Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Taking On Apple?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-can-be-only-five-or-six dept.

Facebook 127

oDDmON oUT writes "Techcrunch has a piece about Facebook's Project Spartan, which aims to deliver app store functionality through the use of HTML5 in the iOS Safari browser. Given Facebook's shifting sands privacy stances, as well as their track record with their "trusted partners", I don't think I'd be alone in wondering if this wouldn't put a great big stake in the heart of the assertion that iOS is the most secure operating system in existence today."

cancel ×

127 comments

I can haz (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36462966)

I can hear the sound of Jeff Bezos calling Mark Zucherberg now.

Re:I can haz (0)

SchroedingersCat (583063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463136)

Don't know about that but somewhere a chair is being thrown.

Re:I can haz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463322)

Talk about beating a horse to death.

Re:I can haz (0)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463538)

With a chair?

Re:I can haz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463712)

Talk about beating a horse to death.

Welcome to Slashdot! You must be new here.

(Of course, I am only continuing the pain by using the tired old phrase "You Must Be New Here(TM)", which is another horse beaten to death.)

Re:I can haz (0)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465120)

Your pain is our pleasure!

Re:I can haz (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466926)

In Soviet Russia, horse beats you!

Battle of the Titans (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464726)

Or not? I would love to see Steve Jobs rip Facebook a new one! ;)

Re:Battle of the Titans (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466668)

Already done. The new iPhone is getting lots of sharing functionality. Some of it may be Facebook powered, for now. But Apple can go to Twitter, Flickr, or iCloud. And Steve Jobs has a reputation for being just a little paranoid and vindictive.

I respect Facebook. They have done wonderful things with about 300 engineers. But I'm not sure they can go toe to toe with a giant like Apple.

Re:Battle of the Titans (2)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466996)

Already done. The new iPhone is getting lots of sharing functionality. Some of it may be Facebook powered, for now. But Apple can go to Twitter, Flickr, or iCloud. And Steve Jobs has a reputation for being just a little paranoid and vindictive.

I respect Facebook. They have done wonderful things with about 300 engineers. But I'm not sure they can go toe to toe with a giant like Apple.

With 300 Engineers they gave us a Facebook which isn't much functionality. NeXT gave us NeXTStation, NeXTCube, NeXTStep/Openstep User/Developer, EOF, WeObjects, Openstep for Windows, PDO/D'OLE, and much more with less Engineers. A glorified Social Networking Project is respected only due to the massive amounts of people once using AOL switching to Facebook. That's not impressive. People go where the free food is found. Costco has a lot of freeloaders eating up all the samples. Should I be impressed?

I don't follow (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463112)

what does a rumored product have to do with being secure "today"?

Re:I don't follow (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463482)

FTA:

Itâ(TM)s entirely HTML5-based and the aim is to reach some 100 million users in a key place: mobile. More specifically, the initial target is both surprising and awesome: mobile Safari.

I have a hard time taking seriously, the thoughts of a person who is surprised someone targeting the mobile market is targeting mobile Safari.

Re:I don't follow (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463682)

what does a rumored product have to do with being secure "today"?

I think the reasoning goes something like ... since we don't trust Facebook not to be dickheads, allowing them to install software on your device likely wouldn't be very secure since they might "decide" that you actually did opt-in for something you've never heard of.

Facebook does have a bit of a history of deciding that their partners should have access to your data, because it's beneficial for them. Or changing the defaults of things to be permissive because that's what they want.

Facebook, from what I've read, might not be perceived as a company one would actually want to put that much trust in. They'll hand over all of your details to Zynga in a heartbeat if it makes them a few bucks.

Re:I don't follow (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464060)

Zuckerberg actually personally HATES anyone that does not have all their privacy settings set to "EVERYONE"

From what I hear he has a weekly hate session on Mondays with the rest of management.

Re:I don't follow (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464516)

Except these "apps" would just be web pages in a browser. No more or less secure then browsing a website today.

As for privacy it's identical to what people plug into Facebook today.

There's nothing new or surprising here.

Re:I don't follow (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464680)

As for privacy it's identical to what people plug into Facebook today.

There's nothing new or surprising here.

If it's truly just a web page, maybe.

