161–170 of 206 posts
Why not launch Safari when the user clicks on an article? And make it clear that you have permission from HN to use their API? Having used your app for exactly one minute, that seems like it would address their concerns and preserve usability.
I've checked couple of popular apps on the App Store and here are my findings: - Twitter: uses SFSafariViewController - Reddit: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top, provides "open in Safari" option through share button - Instagram: uses custom in-app web view, shows page title and url on top, provides the built in share-sheet, interestingly disabling open in Safari, but enabling "Add to Readi…
So not even SFSafariViewController is protection from committing copyright infringement, apparently.
I also got the same workaround from ASR: make the links exit the app to Safari. But now I'm curious what the point of SFSVC is beyond reading... a privacy policy for your own app? Web pages belonging to your own app? But then why not use a WKWebView?
I think it's important to look at the broader issue: "App stores" are walled gardens, policed by corporations and are the opposite of freedom. The web is open and free. We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web. This is just one symptom.
"We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web." No - apps are fine. Even app stores are fine. It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem. So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.
But even if they did that (which I rate as "unlikely but not as impossible as many others think"), there's a big problem with them being inconsistent and even capricious in rules enforcement coupled with badly communicating when issues arise. While that's a huge problem as long as they're effectively the only game in town for app distribution, it would... still be a huge problem even if that weren't true, because the chances are they would still far and away be the biggest app store.
Why not launch Safari when the user clicks on an article? And make it clear that you have permission from HN to use their API? Having used your app for exactly one minute, that seems like it would address their concerns and preserve usability.
It's kind of interesting that an app developer needs to prove they've got permission from the copyright holders to display a website, but Safari can display them all just like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web." No - apps are fine. Even app stores are fine. It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem. So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.
It’s only a “problem” for a relatively few techies. Most people would be better served by a wall gardened. Seeing the mess that the average consumer makes on thier Windows computers is evidence. My mom would never have to worry about getting malware because she searched for a printer driver if she had an iPad. Heck, she wouldn’t have had to worry about a printer driver at all. And if you want to see what happens on m…
A) Android doesn't have some vast and ugly problem with malfeasance.
B) It's entirely possible to educate customers that if they go outside of respected shops - they run the risk of problems.
C) The 'Windows' analogy doesn't really hold because mobile OS APIs are totally locked down. Any app installed on Windows/Mac can effectively wipe out your machine. It's a huge risk. An android app has very limited API access, moreover, the user has to grant explicit rights.
Fortnight is not a bad example of anything really.
There's no evidence that people really benefit from fully walled garden.
Moreover, there's evidence that they can't get the apps and functionality they need, because there are quite a number of apps that simply cannot be easily developed and deployed in iPhone - so many corporate and B2B apps. It's possible in only limited scenarios.
The 'security' issue is not real. It's a tactic by Apple to control the market and that's mostly it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web browsers have an "implied license": https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc . and (I believe, but don't quote me on this) the law was amended shortly after this case to clarify the permissions/limit liability of web browsers & ISPs. A third-party application doesn't have the same permissions/protections. Copyright law doesn't always require the author's permission though. If you don't have permission…
Really unclear to me what you man by "third-party application" here. How is Google Chrome not third party, but this app is? Typically in this nomenclature the first and second parties are the user and OS (or computer) vendor. The third party is an application developer. So typically Google and Mozilla would be third parties the same as maker of the HN browser. Aside from that, I see no real distinction here. When I l…
I have seen of lot of funny or meme apps which rip content off same popular websites. I think it unfair to operator of such sites. A lot of these app will show their ads, but won't pull in ads of publisher.
Apple told you what to do: > Require users to customize their news sources upon launching your app Make it a setting. Anyone who is going to use your app is qualified to paste a URL into a text field (or click a radio button indicating they want to use news.yc vs old.xy)
Hacker News (On/Off)
Imagine they accept it like that haha
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument misrepresents the metaphor. It's the wall that's the barrier to freedom, not what goes on within.
A wall can provide much freedom, depending on what’s outside. Freedom is a complicated term.
You're constructing a scenario to justify an abstract argument. The wall is the only salient feature in the walled garden metaphor. There's no terror lurking outside.
If you mean to imply that Apple's oversight has some advantages, such as security, that's a separate issue.
In the context of Apple's app store rules, the wall refers to Apple's rules. The absence of those rules does not reduce your freedom as a developer; you're can still abide by them without Apple requiring your to do so. But you have more choice without the rules.
I think it's important to look at the broader issue: "App stores" are walled gardens, policed by corporations and are the opposite of freedom. The web is open and free. We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web. This is just one symptom.
There's that and the notion that as a distribution mechanism app stores are hopelessly ineffective unless you happen to have bribed your way into being featured or listed in their top whatever (at great expense). (Mobile) web is where the action is these days. The conversion from there to app installs is typically beyond terrible. It just doesn't matter how good your app is. The vast majority of your web users will n…