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

261–270 of 280 posts

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#261

Post by geofft »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #260
geofft wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... but this is how actual retail works. Real-world Billy doesn't hold the "license to sell electronics," but the various mall management companies - of which there aren't very many - do in fact exclusively control the real estate in the shopping malls. They don't charge Apple a percentage of sales, but they charge them some amount of money for simply having the store, regardless of sales, which can be even more: if…

I think most reasonable people discussing this topic are aware that there are some similar arrangements made between retailers and manufacturers. The one big difference is that there is no retailer monopoly and thus the overhead they charge has been negotiated by the market. I.e. their overhead charges are probably a lot more fair than 30%. If Apple were to allow alternative app stores, I think we’d see price normali…

Sure, but I'm disagreeing with the claim that there is no retailer monopoly and that there is an Apple monopoly.

Landlords have exclusive use of land, a limited resource. If I am running a clothing brand and I want to have a store in a particular city, my options are to build a store on empty land very far from the city center, or to negotiate with the person who has the land.n If I want to have a store in a mall, I certainly can't just built on my own, and in many cities, there's probably not even another mall to provide competition.

Apple is charging for use of the Apple App Store platform. They are not charging for the Android Play Store platform. They are not charging for anything happening anywhere else. There is no exclusive resource like land involved, as demonstrated by the fact that Android was able to build the Play Store.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that Apple has a monopoly over use of their own product, since a monopoly is about control of a market. But if we're going to make that claim, we should definitely say that each mall owner has a monopoly over use of that mall! That is at least as sensible as saying that Apple and Android both have monopolies over their respective competing products.

And I think that the concern people have isn't whether the price has been decided by the market - it clearly has, and tons of participants are willing to participate even with the 30% cut - the question is whether the price is fair in a moral sense. I do agree with the answer that it is not. But I think you have to ask the right question to get the right answer.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#262

Post by jasonjayr »

Terretta wrote: post #254
jasonjayr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Device evolved into a seamless hardware software experience, it’s no longer for hobbyists, much like transistor radios and Radio Shack. Find a new proto-appliance to hack and shape, or buy from a different philosophy vendor.

But this philosophy of not being able to control your own hardware, be it computers, appliances, vehicles, or otherwise, is harmful to society.

Locking down devices without an escape hatch enables rent seeking and hampers innovation and creativity.

I understand your point of view, but also understand that the future where the only open hardware is expensive one-off specialty stuff is rapidly approaching. Either through legal means, or limited availability, companies are posturing themselves to be the gatekeepers + rent seekers, and will hamper new 'out-of-the-box' ideas.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#263

Post by pier25 »

Terretta wrote: post #252
pier25 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store And why is that ok?

Because as a user — they’re called user stories — I want all the money recurringly leaking out if my pocket accessible and manageable in one place with consistent user-favorable rules. That’s why my persona exercised free consumer choice to opt into this philosophy instead of the competing camp. Years after last Android died I still had subs I couldn’t cancel unless I did chargebacks. Stop trying to use regulation to…

Honestly I don't think with iOS you're actually getting into any kind of philosophy other than to make money for Apple.

For example, I've had plenty of issues on iOS with refunds. On Android refunds are given automatically if you uninstall the app within 2 hour of purchase. Why isn't Apple doing that?

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#264

Post by wayneftw »

spideymans wrote: post #130
ratww wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about grandma. I also don't want to deal with bullshit myself. - In the country I grew up I have to install rootkits in my computer in order to use the bank website. Some of them are borderline impossible to uninstall, and some banks have rootkits that conflicted with the ones of other banks. How do I know if it's not spying on me or not? It's a multi-megabyte kernel extension. I can't even use Linux or a Vi…

On Mac and Windows, I have to think twice about whatever applications I install because, as you said, any application could royally screw with the system. On iOS I can download effectively whatever I like from the App Store without worrying about it screwing up my system. That peace of mind is worth a lot of money, and is why people pay a premium to be in this walled garden. I have no desire for for my iPhone to have…

If iOS allowed sideloading, you could just stay in the app store though. Problem solved.

As a developer, I just want to be able to distribute my apps to myself, my family and my friends without having to pay $100 per year and without having to ask Apple's permission for us all to do whatever we want with our $1,000 phones.

Our government will sort this out eventually now that iPhones have over 60% of the active phones in the US and that number will not be shrinking since 90% of the youth market is on an iPhone.

Apple will be forced to open up sooner or later, just like when "Ma Bell" used to force you to rent a phone from them just to use the landline that you also leased from them - once they had a majority market share, they got broken up. Same thing with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows - they were forced to share their APIs with third party companies. Consumers and small developers don't decide this. Lots of small, medium and large businesses are affected by Apples restrictions and they'll keep fighting it for us.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#265

Post by wayneftw »

vagrantJin wrote: post #135
jsperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.

This is an argument. My elderly parents are stupid argument. for why you should buy iOS. No- its not signalling at all. iOS is just as confusing as Android. Its a matter of which one you use first or regularly. Just as Linux is confusing to non-linux users. Also. Android works on the dodgiest mobile hardware available to mankind. Something not a lot of HN users seem to know - from tractors in farms to research equipm…

iOS UX is so bad that to clear big attachments off the phone you have to individually select each item in a huge, multipage check list. There's not even a select-all option.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#266

Post by webmobdev »

ogre_codes wrote: post #149
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.

> 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…

I don't know why you are pointlessly defending this Apple practice of screwing both their customers and developers with this unnecessary "Apple Tax". Here what the article says

> 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.

> Why are they making that requirement even though we already have our own independent payment infrastructure? Because once that app allows in-app purchases, Apple can then automatically take their 30% cut.

You can niggle on the 15% or 30% cut that Apple takes, but they raise a very valid concern -

- why should any developer pay Apple anything at all in the first place?

- Why should they allow themselves to be blackmailed by Apple to use their payment services?

- Why should their customers bear the burden of this extra 15 to 30% that Apple demands for using their payment service?

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#267

Post by webmobdev »

Terretta wrote: post #252
pier25 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store And why is that ok?

Because as a user — they’re called user stories — I want all the money recurringly leaking out if my pocket accessible and manageable in one place with consistent user-favorable rules. That’s why my persona exercised free consumer choice to opt into this philosophy instead of the competing camp. Years after last Android died I still had subs I couldn’t cancel unless I did chargebacks. Stop trying to use regulation to…

Ok, then don't use the app that don't offer you Apple pay.

> Stop trying to use regulation to take away my free market choice of ecosystem approach.

Blame Apple for trying to make enemies of the developers who created the app in the first place and added value to the ecosystem you use. Blame Apple for the increased 15 to 30% you will have to pay because Apple thinks it can extort that money from us developers - in effect Apple is only screwing you, the end user.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#268

Post by kmeisthax »

mullingitover wrote: post #139
kmeisthax wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of…

> 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…

That's entirely impractical. "Hey, want to run Blender on your iPad? Just buy a $600+ real computer and install a bunch of cross-compilation tools on it then sideload the app every seven days before it expires! It's so easy!"

Sideloading Blender misses the point. If you need to buy a real computer to compile Blender, then you already have a computer to just run Blender on directly. Furthermore, sideloading isn't exactly Apple-sanctioned. It's actually fairly cumbersome: you either need a Mac to run Xcode on, or you have to run a piece of third-party software that you put your iCloud password into, which then uses some Mail/iTunes plugins to forcibly resign and sync your IPA. Oh, and you need to redo that every seven days or the app breaks. Furthermore, Apple could break or prohibit sideloading at any moment and you would have no recourse.

If sideloading was a useful way to distribute software, Epic would be distributing a sideloadable EGS and Fortnite on iOS right now.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#269

Post by random5634 »

eropple wrote: post #110
spideymans wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The prompting for purchase and trials is VERY explicit. So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month- I mean, the scams and tricks are endless off app store. I really wish government or credit card companies would impose rules on merchants that prohibit this kind of behaviour. It's very easy t…

I agree with your general point, but I raised my eyebrows at this: > So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month Out of curiosity, I went incognito (as I'm an NYT subscriber) and clicked that banner just now, and it says it's $1/week for a year, not a month ($4.25/week afterwards). I'm pretty…

Actually, I just went to it and it's much clearer and better than it was. It is a year for me now.

That said, here is a recent BBB complaint. When I cancelled 2 years ago it was worse (no option to chat, you had to call and they left you on hold).

--- Complaint Type: Billing/Collection Issues

02/16/2021

I am nearing the end of a promotional offer from the NYTimes which offered a 1 year digital subscription for $4/month. I don't plan to continue a subscription at the full price and logged into my account to cancel my subscription. Within my online profile, there is no button labeled "cancel my subscription" or any similar option. I am only given the options to change my email or password, or update my card. This seems like a serious abuse to me a customer to decide whether or not I want to pay for the service. I have now been chatting with an agent for 15 minutes and still haven't been given an option to cancel my account. As of right now, I've been chatting long enough with a representative to fill out this BBB complaint and still haven't had anyone help me close my account. I have screenshots of my entire conversation with the agent if that's helpful.

https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/new-york/profile/publishers-period...

----

It's not that every fly by night website does this (NY Times is not exactly fly by night), but enough do that people really hesitate to sign up outside of the more trusted Apple walled garden - I know I do because I don't have time for this.

MyHeritage was even worse though, surprised there are not more lawsuits, they somehow found out my NEW card number after I cancelled my card to avoid them.

So while Apple is allowed to run their store their way without the scammers getting into the mix, I'll keep giving them my money happily. That said, HN devs and these types of companies all hate it I'm sure (not realizing that this is why apple phone users spend so much more - the well hasn't been poisoned by their stupidity)

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#270

Post by CyberRabbi »

geofft wrote: post #261
CyberRabbi wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most reasonable people discussing this topic are aware that there are some similar arrangements made between retailers and manufacturers. The one big difference is that there is no retailer monopoly and thus the overhead they charge has been negotiated by the market. I.e. their overhead charges are probably a lot more fair than 30%. If Apple were to allow alternative app stores, I think we’d see price normali…

Sure, but I'm disagreeing with the claim that there is no retailer monopoly and that there is an Apple monopoly. Landlords have exclusive use of land, a limited resource. If I am running a clothing brand and I want to have a store in a particular city, my options are to build a store on empty land very far from the city center, or to negotiate with the person who has the land.n If I want to have a store in a mall, I…

Apple’s product makes up at least 60% of mobile phone usage in the US[1]. No single landlord owns 60% of retail space in the US. If you want to say landlords have control over their market not unlike apples control, you have to concede that apples control is likely two orders of magnitude more than any single retail landlord.

To access 60% of US mobile phone users, App developers must go through Apple. Apple faces no competitor pressure when deciding on their prices, it is their discretion alone. Landlords face competitor pressure but Apple does not in this space so in that sense, no, the market has not decided apple’s prices.

Aside from the practical issues concerning their control of the market, the argument that Apple should be able to charge whatever they want because it’s their product is normative. These normative claims can be challenged when we consider the practical effects their market dominance has on app developers and users alike.

[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-iphone-record-sales-us...

Post reply on HN