If it's got access to your phone book and other things you haven't given to Facebook ... well, then I wouldn't trust them. (Well, I don't trust Facebook now -- certainly not with real information about me.)

Re:I don't follow (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465946)

If it's got access to your phone book and other things you haven't given to Facebook

why would you assume that?

Re:I don't follow (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466806)

why would you assume that?

I didn't assume anything ... I said "if", as in the purely speculative "if". It's a hypothetical statement, bounded by what, exactly, they're installing -- which, I obviously don't know.

For security issues, my default stance is trust nobody. I already don't trust Facebook, and the article is them talking about putting their own 'apps' onto an iOS device. So, depending on what it is that they're installing, and what it has access to ... it would be possible, in a purely hypothetical scenario, for them to have access to stuff you wouldn't normally give them. If it's running local, does it have access to more stuff than it would through the web browser?

The conditional tenses in English are very fascinating, and allow us to explore scenarios without making definitive statements. No assumption is required. :-P

If a local install gave them access to more that they would otherwise have, then there might be some basis to the question as to if that could make the phones less secure. If not, then the answer is probably no.

Re:I don't follow (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465924)

HTML5 via safari isn't "allowing them to install software on your device"

Competition! (1)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463114)

Good! Please do keep everyone in check. I don't like either of your companies, but at least strive to keep each other (relatively) honest.

Re:Competition! (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463174)

In the end, everyone will lose. Facebook will try to get as much data about iPhone users as possible; Apple will try to prevent Facebook from getting this data, and lock down iOS more and more. At the end of the day, iOS users will wind up with both less privacy and less freedom than ever before.

Re:Competition! (1)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463408)

Well what about when Facebook makes a phone! :(

Re:Competition! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463462)

Less freedom to have rogue apps snatch your data?

Re:Competition! (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463748)

No, less freedom to develop your own applications, which read your own data in ways that are useful to you.

Re:Competition! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463800)

From Safari? Do you want ActiveX, too?

Re:Competition! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464234)

From Safari? Do you want ActiveX, too?

YES! And Flash! The trifecta (or perfect storm, depending on how you look at it).

Re:Competition! (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463860)

Thank god Android won't ever have that problem. ;-)

Re:Competition! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36465410)

Possibly, but they have their own barbarians [google.com] at the gate already

creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (5, Insightful)

darkeye (199616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463152)

how is creating a web site for a particular browser considered as 'taking over' that particular browser?

and how is this related to the security of any OS?

(and how would iOS be a most secure OS among all OSs around? like, seriously? and how would this statement be relevant anyway?)

Re:creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463404)

it isnt trust me let em think so though

Re:creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463540)

how is creating a web site for a particular browser considered as 'taking over' that particular browser?

and how is this related to the security of any OS?

(and how would iOS be a most secure OS among all OSs around? like, seriously? and how would this statement be relevant anyway?)

Executive summary: why do I bother reading /. at all?

Re:creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463994)

Executive summary: why do I bother reading /. at all?

That sums it up. This story is the quintessence of what is wrong with slashdot these days. Syntactically, all is good. Grammatically, all is good. The meaning, however, is nil.

How this bunch of random buzzwords (in no particular order) made it to the front page is very very revealing.

Re:creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (0)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464834)

Agree with P, agree with GP, agree with GGP: This whole thead just won't die starting with this ludicrous entry [slashdot.org] Taco, save /.!!!

Re:creating a web site considered 'taking over'? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465692)

Can't argue with the first two questions, but the third is simple: whitelisting. Every discussion of security I've seen lately says something like "whitelist good, blacklist bad". Apple provides that whitelist. They aren't perfect, but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of keeping malware out of the App Store.

Almost all malware these days has to be installed by the user, typically by deception or social engineering. No OS can allow installation of arbitrary software and keep out malware. Therefore, a secure OS these days has to prevent the user from installing arbitrary software. It's possible to lock down popular desktop OSes to not allow software installation, and many businesses do exactly that. That doesn't work the same way with personal computers.

An iOS device nowadays has access to an extremely large number of apps that cover every range of human endeavor that Steve Jobs approves of (and you can always surf porn on Mobile Safari if you've got a Edge/3G/wireless connection). Therefore, very few users feel that they are being restricted, and they're being protected by the whitelist.

