It’s apparent that a lot of HN readers do not like my work on the basis that they see me as a shameless Apple shill, but it’s a shame the articles get deleted because I like reading the comments. I feel like it keeps me on my toes to read the comments from people who don’t like Daring Fireball.
I’m not sure I’d call that a rant. That’s probably one of his more honest observations.
I was far more annoyed at his tirade when Apple chose people other than the ”Apple blogging elite” to get their first iPhone X review units.
The reason why Apple requires you to press the physical side button to confirm
a purchase with Apple Pay or in the App Store is because pressing the side
button can’t be faked by an app. If it was an on-screen button, a nefarious app
could present a fake Apple Pay button. With any normal app, clicking the side
button once will always lock the screen, and double-clicking will put you in
Apple Pay mode. Only Apple’s own software can override the side button like this.
Double clicking the side button to confirm a purchase effectively guarantees that
it was a legitimate payment experience.
To what end? You don't enter a password or anything when using Apple Pay, so the only thing this "nefarious" app could do is trick you into thinking that you paid for something you didn't. And wouldn't this sort of thing get caught in app review and/or get the app yanked from the store when discovered? I honestly can't figure out what the downside would be to having a "pay with Apple Pay" button on the screen.
As an aside, I don't like having to press the side button for Apple Pay on my iPhone X. I usually have to shift how I'm holding it to get the proper leverage to double-press the button. Double pressing the home button was way easier.
Right, Gruber's theory is poorly supported. He should detail a "fake" software UI scenario that the side button protects against, because I'm not seeing a single one.
A fake pay button couldn't do anything more with the Apple Pay system modal UI than present it. It can't trick you into completing it. The side button click adds nothing. The side button doesn't stop it from presenting a fake payment UI. And furthermore the App Store is a first party app so requiring the side button there can't possibly be to protect from nefarious apps.
A better theory is they just want total UI consistency. Since they need to use the side button for in-store Apple Pay, that wins for the App Store and in-app purchases as well. But even that doesn't quite make sense either, because then why are they requiring it for installing free apps?
The way Gruber phrased his post makes me feel like he has been told some facts about this and not merely speculating.
It could be the case that the physical button is trapped directly by the secure enclave system and the goal is not to prevent an app from accidentally fooling you in the UI, but to prevent any iOS software to silently ask the secure enclave to authenticate something without a physical confirmation directly from the user.
A few days later, his review of the iPad Mini didn’t even mention the processor — slower than the iPad’s. And he obviously was much more careful with his words regarding the screen resolution (no “lame” is found in the review): https://daringfireball.net/2012/10/ipad_mini
Here are two distinct uses of the word “interesting”:
9 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 34.1 ms ] threadI’m not sure I’d call that a rant. That’s probably one of his more honest observations.
I was far more annoyed at his tirade when Apple chose people other than the ”Apple blogging elite” to get their first iPhone X review units.
As an aside, I don't like having to press the side button for Apple Pay on my iPhone X. I usually have to shift how I'm holding it to get the proper leverage to double-press the button. Double pressing the home button was way easier.
A fake pay button couldn't do anything more with the Apple Pay system modal UI than present it. It can't trick you into completing it. The side button click adds nothing. The side button doesn't stop it from presenting a fake payment UI. And furthermore the App Store is a first party app so requiring the side button there can't possibly be to protect from nefarious apps.
A better theory is they just want total UI consistency. Since they need to use the side button for in-store Apple Pay, that wins for the App Store and in-app purchases as well. But even that doesn't quite make sense either, because then why are they requiring it for installing free apps?
It could be the case that the physical button is trapped directly by the secure enclave system and the goal is not to prevent an app from accidentally fooling you in the UI, but to prevent any iOS software to silently ask the secure enclave to authenticate something without a physical confirmation directly from the user.
Seems like a much better idea than introducing this new UX. You can show both if you want to teach users the new UX.
Anyway, the worst thing about him is his double standards.
For example, when Samsung announced the Galaxy S III Mini, he said the specs were “rather lame”, with “slower processor and a mere 800 × 480 pixel display”: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/10/10/4-inch-samsung.
A few days later, his review of the iPad Mini didn’t even mention the processor — slower than the iPad’s. And he obviously was much more careful with his words regarding the screen resolution (no “lame” is found in the review): https://daringfireball.net/2012/10/ipad_mini
Here are two distinct uses of the word “interesting”:
- When talking about Gmail for Android: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/30/gmail-ads
- When talking about motion sickness and iOS 7: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/09/26/ios-7-motion-si...
And this…: https://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion
> Handshakes, a few pleasantries, good hot coffee, and then, well, then I got an Apple press event for one.
Such a big mix of press release and extreme praise about getting a “press event for one”. Talk about second-hand embarrassment.