every app would already do a lot to cut down on straight-up malware. Phishing, scams, etc. are already an issue for iPhone users in the browser or email clients (plus we've seen these kinds of things on the App Store as well), so user education on how to deal with these things is already unavoidable.

I think it's fair for us as consumers to demand more from Apple and want both security and freedom with reasonable tradeoffs.

And I'm not even talking about transforming an iPhone into a potentially open computer, but here too the same principle can be applied: if it is optional, it is something more, not less. The UX can be made good enough to actually have your cake and eat it, see Chromebooks.

The same could apply with app stores—if a company, school, or other requires that you use an app that is only available on a less privacy-friendly or perhaps more intrusive app store, that doesn't sound like an optional/risk-free alternative to me. Once you open the walls there's no going back.

"Your iPhone is out of date. Tap here to install the latest security tools to stop hackers from stealing your bank account"

By default Apple devices phone home and collect data on you, and this is not optional, and they will hand that data to law enforcement. They also have the ability to change their data handling policieson a whim since there is nobody holding them accountable. THIS IS NOT PRIVACY.

Not that windows or android devices are better as they come out of the box, but at least any computer that runs windows can run linux where you have full control, and certain android phones can be rooted/unlocked and flashed with custom roms without google or run firewall apps to block outgoing data.

Niven stuff like iCloud leaks, and Apple bending over to appease China by removing the protest app from the app store (which completely makes it unable to be installed on any non jailbroken device btw), I personally don't really see a reason to trust them any more than Facebook or Google.

Proof: go into settings and disable every tracking options, and then capture traffic from the device through a router with openwrt running tcpdump or wireshark on a computer with a bridge setup with ip forwarding and iptables rule.

Did this experiment already twice to prove to people that Apple device do phone home plenty. Then I repeat the same experiment with my rooted android phone running a custom rom, and people watch the sparse wireshark trace with the only packets being sent are dns then ntp to the android ntp server.

What data are you claiming Apple is sending ?

Doesn’t Apple ask you whether you want to enable this when you set up the device?

They also ask during setup and regularly after major updates. I know because I refuse every time. Also, quite often it is opt in, with the box to send information unticked by default.

Anyone can repeat this experiment at home with a laptop and 2 usb to ethernet adaptors.

Yes, Windows and Android devices give users more control. But that is because their business models are totally different. We all know that Google is primarily an ad-tech company, and that Android is how they collect the data for those ads. And while a technically savvy person may be able to lock down their devices, that's just a minority of users we're talking about.

Apple's data collection is a murmur compared to the deafening screech of that of Google.

"Yes, Apple devices do collect some data" should be the end of that sentence. Any data that is collected on the device and sent to apple is not private. It doesn't matter if Apple doesn't share it with other advertisers. Apple does advertising itself. There is no difference between it an a 3d party advertiser in terms of data they have access to.

Once you get past that point and accept that there is no privacy, then its just a matter of how much you trust companies with your data. If you wanna claim that you trust Apple with your data, that is your own personal choice.

As far as what Apple does or doesn't with that data, it's laughable that the argument for privacy is them refusing to unlock a phone. Security isn't determined by what computers/users/companies do or don't do, its determined by what is possible. And when it comes to data, its very possible, as proven by real life events, for them to turn over your data to law enforcement.

Again, whether or not you care, thats a personal choice. But saying that Apple cares about privacy is just dead wrong, you have either ironically fallen victim to the Apple adverting about privacy, or you have an intrinsic bias towards Apple because you like their products which leads you to discount basic facts.

Please providence evidence of this claim and specify which data is not private.

Apple uses differential privacy and removes PII which has been documented in the iOS Security Guide.

>Apple uses differential privacy and removes PII which has been documented in the iOS Security Guide.

Apple also said your iCloud photos are secure, and then look what happened in 2014.

Is Google a worse example, sure. But plenty of us have been around long enough to remember when Google was restructured into Alphabet and the “Don’t be evil” motto was wiped from their corporate code of conduct. All it takes is a new CEO or a change of leadership and all of these corporate platitudes aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

Like any other profit driven company, Apple is incentivized to generate revenue from their customers' data and to advertise to them.

Apple is equally incentivised not to generate revenue in this way since they would lose hardware sales.

Remember that this decision was made over a decade ago, back when there were many competitors - both software and hardware vendors - vying for a foothold in the smartphone market. Google trying to flex its muscles too much would have sent its licensees scurrying toward competitors.

