Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, I think that's exactly what they should do.

Apple wants to have absolute control of what users are allowed to install on their own devices. Maybe that's justifiable as a way to avoid malware, and maybe it's also reasonable to extend the "evilness" check to cover apps which would drain the battery or interfere with other apps.

Apple also entirely reasonably wants quality control on what apps they're willing to advertise on their "store front".

But I think there's no justification for using the "store front" quality bar to block what users are allowed to install. If an individual or organisation is willing to pay to have an app developed for their own customers/staff/associates/family/whatever, Apple shouldn't be applying more than the "evilness" check before they permit people to install it.

(Alternatively Apple could agree to sign apps which pass the "evilness check" without hosting them, but they'd probably want to be able to remove them if they spot malware later rather than relying on some kind of certificate revocation. They could charge a reasonable fee to cover review and hosting costs.)




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: