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

Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#161

Post by [deleted] »

asciimov wrote: post #122
alerighi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true, it depends on what one is used to. My father for example always used Android, now he got an iPhone and he find it more difficult to use, to the point that it asks me even trivial things. It's a myth that iOS is more simple to use than Android, there are things that are more complicated.

Biggest headache that Apple has solved is updates. They are very clear if a phone is still supported or not. The following is a conversation I had with a relative, while trying to troubleshoot their phone. Q: "Why doesn't my Bank App work?" Me: [after many steps]"Because you need to update your OS" Q: "How do I do that?" Me: [many steps later] "Sorry you can't update your OS. You will need a new phone." Q: "But this…

[deleted]

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#163

Post by mullingitover »

heavyset_go wrote: post #144
mullingitover wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide some examples of apps Apple has removed? Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.

VLC was removed from the App Store by Apple[1], and had to be re-released under a dual license that allowed App Store distribution. GNU Go faced the same licensing issue[2]. This is a topic that was discussed on HN several years ago[3][4]. > Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store. As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors s…

These aren't examples of Apple unilaterally removing GPL'd apps, these were examples where the creator contacted Apple with demands and Apple complied by removing the apps.

The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared outside the app store, the only thing the app store build/signature is doing is baking in the app store wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would violate the license.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#164

Post by crowbahr »

rictic wrote: post #141
zepto wrote: post #26

I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see the adoption of free devices running free software as a necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics in the industry. They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution. On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indee…

> Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched. Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.

Because his arguments are against the fundamental structure of iOS rather than against the app store.

A second app store inside of the walled garden still ends up being a walled garden, just one with more of an illusion of choice. That means that the users will have even less reason to leave.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#165

Post by mullingitover »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #150
kop316 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be where they explain it: "Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store." However, what you show seems to contradict that? EDIT: If I were to guess, the f…

my company had the exact same problem. This is no automated process. We had to enable EITHER in-app free trials OR in-app purchases (or both). And you cant use stripe, paypal, amazon payments, google pay, or alipay in-app.... it MUST be apple pay.

Did they cite the particular part of the developer agreement that was violated in your case?

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#166

Post by Nullabillity »

wvenable wrote: post #147
mullingitover wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can b…

As long as you have a valid developer certificate to sign the app and you have a development provisioning profile and your device is registered as a test device. For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99). And you have to constantly renew your profile.

And you need to have a Mac. Because reasons, I guess.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#167

Post by jasonjayr »

vbezhenar wrote: post #48
bogwog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something customers discover through Librem's marketing, buy from Librem on Librem's website not using Apple's payment/account systems, and not exclusive to Apple platforms in any way. Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.

What about customers who have found an app in AppStore, wanted to try it out only to find that they need to go through external websites and stuff. Not kind of UX you expect from iPhone.

I expect any device with general purpose computing capabilities to allow me to use those capabilities anyway I want.

Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#168

Post by mrzimmerman »

bogwog wrote: post #159
ogre_codes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can. This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store. If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them. If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%. The…

Arguing these fine points is a waste of time because I feel like people defending this are missing the complete insanity of this situation. Try a different perspective: Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple ma…

But the opposite is true. Android represents a much, much larger part of the smart phone market and there are a wide variety of devices, manufacturers, and sellers.

So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy, which is also what the electronics marketplace is like already.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#169

Post by themacguffinman »

aaron_m04 wrote: post #112
Barrin92 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps. Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong toolbar? It's like the reverse 'but think of the children', and pe…

> I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps. This is because we have so much "freedom" that Apple is free to do this. I would argue this is a false freedom, like the freedom to own slaves.

Hardly comparable when a slave doesn't choose to be a slave while an Apple user has to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars to become one.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#170

Post by m463 »

3grdlurker wrote: post #58

Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why Apple’s App Store policies are bad? The argument that always comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses, and how they design their platforms? Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how…

I believe the customer eventually bears the brunt of this.

It's sort of like net neutrality and your ISP.

You pay your ISP for access to the internet.

If your ISP is also charging others for access to you, then either:

- you will pay more for those services, or

- the services available to you will be diminished

same for apps.

Post reply on HN