They have pulled back from that drastically, to the point where root doesn't really get you much control on an Android device any more. Whether that's driven by discovering that a very open approach to user control makes for a lot of security issues (which lines up with Apple's claims), or whether its about trying to improve revenue streams, well, who knows?

I think they stayed in that state for a few years, though.

For starters, it's something AT&T did with just the phones they were selling, not something Google did with the Android platform or Android phone makers like LG and Samsung did with their phones.

My point is that the mumblemumble seemed to think that Google had no choice in the matter. I think they clearly did and for the most part clearly opted to keep the third party door open at the time.

Granted, Android was much more open back then overall.

The AT&T analogy is kind of weak here because they weren't operating in the same business environment. AT&T was doing it in a B2C context, Google's Android business at the time was 100% B2B. It's easier to take this kind of risk as a major telecom operating in a B2C context, because consumers, as a body, aren't going to punish you that badly. Case in point was that, while these Android phones sold poorly, it hasn't actually tanked AT&T's business.

Whereas, if Google had sent Samsung, LG, Huawei, etc over to WebOS or wherever, the impact to Google's Android business would have been large and permanent.

Obviously having it for themselves was a key selling point.

I think they might just survive without your business. And pretty sure it demonstrates that their formula of security and privacy over openness is the right one for them.

> I think they might just survive without your business.

The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.

Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.

The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't.

In other words, the same design decisions that cost Apple one HNer nets them general consumers - so Apple can definitely survive without the HNer's business.

Lots of people disapprove of Facebook's data practices, yet they still run several of the overwhelmingly most popular social networks. Apple could be in a similar position: producing an otherwise excellent product that has a limitation people tolerate.

The fact that Apple makes billions of dollars is not evidence that every single decision of theirs is the best decision for their profitability. In order for their profit to be used against the argument and comfort of a certain Hacker News commentator, we need some evidence that the revenue is because of, not despite (or unaffected by), the decisions that made the random Hacker News commentator unhappy. At best we can conclude that the decision is not such a howler that it's cost them their market viability, but perhaps if they'd made a different decision they could have owned the entire smartphone market in a way that Windows used to own the desktop OS market.

(Another logical fallacy implicit in the argument is that a decision made by a powerful person is more worthy of respect than another decision. I must admit these kinds of reactionary values are extremely far from me, and I am shocked and uncomfortable to find how common they are.)

Me: "Great, do not buy an Apple protect." HN: "But I like their HW." Me: "Well then you have to deal with their SW restrictions." HN: "But I do not want to, why cannot they not just do this for me, it's just SW."

Wash, rinse, repeat on every story on AppleHW. I would really love to be able to read the comments on the interesting aspect of the story without 80% of the comments going back to this debate for once.

Apple is NOT a monopoly, therefor you cannot force them to change this. You can buy another device that allows you to install 3rd party stuff. Do that.

They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this.

All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.

The fact that you are left of a chat does not make Apple a monopoly. The people in your group could choose to all switch to the same application, of which most of are closed source. I spent a ton of time in APAC and while each country has different most popular chat apps, the group of us that have spent years working together on and off at different companies all agreed on a common chat app. It's just not hard.

I have a few long term friend groups where a member has an Android and the text is green. No issues sending them text at all. The MMS stuff can be broken but that is not Apples fault.

Your argument is Apple once again the same as everyones else, and appeal to everyone be open because it is your philosophical view of things and it would make your life simpler.

Apple is a for profit company. They are not a monopoly on chat because they choose to offer their users a better experience over the standard SMS (which they supported).

I am frustrated with all the people that miss that distinction. They are a private entity and can do what they way within the outline of the law. You can vote with your pocketbook, or run for office and get the laws changed.

Also, the OSS vs non-OSS comment: you cannot take for granted that everyone here comes down on the side of the GPL 100%. There are a ton of us that work/worked at companies that did priority software because that is what made sense for the business model. We do not write software for free - ie, there has to be a method to pay our bills. I personally have major issues with GPL3 when it comes to creating works for a profit company. No major ones with GPL2, Apache, MIT, etc.

In fact by that ridiculous definition everything in life is a monopoly.

Slack, Google Docs, and Fortnite don't force you to use their brand of computer to participate in group chats with your friends.

Slack and Google Docs even work on my pinephone.

If Google forced you to buy an Android if you wanted to use Google Docs with whatever group of people you need to work with you'd probably be upset too.

Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.

