[HN Gopher] Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS
___________________________________________________________________
Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS
Author : Stephen304
Score : 111 points
Date : 2021-03-16 16:59 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (puri.sm)
(TXT) w3m dump (puri.sm)
| pojntfx wrote:
| It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a
| point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to
| ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay
| money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN
| or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30%
| of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal
| with Apple, be unable to install a certain app at the flip of a
| button (check Spain's Catalonia referendum or Hong Kong, etc.). I
| really do hope that some EU regulation will force device
| manufacturers above a certain market size to allow a) sideloading
| apps and b) allow different browser engines as boycotts seem to
| no longer work after a certain amount of market penetration.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a
| virtualization software without permission from Apple.
|
| Citation needed? I don't believe this is true. Tunnelblick and
| qemu both exist on macOS independently of Apple's approval.
| nucleardog wrote:
| Also would like a citation. Onboarding mac users at work is
| "here's your .ovpn file, go install Tunnelblick and import
| it, start connection, and go".
| tgragnato wrote:
| Tunnelblick uses OpenVPN under the hood, which means it's
| using a TUN/TAP virtual NIC.
|
| LeoPantera is referring to the new way of creating VPNs in
| macOS and iOS, the Network Extension framework. You need an
| entitlement to develop with that framework, and sideloading
| is not possible.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension
|
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/e
| n...
|
| I have no idea if Apple is committed to support tun/tap in
| the future, but I doubt.
| alerighi wrote:
| Well the Wireguard app exists both for macOS and iOS so I
| guess is not that big deal to support VPN on these
| systems.
|
| Also services like this one to circumvent the Apple
| policy couldn't just give you a Wireguard configuration
| file and say to you "just install the Wireguard app and
| import the config"? It would work and of course Apple
| couldn't do anything (beside removing the whole Wireguard
| app from the store).
| tgragnato wrote:
| That's what I do too.
|
| Not having entitlements or not being able to sideload is
| more of an issue while trying to tweak or patch an
| existing code base.
|
| E.g.: contributing to WireGuard or iCepa, ...
| JonathonW wrote:
| After Big Sur deprecated network kexts, I switched over
| to Viscosity-- which is another OpenVPN client, and
| supports both tun and tap VPNs without an extension
| (using only built-in macOS capabilities).
|
| It does _not_ require the Network Extension framework, is
| _not_ App Store distributed, and does _not_ have any
| entitlements. (It is Developer ID signed and notarized,
| but that 's just for user convenience; it'd work just
| fine unsigned if the user wanted to click through macOS's
| warnings to get there.)
| ctdonath wrote:
| I'm paying for a walled garden. I own the hardware, and with it
| bought software which I _want_ to aggressively maintain it.
|
| If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Don't compel them
| to satisfy your whim via police power of the state.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Walled gardens are also legally enforced by police power of
| the state. Otherwise, Epic would just distribute their own
| jailbreaks and tell Fortnite users to jailbreak their phones.
|
| Furthermore, I find it really frustrating how _my_ desire for
| the ability to go a little bit outside of certain walled
| gardens is construed as me demanding _you_ go outside the
| walled garden at all times. 95% of the walled garden is
| perfectly fine - it 's the 5% of apps that won't fit inside
| of it that are the problem.
| [deleted]
| emteycz wrote:
| EU will sooner ban encryption than do this.
|
| And who cares then...
| reaperducer wrote:
| _in order to use one 's own device properly_
|
| It boils down to someone's personal definition of "properly."
|
| You are on HN. Your definition of using a device "properly" is
| very different from the vast majority of the other human beings
| on the planet. You're not Apple's target audience, and that's
| OK. The more of you there are, the more force there is for
| creating other options. But don't pretend that there is only
| one "proper" way to use a device.
| mplewis wrote:
| Exactly. Many users don't have a concept of how to use a
| phone "wrong." For example, they blame the phone when they
| follow internet instructions to sideload an app which causes
| bugs.
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| The only way to prevent large, billion+ dollar corporations
| from existing is via highly intrusive state regulation, so
| people who are appalled by the monopolistic and authoritarian
| behaviors of big tech should really be asking themselves (1)
| whether they are against capitalism, because there isn't a
| model of optimizing economies for market freedom and profit
| that disallows the existence of billion/trillion dollar
| companies, and (2) whether they are okay with breaking up the
| concept of a "nation-state", since its size requires it to have
| large economies.
| anonymou2 wrote:
| What I find amazing is that in this capitalist world, these
| companies are really against private property (yours, not
| theirs) I am not sure if private property is in the
| definition of capitalism, probably not, so there may be no
| contradiction. But still it is really amazing.
| pmontra wrote:
| Capitalism is about using capital to produce something.
| Capital and the means of production are privately owned.
| This is the opposite of communism, which lets people own
| things but not the production system (actual
| implementations might vary.)
|
| It's in the spirit of capitalism to be competitive so don't
| be surprised if those companies want all those things from
| us.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| It's ironic, because the delineation[1] between personal
| and private property is often blurred by capitalism, yet it
| is laid bare in this example.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Persona
| l_ver...
| zepto wrote:
| The solution you are proposing is worse than the problem.
|
| If Apple were forced to allow multiple stores or sideloading,
| governments that right now have no leverage with Apple would
| _force_ their citizens to install government stores and apps.
| karlshea wrote:
| This isn't speculation, there's literally an article on
| 9to5mac today about how the new iOS update will be pre-
| selecting apps provided by the Russian government on device
| setup to comply with a new law there. For now you can
| deselect/remove them.
| akmarinov wrote:
| That's really not an issue right now. Governments ARE forcing
| Apple to preinstall government apps right now.
