[theBobMcCormick]

> They want to control what apps can be installed simply to keep out malware and porn, so that they can do right by their customers who don't want malware and the parents who don't want porn apps.

That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware. If it were just about blocking "porn" and malware then they would continue with their (excellent BTW) curated apps store, but could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them. Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.

[shmerl]

Agreed. For example ban on competing browsers embedded in the iOS SDK is simply a monopoly protection, and has nothing to do with customers' interests.

[gte910h]

As people have seen to downvote this:

The reason why competing browsers aren't prevalent is that they don't want any executable code downloadable that isn't in their sandboxes.

Browsers have executable systems (Javascript, being the biggest issue), so they aren't allowed.

[shmerl]

By this logic any browser should be banned from the system, including their own, since their sandboxes have vulnerabilities as well. So I'm not buying this argument. Using security arguments to hide anti competitive intentions just doesn't cut it.

[gte910h]

It's not about vulnerabilities. It's a line in the sand that says "you can't have executable code in your app which is not signed and vetted before release".

They actually DON'T let you have the optimized javascript engine they use in their browser in your app either, probably for the same reason (security loopholes).

[shmerl]

The last time I checked their SDK license, it let you use their JavaScript VM for the dynamic code (unless this changed recently):

===> 3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s). <===

So the argument that they ban any interpreted code is hypocritical. They ban competing browsers through banning JavaScript VMs.

[gte910h]

No, there is an optimized Javascript interpreter only in safari, then there is the UIWebView control which you can use a less-optimized javascript interpreter in your app.

http://www.quora.com/JavaScript/Why-has-Apple-limited-the-Ni...

Here is the why: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43

>It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw into a remotely exploitable one.

[shmerl]

I wonder who downvoted this one. Any reasoning please? Or it's just an effort to downvote any critique addressed towards Apple?

[nirvana]

I don't know who down voted it, but you make two false statements.

First off, there is no ban on competing browsers. There are a wide variety of browsers available in the AppStore, and I use one of them-- iCab-- a fair bit.

Secondly, there is no "monopoly" to protect. You're using that word because it has an emotional impact, when in reality, its like saying you have a monopoly on your home. The iOS is Apple's product, for it to be a "monopoly" there'd have to be no android and no Windows phone.

FWIW, The post you're responding to has been heavily down voted, as are any posts which talk about Apple that do not bash them. I've had posts that stated simple facts- not even taking a personal position- and linking to an authoritative source to back up that fact, down voted to oblivion. On HN, if you're not an Apple basher, you get down voted constantly.

[shmerl]

I look at simple facts. Firstly, Firefox or any other browser which uses its own JavaScript engine can't be ported to iOS due to license ban. You don't consider it uncompetitive behavior given that browsers are a very competitive field in general? Well, I do. Secondly, Apple of course can argue that it's not a monopolistic thing in the global sense, since there are non Apple OSes around which don't enforce draconian restrictions. And it most probably can even work in court, to dodge possible antitrust inquires. Yet, it wasn't all that so good for Apple, and they removed some restrictions from their SDK to avoid some of these problems (it's slightly better now). I'm sure their lawyers are trying to find the edge there. If you don't like the term "monopolistic practice" because of those nuances, you can call it anticompetitive practice, fine with me.

[nirvana]

Right, Apple has taken actions that are clearly in the consumers best interests, and you're choosing to see it in a light which allows you to characterize Apple as evil. That's the facts, Jack.

[statictype]

Banning 3rd party browser engines is not even close to being 'clearly' in the best interest of the consumer. Neither is preventing the sideloading of apps. Those are in Apple's best interests because Apple does whats good for Apple first, before it does whats good for the consumer.

That's how most businesses work and I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees that this is how Apple works.

If you're worried about downvotes (You're not in the gray so I don't think you have that many), perhaps I can offer the suggestion that they are because your definition of 'fact' has been, uh, rather generously deformed?

[shmerl]

"Clearly" claim isn't convincing here. Apple says those bans are in consumers interest. Others say they are really in Apple's interest. You can probably find arguments for both. I personally see it as a second case, because it's against me as a consumer who wants to use other browsers for example.

[snowwrestler]

Can't developers load their own apps directly onto their own device, without going through the App Store approval process? I think Apple even provides a mechanism for corporations to deploy private apps directly to large numbers of iOS devices, without traversing the App Store.

[nirvana]

>That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware.

There have been a few mistakes, but I'm not aware of any apps that wouldn't fit into those categories. I consider apps that trick users, or which use undocumented APIs to be malware.

Apps that are offensive, such as gay bashing apps, etc, have been blocked, this is true, though I put that under the "porn" label even though it isn't porn. What's the broader word for "apps that many people might find inappropriate or offensive"?

> could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them.

As I pointed out, Apple has gone out of their way to create a method for "side loading" apps. They provided a way to create apps in javascript, which have access to much of the native hardware, you can install it thru the web, with a custom app icon and run them offline.

> Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem

On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)

>and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.

Yep. And this has proven also to be in consumers best interest. Look at all the dozens of "App Stores" that have sprung up since the real AppStore was created? Every single one of them sucks, and sucks really hard. Its like they aren't even trying.

Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.

Why should Apple support third parties making the phone suck?

[theBobMcCormick]

Here's an example of a non-porn app being banned: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/20/flashlight-app-sneaks-te...

> Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.

Amazon's app store is curated exactly like Apple's, so if there is malware in the Amazon's store then the model must be broken.

Besides, as I mentioned, I don't have a problem with Apple curating their app store. I think it's great. A nice mall like shopping experience. I do have a problem with them not allowing side-loading for those more advanced users who would like to side-load apps. IMHO, it seems to me like 90% of the reasons people Jailbrake their IOS devices are things that would be available without Jailbraking if side loading were allowed.

> On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)

That's rather a bullshit cop-out to claim than web-apps or an "Adhoc" method that's limited to 100 users are either viable alternatives to side-loading.