Therefore, I think iOS is the most secure consumer OS around, and the perfect thing for my not-computer-savvy relatives.

Story link is wrong (4, Informative)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463154)

The correct story link is here [techcrunch.com] .

This is one of a series of "Facebook-taking-on-X" trial balloons, where X is a well-known, highly-capitalized company with a real business model. The last wave had X = Google, which made no sense at all because Google's search rocks, while Facebook can barely tie its shoes with its own search (try searching comments on your own Wall if you don't believe me).

The legions of Cloud fanboys will be all over this, because Facebook can't really create apps in the same way that the iTunes store can, so of course it means transient operation. (Ignore slow download times and bad performance because everything has to run on a scripting engine.) Techcrunch isn't much on actual analysis, but they sure do a great job as a press release outlet.

Re:Story link is wrong (3, Insightful)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464974)

What is it with press releases being passed off as news?

"News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. ..." - Bill Moyers

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers [wikiquote.org]

Re:Story link is wrong (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465546)

Seems to me as if Bill Moyers was "borrowing" rather heavily from Lord Northcliffe's quote of around 100 years ago:

“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.”

Re:Story link is wrong (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465492)

now could someone explain me the difference between a facebook app and a this-new-facebook app? it's just web?

Most secure in the world today? Erm, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463156)

"I don't think I'd be alone in wondering if this wouldn't put a great big stake in the heart of the assertion that iOS is the most secure operating system in existence today."

Uh-huh. I wonder if that assertion was sponsored by Steve.

Re:Most secure in the world today? Erm, no. (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463490)

No, that is probably only because flash does not run on it!

Eh? (3, Insightful)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463164)

I read the article, but I don't really understand why this is 'taking on Apple'. Yeah, it's trying to undermine the app store via Facebook apps, but if that were a huge tactic against Apple, surely it would be working already? (Surely Facebook is accessible and usable with apps as-is without this 'Project Spartan'? In which case if HTML5 apps via Facebook were what people wanted, surely they would already have a big stake in the iOS audience?)

Re:Eh? (3, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463614)

I'm totally with you. Remember when the iPhone launched and met with groans because the app development environment was HTML5 and that was it? No native SDK? What Facebook is apparently doing is doing is following guidelines that everyone else rejected four years ago. Funny thing is that Windows 7 Phone is doing the same thing. And I think WebOS isn't far off. I'm constantly amazed at how some people can see anything as bad news for Apple.

Re:Eh? (1)

ubergamer1337 (912210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464128)

You're comparing apples and oranges. the original "apps" for iOS were just supposed to be HTML5 websites. WebOS uses html, css and javascript as part of the native apps that run on the device, and you can also write WebOS apps in C or C++ (through this wasn't true for the first six months the device was out). I don't know about Windows Phone 7, but im pretty sure that those apps are on the phone, not just special websites.

Re:Eh? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463964)

The main purpose I would think is that FaceBook relies less on the SDKs for these platforms. First it's mobile Safari, next it's Android and WP7. This distribution has advantage of speed as FB can deploy without users having to wait to download the latest version. The second advantage is that these FB games and apps don't need the platform SDKs either but rely on FB.

Security (3, Insightful)

poor_boi (548340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463170)

Maybe I'm daft, but what does Facebook making an App Store have to do with the security of iOS?

Re:Security (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463616)

Nothing. It's Techcrunh. They just grab slips of paper out of a giant bag and arrange them to make a story. I'd read the article to actually see if it has any semblance of thought put into it, but I'd prefer not to give them ad impressions.

Re:arrange them to make a story (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464150)

So they just rambling in one long incredibly unbroken string of mashed stories, moving from topic to topic so that no one could have a coherent discussion. It is really quite hypnotic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He02Z5YdZbg [youtube.com]

What a leap (3, Interesting)

bbeagle (2262032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463224)

The real story: Facebook is developing web pages (using HTML 5) that will work inside the Safari browser on iOS devices. Just like on a PC/Mac desktop, the 'new' web pages will allow the using of Facebook apps (like farmville) inside iOS. Ok, I guess you can spin it either way: (a) Facebook improving itself to work the same on iOS as on desktops. (TRUE) (b) Facebook will have 'apps' working on the phone without being downloaded by the app store. (HALF TRUE - only apps that can be run within a browser within the HTML 5 specs, with the shortcomings of 3G data speeds and limited bandwidth, and can't use features of the phone not available through the browser like the camera).

Re:What a leap (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463652)

I imagine they'd still need a specialized implementation for mobile devices. Or at least they should. Mobile apps work differently, whether inside a browser or not.. You just can't get the same information with the same placement on a phone that you can on a desktop browser. What they're saving is developer time and not forcing Facebook developers to know iOS programming. They're also getting tighter control over app distribution and data storage. I, personally, think they might be handicapping themselves by not taking full advantage of the hardware, but they're accustomed to providing service through a slow web browser sandbox, so whatever.

Re:What a leap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36466088)

This is far more an attack on Adobe Flash than iOS.

"Most secure?" Pleeez (2)

h1q (2042122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463230)

A couple of the bullet point reasons in the article on why iOs is more secure:

-- patches can be rolled out quickly

-- iOs isn't as big a target as other OS's

Idiocy. Don't cite this cretinous article.

I can hook up a locked iPhone to a PC with DiskAid and suck the contacts, photos, and everything else of importance out without knowing the key.

Re:"Most secure?" Pleeez (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36467004)

Although I don't agree with that article and it's points, I think most people are not worried about what kind of cracking can be done if their phones fall in the wrong hands, but instead of what kind of security can protect them while their phone is in their pockets.

How likely is a virus to get into a phone by downloading apps into it? How likely is a rouge app to steal all the data in the phone and send it somewhere else? How likely is, let's say, Facebook, to get software into my phone without my willing actions to install an app in my device?

Apple's walled garden make all those very very hard to happen. Even the most malicious of apps that manages to go past Apple's approval is very limited to what data it can leach out of your phone and send out.

There have been exploits in the past, though, like the one used to do an untethered jailbreak by just visiting a website. If I'm not wrong that was using a PDF exploit. On a side note, it's funny how most security concerns these days are tied up to Adobe technologies...

I doubt Apple has a problem with this (3, Insightful)

SpiceWare (3438) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463232)

as it supports Apple's goal of HTML5 over Flash.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463390)

Apple's goal is to make as much money on iOS as possible, everything else is done to further than goal. Apple really wants iOS native applications to be dominant over HTML5, since that makes them more money.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (2)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463544)

Do you have a source for this? Like for example any statement from Apple in which they favor native apps over web apps? Or is this just your personal view on the situation?

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465726)

native apps take less memory and use less battery. apple controls(tries to anyways) which native apps are let to run and that is a political choice. favoring web apps over native apps is foolish, but web apps have to run in order for it to have a web browser(it wouldn't be a web browser otherwise). it's only natural that facebook would want apps running through them to work on iOS safari too, they should want their apps to work on all major and minor platforms as well as possible, anything else would be foolish from them.

the initial availability of just web apps for iOS was because of time constraints and rushing(you should just ignore the reality distortion field).

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (2)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463740)

They make the great majority of their money on hardware. So the question is, will Facebook's HTML5-based apps take away from hardware sales? If they're going to be focused on making those apps for mobile Safari, there won't be any of that, "It runs great on my X device, but sucks on Apple hardware" thing, so probably not.

The thing that I think that the FB folks will find is that if they create the same thing twice--once as a native iOS app and once as a HTML5 app that comes out of their own store--and sell them both for the same price, the great majority of people will still buy it from the main iTunes app store. I'm not saying that they won't sell anything; I'm simply suggesting that their store may enhance their revenues, but not enough for them to want to completely abandon native apps.

After all, they are in this for money, too.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463776)

I agree with this in general.
For anyone with an iphone, the new HTML5 version of the FT.com (financial times) app is very very good. It is better than the old iphone app, and I imagine they can use the HTML5 version across iOS/Android/Blackberry.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36467128)

I agree with this in general. For anyone with an iphone, the new HTML5 version of the FT.com (financial times) app is very very good. It is better than the old iphone app, and I imagine they can use the HTML5 version across iOS/Android/Blackberry.