Do they? I don’t follow their ads closely, but I can’t find the word “computer” on https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/ (given the 8tneractivity on that page, it still may be there, but I tried looking hard, and couldn’t find it), and they have an explicit ad saying “iPad Pro — Your next computer is not a computer” (https://youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU)

Can you point to that marketing?

1. A device with a screen, a keyboard and some kind of pointing device.

2. A device that can be used for every purpose a computer can be used for.

The Ipad is obviously not 1, so Apple must be claiming it is/will be 2.

For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?

Except when it's not a computer https://youtu.be/pI-iJcC9JUc (/s)

The global fashion ecommerce industry was expected to decline from $531.25 billion in 2019 to $485.62 billion in 2020. The negative compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of -8.59% is largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, the market is set to recover and hit $672.71 billion by 2023

The general clothing market is even bigger, obviously:

In 2019, global retail sales of apparel and footwear reached 1.9 trillion U.S. dollars, and were expected to rise to above three trillion U.S. dollars by 2030.

It looks like you are trying to discredit the poster or accuse them of dishonesty without adding new information to the thread.

If they are wrong, you can trivially demonstrate that with a link of your own.

If you want to accuse them of lying or being mistaken, you can provide a link. If their claim is implausible, you can comment on why.

Just asking for a link without adding one of these doesn’t add anything to the conversation except a demand they do work.

Do you own an Xbox or Playstation? Do you own a SmartTV?

I do own an old Kindle Paperwhite, which I assume is fairly locked down? I'm not actually sure.

The other alternative is what I can't relate to at all: the device doesn't do what they want due to being locked down, but they're ok with the trade-off. I don't have a problem with it, but I can't relate.

I am well aware that of the choice I'm making, and will continue to make the same choice in both cases.

What's more, Google is re-doing their calculus -- and reaching the same conclusion that Apple did. More restrictions are being implemented into Android with each major release.

For many, including me, it's not some inconvenience that we are okay with. We see it as a selling point.

I've tried them all and Apple's balance of openness/security/quality is the best I've experienced. If they follow the direction of others, I'd probably jump ship.

If Apple allowed you to unlock your iPad, they would also be allowing my grandmother to be scammed into unlocking hers.

Building a walled garden was a great decision for consumers by Apple, and if it was profit driven then that’s +1 for capitalism.

Their answer isn't openness, it's surveillance. Google is a surveillance driven ad company.

Maybe developers could stop looking at the green grass on Apples side of the fence and bring that polish to open-source.

But I imagine that will simply devolve into the mess it already is, with flame wars, and figurative genital punching to prove how hardcore one is for the obfuscated C they cobbled together.

There was time when Linux distributions were thought of as walled gardens. Cobble together just the right collection of source for you! Don’t let Red Hat control your mind! SystemD is a cage for your soul!

Meanwhile, Apple just got the damn job done and moved on.

If it’s a choice between masochistic elitism or filtered content. Hmmm…

No, that's just a garden. A garden is where a single trusted entity cultivates the plants it wants in the way it wants. It has boundaries, but not necessarily walls.

Walled gardens are a strict subset of gardens. A walled garden doesn't let you go out and forage from the wilds to augment the produce of the garden.

Anyone pushing into the App Store specifically then complaining has their own initial choice to blame. But of course that can’t be right…

iOS is a "walled garden" because it requires you to be in or out. Like you say, you can "pick Linux", but that's not tearing down walls. That's just leaving the walled area.

The frustration with Apple isn't the fact that they're forcing anybody to use their stuff. It's that they make a lot of cool stuff, and then they go out of their way to make it difficult to use anything not Apple-sanctioned on their stuff. Most OSes don't do this. I like the Linux distro approach better: Provide a garden, but also allow the installation of stuff from other gardens, or from the wilds.

I don't know why you're being derisive of people who have only "their own initial choice to blame". I choose to live in the city where I live, and that has downsides. I even knew those downsides going in! But that doesn't mean I have no right to complain about the downsides. Maybe the upsides still make it worth it to me, and I'm just pushing for a world where I can have those while also fixing what I think is wrong with the place.

It seems to me a rather simple fix: give users an "unrestricted mode" just like Android has the ability to install from third party. By default keep it locked down, but allow the USER to make that decision, with ample warnings all over the place about what they're about to do.

Heck, for all I care make them go to an Apple store to have it "unlocked" so an employee can walk them through what it actually means and how dangerous it is so the average joe schmoe doesn't just click the button by accident.

For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal. Otherwise, they just tell the user to make the choice for them.