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-
| app...
| zepto wrote:
| That article completely proves my point.
|
| 1. Russia _has sufficient leverage_. Most smaller countries
| do not.
|
| 2. "These pre-installed apps will also be _deletable_ after
| setup is complete, just like any other third-party app that
| is downloaded from the App Store."
|
| That's as far as Apple was willing to go. The Apps also
| don't have privileged access to anything private.
|
| If the US or EU forces Apple to allow alternate stores,
| both of these protections will be gone, forever.
|
| And once they are gone on Apple devices, why would anyone
| imagine we'll ever again have a widespread platform that
| doesn't have government mandated software?
|
| Apple's dominance is at best a transient problem. Let's not
| trade it for a permanent one that is far worse.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| _> 2. "These pre-installed apps will also be deletable
| after setup is complete, just like any other third-party
| app that is downloaded from the App Store."_
|
| They aren't even preinstalled. You get a prompt during
| setup and they're _pre-selected_ to be installed after
| setup, but you can uncheck them.
|
| "All apps in the list are pre-selected to be installed as
| part of setup; however, users are able to deselect apps
| individually if they don't want them."
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a
| virtualization software without permission from Apple
|
| No it's not. It's impossible if you don't want to require your
| customers to change some security settings.
|
| We can have a discussion about whether that's practical for a
| developer, but either way, the user has control over their Mac.
| Completely different situation from iOS.
| naringas wrote:
| > the user has control over their Mac.
|
| for now, because observing the current trends, they'll likely
| won't for much longer... all for the sake of safety and
| convenience.
| jsperson wrote:
| On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices
| for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my
| in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's
| behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly
| unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for
| the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.
| curt15 wrote:
| How many of those issues from your in-laws are due to
| installing programs from outside Google Play?
| anonymou2 wrote:
| I suppose it is not so bad to be a serf. Your master feeds
| you and you don't have to worry about getting food.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I followed this road until the device was locked. Make sure
| you have a backup of stuff like photos and emails which is
| not Apple-managed.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free
| butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to
| be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong
| apps.
|
| Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it
| comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every
| desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong
| toolbar? It's like the reverse 'but think of the children',
| and people keep using it who would scoff at it in every other
| context, just to engage in this constant Apple apologia that
| has infected tech people who should know better but don't
| because they've grown up with macbooks with shitty stickers
| on it. The sort of brand influence that Apple exercises and
| the stuff it gets away with is truly astonishing.
| ratww wrote:
| It's not about grandma. I also don't want to deal with
| bullshit myself.
|
| - In the country I grew up I have to install rootkits in my
| computer in order to use the bank website. Some of them are
| borderline impossible to uninstall, and some banks have
| rootkits that conflicted with the ones of other banks. How
| do I know if it's not spying on me or not? It's a multi-
| megabyte kernel extension. I can't even use Linux or a
| Virtual Machine to access the website!
|
| - For some apps I use for music making I had to install
| iLok which is (or at least used to be) the biggest piece of
| shit ever and crashed my computer all the time, because it
| was terribly written. I still refuse to buy anything that
| uses physical DRM.
|
| - Even today in macOS (which is supposed to have a sandbox)
| I keep finding stuff in the disk from programs I
| uninstalled several years ago, because developers can't
| keep their telemetry spying garbage off every single corner
| of my machine.
|
| - Every single scummy websites (which is 99% of all sites,
| HN and Reddit are the only exceptions I can think of)
| requires a login with Email so they can send me spam and
| send my information to third parties. With iCloud Sign Up I
| can sign in without that fear.
|
| So yes, most of the time I _wish_ my desktop was limited
| the way my phone is locked because _I_ own my computer, not
| some asshole developer who decided my computer is their
| playground.
|
| As long as I keep developing my software and compiling open
| source stuff, I'm good. Other developers can embrace the
| sandbox or piss off.
| spideymans wrote:
| On Mac and Windows, I have to think twice about whatever
| applications I install because, as you said, any
| application could royally screw with the system.
|
| On iOS I can download effectively whatever I like from
| the App Store without worrying about it screwing up my
| system. That peace of mind is worth a lot of money, and
| is why people pay a premium to be in this walled garden.
|
| I have no desire for for my iPhone to have the same
| threats presented to my Mac or PC. I also have no desire
| for my Mac or PC to be as locked down as my iPhone. There
| is room in the market for both. Trying to legislatively
| eliminate this option is ridiculous. If you don't like
| the device's security policy, _then don 't buy it_.
| aaron_m04 wrote:
| > I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free
| butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed
| to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the
| wrong apps.
|
| This is because we have so much "freedom" that Apple is
| free to do this. I would argue this is a false freedom,
| like the freedom to own slaves.
| evgen wrote:
| We also have the freedom to ignore people who want the
| freedom to blow off both feet and demand that everyone
| else also has this ability. Freedom is choice, but for
| some reason these people will not just choose another
| platform and finally STFU. I guess it is just too galling
| to see other people decide to treat a computer as if it
| was a hammer with which to accomplish a job and not a way
| of life around which you organize your self-worth.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| Hardly comparable when a slave doesn't choose to be a
| slave while an Apple user has to pay hundreds and
| thousands of dollars to become one.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| there are absolutely controls you can turn on for macs that
| will do that. I have locked down employees computers
| because they couldn't be trusted.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I'm always curious about this attitude. Why did you
| employ them if you felt you couldn't trust them?
