←back to thread

Bitchat – A decentralized messaging app that works over Bluetooth mesh networks

(github.com)
770 points ananddtyagi | 4 comments | 07 Jul 25 00:05 UTC | HN request time: 1.21s | source
Show context
lxgr ◴[07 Jul 25 00:34 UTC] No.44485515[source]▶
Very nice! Could this be published in the App Store, or does it use any APIs Apple considers off-limits?

I'm regularly frustrated by modern phone's complete inabilities to allow any communication when outside of mobile network or Wi-Fi coverage, not even within the two large walled gardens.

It would be so easy for Apple to extend iMessage to work peer-to-peer, at least between people that have already messaged each other before and while both screens are on. That's literally how AirDrop works, and having to send a "Notes" text back and forth is just silly.

replies(3): >>44485812 #>>44486152 #>>44488069 #
dzhiurgis ◴[07 Jul 25 01:26 UTC] No.44485812[source]▶
I'd much rather Apple allow running something like this (open source) myself rather than use their "just trust me bro" store.
replies(2): >>44485848 #>>44485918 #
OsrsNeedsf2P ◴[07 Jul 25 01:44 UTC] No.44485918[source]▶
I've never understood this argument. Apple spends billions of dollars vetting their store for high quality apps. You can't even verify the build you get off Github was compiled from the same posted source.

As much as people want to be "leet" and run 3rd party software, it's inherently insecure and that's why Apple shuts it down.

replies(6): >>44486044 #>>44486062 #>>44486065 #>>44486329 #>>44486547 #>>44487482 #
thejazzman ◴[07 Jul 25 02:06 UTC] No.44486062[source]▶
They shut it down because 30%.

There was a version of Apple at a point in time where I agree with your rhetoric. They have completely lost credibility to uphold that position IMO.

Apple definitely does not spend billions guaranteeing "quality". To prove my point, where does Apple even define what they consider "quality"? How can you quantify such an aubjecrive and ambiguous term?

They spend billions paying out the 70% they don't pocket.

Heck, They don't even adhere to their own HIG nor let us revert to past (objectively higher quality) versions of iOS.

replies(2): >>44486971 #>>44487425 #
1. 8fingerlouie ◴[07 Jul 25 06:54 UTC] No.44487425[source]▶
The 30% also covers refunds, legal stuff (not stuff IN your app, but regarding the sale of it), taxes, GDPR and much more. The infrastructure running the app store probably also isn't cheap.

I'm not saying Apple doesn't profit from it, but they're not just pocketing every penny.

As for "quality", they mostly check that your app isn't using unauthorized APIs, or doing other scetchy stuff, like leeching all of your data. They couldn't care less if your app is bad, thats' between you and your potential users.

Does it work ? apparently so. Apple catches around 2 million apps every year that are rejected for those reasons. Android has about the same amount of apps, but there they're caught by Kaspersky (and others) after they're published.

That doesn't mean that malware isn't making its way through the App Store review, the damage will be somewhat limited if it can't use private APIs.

I should add that here in the EU, where we’ve had 3rd party app stores for over a year, nobody uses them. The absolutely biggest one, Epic Games, has attracted about 29 million users across both iOS and Android, out of a population of 450 million.

replies(1): >>44493851 #
2. bigyabai ◴[07 Jul 25 19:33 UTC] No.44493851[source]▶
> the damage will be somewhat limited if it can't use private APIs.

That's a runtime feature, it has nothing to do with the App Store.

replies(1): >>44499262 #
3. conqueso ◴[08 Jul 25 12:15 UTC] No.44499262[source]▶
App Store only allows apps not using those runtime features
replies(1): >>44503679 #
4. bigyabai ◴[08 Jul 25 20:18 UTC] No.44503679{3}[source]▶
...which is enforced at a system level. The App Store is not mandatory for giving users control over app entitlements.