Really? We're there now? It's become Apple's "responsibility" to police every last corner of iOS? I feel like this should not be viewed as "Apple prevents developers from distributing their controversial apps" but rather "Apple prevents users from running controversial apps". If I want to have porn apps on my phone that is my business and no one else's.
This debate has been going on since the start of the App store, but now that macOS is steadily becoming more iOS-like and mobile devices are increasingly becoming people's only computing platform, it's becoming more important. For example, Apple removed an app that notified the user whenever a US drone strike caused fatalities because "it was objectionable to some users". There are a lot of objectionable things that are really important. Apple blocks VPN apps in China, for example, and since there's no other way to install apps besides compiling it yourself (which has to be done on a Mac, and even then the code signature expires after a week) there really isn't an option for almost everyone in China.
Apple is continually praised for their stance on privacy, but privacy doesn't mean so much when you don't have freedom. And Apple is hostile towards user freedom.
I find it disgusting, but really Apple is the only one to blame for that when they started aggressively policing and removing apps, and then marketing to customers based on that. I've heard people on HN state ad nauseam that they love that Apple does this, and that it's one of the reasons they live in the Apple ecosystem. They want to be protected from running apps that might do something objectionable (according to Apple's standard), and are absolutely willing to trade their freedom for some security.
I obviously don't agree with this at all (I refer you to Cory Doctorow's War on General Purpose Computing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI ) but it is a position I can understand.
That doesn't mean I expect them to review every single internal enterprise app that every company on the planet builds. I simply expect them to police the App Store so I am not wasting my money or destroying my phone/tablet.
It does not harm your security if other people are able to sideload apps. Apple should just flip the damn switch.
Personal responsibility doesn't play much of a role in the media response to these incidents, so Apple are well motivated to prevent customers getting root access to their own devices. (To say nothing of the lucrative appstore business model.)
I recall sideloaded Android malware getting this kind of silly response. Hardly Google's fault if you go out of your way to compromise your device, but it can still make for bad publicity.
As it is, the only 'open avenue' on iPhone is to use the browser.
We should all be pushing Apple to make their products more open, not asking them for be more stringent. I really do think that if public sentiment shifted in just the right way, we could see Apple allow sideloading. Steve Jobs is gone, and Apple is pushing the iPad as both a PC replacement and a STEM education device. Both efforts are hampered by an inability to run custom apps.
This TechCrunch article really bothers me. They are a tech-specific site, and should not be running the type of headlines you describe. The fact that companies break Apple's guidelines is newsworthy and fine to report on, but if Apple deserves any blame here it should be for making this crap necessary in the first place.
But on the other hand, Apple really should own their censorship. They decided to take responsibility stuff like this, so they really should be held responsible.
If people want to install porn apps on their phones, people should be allowed to install porn apps on their phones. I'm quite fine with Apple shirking their "responsibility" to remove porn apps. It never should have been their responsibility in the first place, and I'd much prefer if they didn't have the ability to police it at all.
Why yes , i for one am glad to see them being brought to task to police their own walled gardens to death. In fact i 'll be very happy to see those gardens ending up as a relic of a troublesome sad time for tech
Yes. I think they took that responsibility on themselves, when they decided their devices would be walled gardens under their purview. If you set out to create a totalitarian utopia and want to take credit for the things that go well, you must also take responsibility for when things go wrong.
Of course these emails go straight to the junk folder, but it is very apparent that there is a demand and a black market for iOS enterprise distribution certificates, and people are willing to beg, borrow and probably steal such certificates in any which way they can.
It's basically the same as someone randomly emailing you asking for your password.
Oh the horror, If only they used proper English, the intent to steal certs would be some much more tolerable!
For my part, I guess I would prefer that Apple at least open up iOS devices to both the app store and allowing users to install non-App Store apps, the Android model. This would probably satisfy both casual and more tech-savvy users. Unfortunately, I don't see Apple doing this any time as they are all about profits, and this strategy has been working very well so far.
- I want Apple to do the job we pay them for and ensure that their store doesn't distribute malware.
- If I buy a device I want to be able to run whatever I want on it.
Full freedom to run whatever you want also means being able to install malware.
EVERY OTHER way to get a certificate, including for internal development and testing through testflight, requires the app to go through review. Every. Single. One.
It's not simply for putting the app on the app store, it's for running the app at all.
Enterprise certificates were supposed to be a way for a company to avoid shipping their internal tools to Apple, but they turn out to be a way to actually run useful code on an iPhone, even if it's not something Apple wants you to do.
Only if you do not have a paid developer account will the app be uninstalled after 7 days. Otherwise the app can stay installed for as long as your account is paid up.
And the phone does not have to be physically connected for it to run.
This more than anything else Apple does, shows quite clearly that you do not own your iPhone, you are paying Apple to be allowed to use it. So you want to run your own program, with no interest in publishing to the App Store or sharing it with others? Sure thing, just pay us $100 a year...
I mean, I know there have been recent changes in apple's attitude towards enterprise certs, but I've been able to sign internal ad-hoc apps with a developer cert which would last one year (i.e until the provisioning profile expires) with no review.
Granted, you need the unique identifier of the device and it limits you to a certain number per year (100 or 200?), but this still seems different to the situation you are describing.
Fairly sure I did this last year, even. Though admittedly we switched to android at some point, purely because it was too much headache.
There is still Ad Hoc distribution, where you can sign the app to run on any device in your developer account (up to 100 iPhones + 100 iPads) and host it for download yourself. The build runs until your developer cert expires (1 year IIRC?)
I believe this is how TestFlight worked before Apple bought them
You bought it, you get to chose what code runs on it, and DRM shouldn't be used to prevent that.
It is not because the apps were nefarious.
