[HN Gopher] iDOS 2 will be gone soon ___________________________________________________________________ iDOS 2 will be gone soon Author : taxyovio Score : 98 points Date : 2021-07-22 20:55 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (litchie.com) (TXT) w3m dump (litchie.com) | shkkmo wrote: | Apple can't enforce such basic App Store rules consistently, even | when violations are deliberately and clearly mentioned in the | submission... and we are supposed to believe that Apple can't | allow other stores on the decice because THAT would compromise | security... | spicybright wrote: | Again? | | Any web browser based app runs executable code ffs. | dabitude wrote: | You are not allowed to submit a web browser to the app store | with your own javascript interpreter. | blahyawnblah wrote: | There's no firefox on iOS? | theshadowknows wrote: | Apple let's you take the naked core of safari, stripped of | chrome, and slap a skin on top. | kjaleshire wrote: | Firefox (and every other 3rd party browser) internally uses | the same web rendering engine as Safari. Rolling your own | renderer + JS engine is not allowed. | wvenable wrote: | No. But there is a "Firefox" shell around WKWebView. | jdavis703 wrote: | All iOS web browsers use a web view backed by Safari. | benmmurphy wrote: | These rules are applied selectively. I know very popular apps | that are loading interpreted code over https and executing it. | Also, these same apps are exploiting a flaw in iOS in order to | track users across apps and using the interpreted code to hide | this. | user-the-name wrote: | Those apps are definitely in direct violation of app store | rules, and would be removed if they were detected. If they have | not been removed, it is because they were successful in hiding | their rule breaking. | withinboredom wrote: | Technically, this rule prevents the use of jsonp (remember | that?) | saagarjha wrote: | Sigh, this is exactly the rule Apple once falsely rejected iSH | for. It's disappointing to see that they're still applying their | convoluted rationale to take down legitimate apps based on the | actions their users take inside the app. As I wrote earlier: | | > For example, iSH was once rejected with the rationale that | "During review, your app installed or launched executable code, | which is not permitted on the App Store." The template itself | clearly outlines the case it is meant to apply--an app that is | installing code by itself, to bypass review--but in the case of | iSH the reviewer chose to install code and then complained that | the app did what they told it to do. | | I can see the arguments from | https://saagarjha.com/blog/2020/11/08/fixing-section-2-5-2/ | applying here. | [deleted] | heavyset_go wrote: | This is a good example of how innovation, competition and small | businesses are being stifled by the anticompetitive behavior of | the mobile app distribution cartel. | | Consider contacting your state's Attorney General office, and the | US Attorney General office. Many states' AG offices have | antitrust divisions[1]. | | The US Dept. of Justice also has an Antitrust Division[2], along | with a page that details how and why[3] to get in touch with | them: | | > _Information from the public is vital to the work of the | Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could | be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and | may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an | investigation._ | | The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[4], as well. | | [1] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/ | | [2] https://www.justice.gov/atr | | [3] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations | | [4] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau- | competi... | withinboredom wrote: | Yet another sad story of Apple's incompetence at running an app | store. | heavyset_go wrote: | Apple and Google have consistently shown that they are poor | stewards of the mobile app distribution market, having kept an | iron grip on the market for over a decade now. | | Consumers would benefit from real competition and disruption in | this space, as competition increases efficiency and lowers | costs. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | It's not incompetence if it's actually their rule. They are | competently enforcing an arguably stupid rule. | withinboredom wrote: | Sure, if this was the first submission of the app, or the | second. It isn't. It's had this feature and the intro | explaining that it broke the rules from the get-go. But now, | Apple suddenly backtracks it's decision to allow it AFTER the | dev has already made sales based on the feature. | | Apple should (in theory) give refunds for this, or make the | developer whole somehow, because the dev's reputation is | screwed. | shkkmo wrote: | No, they are incompetently enforcing the rules because the | "not allowed" functionality was added a while ago and | explicitly mentioned to the reviewers. The update review that | triggered the removal was just bug fixes. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | 643 billion dollars worth of incompetence over the year 2020. | <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/06/apple-developers- | grow...