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Very good question!
| Tushon wrote:
| People being good at anything else (let's say,
| accounting) is not correlated with safe/smart computer
| use habits. If you can prevent a lot of turmoil by not
| letting them install arbitrary programs and still keep
| them happy and working well on their main role, why get
| rid of an otherwise good employee?
| saagarjha wrote:
| That's the point! There are no similar controls in
| iPhone, you just get the locked experience by default.
| maccard wrote:
| I bought my dad a chromebook 2 years ago, because it's the
| most locked down laptop form factor I could find. My tech
| support calls have dropped from monthly (yes, monthly) to
| once. Before it was "I can't find my email" (whatever
| windows' default url handler for mail:foo@bar wasn't logged
| into his account) or "office isn't working" (that's a zip
| file, not a document), or " every time I try to run X it
| does Y" (the final straw was windows defender stopped him
| from opening a docx file because it came from an untrusted
| source, which was his GP/doctor who had self hosted mail
| bring flagged as spam by Hotmail). Bought a chromebook,
| moved him to google sheets and google docs, and haven't had
| a call since. If there was a locked in, $200 phone that
| wasn't apple that I could buy for him that would have the
| same effect, I would.
| retox wrote:
| It really does seem that personal responsibility is a dirty
| word these days. Whether it comes to being able to critical
| review some news/social media someone has read online or
| maintaining the computer in your pocket.
|
| I wonder if it's an off-shoot of the concept of 'victim
| blaming', meaning it's not allowed to lay the
| responsibility for someones actions on them, there should
| be safeguards that prevent someone from making a mistake in
| the first place, even if it's at the expense of people who
| know that they're doing. I haven't fully fleshed out in
| idea in my head yet.
| ballenf wrote:
| I'm always amazed in the land of the free and a forum for
| people who build tech products that so many people favor
| taking away your right to create a product and sell it on
| your own terms. I'm just not comfortable forcing Apple to
| change the software on its phones (relaxing app signing) or
| forcing it to distribute someone else's software for free.
|
| While I don't like the Apple tax, I really don't like the
| idea that forcing Apple to open up its App Store is the
| right solution.
|
| I wish we could start with these ideas first:
|
| - pricing transparency: force the UI to show exactly how
| much of every transaction goes to Apple. We already do this
| with many other taxes, so I don't see it as an intrusion.
|
| - first sale doctrine fully applied: force Apple to allow
| users to install any OS they want on an iPhone. Prohibit
| locking, etc. But if you choose to use Apple's OS, then you
| have to accept their policies. This same policy should
| apply to game consoles and other hardware. (And this does
| contradict slightly my above point about app signing, but
| I'd argue that letting people use hardware unfettered is
| different than letting them use your software unfettered.
| But it's an admittedly weak and flawed compromise.)
| 67868018 wrote:
| > Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it
| comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every
| desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong
| toolbar?
|
| Yeah I really wish we could... how many human hours have
| been wasted cleaning up infected garbage on friends and
| family desktop computers?
| Jyaif wrote:
| Do you think that you spending 0% of your time managing iOS
| devices has something to do with apps not being able to use
| their own payment system?
| random5634 wrote:
| This is one of the major features yes. On iOS apps are
| totally prohibited from their own payment flows in app / on
| platform - it's completely banned.
|
| This is extremely noticeable in a couple of areas.
|
| Subscription - you get an email from apple BEFORE renewal,
| and can easily cancel subscriptions - all located in one
| place - no phone calls or other stupidity (try cancelling a
| myheritage account by contrast!)
|
| They have integrated monitoring so if you delete an app, it
| will ask if you also want to cancel out the subscription
| for the app.
|
| The prompting for purchase and trials is VERY explicit. So
| for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying
| signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out
| that in a month it switches to something like $15/month- I
| mean, the scams and tricks are endless off app store.
|
| Especially with elderly relatives or younger folks or just
| folks who don't want to be hassled with this game playing,
| these features are what make using apple so nice and help
| drive the premium users are willing to pay (which can be
| ridiculous!).
|
| One tip - if you have elderly folks, scan their bank
| statement / cc statement 1x per year, you usually can save
| them thousands on auto-renewing stuff they no longer use.
| [deleted]
| spideymans wrote:
| >The prompting for purchase and trials is VERY explicit.
| So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying
| signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out
| that in a month it switches to something like $15/month-
| I mean, the scams and tricks are endless off app store.
|
| I really wish government or credit card companies would
| impose rules on merchants that prohibit this kind of
| behaviour. It's very easy to get bitten by subscription
| scams, even from companies that appear legitimate.
|
| The lack of regulation on this matter just leaves Apple
| with justification to act as a payment gatekeeper.
| eropple wrote:
| I agree with your general point, but I raised my eyebrows
| at this:
|
| _> So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios)
| saying signup for $1 /week. Great, you do it. Then you
| find out that in a month it switches to something like
| $15/month_
|
| Out of curiosity, I went incognito (as I'm an NYT
| subscriber) and clicked that banner just now, and it says
| it's $1/week for a year, not a month ($4.25/week
| afterwards). I'm pretty sure I've been seeing that offer
| for years, too.
|
| Maybe you're in a different cohort or something but
| that's a weird and antagonistic way to treat a customer
| that's going to drop people out of a funnel so I'm
| wondering if you're misremembering.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Wall Street Journal _after_ teaser is $468 per year.
| random5634 wrote:
| Apple has focused pretty heavily on the user experience,
| developers be damned.
|
| I know this is not popular on HN (ie, anti-trust claims
| to allow devs to abuse users the way they can elsewhere).
|
| They haven't been stupid / annoying about it. You
| contrast their controls with those outside ios.
|
| The russian site I visit with the cookie notice, they can
| still track me and what am I going to do about it? So the
| cookie notice is both annoying an ineffective against bad
| actors. On iOS, I decline a permission, and it's done.
| spideymans wrote:
| >ie, anti-trust claims to allow devs to abuse users the
| way they can elsewhere
|
| I can't lie. When I see companies like Match Group
| complaining that iOS policies prevent them from
| surreptitiously locking their "customers" into
| subscriptions[0], I can't help but chuckle. This is
| precisely why I bought an iPhone.
|
| 0: https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/tinder-owners-stock-
| tumbles-af...
| jsperson wrote:
| >Do you think that you spending 0% of your time managing
| iOS devices has something to do with apps not being able to
| use their own payment system?
