Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 330 posts

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#311

Post by kd913 »

Dahoon wrote: post #144
kd913 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a raspberry pi and setup pihole with wireguard and dnscrypt-proxy. Get a hostname and basically tunnel your DNS requests to that pihole. Use Firefox and signal instead of say chrome. Disable the assistant and be aware of the privacy controls of your google account. Looking at the DNS requests made so far, it doesn't seem that much worse than an ipad or iphone. I think it depends on what you are also keeping priva…

Why would you tunnel your DNS requests when you can just switch DNS on the phone to a filtering one and also use blocklists, IE. with Blokada? Unless you route everything, not only default DNS, through the VPN, any app can just hardcode its own DNS ip and if you route everything through the VPN Blokada will do exactly the same but without an extra hop. Sounds terribly complicated for something that gives less securit…

You make no sense.

It's less secure and likely more privacy problems trusting a service with Blokada compared with my own pihole.

My own pihole is accessible wherever I want, I know who has the logs for the DNS requests performed by my pihole which is done over DNS over HTTPS.

The DNS requests are made securely through wireguard and just those requests.

There is no extra hop?

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#312

Post by immigrantsheep »

pmontra wrote: post #148
immigrantsheep wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can play games from my browser. And I can play games that are available through the Facebook app.

Facebook or WeChat, Apple can't ban them. Game streaming, they can. Maybe they'll change the rule in 1, 2 or 5 years if game streaming becomes so big to move enough of their customers to Android. Then they'll claim they're introducing an incredible thing. Remember copy and paste on the iPhone 3 GS? https://www.idownloadblog.com/2009/07/17/iphone-3gs-stupid-t...

The can ban them. They don't want to. They could just as easy say "we'll remove the Facebook app until you remove the gaming part". Same for WeChat.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#313

Post by novok »

sneak wrote: post #276
manigandham wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about restricting the freedom of a corporation to increase the freedom of people. So, as you stated, why should the status quo exist and restrict the freedom of consumers?

The people's freedom is not restricted by Apple deciding to include or exclude certain features from their phones. If people don't like the phones, they don't have to engage with the ecosystem at all. Many diehard anti-Apple (or anti-smartphone-in-general) people do just this today. You also have this freedom if you don't like Apple products. I, for example, have just purchased my last iPhone.

Because it has become a democrat vs republican kind of choice in all practicality.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#314

Post by zamadatix »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #306
zamadatix wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the law isn't ridiculous at face value, it's extending it to corner cases without looking at intent that can be. That's the point, the same thing is true of any law. It's impossible to cover all corner cases, at some point you need intent when you try to take it too far from what it was written to cover.

Yes, that's your point. But you're arguing a different point than treve. Treve was saying that anything becomes ridiculous when inspected closely enough. Even the core components. You are saying that the extension to corner cases becomes ridiculous. The extension can be ridiculous without the original core being ridiculous. So you're saying a correct thing, but it's not relevant to the conversation that existed befor…

I understand what you're trying to say but "core components" and "corner cases" are part of the same concept. You can't say "I have concept which is made of core components and corner cases " in one breath and then in the next say " is unambiguous without looking at " and unless you have a concept that depends on nothing else for it's construction this applies recursively as well.

E.g. "murder is always illegal" is not true and a bad law/take on the concept. Expanding the law to include "murder is always illegal except when... " is only unambiguous if are unambiguous. I don't think I need to take it further to explain justifiable homicide isn't unambiguously black and white or always possible to rule on without looking at intent of the various laws and what happened.

Bringing that back to the original thing this is true of any concept or law, including reviewing some remote apps and not others based on what they are for not that they are remote. I'm not saying I agree the way Apple regulates these is good I'm just saying I agree the fact some remote apps are regulated and others aren't isn't proof alone the regulation is contradictory.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#315

Post by hu3 »

otterley wrote: post #308
hu3 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebM is widespread, royalty free media format that's hardware accelerated with zero cost license. The reason non-WebM stream services might work on Safari is because said service engineers implemented alternatives to it.

Right. My point is, the WebM solution was not needed to fulfill customer demand (just like Flash turned out not to be needed either). Customer demand isn't "give me WebM" - it's "give me high quality video in my mobile browser that doesn't kill my battery." There is wisdom sometimes in saying "no."

There is no wisdom in comparing WebM to flash. They couldn't be further appart in various aspects. For one, WebM is hardware accelerated whilst flash wasn't.