> | jhgb wrote: | How large is the Big Mac market? Surely larger than Kobe beef | market, right? | rStar wrote: | no soup(general computation) for you! | AceJohnny2 wrote: | Ref (2012): https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html | api wrote: | iOS devices are "consoles," not computers. | xyzzy21 wrote: | Seems like if you filled out the entitlements properly it should | be allowed - informed consent. | | But that's messed up if you did that. | ksec wrote: | Ok, so if the customer bought it before they took it down. I | could use it for as long as I could? | nanoscopic wrote: | I'd like to know this as well. My guess is that you may have to | install it on your device before it gets dropped from the Apple | store. | | Definitely have a cloud backup of your device enabled in case | you need to ever reset your device so that you don't lose the | app. | | If you want to install it on another device things become more | complex... | lixtra wrote: | Yes, as long as you don't upgrade your phone. At some point an | OS upgrade will break the app. | yoavm wrote: | Honest question - what do iOS users do in such situations? I'm | using Android and we can always install things from outside the | store, or even from alternative stores (eg. F-Droid). Is there | any similar solution? If the app is open-source, can you at least | build it yourself and sideload it as if you are the developer and | you're testing your app? What solutions are there? | meibo wrote: | You can sign 7 apps a week for your own device with the | tethered non-dev Apple ID. The certificates expire a week | after, so you need to resign those 7 apps every week or they | will stop working. | | All of the "alternative" stores and distribution methods work | with this mechanism, there is no better way and it is | completely at Apple's whims. | | Really, most interested users probably gave up at this point, | looking at the decaying Jailbreak ecosystem. | kjaleshire wrote: | You can only have 3 apps + 3 extensions installed on one | device simultaneously, however. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | They bow to the will of the true owners of the device they are | renting. | arthurcolle wrote: | use Prompt or another mosh terminal emulator and ssh into | wherever you want | danShumway wrote: | For a DOS emulator? Does Prompt stream graphics? | | Even just for coding, that sounds awful to me. iOS users | bought a mobile device, and particularly if they're on an | iPad Pro, a mobile device with a really good processor. For | me, part of that would be being able to treat it like a | mobile device, that it should keep working if I drive through | a tunnel, that I should be able to use it on the go. | | Hard for me to wrap my head around people being satisfied | with "ignore that you have a well-built device with | interesting sensors in front of you, and instead just use it | as a thin client to another functioning computer." | | There are cheaper thin clients out there than an iOS device | if someone is OK ignoring their native hardware, doing all of | their programming through a terminal, and having | functionality break if their device goes offline. | grishka wrote: | iOS requires apps to be signed with a certificate that chains | to an Apple root of trust. The only way around this is | jailbreak. | | IMO this shouldn't be legal. | Vanit wrote: | The latter as you said, compile it yourself. | marinhero wrote: | Yes, like this https://altstore.io/ | heavyset_go wrote: | They rationalize no longer being able to do something they used | to be able to do, for no real practical or technical reason, as | actually being a good thing. | marinhero wrote: | Gave up. I was wishing WWDC21 bring something like this due the | M1 iPads but all I got was a refresh on Playgrounds... It's | frustrating but I'm still inside the garden, and getting more | tired by the day. | wodenokoto wrote: | I don't do anything. It's a phone, not a PC. | | I got an iPhone because it does what it does well, and doesn't | do other things at all. | | iPhones are slick, costly and secure, at the cost of not being | malleable. | | It's a trade-off I made at purchase time and I know most users | of both iPhone and Android never considered that tradeoff. | gameswithgo wrote: | If apple allowed me to install a different store or easily | side load you wouldn't be negatively impacted | user-the-name wrote: | That is just not true, though. If Apple allowed different | stores, then software would migrate to those different | stores for various reasons, but probably because they had | less restrictions. That would force you to install those | less secure stores to use that software, and you would give | up the security you gain from Apple taking a hard line on | many kinds of bad behaviour on their own store. | marinhero wrote: | I partially agree with you but I think the iPad breaks this | rationale. They argue it's a computer so why won't they let | it be? | wodenokoto wrote: | Yeah, calling the iPad a PC is very short sighted by Apple. | | Where is the next generation of developers going to come | from, if they grow up on iPads? | | But I feel the same towards Apples stance on server | hardware, which they discontinued over a decade ago: Even | if servers don't make a sizeable profit on their