If it's better it's not because HTML5 and Javascript offer better solutions. That was a conscious choice by FT and no one truly gives a crap.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (2)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464092)

Except they initially only wanted developers to make HTML+Javascript apps and only released a native SDK after developers demanded they do so.

Apple make money off the hardware, the 30% cut from the iOS apps that actually cost money (remember: there is no requirement for an iOS app to cost anything) just covers the costs of running the store.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466844)

Except they initially only wanted developers to make HTML+Javascript apps and only released a native SDK after developers demanded they do so.

There is no way that the SDK was released as a capitulation to developers. The iOS SDK was released 8 months after the iPhone. If you have done any iOS development or otherwise taken a look at it, you would know that it is impossible to build such an SDK and supporting materials in such a short period of time. The SDK and App Store were clearly in the works when they initially released the iPhone. Perhaps they were behind schedule, or perhaps there was another reason for staggering their releases.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (2)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463502)

I doubt Apple has a problem with this because...er... they have explicitly said in the past that they see iOS devices as having two application frameworks available.
There's the native apps in the curated App Store, and there's HTML 5 apps accessed thru Safari. This is their answer to "I want to make an uncurated iPhone app" - make a web app.

Most dev's don't got the web app route, because it's easier to make money with a native App, but some do - often where they can't get something into the store, like Google Voice or all the porn stuff. I use two on my iPad all the time - Gmail (you get both Archive and Delete buttons, whereas in the Native mail you have to choose one of the other) and chalk from 37 signals.

My surprise at this news is more that Facebook haven't thought of this before. Their revenue is adverts and embedded games, neither of which you get with the Facebook native client on iOS. Making a web version that they can embed apps into is the obvious thing to do.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463750)

I'm glad they're doing it. I wish more would do it too. I've been using a 3GS for a year now. I find that while the Apps have superior performance over a cell connection, that's about it. Most apps are so poorly designed, so buggy, and lack so many features, there's just no point. At least with a mobile web site things follow mostly standard web browsing methodologies and don't crash left and right. And honestly, I'm at the point where I don't even use mobile sites anymore. It may be a PITA to view the entire full normal web page and constantly be zooming around, but at this point I'd rather do that to get all the functionality.

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464390)

Not to mention that Apple has been putting a ton of stuff into HTML5 like location awareness (Safari will ask for GPS access permissions), as well as getting APIs so web apps can get access to accellerometer and gyro data, maybe even the camera.

If Apple didn't want people doing webapps, they would've removed the functionality of adding web sites to the home screen, and not bothered with supporting GPS and sensor data access. Heck, one of the main complaints in iOS 4 is that webapps run faster under Safari than they do hosted inside an app (probably because Safari is heavily sandboxed (moreso than regular apps) and thus can do stuff like JIT compilation of javaswcript).

And Safari has support for stored data as well (more structured than cookies) so webapps can save and cache data locally.

Steve Jobs even said there are two environments - a curated one that lets you write native apps, and uncurated web apps. Developers have a choice.

It also helps that Apple's profits more from sales of iOS devices than App Store (I think the entire iTunes online stuff (App Store, Music Store, Movie Store, Book Store) only really generated $1.5B profit - chump change compared to even Mac sales. (Their latest financial report will have the exact figures - and don't mistake iOS device sales with including iTunes sales - they're not bundled together - they're separate line items).

Re:I doubt Apple has a problem with this (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463506)

And the goal in iOS was to support HTML5/Javascript/CSS web apps alongside native apps all along. In fact, before the App Store was launched, web apps were the only applications you could run on an iPhone. It's really ridiculous to suggest anyone would be "taking on Apple" by creating an application exactly the way Apple says one should create applications for iOS. Like it's some sort of loophole or something that Apple offers the ability to create web apps for iOS.

stake in the heart? (3, Insightful)

MasterOfUniverse (812371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463246)

How will facebook installing webapps on ios (or any os) will be a stake in the heart of iOS being secure??? if there is a security problem in safari, that would be a security issue in itself. And also there is already such service available (openAppMkt)

Don't understand the summary... (1)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463258)

I don't understand how this news has anything to do with challenging the purported security of iOS. The article is suggesting that Facebook simply wants more control over the apps and data. There's no indication that they think iOS is insecure. BUt hey, if they think they can get adequate performance (for games) out of HTML5, more power to them.