The Apple Enterprise terms simply state you cannot distribute to the general public. It doesn't matter that the app was terrible, the violation itself was much more boring.
The FB app targetted young people and literally installed a VPN profile that routed all internet traffic through Facebook servers.
Essentially full network packet-capture of everyone who installed their app. That's the definition of nefarious.
The enterprise certificates were revoked primarily because they violated the #1 rule of the enterprise account - do not distribute outside of your company.
As long as user consented, the app should be allowed to do anything.
Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Spotify, DirectvNOW, Sling, and quite a few other apps don’t allow in app subscriptions. There are others that you can subscribe to inside or out of the app.
App store guidelines ban having a link in your app to an external subscription website. They also ban "calls to action" that encourage customers to purchase non in-app purchases
As opposed to the 60%-70% that software developers use to have to pay retailers?
According to what Rebelgecko said, it sounds like the only reason Apple's service has any value at all is that they artificially restrict any possible competing payment methods on their devices.
There is nothing wrong with Apple charging a 30% fee on App Store Purchases, or purchases made in-app via Apple's framework. I suspect just about everyone will agree on this point.
The "extortion" part is the complete and total ban on purchases made outside the App Store.
Edit: This was sarcasm.
But apple? Nope
There are a lot of problems with Android, but an appstore monopoly isn't one of them.
Or are you just saying that it's good thing that they could operate apps against Apple's rules?
I don't need porn or gambling on my phone. I think it's entirely reasonable for adults to make that choice.
We’ve also seen Apple deny requests for enterprise certificates without reason (and they wouldn’t give it after asking), which makes me think they might even want to get rid of this channel in the long term.
It's clearly a large market, and with 30% percent cut of subscriptions, it could be a lucrative business for Apple.
This stance has also hurt them with original content. A lot of great original content on other networks has had graphic violence or nudity, and they've stayed away, instead pushing bland shows that nobody seems to care about.
Maybe that'll change. But I'm not holding my breath, because I think this is a core value coming straight from Tim Cook.
First, a bit flippantly: I bet Disney's services are going to do just fine. :)
Second, less flippantly: I'm not sure we should conflate "no R/X/MA material" with "nothing edgy," nor should we necessarily conflate "edgy" with "interesting." And, again, we don't really know what limits Apple has put on creators for this service; they have some pretty big names lined up in terms of writers, directors, stars, and properties. It's certainly true that a fair amount of what they're producing sounds explicitly family-friendly, but being able to say "we have original programming created for us by Sesame Workshop, Peanuts Worldwide, and Oprah Winfrey" seems like it could carry some weight. (And I'm personally interested in several of the more adult-sounding science fiction shows.)
More then 1 person assumed I worked for Apple when I told them I was developing iOS apps; so you are totally right!
Someone who is at least 18 may have a credit card, but not younger. Someone under 18 can be issued a debit card (with some constraints about account type and needing a parent on the account), but not a credit card in their name.
FOSTA and SESTA.
> they don't even give a shit about Responsive designs.
Users don't know what "responsive design is". But conversion stats for sites that have a specific mobile layout vs ones where you're pinch-and-zooming constantly show that users are a lot more productive on sites with a mobile view.
Then you tell people, yeah but its okay to do this the first time, then the second time they come to your PWA, it will load super fast!
Except it's not at all fast because it turns out cellular network is spotty so not everyone experiences/reports the same experience, it turns jaded users who feel discriminated because they don't have a thousand dollar phone that can render their PWA jank free.
There's an Application in PWA somewhere I'm sure of it.
You are right about conversion rates but I was specifically talking about online shoppers for a specific niche to demonstrate the extreme case where people are fine with what they have and rather not see changes they need to . relearn.
They only load instantly once they've been cached. Until then, it's Grey Rectangle City, and the user moves on.
I guess I'm not sure what the preferred alternative is here? First load of a native app involves going to an app store and downloading a multi-megabyte app. A PWA involves loading a normal web site, then once it has loaded, cache resources to allow instant loading in the future. I know which one of those two I'd prefer.
I have no idea what your quoted passage is, by the way. If one of the complaints in there is "it took a whole 5 seconds to download", how on earth is the App Store alternative better? There's literally zero chance of getting an App Store app downloaded and opened in 5 seconds.
The PWA file sizes can easily surpass 50mb but the difference is it gets it intermittently and this depends on a uninterrupted cellular connection (the specific demographic PWA is targetting which is mobile) ends up producing an inferior experience to just downloading an app and it's not all tall order, phones now have crazy amount of storage and insanely fast WIFI.
Sure it would be nice to order condoms online from Amazon's PWA while waiting for my starbucks, but I could've easily satisfied my impulses in front of a PC.
The seamless omni-channel bullshit google is selling to retailers is not going well, which seemingly are there target market to counter Amazon's dominance in e-commerce.
Google has royally fucked up by eroding trust via AMP and have hurt the PWA intiative with poor timing. It's 10 years too early.
Even if the world was, I still wouldn't like it. Lightweight webpages are infinitely superior. Data is still expensive, particularly for those of us who can't afford unlimited.
I get that you don’t want them in the store but at least add an adult store or something
no kidding. Next would be DNB itself : https://www.dnb.com/duns-number/lookup.html
While DUNS are practically "SSN for enterprises", Techcrunch probably thinks that DUNS are used as a security-by-obscurity tool/measure in the same way as SSN is used. Fortunately for all of us - it isnt.
(Seriously, I find that editorial decision pretty surprising. The table of certificate holders and their types of business seems journalistically relevant; download links maybe less so.)
After jailbreaking, you can use a third party App Store like Cydia to find and install unsigned apps.
Doing this does not prevent you from using Apple's App Store or it's apps.
If it's already out of warranty,then ok. But know the risks.