|
| Indirectly sure - it pays for the app store and all of the
| curation that goes on there. Admittedly there's a crazy
| healthy profit for Apple, but I believe you are arguing
| principles so the amount shouldn't be relevant.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| This is an argument. _My elderly parents are stupid
| argument._ for why you should buy iOS. No- its not signalling
| at all.
|
| iOS is just as confusing as Android. Its a matter of which
| one you use first or regularly. Just as Linux is confusing to
| non-linux users.
|
| Also. Android works on the dodgiest mobile hardware available
| to mankind. Something not a lot of HN users seem to know -
| from tractors in farms to research equipment in the arctic. I
| dont know about space, but if we are going to use a modern OS
| on space craft - I'm willing to bet it will be an android
| fork.
| cjohansson wrote:
| I spend a lot of time fixing iOS devices to relatives and
| friends. I think what you are referring to is just a myth
| created by the PR department at Apple
| MikeUt wrote:
| > compromise
|
| This is not an inherent compromise. iPhones could be just as
| safe and issue-free if they were rootable, just as cars don't
| need hoods welded shut to prevent their owners from messing
| with the engine. If you find the compromise acceptable,
| simply don't root your phone.
| Daho0n wrote:
| A car analogy that works! Good job, this is a rare sight
| indeed :)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| To extend this analogy further, people share, load and
| modify ECU firmware dumps for their cars, too.
| alerighi wrote:
| Not true, it depends on what one is used to. My father for
| example always used Android, now he got an iPhone and he find
| it more difficult to use, to the point that it asks me even
| trivial things. It's a myth that iOS is more simple to use
| than Android, there are things that are more complicated.
| asciimov wrote:
| Biggest headache that Apple has solved is updates. They are
| very clear if a phone is still supported or not.
|
| The following is a conversation I had with a relative,
| while trying to troubleshoot their phone.
|
| Q: "Why doesn't my Bank App work?"
|
| Me: [after many steps]"Because you need to update your OS"
|
| Q: "How do I do that?"
|
| Me: [many steps later] "Sorry you can't update your OS. You
| will need a new phone."
|
| Q: "But this phone is only a year old."
|
| Me: "The phone had been out for over a year before you got
| it. The [manufacturer] stopped updating it. You have to get
| a new phone to use your Banking app."
|
| Q: "But new phones are so expensive, my phone is still
| plenty fast, and the battery lasts all day, why do I need
| to get a new phone?"
|
| Me: "The manufacturer stops making updates to make you buy
| a new phone from them."
| [deleted]
| lone-commenter wrote:
| > My father for example always used Android. [...]
|
| > [H]e got an iPhone and he find it more difficult to use
| [...]
|
| I guess that's precisely because he is used to Android, not
| because iOS is more difficult.
| crazypython wrote:
| Any software distributed on the App Store immediately becomes
| nonfree software. The free software definition is linked to the
| end-user's freedom to modify the programs on his computers, not
| whether a developer can fork it.
|
| Specifically, distribution on the app store denies "The freedom
| to... change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom
| 1)."
| mullingitover wrote:
| Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open
| source apps, build, and install on your own device without
| asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer
| license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Apple actively bans GPL software from the App Store because
| the GPL precludes distribution of GPL apps under the App
| Store's terms.
|
| Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation
| itself.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed?
| Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and
| is has not been actively banned from the app store.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| VLC was removed from the App Store by Apple[1], and had
| to be re-released under a dual license that allowed App
| Store distribution. GNU Go faced the same licensing
| issue[2]. This is a topic that was discussed on HN
| several years ago[3][4].
|
| > _Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under
| GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app
| store._
|
| As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has
| contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing,
| nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under
| the GPL _and_ distributing it under an App Store friendly
| license.
|
| Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that
| you do not have a license to distribute under your own
| terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a
| violation of the GPL.
|
| [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-
| app-sto...
|
| [2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
|
| [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083723
|
| [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379662
| mullingitover wrote:
| These aren't examples of Apple unilaterally removing
| GPL'd apps, these were examples where the creator
| contacted Apple with demands and Apple complied by
| removing the apps.
|
| The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly
| pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared
| outside the app store, the only thing the app store
| build/signature is doing is baking in the app store
| wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this
| logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would
| violate the license.
| m463 wrote:
| yes and no.
|
| I believe GPL 2 might be ok.
|
| You can also distribute your own GPL software on the app
| store, it you dual-license it.
|
| But I believe distributing someone else's GPL 3 software is
| a problem, because as RMS said he realized he had to add
| freedom zero, the freedom to RUN the software.
|
| Remember that Apple stops you from RUNNING software, then
| gives/sells you the permission.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, the issue is that the GPL 2 & 3
| stipulate that the freedom to copy, modify and distribute
| any work based on GPL software should not come with any
| additional restrictions, and the App Store's terms impose
| additional restrictions on those freedoms.
| m463 wrote:
| I believe for GPL2, you could plausibly provide a link
| for copies of the source code.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Binaries are considered work based off of GPL software,
| so the freedoms to copy, modify and distribute binaries
| without restrictions apply. GPL3 goes further and
| clarifies that if software is distributed with additional
| restrictions that those restrictions can be ignored.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are
| bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software
| rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you
| from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-
| further-restrictions clause. Of course, you _can_ take both
| sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version,
| and you can then distribute modifications to the source code
| of the self-compiled version under GPL terms. But you
| _cannot_ upload software to the App Store under GPL terms
| without violating the GPL.
|
| In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL
| applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer
| on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-
| licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS.
| You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and
| unless they CLA all their developers so that they can
| actually distribute the port legally.
|
| If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA
| requirement for contributors, then consider that particular
| example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be
| able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the
| GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL
| applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every
| developer on the project.