Why? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463260)

I don't think I'd be alone in wondering if this wouldn't put a great big stake in the heart of the assertion that iOS is the most secure operating system in existence today.

Why? Can you access photos or the phone's contact list from HTML5?

Re:Why? (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463514)

I don't think I'd be alone in wondering if this wouldn't put a great big stake in the heart of the assertion that iOS is the most secure operating system in existence today.

Yes, you would.

Techcrunch idiots.

Secure ? (0)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463302)

in the heart of the assertion that iOS is the most secure operating system in existence today.

In compared to what ? .. Windows ? Just about anything is "more secure than Windows". On top of that "in the heart of assertion my gentoo box is more secure than either one of those" -Just sayin.

Anyways only good news of this is, is enough companies start backing html5 hopefully make that bug ridden flash go away which in turn, would be a benefit for everyone.

Someone's been playing a little too much Halo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463334)

Sorry. I just need to point out that calling it Project Spartan is a little close to the super soldier program that made the Master Chief in Halo. www.awkwardengineer.com [awkwardengineer.com]

Apple on iOS Web Apps (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463344)

Re:Apple on iOS Web Apps (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463590)

That was my thought. I've been wanting to get back into web site design as a hobby now that HTML5 is taking hold, and found that very site as I was looking how to make a site optimized for an iPad or other tablet.

Before Apple released the first tools to create iOS applications, Jobs specifically told developers to make web based applications. This was back with iPhone 1.0. I'm not aware he ever reversed that stance.

I recall a lot of whining on Slashdot. ;-) Well, I suppose that's true for any story. :-D

Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463442)

Apple has kept their "cool" factor. Facebook is quickly loosing it. Just think of the difference:
Person A uses facebook for 2 hours a day.
Person B uses their apple product for 2 hours a day.

Which person would you rather hang out with?

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463498)

Apple has kept their "cool" factor. Facebook is quickly loosing it. Just think of the difference:
Person A uses facebook for 2 hours a day.
Person B uses their apple product for 2 hours a day.

Which person would you rather hang out with?

I use FB on my iPhone for two hours a day. Am I cool or not?

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463592)

Actually, it cancels each other out and it makes you look like an old person desperately trying to be cool.

Not that I'm any better myself, I use Facebook on my iPhone all the time. But I've accepted it makes me about as cool as a grandma in a disco.

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463618)

I use FB on my iPhone for two hours a day. Am I cool or not?

On Slashdot, no. So you have to decide, do you want to be cool on Slashdot, or do you want to have friends?

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463576)

Which person would you rather hang out with?

Person C, who doesn't care whether they are perceived as being "cool"

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (0)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463816)

Neither. Actually I'd choose the FB guy. He's the lesser of two evils. It just seems that anytime I meet/see a guy in real life who uses a iPhone he's a d-bag. Actually almost always.

Women it doesn't seem to be the case. I think they like it just because it looks "cute."

I'd take the FB'er over the D-bag anyday.

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36466680)

Then likely half the people you know are douche bags. Time to look inward perhaps?

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463936)

These things have cool factors? You must be a loser who needs to swing off of technology to make up for what you lack as a human being.

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463946)

I play Runescape for 6 hours a day. Pick me!

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464114)

do you actually think this is any kind of relevant question ? not to mention valid ? Are you the type of person who does things because of what they think people will think of them for doing them ?

Re:Facebook is loosing "Cool" (1)

odin84gk (1162545) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464760)

Valid question.

I'm simply pointing out that people who hang out on facebook for extended periods of time are perceived as creepers. I would certainly rather be associated with Apple products than Facebook products. Since the main appeal of Apple seems to be the "cool" factor, there is no way that Facebook can win against Apple.

OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463730)

How does a web site relate the the security of an OS? Absurd.

The trouble with FB apps... (1)

ekc (594380) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463876)

...is that the vast majority of them are written for flash. It remains to be seen if an iOS store will get developers to redo them all.

Project SPARTAN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36463914)

Alert the master chief!

I can see it now (1)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36463960)

Apple: "Flash sucks. Apps are superior. Make it HTML5 if you got a problem."