If you even listen to interviews with Apple engineers, it sounds like they are less afraid of willing and understanding people and locking their phones, as much as they are afraid of third parties essentially forcing their users to unlock their phone to install their products, and thus getting an unfair exemption from Apple’s protections while smaller companies probably wouldn’t have the clout to force users to do this, resulting in an uneven playing field.

I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.

I guess I don't get your point, if a user wants to sideload fortnite or facebook, good for them? If an ex-boyfriend has your phone and your password you've probably got bigger issues than whether or not he can click a button to sideload an app.

>I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.

I still don't follow your point, what on earth does that have to do with someone being allowed to use their phone how they want? You think someone is going to steal your phone, go to an Apple store and pretend to be you to have sideload enabled, then return the phone to you? I'm not saying it would be impossible for that to happen, but I would say: why would ANYONE go to that trouble? If this is another "well ex-boyfriend" issue you're talking about 1/10th of 1% of all users in existence. I don't think that should be the demographic with which we base all of the decisions on what an iphone can and can't do...

Like I said with Facebook. If there was a private API that Apple doesn’t allow them to use that would make tracking users easier, they would happily force users to sideload so that they could use it. Smaller companies would not have the power to force users to sideload, so they would have to follow Apple rules while tech giants would not.

At this point, for better or worse, what started as sideloading has destroyed the App Store.

Lastly, as for why anyone would go for the trouble, are you really sure that some government agency wouldn’t force users to sideload an app someday? If it had to go through Apple approval, there would be a much bigger legal fight than if they could just force people to sideload it. There are other reasons than just ex-boyfriends, I’m just trying to come up with some examples.

Become "pawns" how? You're again saying that a user being allowed to load things on to their phone is Apple's responsibility. Literally nobody has said it would be Apple's responsibility and we've got a case in point: google. When you sideload an app, you're on your own.

>Like I said with Facebook. If there was a private API that Apple doesn’t allow them to use that would make tracking users easier, they would happily force users to sideload so that they could use it. Smaller companies would not have the power to force users to sideload, so they would have to follow Apple rules while tech giants would not.

Again, not Apple's problem. If a user is warned that enabling side loading exposes them to tracking, and the user decides to do it anyway, that's their prerogative.

>At this point, for better or worse, what started as sideloading has destroyed the App Store.

Destroyed what app store? Google allows sideloading, I think most people would describe their app store as thriving, not "destroyed"

>Lastly, as for why anyone would go for the trouble, are you really sure that some government agency wouldn’t force users to sideload an app someday? If it had to go through Apple approval, there would be a much bigger legal fight than if they could just force people to sideload it. There are other reasons than just ex-boyfriends, I’m just trying to come up with some examples.

They already force users to load apps directly, sideloading isn't necessary.

This has caused tech giants like Facebook considerable hurt. For example, the fact that they have to have those embarrassing privacy labels on their app in the App Store. Or that they have to present that prompt asking for permission to use the advertising identifier.

Right now, even though this hurts tech Giants, this benefits users. Google draws less than 1/10th of the data from an iPhone user as they do an Android user.

If sideloading was enabled, this check on their privacy rules would no longer exist because they could force users to sideload, which means they would immediately do so, and users would lose the benefits that Apple‘s restrictions give them.

If users want to sideload, They should buy an android where this check does not exist, and they can be on the less restrictive Google play store where it doesn’t matter. If they want Apple to constrain the power of apps to spy on them, they buy an iPhone.

Even though you might vehemently disagree with Apple, I respect the right of users to choose whether they want a restricted but more private experience, or less restricted but less private experience.

They have the exact same embarrassing label on the Play store, and guess what, their Android app is also on that store. Even though they don't have to be.

The reason is that they have a lot more reach on a store than as a sideload.

The difference is that Google gives a lot more freedom to developers and businesses than Apple does.

> Even though you might vehemently disagree with Apple, I respect the right of users to choose whether they want a restricted but more private experience, or less restricted but less private experience.

That's a straw man. Nobody argued this.

We're just calling Apple's monopolistic, hegemonic behavior for what it is. As is Epic as we speak.

This will result in a few "must have" apps being side-loaded to start, and finish with people having to reinstall their phone operating systems every 6 months; to the detriment of the vast majority of users.

Do you not remember what the computers of regular people were like in the late 90's and early 2000's? I remember pretty much everyone non-technical having at least a mild malware infestation and at least one extra toolbar in their browser.

I'm quite happy that the free market created a solution that is more secure.

You mean the privacy features built in to the OS?

