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

331–340 of 344 posts

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

#331

Post by andromeduck »

mort96 wrote: post #232
amelius wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I wonder why do we have Wine to run Windows stuff on Linux, but we have no equivalent to run OSX programs on Linux ... Is nobody interested in implementing the OSX APIs on Linux?

Is there really that much software out there which runs on macOS but neither Windows nor Linux and has no good alternatives for either Windows or Linux? There's a truly absurd amount of software out there which runs on Windows but not Linux, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that way more effort is invested into running Windows software than running macOS software.

Iterm2 and Karabiner Elements don't have comparable equivalents.

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

#332

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

kaba0 wrote: post #329
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora 38, Windows 10 I'm not asking about phones, we were talking about laptops.

Are they support your exact model? Or they can run them, and may even have a sticker for windows compatibility? That’s very different thing.

Yes

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

#333

Post by poulpy123 »

windowsrookie wrote: post #279
poulpy123 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was more thinking to the iphone (I don't have laptop). You can't find a cheap new iphone, and even the cheapest iphone is more than I would put in a phone myself. It's true that now high end android phones are as expensive than high end iphones, so on this point of view it's not a criteria

I purchased two brand new iPhone SE's for $100 each around black Friday from Straight Talk. Required one month of prepaid service and then they were unlocked, I used them down in South America. The iPhone SE is better than any comparable Android phone and will receive updates for another 5 years. So "You can't find a cheap new iPhone" is not true. If you're willing to take 1 extra step and get a month of prepaid serv…

There is no iphone for 100$ and 1 month of service where I live

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

#334

Post by michaelcampbell »

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.

They don't make money on non-Apple hardware.

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

#336

Post by fennecfoxy »

musicale wrote: post #63
TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #18

It's funny how the 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity. Having such a monopoly on a device you purchase really means the legal system needs to take you down a notch.

> 30% tax and App Store nonsense automatically makes me want Apple to lose every single court case in perpetuity We can only hope that alternative app stores on iOS will force Apple to match Google Play's 30% platform fees: https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissi...

The difference being of course, on Apple's stranglehold on its customers. 30% either way, app developers know that Apple users are always willing to pay more and Apple knows this, too. That's why many apps only target iOS.

Besides the income from services within Apple's apps: they could take 30% of an app's purchase price (which is still not justified tbh, the app store can't be _that_ expensive to run), but how do they justify trying to take a percentage of a subscription (like Spotify, Netflix etc) when they have nothing to do with it?

That would be like Apple being able to take a portion of banking fees from me because I have my bank's app installed on my phone (and the bank takes fees), which Apple doesn't do of course because as big as they are, you do not fuck with banks.

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

#337

Post by account42 »

vardump wrote: post #318
evdevreed wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that it's any relief, but this is also the case with Windows too. MS often introduces breaking changes in the Windows API and rarely adds/updates examples. Unfortunately, it's the norm in most massive closed source ecosystems like these. On the one hand, it makes being a developer on these platforms pretty painful at times, and on the other hand, it also increases the value in having expertise with them.

"MS often introduces breaking changes in the Windows API" Can you give an example? I have also plenty of Windows development experience, but can't think of anything. More like, Microsoft seems to be pretty careful making sure APIs don't break. NTAPI doesn't count, because it's undocumented in the first place and you're not supposed to use it in the userland at all. Yeah, we all do, but... (Many APIs are pretty bad in…

> NTAPI doesn't count, because it's undocumented in the first place and you're not supposed to use it in the userland at all. Yeah, we all do, but...

In the context of developing something like Wine that is irrelevant - you need to deal with what people use.

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

#338

Post by account42 »

planede wrote: post #197
okamiueru wrote: post #179

What I want to do is not have to have a unified build system for multiple platforms and ABIs without any problem, but for some reason, to target anything apple, I have to use a physical apple machine. It's absolutely abusing market position, because it ends up being that in my profession, you end up purchasing mac computers for the whole office, because then you can target all platforms without any fuss. Not because…

Technically it's possible, but possibly not legal: https://github.com/tpoechtrager/osxcross > Please ensure you have read and understood the Xcode license terms before continuing. According to the EULA you may only use the SDK on Apple-branded computers. But you can use Linux to cross compile to Apple. Do the Visual Studio build tools have more permissive license terms? AFAIK you can have clang-cl on Linux, but you d…

For Windows, MinGW has an independent implementation of the complete build environment so you don't need any VS tools, import libraries or headers. For macOS there is no such complete build root but the actual tools are available - e.g. clang is always a cross-compiler able of targetting all supported architectures and for the linker Apple's own ld64 is open source and we also have lld now although I am not certain the macOS target status.

> AFAIK you can have clang-cl on Linux

clang-cl is a frontent for MSVC command-line compatibility - you don't even need that for cross-compiling, just -target and then whatever -fms-* extensions you need for your non-portable code. But yes, Clang doesn't come with its own SDK so you will need headers and import libraries and possibly other tooling (although the LLVM procect covers a lot).

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

#339

Post by smoldesu »

JimDabell wrote: post #328
smoldesu wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

27%, if their demands in the Netherlands are still being taken seriously: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/apple-shocks-ios...

Nope, 12% in that case. The 27% figure assumes a reduction from the 30% rate virtually nobody pays. If you read Apple’s documentation, you’ll see that they say they will reduce their commission by 3%: > Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. — https://developer.appl…

> virtually nobody pays.

100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax. It's a progressive model, and the figure itself is arbitrary anyways. People want a more Mac-like distribution model, and Apple is reluctant to provide it because services are the only thing with wider margin than slave labor cellphones.

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

#340

Post by JimDabell »

smoldesu wrote: post #339
JimDabell wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, 12% in that case. The 27% figure assumes a reduction from the 30% rate virtually nobody pays. If you read Apple’s documentation, you’ll see that they say they will reduce their commission by 3%: > Apple will reduce its commission by 3% on the price paid by the user, net of value-added taxes. This is a reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and related activities. — https://developer.appl…

> virtually nobody pays. 100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax. It's a progressive model, and the figure itself is arbitrary anyways. People want a more Mac-like distribution model, and Apple is reluctant to provide it because services are the only thing with wider margin than slave labor cellphones.

> > > virtually nobody pays.

> 100% of the top 100 paid apps on the App Store pay the full tax.

There are millions of apps on the App Store. The top 100 is a tiny fraction of that. Virtually nobody pays.

Post reply on HN