Facebook: "We've just released a superior HTML5 version."

FB gets ad revenue and has games with corresponding revenue in HTML5 version and Apple gets no cut

Apple: "HTML5 sucks. Apps are superior."

Fanboys: "HTML sucks now! Apps are superior!"

Lather, rinse, repeat. How much you wanna bet this happens within a year or two?

Apple is basically a hardware company (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464034)

with pretty good software. Internet companies like Facebook and Google have to run their software on something . Google continues to dabble in hardware, but has never been successful.

Here's how it becomes "less secure" (1)

hellfire (86129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464058)

To us geeks, we often arrogantly think secure means that the weakest link in the security chain is the device we have, but that we geeks would never in a million years give out sensitive information to a computer program we don't trust. Real security to the lay people includes protecting us from ourselves. Humans are the weakest link and malicious people exploit that all the time. We think "well that person is just dumb, they need to become more educated." Really? So that surgeon who just saved your life with quadruple bypass surgery is dumb because he tapped "ok" to a prompt that stole his password with some clever language and sleight of hand? Judge not...

What's going to happen is not that the OS is less secure technically, but I have a feeling that Facebook will design in some very open ended and shitty protocols which allow programmers to design apps that ask for lots of personal information, just like Facebook does now. Apple's native apps have strict controls as to what they ask for, and Safari can't exactly access the address book and download all your contacts to a random server, but I'm sure a clever hacker will exploit the "wetware" of someone and just see if they can grab a few thousand logins/passwords from those who are not stupid, but simply ignorant. This is the lesson we are learning with the likes of MacDefender. Hackers are switching focus from IE exploits to social engineering and we need to start learning even faster.

Let's scuttle that whole 'most secure' idea. (1)

bickle (101226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464360)

That article that claimed iOS was the most secure was pretty much ripped to shreds when it was posted here. So don't go around quoting it as fact.

You want a secure OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464394)

Unplug your network cable, disable your wife, and turn off your 3G/4G embedded WWAN. You're welcome. Personal responsibility folks. Learn it, live it.

Re:You want a secure OS? (1, Funny)

paazin (719486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464978)

disable your wife

Easier said than done!

Re:You want a secure OS? (0)

binford2k (142561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465914)

I think I'd rather not disable her, if it's all right by you.

Explain to me again... (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464762)

Explain to me again how Facebook creating a site that will encourage more people to write additional software for Apple's platform is "taking on" Apple?

Giving people a stronger reason to use Apple's products is only going to help them sell more iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches... and anybody who's even glanced at Apple's earnings statements in the past 5 years knows that the vast majority of their revenues (and profits) come from hardware sales.

So, Apple gets more hardware sales - their high margin, high profit business, at the *possible* expense of slightly lower app sales - their low margin, low profit business; Facebook is able to serve up more ads and gather more data about its users to resell because all the apps will be tied into their storefront. Seems like a win-win if they can make it work and attract useful applications.

Re:Explain to me again... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465570)

From the Article:

"...Facebook is about to launch a mobile platform aimed squarely at working on the iPhone (and iPad). But it won’t be distributed through the App Store as a native application, it will be entirely HTML5-based and work in Safari. Why? Because it’s the one area of the device that Facebook will be able to control (or mostly control).

Facebook will never admit this, but those familiar with the project believe the intention is very clear: to use Apple’s own devices against them to break the stranglehold they have on mobile app distribution."

Is it clear now?

Secure??? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#36465832)

I wouldn't exactly call a system which can be rooted by simply accessing a website "secure".

Now add a shitload of Facebook users to the mix who will open any URL which pops up on their message wall and you simply have yet another promising attack vector.

iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36465998)

My iPad2 is an unstable piece of crap and yet I'm not hearing an outcry. If it were a MS product, folks would be screaming bloody murder..... F'ing Apple.

It's more like a port to Javascript (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466328)

The actual article is more along the lines of "We're going to port all our crappy but popular apps like Farmville from Flash to JavaScript to get onto the iPhone."

this OS is secure (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36466574)

Its the apps that are not. ( not that the average Joe would understand tho ) But this is an interesting way to submarine your competition.. write bad apps and blame them..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...