|
| Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code,
| build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you
| have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm
| disappointed that more open source projects don't go this
| route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that
| anyone can build and run on their device outside the app
| store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping
| them.
| wvenable wrote:
| As long as you have a valid developer certificate to sign
| the app and you have a development provisioning profile
| and your device is registered as a test device. For that
| you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program
| member ($99). And you have to constantly renew your
| profile.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| And you need to have a Mac. Because reasons, I guess.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > For that you need to be registered as an iPhone
| Developer Program member ($99)
|
| Again, simply not true. You don't need a paid developer
| license for local installs, and this has been the case
| for a very long time.
| wvenable wrote:
| But then the app only works on your device for 7 days.
| martin1975 wrote:
| one of the many reasons I never bought an iPhone... not because I
| have some beef against iOS/OSX... I just dislike Apple's business
| antics, a.k.a. greed.
| protomyth wrote:
| _Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for
| Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they
| will allow updated versions into the App Store._
|
| This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require
| the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts
| on iDevices?
| bogwog wrote:
| You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the
| larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something
| customers discover through Librem's marketing, buy from Librem
| on Librem's website not using Apple's payment/account systems,
| and not exclusive to Apple platforms in any way.
|
| Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue,
| because they can.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue,
| because they can.
|
| This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn't forcing them to give
| up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users
| the option to sign up through the App Store.
|
| If most of their customers come from outside the App Store,
| this won't make much difference to them.
|
| If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only
| be 15%.
|
| The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their
| promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this
| wouldn't be a big problem.
| bogwog wrote:
| Arguing these fine points is a waste of time because I feel
| like people defending this are missing the complete
| insanity of this situation. Try a different perspective:
|
| Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's
| Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal
| foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple
| devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all
| revenues Apple makes from all of their services from
| customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes
| things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc.
|
| That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would
| accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to
| fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their
| devices.
|
| Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a
| license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got
| this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect"
| electronics customers from scammers and other bad people
| who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a
| trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence.
|
| "Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the
| universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this
| so innocent people don't download an app only to discover
| that they need to go to another website to create an
| account first." ~ Billy
|
| > If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will
| only be 15%
|
| That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything.
| 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
| mrzimmerman wrote:
| But the opposite is true. Android represents a much, much
| larger part of the smart phone market and there are a
| wide variety of devices, manufacturers, and sellers.
|
| So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple
| goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy,
| which is also what the electronics marketplace is like
| already.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Except the comparison end there because users can switch
| shops when they want and it cost them nothing, not the
| same for a phone.
| musicale wrote:
| > 15% is still too much as long as there are no
| alternatives
|
| 1. Most of the apps in the App Store are games. What are
| the alternative app stores for other handheld gaming
| systems like the Nintendo Switch and 3DS?
|
| 2. I supposed it's a shame that there are no alternatives
| to iOS/iPhone besides Android which has an 85% market
| share.
|
| 3. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-
| steams-30-cut... (updated Jan. 2021.)
| ziml77 wrote:
| They want the experience to be that if you download an app
| that needs payment to function, it's possible to pay using
| the same payment flow as everything else. You don't have to
| hand over your payment information to a third party.
|
| Maybe Apple needs to make changes to allow apps that are only
| a part of a service instead of the main selling point of the
| service to bypass those rules? Seems like it would be tough
| to figure out what is and isn't covered though.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| Crazy how that doesn't apply to Amazon (and Audible) or
| Netflix /s
| vbezhenar wrote:
| What about customers who have found an app in AppStore,
| wanted to try it out only to find that they need to go
| through external websites and stuff. Not kind of UX you
| expect from iPhone.
| protomyth wrote:
| Apple got paid for the phone and wouldn't have the app in
| its app store except for the requirement it be there to be
| installed in the first place. Rewarding a company for
| forced discovery is not a healthy thing.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| I expect any device with general purpose computing
| capabilities to allow me to use those capabilities anyway I
| want.
|
| Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.
| comex wrote:
| What if the way you want is using the App Store's payment
| infrastructure?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Sounds like rent-seeking from a company that has literally
| banned all mobile app distribution competition on their
| platform.
| akmarinov wrote:
| It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon,
| Disney, etc
|
| What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the
| press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been
| proven to work time and time again.
| ncw96 wrote:
| Apple has a well known exception to the rule requiring an
| option to subscribe inside the app for "reader" apps, a
| vaguely defined which includes Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, and
| seemingly whatever else is convenient to Apple.
|
| Apple did not lift this requirement for the Hey email app
| during the controversy over that last year. Instead, they
| reached a compromise where Hey would offer a free trial of
| their service inside the app, so they could be in compliance
| with the rule that an app must have some functionality
| without an account.
| wvenable wrote:
| I'd like to see them try to enforce that rule with banking
| apps...
| ogre_codes wrote:
| You have a banking subscription?
| mrloop wrote:
| I've got 2 bank accounts which i pay a monthly
| subscription fee. For instance https://monzo.com/i/monzo-
| plus/
| pmontra wrote:
| Not even Apple can sell devices that don't do Netflix,
| Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc. At least not as many as they
| are selling now.
| protomyth wrote:
| Yeah. Apple says they don't like developers going to the
| press, but its pretty much the only thing that actually
| works.
|
| Well, for devices, its basically customer support via threat
| of class action lawsuit. I'm still a little miffed I had to
| pay $79 three times to "fix" the iPhone 6 and didn't get a
| refund after they finally acknowledged the issue.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify,
| Amazon, Disney, etc
|
| I believe they do require this of large companies; it's been
| a while, but IIRC Netflix and Disney+ both allow you to sign
| up for the service in the app. The HBO app does, too.
|
| You can log in with an existing account, but I thought the
| requirement was that you need to give a user the ability to
| sign up for a paid service account in app, and that signup
| needs to bill through Apple.
