Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#621

Post by bayindirh » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:23 AM UTC

blangk wrote: post #616

bayindirh wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is here consistently in any Apple discussion exactly this reaction? Because the only mobile OS provider which allows blinding tracking frameworks with a single click is Apple currently, and every software vendor will want its telemetry and ads for their "monies". The application model evolved from "pay this to get that" to "train this AI implicitly which we gonna use against you, and ah, we also sell your every…

True, but Google's own implementation of Android in the Pixel does allow you to re sign the bootloader so you can install your own OS and securely boot to it. And "Android" isn't all the same. It's a broad and shared ecosystem.

However, doing this and using a custom ROM will flat out disable SIM services menu and related functionality, which I need for my embedded e-Signature in my SIM card.

Also, we have a gatekeeper called Google Play Services. In other words, even if you have a custom ROM, you need that all-encompassing framework to have nice things.

Clients may differ, but the cloud platform and the connector which enables all these "Android" things is closed source, and controlled by Google.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#622

Post by coldfireza » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:24 AM UTC

aussieshibe wrote: post #479

bayindirh wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you are coming from, and support you on that. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with the default state of an iPhone. It just manages itself, and all that hard problems (backups, updates, ease of use, experience homogenity, etc.) are solved. I manage more than enough servers at work, and I don't want to manage another server in my pocket, do nitty-gritty settings, allow selected apps background ac…

Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits? I heard an argument like this a lot at the start of discussions about whether we should be able to choose to WFH in the longer term. "I don't want to WFH because..." Ok, sure, but nobody is trying to force you to. It might just be me, and I'll de…

Apple has a brand to protect so letting people fiddle too much then possibly complain about it can hurt that

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#623

Post by Dah00n » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:25 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #542

piva00 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then? That's anti-trust 101.

So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?

Whataboutism doesn't solve anything. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Etc.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#624

Post by geraldwhen » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:26 AM UTC

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #607

eecc wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits? Next thing that would happen is that every major "can't miss out" app will walk its users through the process to disable safe management features, all to fulfill the promise of showing cute cat gifs. You know that's how it is.

We don't have to guess. Android app store is clear example that gives power users choice, while at the same time being able to hold onto most of the users.

The Google play store is heavily censored and moderated and most users don’t know about side loading.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#625

Post by maccard » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:27 AM UTC

aussieshibe wrote: post #618

maccard wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits? Not OP but yeah, I think it would. Im currently an android user because I thought it wouldn't, but in practice it does. The most explicit example is that despite owning a flagship phone from a flagship manufacturer, the Google suite of apps don…

That's interesting. Is that incompatibility specific to the Flip 3? I have a Fold 4, and Google Wallet works for me.

Absolutely no idea, sorry. I don't have other devices to verify on. But, if I set my default payment app to Google Wallet, when I try to activate a payment the phone says "open your phone and set the default payment app to Samsung Wallet"

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#626

Post by hurril » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:28 AM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #5

I want the option to control my devices. I don’t understand the arguments that claim Apple needs to rule the device with an iron fist. What problems does it cause to make the locked down experience the default with the option for me to disable that and take control of the device after I buy it? I want to own my stuff. I want to repair it and I want complete control over it. I think that in 10 years we’ll all have car…

While I completely agree with your sentiment, the problem is that of normalisation otherwise. If it's not such a big ask to require of you, that you accept side loading of apps for instance, then my efforts to keep making a stand on privacy grounds will increase exponentially.

I.e.: if it's normal to do side loading, then I become the odd man out for not wanting that on my device.

I'll have to tell my boss that, no, it's to do with security concerns in general that I don't accept HR:s fine app.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#627

Post by helsinkiandrew » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:31 AM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #514

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would giving people the ability to opt out of Apple's ultra-managed experience and take more control over their device harm your ability to continue to enjoy those benefits? You can always Jailbreak your device? I think Apples response to your argument would be that it isn't the technically aware user that is trying to get control over their device that is the problem, its apps being used by those with no technical…

> You can always Jailbreak your device? No, you can't and this isn't a serious alternative, especially since Apple goes out of their way to prevent and break jailbreaks. > Once an App is allowed to break out of the sandbox or be installed away from the AppStore the likelyhood of an average users phone getting into a broken mess at best and becoming infected with a virus at worse goes up my an order of magnitude. And…

I'm not sure what your point is - both of those articles are making the case that Apple should be doing more rather than less. If users don't understand how to cancel an App subscription from their phone how much fun will they have when the same apps and more have tied their credit cards into recurring payments.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#628

Post by bayindirh » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:32 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #608

bayindirh wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you are coming from, and support you on that. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with the default state of an iPhone. It just manages itself, and all that hard problems (backups, updates, ease of use, experience homogenity, etc.) are solved. I manage more than enough servers at work, and I don't want to manage another server in my pocket, do nitty-gritty settings, allow selected apps background ac…

What part of non-default optional customization for others changes anything for you?

Nothing. I've elaborated on other replies. Please take peek at them. I don't want to re-hash everything I've written here.

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#629

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:33 AM UTC

xdennis wrote: post #487

anomaly_ wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you seriously think is a majority opinion you need to get out more. The average person wants strong device security, look at the press and angst attracted by cybercrime in recent times.

The discussion is about control. No one is saying devices should be less secure. If you ask people "should you be able to run any program you want on your devices?" I doubt people would answer "yes, on computers, but on phones I should only be able to run what Tim Apple allows me to".

[deleted]

Re: Spotify CEO renews attack on Apple after Musk's salvo

#630

Post by vineyardmike » Thu, Dec 01, 2022, 11:36 AM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #524

vineyardmike wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But like... none of that is related to the App Store lock in! It's also not related to the 30% cut. It’s related to the “one app source”. See… > no "don't install random binaries" stuff to be seen. Because it was a lot smaller target than windows in terms of uses and impact. Maybe you forget, but there was certainly crapware that would bog your system down. Meanwhile iOS is probably the single greatest target today…

It isn't 2003 anymore, operating system vendors have been taking security seriously for a while now. Abuse and malware are not a problem on macOS despite barely anyone using the Mac App Store to install apps. Same goes for Windows, it isn't Windows XP anymore, and despite nobody using the Microsoft Store, abuse and malware are much less of a problem than they were in the past. Billions of machines use software distri…

> This argument is typical FUD

Yea, most of the argument is “I fear that there will be generated uncertainty in how trustworthy apps will be. I doubt that most people can make smart decisions.

> it's very common for App Store apologists to not argue based on what's happening today with other app distribution methods

I’m not an App Store apologist, but also APT is hardly a fair comparison For many obvious reasons, not the least of which is that no actually relevant volume of humans use Linux. Servers aren’t people and don’t download random plugins and “Java updates” from their browser.

Drive by browser downloads and scams are the real threat vector. They’re still a thing in 2022. Just because your DNS based ad-blocked Linux desktop with a JavaScript free Firefox installed from the command line doesn’t see them, doesn’t mean they’re not there.

Maybe you don’t think they’re as important as “freedom to install what I want” but you can’t dismiss it as y2k fud.

That’s the core of most “app store apologist” arguments. That the control and peace that comes from the App Store is worth the loss of freedom. If you wanted freedom, there are alternatives.

You can disagree with the trade off, but that’s the trade off and other people prefer the other thing.

Personally, I want the pretty and powerful hardware of the iPhone and the freedom but I’m glad I don’t have to explain to my mother why her iPhone doesn’t need new Java.