22july2013

I thought this would become a very busy thread very fast. But it's practically empty (just one post per hour.) It hasn't even in devolved into political hate. I guess AI readers don't use TikTok very much.

JFC_PA said:

Other than suspicions has anyone ever delivered actual proof of any PRC security violations involving TikTok? 

Here is the proof anyone should need:...

China's National Intelligence Law (2017)

1. Article 7:

• Requires organizations and citizens to “support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work” upon request.

• This clause is interpreted as obligating companies to provide data and other forms of cooperation to Chinese intelligence agencies.

2. Article 14:

• Grants intelligence agencies the authority to demand assistance from organizations or individuals and to use their resources for intelligence gathering.

3. Article 28:

• Emphasizes confidentiality, stating that individuals and organizations must not disclose their involvement in assisting intelligence activities.

China's Personal Information Protection Law (2021): Similar to GDPR in some respects but includes provisions that prioritize national security over personal privacy.

In case you didn't notice in the text above, TikTok is prohibited by law from revealing if China's intelligence agencies have taken their data.

thadec said:

StrangeDays said:

Honkers said:

Can hardly blame them, after Apple pulled OS support for 32 bits apps, rendering a massive chunk of Steam's library obsolete on Mac.  Apple are a flighty partner when it comes to other parties' interests; best to stay away if you can.

And yet, Valve specifically cited CS2 is 64-bit only, because that’s the right direction. 

I find it hard to believe the Linux market has greater potential than the macOS market.

Absolutely - and I mean absolutely - no one buys a Mac to play games, not even partially. 

You almost persuaded me there that I don't exist. But I just pinched myself, and yes I do think I exist.

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

And please please please can you just read the damn Apple Developer page about notarization instead of asking me incessant questions that Apple themselves answer very clearly.   For the third time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation

I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.

Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was.  And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.

I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting.  I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.

Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."

I don't agree to disagree, you are quite simply wrong and you still don't know what notarization is or how it works.  That's fine, no shame in it at all, but it is very frustrating that you persist as if you do.

I didn't answer your questions because they are answered on the Apple developer page that I linked you to THREE times, and repeatedly requested that you read.  And again, this process is ALREADY being used for Mac apps, with no fuss.  Apple created the notarization process for Mac apps and neither Apple nor developers are upset with the situation because it provides benefits to them both.  So your thoughts aren't born out by actual reality.

Please just read up on notarization and how it works, preferably before I kill myself.

Okay, I've read it. Notarization doesn't do much, I've learned. As you said, it provides a certificate based kill switch, but this is a feature that Apple has never used, so this feature has so far been completely useless. Are you sure third party app stores would even want Apple to provide this utterly useless service since it causes delays to the process of getting apps onto the store? Don't you think Epic would want to be able to sign its own apps' code? I don't think we have a complete list of what Notarization actually does. If any part of it involves validating that the app complies with Apple's App Store Guidelines, then there would have to be two separate Notarization processes, one for Apple's stores, and one for the other stores. It sounds like Apple could hold this process as a sword of Damocles over apps on third party app stores and the stores themselves. If Epic wins, I think they are going to start arguing that this whole Notarization process is now obsolete, because it causes them nothing but grief and the certification based kill switch has never even been used. So reading this document more throughly has done nothing to alleviate my concerns.

crowley said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

And please please please can you just read the damn Apple Developer page about notarization instead of asking me incessant questions that Apple themselves answer very clearly.   For the third time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation

I did read the page, briefly, but it's about macOS. I thought the entire article was about the iOS App Store. I just went back to the original article and it didn't say macOS or iOS by name, although it did mention iPhones, so maybe that's why I thought this was all about the iOS App Store. Is this the source of our entire debate today? That would be a shame.

Of course the developer documentation is about macOS, notarization for iOS doesn't exist as a standalone thing, the entire conversation has been about what if it was.  And if it was then the supposition is that it'd work in the same or a similar way to how it does on the Mac, so basically everything in that article would apply.

I've had enough, I've tried so hard to be patient but this has been exhausting.  I don't expect everyone to know what notarization is, but if you're going to wade into a debate about it you should at least make an effort to understand the basics, and especially before declaring that it makes no sense, or pre-empting that Apple or developers would be unhappy with a solution that they're already actively using and happy with.

Okay, we can agree to disagree. But I will note that you still didn't try to answer my questions 20 minutes ago, which were, "are you also saying that if developers were to submit their programs to third party app stores, they would still have to also submit their code to Apple for notarization (or would the third party app store pass the code to Apple, along with the submission details for the app?) If this were to pass, developers would be kind of upset that they would have to wait for BOTH the third party app store and the first party app store to conduct their independent reviews. And Apple would be upset because they would have separate Guidelines for apps that came directly to them, vs apps that came from third party app stores. I just don't think this would be acceptable to Apple."