|
| It's a moneymaker, no doubt; as a consumer, though, I
| appreciate not having to hand over credit card details to a
| random service I'm trying out for a month.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| Netflix took out their sign up screen years ago; you have
| to subscribe via the website.
|
| Disney+ does let you subscribe through Apple.
| stalfosknight wrote:
| tl;dr version: "We think we're too special to follow the App
| Store's rules regarding not forcing users to sign up somewhere
| else instead of in the app they're trying to use but Apple
| doesn't agree so we're taking our marbles and going home."
| prophesi wrote:
| Does Librem One allow you to download the OpenVPN/Wireguard
| profiles? Because then you can just download OpenVPN Connect and
| get just about the same experience. Sounds much more free than
| using a VPN app that can't be used with other VPN servers.
|
| This way you can still pay for Librem One outside the app, and
| thereby circumvent the 30% toll, and continue to serve your iOS
| users.
| Stephen304 wrote:
| The Android docs seem to hint that it's using ovpn profiles
| under the hood - it shouldn't be too hard to get the config
| file if it isn't already provided in the librem one website:
| https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Android/VPN_Tunnel.html
| mullingitover wrote:
| I'm not clear on why Librem would need to add an in-app purchase
| option under app store guidelines, and their article doesn't
| really explain it either.
|
| App store guidelines on this topic are:
|
| > 3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-
| alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud
| Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app
| purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or
| calls to action for purchase outside of the app.
|
| So are they offering purchase inside the app? I downloaded it,
| and there's a bare login prompt with no mention of purchasing
| outside the app that might get them in trouble.
| kop316 wrote:
| This seems to be where they explain it:
|
| "Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem
| One offering, because it's part of a subscription service,
| Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for
| Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before
| they will allow updated versions into the App Store."
|
| However, what you show seems to contradict that?
|
| EDIT: If I were to guess, the flagging was an automated
| process, i.e. Apple flagged it and sent an automated email to
| Purism. Whether or not Purism tried to respond or not I do not
| know, but in the end they decided not to deal with it and
| pulled their app.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| my company had the exact same problem. This is no automated
| process. We had to enable EITHER in-app free trials OR in-app
| purchases (or both). And you cant use stripe, paypal, amazon
| payments, google pay, or alipay in-app.... it MUST be apple
| pay.
| mullingitover wrote:
| Did they cite the particular part of the developer
| agreement that was violated in your case?
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why
| Apple's App Store policies are bad? The argument that always
| comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not
| encroach on _every_ business owner's right to decide who they
| want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses,
| and how they design their platforms?
|
| Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these
| discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the
| 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at
| how it was dethroned, it wasn't dethroned because of government
| regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products
| entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all
| happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What,
| then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is
| the expected outcome?
| wmf wrote:
| Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows
| doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being
| installed.
|
| Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but
| app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at
| all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App
| developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly
| to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that
| the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that
| the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is
| allowed.
| m463 wrote:
| I believe the customer eventually bears the brunt of this.
|
| It's sort of like net neutrality and your ISP.
|
| You pay your ISP for access to the internet.
|
| If your ISP is also charging others for access to you, then
| either:
|
| - you will pay more for those services, or
|
| - the services available to you will be diminished
|
| same for apps.
| crusty wrote:
| Wouldn't the spirit of librem here suggest the solution would
| just be to make and distribute an open VPN app on iOS and tell
| your librem one subscribers to install it and have an easy and
| secure method of downloading a file with your endpoints? Then
| there is no argument to be made that it's tied to a subscription
| because anyone could use it for their own or yours or anyone
| else's that supports it.
|
| PIA (and others I'm sure)offers a zip of .ovpn files for their
| endpoints that Linux users can import to use with openVPN without
| using their app.
|
| Obviously, this is a proposed solution to having the app on iOS,
| no dealing with Apple's access monopoly.
| brian_herman wrote:
| Yeah, the wireguard guys can maintain their app. Why can't a
| company like librem?
| vultour wrote:
| Off topic but this website has the most obnoxious lower case
| letter 't' I have ever seen. I had to stop reading after the
| first two paragraphs and try to figure out what was wrong because
| the text felt off.
| CarVac wrote:
| I think it's hinting. Zoom in or view it on mobile--it's
| probably a fine font for print, just not at default zoom on a
| low DPI display.
| 13415 wrote:
| I was more annoyed by the '3', which made the 30% look like a
| distorted 80%.
| incongruity wrote:
| If I understand correctly, Apple would only get 30% of the in-app
| subscriptions but not those from outside the app?
|
| If so, I think there are likely multiple motivations here. Apple
| has long been willing to force certain standardizations in the
| name of simple and uniform user experiences (they're not perfect
| but the intent is clearly there). Having to drop out of an app
| experience to do something isn't good UX - so enforcing _the
| option_ to do it in app makes for a simpler experience - as much
| as it also adds to Apple's bottom line. To be honest, the issue
| seems more to be just how big of a cut they want to take - but
| that's even harder to fight against (capitalism and all) so this
| is the easier target.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| You do understand correctly, yes. (Also, Apple only gets 30% of
| the in-app subscriptions in the first year, then it drops to
| 15%.)
| newbie578 wrote:
| Talk about putting one's money where their mouth is. Respect to
| Librem, and I hope the EU will act soon and force Apple to start
| playing fair.
|
| I feel like the tide is turning and change is coming.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Their use of the App Store to disadvantage competitors (such as
| when they removed competing parental control apps in the name of
| privacy coincidentally when launching their own).
|
| My experience seeing parent control apps, are that they likely
| leak private data either intentionally or unintentionally. These
| apps, would have access to all sorts of data, and unless the
| developers are both very scrupulous and very competent, it is
| easy for private info to be leaked. I am far more comfortable
| with Apple handling that, than a third party.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This article is tired excuses dressed up as freedom. They want to
| travel the road but not pay the toll.