There's also no wisdom in Safari preventing users from viewing a widespread royalty free media format. It simply causes frustration which is evidenced by the many frustrated customers in results for "safari stream not working "webm"" search.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#316

Post by Dahoon »

kd913 wrote: post #311
Dahoon wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you tunnel your DNS requests when you can just switch DNS on the phone to a filtering one and also use blocklists, IE. with Blokada? Unless you route everything, not only default DNS, through the VPN, any app can just hardcode its own DNS ip and if you route everything through the VPN Blokada will do exactly the same but without an extra hop. Sounds terribly complicated for something that gives less securit…

You make no sense. It's less secure and likely more privacy problems trusting a service with Blokada compared with my own pihole. My own pihole is accessible wherever I want, I know who has the logs for the DNS requests performed by my pihole which is done over DNS over HTTPS. The DNS requests are made securely through wireguard and just those requests. There is no extra hop?

There's no extra hop? Do you carry the pihole around with you?

Do you have a firewall running on your phone to block or redirect DNS requests? Since hardcoding and bypassing the one in network settings is extremely easy and done by default by even some Google apps. DNS leaking VPN is trivial.

What logs are you talking about? Blokada can use the same upstream DNS as your pihole so the logs are exactly the same if any exists.

Without a firewall and a VPN (both on the phone) you are not secure. With a VPN and a custom DNS service with blocklists you have an identical setup as one who uses Blokada, but without an external service.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#317

Post by otterley »

hu3 wrote: post #315
otterley wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. My point is, the WebM solution was not needed to fulfill customer demand (just like Flash turned out not to be needed either). Customer demand isn't "give me WebM" - it's "give me high quality video in my mobile browser that doesn't kill my battery." There is wisdom sometimes in saying "no."

There is no wisdom in comparing WebM to flash. They couldn't be further appart in various aspects. For one, WebM is hardware accelerated whilst flash wasn't. There's also no wisdom in Safari preventing users from viewing a widespread royalty free media format. It simply causes frustration which is evidenced by the many frustrated customers in results for "safari stream not working "webm"" search.

How do you know that the iPhone and iPad hardware have the IP core for performing hardware decoding of WebM formats? And how many such searches are actually taking place relative to the number of successful video views?

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#318

Post by Dylan16807 »

zamadatix wrote: post #314
Dylan16807 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's your point. But you're arguing a different point than treve. Treve was saying that anything becomes ridiculous when inspected closely enough. Even the core components. You are saying that the extension to corner cases becomes ridiculous. The extension can be ridiculous without the original core being ridiculous. So you're saying a correct thing, but it's not relevant to the conversation that existed befor…

I understand what you're trying to say but "core components" and "corner cases" are part of the same concept. You can't say "I have concept which is made of core components and corner cases " in one breath and then in the next say " is unambiguous without looking at " and unless you have a concept that depends on nothing else for it's construction this applies recursively as well. E.g. "murder is always illegal" is n…

> I understand what you're trying to say but "core components" and "corner cases" are part of the same concept.

Sure! And if you look at the overall concept, it does not become meaningless. To get to meaninglessness requires you separate the two.

"Unambiguous" is a much much higher bar that we don't need to worry about. Something can be 5% ambiguous but still very meaningful.

> Bringing that back to the original thing this is true of any concept or law, including reviewing some remote apps and not others based on what they are for not that they are remote. I'm not saying I agree the way Apple regulates these is good I'm just saying I agree the fact some remote apps are regulated and others aren't isn't proof alone the regulation is contradictory.

It's not proof by itself, but if you can show that there's no good reason for the distinction then it's a strong mark against Apple.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#319

Post by zepto »

dsissitka wrote: post #250
zepto wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming apps arrives are a way to bypass the App Store. That’s why they are banned unless the individual apps or games are submitted individually. It’s not really surprising they don’t want other companies running storefronts on iOS. The ‘consistency’ argument is just not valid.

> Streaming apps arrives are a way to bypass the App Store. > > That’s why they are banned unless the individual apps or games are submitted individually. Spotify is a streaming app. Spotify didn't submit and Apple didn't approve every song. Shadow is a remote game streaming app. Apple allowed them in the App Store when they removed the ability to launch directly into a game. [0] They won't allow Moonlight to do the…

Spotify is a streaming app, but Spotify doesn’t stream apps.

These are completely unrelated things.

Re: Apple blocks game streaming services unless individual games are approved

#320

Post by hu3 »

otterley wrote: post #317
hu3 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no wisdom in comparing WebM to flash. They couldn't be further appart in various aspects. For one, WebM is hardware accelerated whilst flash wasn't. There's also no wisdom in Safari preventing users from viewing a widespread royalty free media format. It simply causes frustration which is evidenced by the many frustrated customers in results for "safari stream not working "webm"" search.

How do you know that the iPhone and iPad hardware have the IP core for performing hardware decoding of WebM formats? And how many such searches are actually taking place relative to the number of successful video views?

They obviously don't have the decoder because Apple didn't implement them.
Post reply on HN