311–320 of 480 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that’s opsec 101. If you tell a bad actor how you caught them, you’re just telling them how to do better (sneakier) next time.
Imagine if we applied the same mentality to the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Said it better than I could've – there are some pretty obvious reasons why Rambo's account could've been suspended, the clear violation of NDAs being the main one, with him publishing information about unreleased products. I'm honestly kind of surprised they let him keep his Developer account all this time. My bigger issue here is the complete lack of transparency or visibility into the process. It's this kind of stu…
> My bigger issue here is the complete lack of transparency or visibility into the process. This is indeed the core of the problem. If Apple provided a clear citation, e.g. “the following protected information was shared under your name at this URL on this date, which violates section xyz of your developer agreement,” it would still be unfortunate, but it would be miles ahead of Apple’s maddening “for more informatio…
If the author is being disingenuous and misrepresenting why likely was banned then I am sure other facts are being left out as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goodwill. Just because you're the big gorilla and can act as such with impunity doesn't mean you ought to constantly remind people of that. One developer doesn't matter in the grand scheme, but every time they get to the front page of HN with a story like this it chips away at Apple's (or Google's, or whoever's) reputation. Collectively that does have value.
> every time they get to the front page of HN with a story like this it chips away at Apple's (or Google's, or whoever's) reputation I know we who post here on HN would like to believe this is true, but I have seen no evidence that it actually is.
I am not anymore.
To be honest though they might have put in the biggest effort themselves when it comes to making sure everyone dislike them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only are they not a monopoly, Apple doesn't even have the highest market share in the mobile space. (It's Samsung.)
I see. So Apple watches, iPads, and iPhones & other devices owning at least half the US market isn't a monopoly whatsoever? When does one qualify to become a monopoly? Must they own 90% of the market to be considered one? I wonder what would happen if they kicked Uber of the platform.
They don't. Not in the US, not in phones[1] or watches[2]. They may have the majority market share in US tablets.
> isn't a monopoly whatsoever?
No, not even if that was true. Monopoly doesn't mean "any company I don't like." You're acting like "Apple isn't a monopoly" means "there's no problems with Apple at all."
Monopoly has a specific meaning. Look it up.
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[2] https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/08/15/us-smartwatch-shipm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like saying that if your neighbors are awful you should simply take your house and put it somewhere else. Completely ignoring the cost of porting software written for one platform to another.
Invalid analogy, since it's Apple's house, not his. Nobody forced him to write software for Apple's platform and nobody forced him to agree to the developer agreement Apple requires. He did it of his own free will.
It's not "a person throwing you out of his house", it's "your governor forcing you to leave your state because you dared critcize him". Power makes a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you didn't think it through directly, but you're now basically supporting the ability of a multi-billionare corporation to financially attack a developer and disable their device over criticism. Just how chilling effect is that? Not being able to criticise and freely talk about a corporation and its product due to fear of having your company financially destroyed or even your personal Apple ID killed over sayi…
No. That wasn’t what I basically support at all. Thanks for the strawman. You should absolutely be able to critique anything at all. Are you saying leaking preproduction software against your contract to not do that is a first amendment issue? I do believe no one has tried to silence his speech, as proven by this post about it. He broke a contract and now isn’t allowed to use their tools.
Are you really claiming that being cut off from financials due to criticism is not an attempt to punish criticism?
> No. That wasn’t what I basically support at all. Thanks for the strawman.
It's not a strawman if you don't understand why being financially punished for criticising a corporation is hugely problematic. You really want to live in the world where you're afraid of having your devices rendered useless and your company blocked from market because you dared say anything against Facebook, Google, Apple and other behemoths?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether or not the content is interesting is completely irrelevant. If the journalist signs a Terms of Service agreement and then violates the agreement they are breaking the contract and Apple has every right to end the Service. If he legally acquired and published info without signing a TOS then the info is fair game. Retaliation would be suing him for the disclosures. Ending the Service is just standard operating…
> There are lots of people who could do the kind of system/app spelunking he does. However, other people follow the TOS associated with the access. The real reason that people don't do this is because they choose to do other things with their time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people are a little frustrated with your replies in this thread because it seems like you're pushing back hard against even relatively mild criticisms of Apple's behavior like "they should at least be clear about the reasons for the suspension." Assuming Rambo's describing what's happened here correctly, Apple isn't even being clear about whether the account is suspended at all, they're just saying "we'll loo…
> When you had to take a moderation action against someone, you didn't just lock them out of their account with no explanation as to why and ignore any request for clarification, right? We did that all the time, for the reasons I've outlined above. If I consider all the years I spent working on this sort of stuff, I could count on two hands the number of people who, when confronted with clear and unambiguous proof th…
In any case, we're not talking about a community forum, we're talking about an account that's necessary for Rambo's business. I suppose you may sincerely believe that it would be absolutely fine if your employer or your bank or the sole source of a component that you need for a business suddenly stopped doing business with you and didn't bother to ever explain why. But I hope you understand why a lot of us think that's maybe not the best possible approach.