| [deleted]
| m-p-3 wrote:
| On top of letting the toll take 30% on the merchandise on each
| deliveries on the ONLY road available on their platform.
|
| They already pay their Apple Developer Program yearly
| membership fees. If Apples deem this isn't enough, then they
| should raise the cost to properly take that into account.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This is terrible business advice. Look how wildly successful
| their model is. It's the example of how other app stores run
| their businesses.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Standard Oil and Microsoft in the 90's/00's were both
| wildly successful, too, yet they still engaged in anti-
| competitive behavior to the detriment of the market and
| consumers alike.
| zapzupnz wrote:
| That would preclude smaller developers, people who pay the
| subscription but don't submit apps but rather use other
| benefits of the program, and people who only or mostly make
| free apps.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| To use your analogy, there is only one road and it is a toll
| road. Maybe they are ok with a side road, but there is none.
|
| The only thing tired is extractive monopolies. Funnily enough,
| Apple could make a few small tweaks and not be in this
| category. They've chosen instead to double down on exerting
| their market power.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| And? That's how I want it. If you want viruses distributed by
| your App Store, go for it, Android is waiting for you. I want
| a tightly regulated relatively well run platform, not an open
| one. My phone is mission critical. There isn't an open
| platform that can handle that responsibility, like say, Linux
| in the Cloud.
| robmusial wrote:
| Isn't the sensible option then to allow third party app
| stores? If you want a tightly regulated environment only
| stick to the official channels. Apple can continue to
| charge their premium for that.
| [deleted]
| zepto wrote:
| I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see
| the adoption of free devices running free software _as a
| necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics
| in the industry._
|
| They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution.
|
| On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and
| Epic's antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with
| creating an alternative. Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become
| _even more entrenched_.
|
| So, I can no longer recommend librem, and will only recommend
| Pine.
| rictic wrote:
| > Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched.
|
| Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.
| crowbahr wrote:
| Because his arguments are against the fundamental structure
| of iOS rather than against the app store.
|
| A second app store inside of the walled garden still ends up
| being a walled garden, just one with more of an illusion of
| choice. That means that the users will have even _less_
| reason to leave.
| ece wrote:
| I disagree, it's perfectly fine for a developer to say no, I
| can't be in a closed ecosystem for these reasons like Purism
| stated. We need developers and users to choose open ecosystems.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| They could offer alternate ways of accessing their VPN service
| either through IPsec (native to iOS), OpenVPN or WireGuard.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Sidenote, but their font has a really horrible "3". I was reading
| and wondering why Epic needs to pay 80 % toll instead of 30 %.
| Even after realizing it's a 3 I'd always see an 8 at first.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| A few years ago, I got my grandmother an iPad. She used it for
| years until she passed. I just powered it on yesterday and it now
| "requires activation", which won't complete via WiFi. All the
| data on it, e.g. pictures, is now inaccessible. It is,
| effectively, bricked. I'll sooner eat a pile of shit before I
| ever touch or recommend another Apple product again.
|
| Edit: To clarify, it was never locked or password protected
| before, and I would use it to look at pictures in the Photos app
| locally. I hadn't used it for several months.
| skim1420 wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear of your loss. It seems you took good care of
| things like this for her.
| phren0logy wrote:
| This is unfortunate, but isn't this a fundamental trade-off for
| some of the privacy protections iOS offers? Or am I
| misunderstanding the situation.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| It was never locked before, not even a four-digit screen
| lock. I have no idea why this happened and no recourse.
| trevor-e wrote:
| >and no recourse
|
| Just curious, the Apple Store was also unable to help you?
| Hope you are able to recover the data. :/
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Thank you. This just happened, so I have not been to an
| Apple Store yet. There isn't one near me, and it is not
| easy to get to the far removed ones. It may be weeks or
| months before I can visit one.
| rodgerd wrote:
| This is just "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of
| ideas" territory.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Actually, I have already tried trusting my Apple device
| to not backstab me and lock all my data.
|
| I've also tried reasoning with the device and unlocking
| it myself, which also did not work.
|
| I don't see how you can say I haven't tried anything.
|
| By the way, in case you missed it, this happened
| yesterday, I just happened to come across a thread which
| was relevant.
| musicale wrote:
| This sounds like a bug. If the device never had a passcode
| before you certainly don't need one to unlock it even if it has
| auto-updated.
| lyptt wrote:
| FYI you don't need WiFi to activate. You can activate via
| iTunes / macOS if you plug it in.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I don't have either of those.
|
| From previous experiences, it's my understanding that
| activation means resetting and erasing it.
| gsich wrote:
| iTunes is also available on Windows. Might not help if you
| run Linux.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I'm not using Windows.
| gsich wrote:
| I wrote that it might not help. But VMs (or separate
| HDDs) are a thing too.
| em-bee wrote:
| you expect someone to pay for a windows license just so
| they can run itunes just to reactivate a device they own?
|
| seems a bit much
| gsich wrote:
| No need to pay, you can run Windows 10 without
| activation. I think it was either 90 or 180 days, so
| should be plenty of time to recover the device.
| officeplant wrote:
| You can run it forever as long as you are fine with the
| Please Activate text in the corner and having
| personalization restricted.
| em-bee wrote:
| oh, i wasn't aware of that. good to know
| spijdar wrote:
| In this case it seems like it has already been reset, or
| performed some kind of major OS update, which seems
| unlikely.
|
| In lieu of itunes or mac, you could also take it to an
| apple store I believe.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| It was just sitting around hooked up to a charger while I
| was away.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| Did it have auto-updates enabled? It might have just been
| doing what it had been told, and updated itself at some
| point.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Not that I am aware of... Would an automatic update lock
| the device?
