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

Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 344 posts

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#141

Post by mulmen »

13of40 wrote: post #57
musicale wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is not anti-VM. It is anti VM-on-non-Apple-hardware. ;-) Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware. Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines. Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines…

Considering a couple years ago, "Apple Hardware" was an intel CPU with an nvidia GPU I've always wondered why you couldn't just throw a million dollars at them so they could stick apple stickers on your rack and let you run MacOS VMs. The company I used to work for had to do crazy gymnastics just to test software and scan for malware on their OS.

There’s more to a mac than the sticker. It’s specific hardware that is tested and supported by the software. That’s worth a premium. Verifying your rack is a cost Apple doesn’t want to take on. iCloud doesn’t run on MacOS. It runs on Linux. Just buy the right hardware for the job.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#142

Post by BoorishBears »

judge2020 wrote: post #120
smoldesu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the ruling[0]: > As to count one, we agree that Corellium is shielded by the fair use doctrine. First, Corellium’s virtualization software is transformative—it furthers scientific progress by allowing security research into important operating systems. Second, iOS is functional operating software that falls outside copyright’s core. Third, Corellium didn’t overhelp itself to Apple’s software. And fourth, Corelli…

How did they determine that it didn't affect the iPhone market? As I understand it, companies definitely buy tons of iphones set up on docks next to workstations to ensure everyone in the office can work on ios apps on real hardware, since the ios simulators aren't always foolproof and don't consider handheld ux.

affect the iPhone market means affect Apple's ability to sell them in a meaningfully negative way. Companies buying extra hardware isn't that.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#143

Post by ijidak »

musicale wrote: post #52
crazygringo wrote: post #51

Can someone remind me why Apple is so anti-VM in seemingly every instance? It just seems so arbitrary and unhelpful, and I have a hard time imagining that the amount of hardware purchased it forces outweigh the benefits from making macOS/iOS better platforms for development and computation. It just seems like such an odd stance to take.

Apple is not anti-VM. It is anti VM-on-non-Apple-hardware. ;-) Presumably they have determined that lost hardware sales would offset any increased app or service sales from allowing VMs on non-Apple hardware. Though I don't actually know what platform macOS and iOS VMs run on in GitHub Actions and Azure pipelines. Edit: apparently Azure pipelines uses Mac pros. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines…

It's probably more about lock-in. They likely don't want a migration path out of their walled garden.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#145

Post by gat1 »

lostlogin wrote: post #132
scrollaway wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shit is why I use Google products on my iphone: gmail, calendar (with reminders), contacts, etc. (Paid version at that: I pay for google workspace, even for personal use) I'm not locked in to the Apple ecosystem: I can use it on my Linux desktop, or switch to an Android phone at any time.

Is that a solution, or an additional poison?

Yes.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#146

Post by smoldesu »

brookst wrote: post #91
8note wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games. It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps

You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales? Because that was Epic’s end game.

They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#147

Post by smoldesu »

judge2020 wrote: post #120
smoldesu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the ruling[0]: > As to count one, we agree that Corellium is shielded by the fair use doctrine. First, Corellium’s virtualization software is transformative—it furthers scientific progress by allowing security research into important operating systems. Second, iOS is functional operating software that falls outside copyright’s core. Third, Corellium didn’t overhelp itself to Apple’s software. And fourth, Corelli…

How did they determine that it didn't affect the iPhone market? As I understand it, companies definitely buy tons of iphones set up on docks next to workstations to ensure everyone in the office can work on ios apps on real hardware, since the ios simulators aren't always foolproof and don't consider handheld ux.

It looks like that's why they make the other two points - Corellium progresses common interests by advancing security research, and extends iOS with features Apple does not offer themselves.

This contention seems to rely on their third response, where they claim that Corellium hasn't "overhelped" themselves to copywritten material. This sorta makes sense - their reliance on Apple basically ends once they have the commercial iOS disk image. If they've proven that everything else was lawfully developed and reverse-engineered, it sounds like Corellium had a strong case on their hands.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#148

Post by alvarezbjm-hn »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #90
cpuguy83 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't reply to the child comment, but... I only found one article about this from back in 2008. It was definitely a thing back then, I just can't find it.... But indeed likely second fiddle to the gpu issues around the same time, I totally forgot about that.

The comment time stamp is clickable, you should see the reply button there.

Thank you! I need the cheatsheet for this site.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#149

Post by smoldesu »

brookst wrote: post #104
thfuran wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alrighty then, kindly send me money amounting to 25% of your annual expenses. I'm told such fees are harmless.

Are you making my app searchable and downloadable on 1B devices? Because hell yeah I’ll take that deal. I paid Apple 30% on about $1M of revenue that would have been less than $10k without them. You think I feel abused?

And without Rockefeller Steel, who knows what would have happened in World War I? It doesn't mean we should tolerate their monopoly though. When people do bad things, we punish them. It doesn't matter how much goodness they've done, that's the rule of law. Apple is abusing market position.

If you're fine with Apple using you, that's okay. You can still pay them 30% going forward, but Apple will eventually have to give up total control of payment processing. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the trouble then.

Re: Apple just lost its lawsuit trying to ban iOS virtual machines

#150

Post by buzer »

mulmen wrote: post #141
13of40 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering a couple years ago, "Apple Hardware" was an intel CPU with an nvidia GPU I've always wondered why you couldn't just throw a million dollars at them so they could stick apple stickers on your rack and let you run MacOS VMs. The company I used to work for had to do crazy gymnastics just to test software and scan for malware on their OS.

There’s more to a mac than the sticker. It’s specific hardware that is tested and supported by the software. That’s worth a premium. Verifying your rack is a cost Apple doesn’t want to take on. iCloud doesn’t run on MacOS. It runs on Linux. Just buy the right hardware for the job.

Does Apple dogfood their OS X/iOS CI pipelines, i.e. are they running them on some off-the-shelf Macs like they expect everyone else to do? I remember reading that at least in the past they were running virtualized OS X on regular servers for those (actually found following: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18117885).

And it's not like Apple would need to verify anything. They can grant the license, but say that the only supported configuration is Mac, it's up to VMWare and such to provide the support if they want to say that you can run OS X on their platform.

Post reply on HN