own, they | help ensure that developers can build large scale stuff | inside the apple ecosystem. | | Yet, that hasn't really been the hindrance I feel it ought | to have been. | formerly_proven wrote: | > Executing code [...] allows for downloading of content | without licensing. | prirai wrote: | Termux | Laforet wrote: | Pretty much what you have just described, one needs to pay for | the yearly premium of the iOS developer programme in order to | run custom code on your own device. Bear in mind that iOS apps | are compiled in Xcode so one also needs to own hardware that | runs OSX. | | There are also people offering to sign you app with an | enterprise certificate for a fee in the more dodgy corners of | the internet but Apple is known to crack down on those once in | a while as this obviously goes outside their ToS. | bri3d wrote: | You can sideload the app yourself - but the account can only | have 3 devices, and the app expires and stops running weekly | for a free account or every 90 days (iirc - it's been awhile | since I entered this particular dumpster fire) for a paid | account. This is to prevent you as a developer from using your | provisioning profile to backdoor-distribute software to end- | users. | | The largest loophole still is probably Enterprise Distribution, | which allows high-limits (long time, many devices) signing | associated with an Enterprise account. | Shank wrote: | It's a year for a paid account, 90 days through TestFlight. | JonathonW wrote: | If the app's open-source, you can build it yourself, with | restrictions on how long the app will function on your device | before you have to reinstall it (one year IIRC for paid | developer accounts, but only 7 days if you're not enrolled in | the paid program). | | If the app isn't open-source, you don't have any great options. | Hypothetically, compiled apps from other developers can be re- | signed just like apps you build yourself (see AltStore [1], | which uses this technique), but those apps are still time- | bombed and have to be periodically refreshed. The barrier to | entry means you don't see a ton of apps around that do this; if | something can't be compliant with App Store rules, it generally | doesn't get made on iOS. | | (There's also jailbreaking, and there used to be a decently- | large community of developers building applications and tweaks | for jailbroken iOS devices. That's gotten smaller both as | Apple's made jailbreaking more difficult to maintain, and as | new features in iOS have made much of the functionality people | used to jailbreak for redundant.) | | [1] https://altstore.io/ | jdavis703 wrote: | I've had a couple of apps disappear (one I know Apple removed, | the others I think just suffered from bit rot). I guess it's | the same as if my grocery store stops stocking some brand I | buy. I'm bummed about it, but life goes on. | DCKing wrote: | It is possible to sideload apps on iOS, it just requires | jumping through hoops that you don't have on Android. Apple | allows sideloading of apps signed by the same Apple account | that you're signed into on your iDevice. | | Since this is really intended to make developing iOS apps more | accessible, it requires resigning or rebuilding apps. Since | iDOS is open source, that should be no problem here - you can | compile and install your own copy, likely just by loading the | upstream project in Xcode and deploying it your iDevice like | app developers do. A usability problem is that apps installed | this way are only runnable for a week [0], at which point the | signature must be refreshed or iOS will refuse to open the app. | | AltStore [1] is a project that streamlines this ordeal as much | as possible. It's an alternate app store that allows you to | install a bunch of open source apps not allowed in the app | store (e.g. apps using permissions that would be rejected, or | game console emulators). It also comes with a server component | that uses Apple's frameworks on Mac/Windows to refresh those | apps' validity on iDevices on the same network. If you | regularly connect your iDevice to a network with an AltServer | of your own, the apps should continue to work. | | It's certainly not pretty, and very far removed from fare more | open Android devices, but workarounds to run your own software | on iDevices do exist. There's an entire subreddit, | r/sideloaded, dedicated to this apparently mostly for piracy | purposes. | | [0]: Unless you pay for the Apple Developer Program, which has | much longer limits. This limit is for free accounts. | | [1]: https://altstore.io/ | saurik wrote: | An additional limitation is that you can only have three such | applications installed at a time. You also aren't going to be | able to get access to functionality like push notifications | (which might be obvious) or network extensions (which might | not be: you have to have a paid developer account to | develop/install a custom VPN for iOS; I find this limitation | particularly frustrating, as it seems to mostly serve the | purpose of helping authoritarian governments, and it isn't | like Android has such a restriction so we know it isn't "par | for the course": they are going above and beyond here). | Joeri wrote: | iOS users have mostly chosen to accept the walled garden. If | they hadn't, they would be android users. | paulryanrogers wrote: | This assumes that users understand the implications of the | garden they're buying into. For many there may be a strong | bandwagon effect, and they don't fully grasp what they are | losing. | colonwqbang wrote: | What I don't understand is why so many devs choose to | accept Apple's rules. These devs know full well that they | will likely be f***** over like this in the end. Yet they | still give Apple their business. | withinboredom wrote: | I have an iPhone simply to facetime with my parents, who | refuse to talk to anyone with a green bubble. You can't | make this up. If I could use iMessage on any other device, | I wouldn't have an iPhone. Apple knows this, and it | probably scares the shit out of them. | FabHK wrote: | I think I largely understand the implications of the garden | I chose, and I doubt there will be much anguish among my | less technical family/friends about their loss when they | fully grasp that they will never be able to run a DOS | emulator on their iPhones. | paulryanrogers wrote: | The only reason we're talking about something as obscure | as DOS is because it wasn't threatening. Now that people | have raised awareness of the inconstency they're blocking | it, like many other general purpose emulators. | amelius wrote: | Great hackers know when to give up. | opheliate wrote: | When I was younger, my family couldn't afford a laptop, but I | have the distinct memory of wanting to learn to code on the iPads | at my school, and being unable to find any app which would let me | just write and execute programs. Looking around the App Store | now, there do seem to be a couple of apps which would allow this, | but it's still really disappointing to see this kind of removal. | The majority of kids these days will likely use a phone lots more | than they use a laptop. For those who want to learn to code, why | doesn't Apple make it easier? | jeroenhd wrote: | Because if the iPad can be used as a computer, there's very | little reason to buy a Macbook. It makes no financial sense. | | It'd also allow apps to dynamically load external software, | which could be used as a bypass for Apple's stringent app store | requirements. | devwastaken wrote: | If macbooks were gone tomorrow, the ipad would not replace | it. Very different use cases. Sure, if you took an ipad, put | OSX on it, and glued it to the hinges of a macbook as the | screen - then maybe it'd be very similiar. Not great | performance or battery life, but similiar. But in no way am I | getting work done on an ipad touchscreen with a little flimsy | foldable keyboard and kickstand. | handrous wrote: | As an iOS (and Android) user and developer since about the | iPad2, iPads interest me less the more iOS shifts toward | being a general-purpose OS. I wouldn't buy one with macOS | or equivalent on it, even if it'd been modified to work | well on touch screens. At that point I'd probably get the | cheapest large Android tablet I could find as a PDF reader, | and just... not do the other stuff I do with iPads at all, | I guess. | foxpurple wrote: | This is outdated info. The latest iPad Pro has the M1 chip, | exactly the same as the MacBook. And it comes in 8/16gb | ram. | | The magic keyboard accessory apple sells for the iPad also | turns it in to the same form factor as a laptop. | | You very realistically could replace a MacBook with an iPad | Pro and magic keyboard if apple let people run macOS on it. | foxpurple wrote: | The iPad Pro and magic keyboard costs more than the MacBook | Air. So apple would be doing pretty well if they could get | MacBook users to buy an iPad. | jdavis703 wrote: | There is Swift Playgrounds, along with a host of web-based | tools. Not ideal for sure, but someone like you could still | _learn_ coding from an iPad. | anthk wrote: | Kids can get a Pinebook for $100, and a rpi+power | source+keyboard+cheap touch display for less than $50. | opheliate wrote: | Absolutely, this is what we eventually did, and I'm immensely | grateful for the current ubiquity of low-cost hardware :) | it's just discouraging to me that Apple takes such a hard | line on this | anthk wrote: | Apple's tablet/phone branch and social media people want | customers and "sharers", not producers. | handrous wrote: | Their iOS and i-thingy announcement videos pretty much | always feature "producers" very heavily, and the features | and software they release and maintain often focus on | making things. What's the deal with that? | anthk wrote: | In my case, I've got a random 30 eur (~$25?) Chinese | netbook over Ali-whatever with Android and 1GB. Totally | outdated specs, but with Fdroid (huge repo off libre apps) | and Termux (tmux, Perl, clang, lynx...LOTS of CLI libre | tools) it makes an amazing machine for the price of two | hard-cover books. | | EDIT: mocp under Termux works, so is not as limited as I | tought. | kjaleshire wrote: | The next update to Swift Playgrounds is supposed to allow full | iOS app development and submission to the App Store with no Mac | involved. | | Look also at Pythonista and a-shell for useful, if limited, | programming environments. Both work by translating code into JS | or wasm. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-22 23:00 UTC)