Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#271

Post by nodamage » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 8:25 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #270

nodamage wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound like you actually understand the relevant aspects of the case. Psystar made multiple counterclaims, including a claim of tying between "Mac OS" and "Mac OS-capable computers". A tying claim requires establishing the existence of two separate product markets, which is why the court analyzed both the "Mac OS" market and the "Mac OS-capable computers" market separately. Ultimately both markets were foun…

No it's clear that you have not read the case at all. The Pystar case is not an antitrust case, it's a copyright infringement case. Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.

Are you serious? At this point I can't tell if you are trolling. This is a direct quote from the case I linked:

Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims.

These are all antitrust claims!!!

Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well.

> Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.

This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#272

Post by aspenmayer » Sun, Sep 13, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #256

aspenmayer wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These links may help you with your issues. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/72145/can-i-instal... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42353/can-mac-app-... https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/59479/can-mac-app-...

Command line automation isn't the issue I'm having, the issue I'm having is being able to download without making an Apple account. Sideloading would be helpful if Mac app store apps were made available as sideloaded apps anywhere. But I'm going to hazard a guess that Wireguard would not be permitted to provide those downloads -- I haven't been able to find a download link anywhere. And I'm seeing conflicting informa…

The interplay between iOS/macOS as “secure” operating systems and Wireguard implementations of “secure” networking on the aforementioned platforms really puts proof to the lie, as to what makes for better security outcomes and implementation stories and for whom.

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#273

Post by Nextgrid » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 1:04 PM UTC

_-___________-_ wrote: post #240

8ytecoder wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS 14 has an option to share location without being precise - pretty much like sharing zip. A lot of apps ask for location and I deny and enter my zip. In fact it was one of the major reasons I switched years ago.

I don't understand why this wasn't there from the start - the majority of apps asking for location service just want to figure out what city/state/country you are in, and giving them access to your precise location just seems unnecessarily dangerous.

Back when the feature was originally introduced (I guess in the iPhone OS 3 era?), surveillance capitalism and spyware wasn't as widespread and it then took them a while to catch up (I guess there are backwards-compatibility concerns?).

Re: Apple: Apps should not require users to opt into tracking to access content

#274

Post by Nextgrid » Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #226

Nextgrid wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to YouTube the waters are muddy. The YouTube app is just a client to a third-party web service (whose functionality falls outside of App Store rules); so in this case it can be argued that the "functionality" of the app is just the client functionality and not the content itself. Furthermore you can skip ads on YouTube after a 5-second timer, so this seems reasonably fair, though I would still not insta…

Google banning every ios and macos user from accessing everything from google.com To their gmail to youtube is a completely foreseeable counter reaction if apple chooses to limit youtube due to ads. Both companies will lose, of course, but Google has a hell of a lot more web traffic to its content than Apple does.

There is no way they can do so without attracting anti-trust scrutiny, not to mention Apple can deploy a very easy countermeasure by changing Safari's user-agent to Chrome's and playing cat & mouse regarding browser fingerprinting defenses.