If this isn't effectively an indictment of what Apple thinks about Zoom's practices here, I don't know what else to say to you. These sorts of patches are usually reserved for malware and other...
If this isn't effectively an indictment of what Apple thinks about Zoom's practices here, I don't know what else to say to you. These sorts of patches are usually reserved for malware and other malicious software.
It's been really interesting to see how quickly the original Zoom response of "there's nothing wrong with this, everybody does it" ended up being reversed. I wonder if there's a known exploit for...
It's been really interesting to see how quickly the original Zoom response of "there's nothing wrong with this, everybody does it" ended up being reversed.
I wonder if there's a known exploit for the Zoom server specifically, or if Apple discovered one while looking into it. It seems strange for them to go to these lengths in this case when it sounds like other software has been using a similar technique too. Maybe it's just the reinstallation aspect that makes Zoom's case exceptional?
At the very least, Zoom's decision to leave not just files in place on disk post-uninstall, but a running web server, definitely violates Apple's guidelines around application tidiness. There's an...
At the very least, Zoom's decision to leave not just files in place on disk post-uninstall, but a running web server, definitely violates Apple's guidelines around application tidiness. There's an expectation that if an app is dragged from Finder to Trash, it should leave the system in a state similar to how it was before installation, sans the occasional preference file.
Sadly, nearly all big companies don't follow these guidelines. Microsoft & Adobe are particularly bad.
Also of note: I did a double take when I read your comment here, Deimos. I'd immediately come from the HN thread where you are currently the top comment :P.
Haha yeah, I wrote the comment here in reply to you, then copy-pasted it over to HN and a few minutes later I realized that I never actually clicked the button to post it here.
Haha yeah, I wrote the comment here in reply to you, then copy-pasted it over to HN and a few minutes later I realized that I never actually clicked the button to post it here.
Off the top of my head preventing jailbreaks on ios using proprietary formats like PAGES to lock documents to their ecosystem forcing updates without user consent (as they have just done)...
Off the top of my head
preventing jailbreaks on ios
using proprietary formats like PAGES to lock documents to their ecosystem
forcing updates without user consent (as they have just done)
dissallowing downgrades to previous os versions or previous versions of apps
DRM on iTunes
making installing apps from places other than the app store a pain on ios
proprietary charging ports (although there is some USB c now)
If this isn't effectively an indictment of what Apple thinks about Zoom's practices here, I don't know what else to say to you. These sorts of patches are usually reserved for malware and other malicious software.
It's been really interesting to see how quickly the original Zoom response of "there's nothing wrong with this, everybody does it" ended up being reversed.
I wonder if there's a known exploit for the Zoom server specifically, or if Apple discovered one while looking into it. It seems strange for them to go to these lengths in this case when it sounds like other software has been using a similar technique too. Maybe it's just the reinstallation aspect that makes Zoom's case exceptional?
At the very least, Zoom's decision to leave not just files in place on disk post-uninstall, but a running web server, definitely violates Apple's guidelines around application tidiness. There's an expectation that if an app is dragged from Finder to Trash, it should leave the system in a state similar to how it was before installation, sans the occasional preference file.
Sadly, nearly all big companies don't follow these guidelines. Microsoft & Adobe are particularly bad.
Also of note: I did a double take when I read your comment here, Deimos. I'd immediately come from the HN thread where you are currently the top comment :P.
Haha yeah, I wrote the comment here in reply to you, then copy-pasted it over to HN and a few minutes later I realized that I never actually clicked the button to post it here.
I would say that Zoom’s installation of a web server does count as malicious software.
I have a hard time justifying how Zoom wasn't malware if it's literally running a web server on your computer in secret.
So proprietary software that betrays its users being used to fight proprietary software that betrays its users... interesting...
Off the top of my head
preventing jailbreaks on ios
using proprietary formats like PAGES to lock documents to their ecosystem
forcing updates without user consent (as they have just done)
dissallowing downgrades to previous os versions or previous versions of apps
DRM on iTunes
making installing apps from places other than the app store a pain on ios
proprietary charging ports (although there is some USB c now)
Yeah perhaps. I define it as not acting in the users best interest. Or not how the user wants it to. Or restricting them in an unneeded manner.