What’s more embarrassing, that label in the App Store, or a big scary warning that says something to the effect of “This software has not been confirmed safe by Apple. It is not guaranteed to work properly, and may be a SCAM, VIRUS, or other MALWARE. By installing this application YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR DEVICE AND PRIVACY AT RISK. Are you sure you want to proceed y/N?” when trying to install Facebook’s app via sideloading?

Plus, even that is less embarrassing than Facebook listing every single thing they track about you.

The situation between iOS and Android is very similar to the situation you're scared of with a theoretical 3rd-party app store. Consumers don't have a clean choice between device ownership and a managed device. They also have to consider hardware concerns, network effects, exclusive apps/games and services.

It probably sounds dismissive to you if someone says that you can just choose not to use Facebook or Fortnite if they're not on the official Apple store. In the same way, it's a bit dismissive to say that I can just choose to ignore arguably the only privacy-respecting credit card on the entire market just because I want to use NewPipe on my phone. People often don't get to choose their phone based on one specific design aspect of that phone.

> For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal.

I do agree with this, and I think this is the heart of the conflict. A lot of people are arguing about whether iOS is a monopoly. That's not really the most important part of this conversation, the important question we should be asking is: "do we want iOS to be a monopoly?"

Being a (semi) monopoly and gatekeeping access to a substantial portion of the mobile market allows Apple to force companies to do certain things. Some people want Apple to have that power, because they think Apple will force companies to be more private and to adapt more consumer-friendly policies. Some people don't want Apple to have that power because they don't trust them with it, they don't trust them not to shut down technologies like game streaming or adblocking.

Apple has used its monopoly power to do some great things with privacy, their stranglehold over browsers on iOS is one of the biggest reasons Chrome hasn't taken over already. But Apple has also hampered the open web and is stalling on PWA features, largely because those features compete with the App Store. They also (imo) almost single-handedly created a low-quality mobile games market by maintaining a strict position for years that games were not artistic statements and by locking serious games out of their platform entirely. Apple's privacy-preserving disposable email system is great, their severe neglect for adblocking is bad. Their requirements around accessibility are extremely helpful, their war against adult content is extremely harmful. It's a situation with both pros and cons.

This debate is not really about whether or not Apple has power over the market, obviously they do. Facebook isn't just dropping iOS after its recent privacy changes. If Apple didn't have any kind of outsized control over the market, then companies wouldn't go along with their changes, they would just support Android instead. If the market allowed it, they would do exactly what you're afraid of with a 3rd-party app store -- they would abandon iOS and only support Android. But they don't, because they can't.

So the debate isn't about what power Apple has, it's really about whether or not Apple should have the power over the market that they obviously do have.

You can run whatever code you want. Doesn't matter whether it has a JIT, or whether it loads all its code from a webserver dynamically, or anything else.

The sole criteria is "thou shalt not circumvent the app store review process." That means, do not change the functionality after they've reviewed it.

> Apps should be self-contained in their bundles, and may not read or write data outside the designated container area, nor may they download, install, or execute code which introduces or changes features or functionality of the app, including other apps. Educational apps designed to teach, develop, or allow students to test executable code may, in limited circumstances, download code provided that such code is not used for other purposes. Such apps must make the source code provided by the Application completely viewable and editable by the user.

I’d say the post you were replying to uses the wrong word (“interpreted”, I usually say it can't run "arbitrary" code), but the rule is more specific than your description as well.

I agree with you that the rule sounds specific, and I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the fact that so many apps ship with hotpatching.

I think what you're describing is simply that the App Store rules are selectively enforced.

The ban on third party browsers and JIT is so that you cannot make fully-featured or competitive apps that don't go through the store. Microsoft tried something similar in Windows 8 (certain DirectX features only available for Metro apps, strict guidelines what a Metro browser can do, ...). This is the reason Safari on iOS is lacking certain features wrt. PWAs, and the reason Flash was banned outright (instead of saying e.g. it has to be made more reliable).

If web apps were as powerful on iOS as they are on Chrome or ChromeOS, then many iOS apps including games would be written as web apps, and Apple would not get their 30% share. If someone would port a JVM or .NET CLR to iOS, then you could sideload those apps and circumvent the app store, too.

Doing this is still dead simple and in no way requires a JIT.

Well, there is no ban on interpreted code but JIT -> just in time compilation, which in many cases produces high quality (gcc -o2) code.

If Apple was actually concerned about circumventing the App Store review process for the purposes of security, they would implement OS-level sandboxing and security models (e.g. something capability-like) - this is both far more secure and allows for more freedom to make apps.