| comex wrote:
| No.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Okay. I just had to recover my father's iPad account; he's
| alive but lets just say aggravating at times getting him to do
| what he is told to do.
|
| Since he bricked his iPad I had to submit a recovery through
| iCloud and that invokes a twenty four hour delay before it
| sends recovery information to his listed authentication device;
| as in his telephone.
|
| So that comes in which directs you to apple.com/recover or such
| and when you put the id in you have the option to get a 2FA
| code back to the phone which we did. I then simply put my phone
| number into the account so all future recoveries would be
| simpler.
|
| Apple will allow for more than one authentication method, use
| it for ANY gift you give to an elderly parent or such. Frankly
| the best option you have is to get yourself on their email
| account recovery page as well.
|
| Its just common sense in this era of identity theft that you do
| your due diligence so you can protect those you care for.
|
| If your iPad is asking for a passcode and you don't know it you
| are lost unless it was backed up which brings up the second
| point.
|
| When giving gifts like these out make sure to help the
| recipient learn how to back it up to a computer or have them
| let you back it up to yours when they visit.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Thank you for your help. It has never been passcode-
| protected, and it does sound similar to the issue you
| experienced. I'll try getting in touch with Apple to see if
| they can help.
|
| I've quite a bit of experience with consumer tech, but I did
| not anticipate this kind of issue happening. I don't think
| it's right that the iPad can just lock itself and require
| Apple's intervention to make usable and access the data
| stored.
|
| I will definitely never consider any Apple device as a gift
| to anyone ever again. I chose Apple for the same reason
| another commenter suggested, to reduce problems with support
| calls. But this eclipses all the times put together I
| would've had to help her with another device.
| nemothekid wrote:
| "Apple won't let me to break into an iPad I don't own" isn't as
| bad as you are trying to make it seem.
|
| In other words, why are you surprised that you can't hack into
| an Apple device?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Because it worked fine last time I used it, it was never
| locked. I do own it. It was bought outright by me. I later
| inherited it legally and rightfully.
| [deleted]
| moistbar wrote:
| That's an interesting take on "this non-password-protected,
| non-LTE iPad that I do own abruptly stopped letting me look
| at data I was able to see recently."
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| It was on the cell network, but it was purchased outright,
| not under contract.
|
| It does sound like the other commenter's theory that the
| SIM has "gone bad" may be true, but I had no idea this
| could happen, and I don't see how that makes it any more
| valid.
| moistbar wrote:
| It doesn't make it valid at all. I can still access my
| Android phone without a SIM card, and in fact I used one
| on nothing but Wifi as my "landline" for quite a while.
| The only thing that should break when you remove or
| damage a SIM card is your ability to connect to a cell
| network.
| syrrim wrote:
| Are you aware of the concept of inheritance?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If they were the executor of the estate or heir, then it is
| their property for liquidation or their own use.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I left an iPad on a shelf for more than a year. During that
| time, Apple must have done migrations with iCloud and Apple
| accounts, and completely deleted the account the iPad was
| signed in under. I couldn't unlock the iPad, and I even tried
| re-registering a new account using the same email address and
| password that I had originally used. Didn't work at all, and
| it's still a paperweight.
|
| I'm just lucky in that I didn't have any important data like
| pictures, passwords or 2FA apps on it. Sorry for your loss.
| Angostura wrote:
| Sounds like it was an iPad with a SIM snd somehow the carrier
| SIM has gone bad. Pop a new SIM in and reactivate?
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| Yes, that's got to be a carrier thing. iPads do not "require
| activation," and many iPads are wifi-only.
|
| I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but I am extremely
| skeptical it is a problem caused by Big Bad Evil Apple doing
| Big Bad Evil things.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| How do you figure this problem is not caused by Apple, when
| I bought the iPad outright from Apple and only used the
| carrier for monthly-paid network access?
| [deleted]
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| Because iPads don't require activation, and carrier
| services _do_ require activation. The "Activation
| Required" message is specifically related to cellular
| networking.
|
| This could be (and I suspect very likely is) a problem
| with your iPad's SIM that you could check by powering off
| the iPad, removing the SIM and turning it back on again.
| It could be that there's some kind of corruption that you
| might need to fix by connecting it up to iTunes or even
| bringing to the dreaded Genius Bar. It could conceivably
| be some weird bug in iOS that has somehow sprung up and
| turned your iPad into a flat flowerpot. All of these
| things suck! But what it is _not_ is Apple forcing you to
| "authorize" your iPad in order to let it boot up.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I don't think it makes sense that cellular activation,
| which has not been active for several years now, would
| lock down the entire device, refusing me access to my own
| data, not to mention being able to use the device over
| local WiFi network.
|
| Do you disagree?
|
| (I am nowhere near a "Genius Bar".)
| thelopa wrote:
| I think you are mistaken. Activation is unrelated to
| cellular service. Activation is an anti-theft feature. E.g.
| even M1 macs are subject to activation and activation lock.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987
|
| Replacing the sim card in a device immediately triggers
| activation (e.g. to stop someone from using a stolen,
| passwordless device as their own). So, if the sim went bad,
| it seems plausible that the device might need to re-
| activate.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| Thanks, it is indeed a SIM-capable iPad. I had no idea this
| kind of thing could happen with it. I appreciate your lead,
| though I'm not sure where I would get a new SIM? It hasn't
| been hooked up to the network for several years now, why
| would it "go bad" now?
|
| Also, do you know if I could have prevented this by removing
| the SIM before it happened?
| zapzupnz wrote:
| > I'm not sure where I could get a new SIM?
|
| Do you have a mobile phone? Pop it out, put it in the iPad,
| activate it, take it out again.
|
| In New Zealand, where I'm from, you can get SIM cards from
| supermarkets, petrol stations, convenience stores ...
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I actually do not, haven't had one for years. :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-16 23:01 UTC)