Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what happens when you start this, right? The whole, jews cant have stores, thing? Remember?
[flagged]
Why? Nazis can and do have stores. Not that its right, but its the case
Developer account removed by Apple
441–450 of 457 posts
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#442[flagged]
Please don't use HN for nationalistic battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: if I had seen https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37146547 at the time, I probably would have banned your account. You simply can't post like that here, regardless of which country you have a problem with. Please don't do it again.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company is liquidated, which means he doesn't do business in Russia. Also, I love living in the world where doing business is suspicious because of my nationality.
Choose a better government, then. Preferably, a one without Soviet/death cult/imperialistic tendencies. The nation will be judged by its government's actions, because the gov is supposed to be kept in check by the people.
Please don't use HN for nationalistic flamewar, regardless of which country you have a problem with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, and we ban accounts that do it.
Of course I understand that many people have justifiably strong feelings about this sort of thing, but that's why HN's rules specifically say: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not GP, but your condescending attitude is not only rude but wrong. Money laundering through things like app sales is a classic technique. It's the modern version of buying "art" that isn't valuable at insane prices. Laundering through an app store incurs a 30% haircut, but the funds are very clean afterward and every money laundering technique is going to cost that much or more. It is not unusual for the launder…
You're really out of your element here. >It's the modern version of buying "art" that isn't valuable at insane prices. That was possible because the art world (at some point in time) enabled this. Apple and its App Store actively prevent this from happening, it's the complete opposite.
You've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines very badly lately, such as here and (even more) here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38396197
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38395956
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38395894
If you keep this up, we're going to have to ban you. We've already had to warn you about this more than once in the past.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. That means no more swipes or name-calling, and definitely no more personal attacks.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how you call users dumb for choosing Apple and clever for wanting to sideload. Or how else do you claim there is two sides here? Pretending that Apple is protecting consumers is silly, they have repeatedly said internally the lock is for revenue alone. No claim of security protection has lasted past "wouldn't sideloaded apps be sandboxed the same as App Store apps and thus have the same security overall"? (App…
>I like how you call users dumb for choosing Apple and clever for wanting to sideload. That's clearly not what is written, don't invent a false narrative with your lack of comprehension skills. Also going to need a citation for this beauty: >"they [apple] have repeatedly said internally the lock is for revenue alone" But judging from your reading skills earlier, I don't have confidence in it being forthcoming.
Poking fun at the bad phrase. There was no dumb in that choice.
The reality is the author dismissed Apple supporting side loading as fundamentally impossible in a thread talking about how Apple should offer more choices.
Calling users dumb for wanting side loading on Apple is ridiculous on its face. Users didn't choose Apple to side load they might have sacrificed side loading to get Apple but calling them dumb for making a choice is ridiculous.
Apple makes $86 billion from the App Store a year. That is a quarter of their revenue from iPhone sales. No shot a 25% increase in revenue with phenomenally higher margins isn't of extreme importance to Apple.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't bother, Apple fanboys are delusional. They would willingly slave themselves for the Apple religion. And they generally are extremely dishonest, which is why they want "protection". It easy to see wrong doing everywhere when yourself are operating in a bad way most of the time. I think somehow Apple found a way to group both limited intellects and intellectually dishonest. This way the second group can pry on th…
This is about as naive as your other posts. If you need to strawman the opposing point of discussion. Then you don't have an argument, instead you're the fanatic.
You are the one defending the indefensible behavior of a trillion-dollar corporation but I'm the fanatic.
I don't need to strawman; you are the one misrepresenting the malware situation in Android. You are also the one misrepresenting people requesting that a corporation let them do what they wish with a device they own. If anything, you are the strawman master.
On top of the strawman nonsense, you attack me as naive. You said the previous poster he had the ego of a dictator. If there is someone who needs to rely on something else than reasonable argument (personal attacks) that's clearly you. It's rather funny because you illustrate exactly the point I alluded to before: intellectual dishonesty.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I like how you call users dumb for choosing Apple and clever for wanting to sideload. That's clearly not what is written, don't invent a false narrative with your lack of comprehension skills. Also going to need a citation for this beauty: >"they [apple] have repeatedly said internally the lock is for revenue alone" But judging from your reading skills earlier, I don't have confidence in it being forthcoming.
Poking fun at the bad phrase. There was no dumb in that choice. The reality is the author dismissed Apple supporting side loading as fundamentally impossible in a thread talking about how Apple should offer more choices. Calling users dumb for wanting side loading on Apple is ridiculous on its face. Users didn't choose Apple to side load they might have sacrificed side loading to get Apple but calling them dumb for m…
This guy is a dangerous zealot. He attacked your "reading comprehension" because he doesn't have any real argument that is not about protecting their trillion dollars master no matter what.
It's a bit unreal seeing people like him exist everywhere.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
If any amount of money was meaningless to apple, they wouldn't be where they are today.
That's not how money or business works. Opportunity costs means that many "amounts of money" can be meaningless to the business depending on the activity to get to them, the negatives (from processing hasles like lawsuits to PR and brand image), their overall strategy and focus, and other such concerns. A company at Apple's level absolutely doesn't see "frozing $100K" from random devs (or the amount that would result…
From the large corps I've worked with - those that made $B in revenue - they do everything to reach rev goals they told investors they would reach, every $100k counts. If you think a large corp is throwing away money, think twice.
Re: Developer account removed by Apple
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how money or business works. Opportunity costs means that many "amounts of money" can be meaningless to the business depending on the activity to get to them, the negatives (from processing hasles like lawsuits to PR and brand image), their overall strategy and focus, and other such concerns. A company at Apple's level absolutely doesn't see "frozing $100K" from random devs (or the amount that would result…
The irrationality is the problem. $100k is nothing. The loss of developer good will is worth far more than that. But Apple doesn't care, because it relies on shady apps for a significant part of App Store income. So the decision is "Do we make significant money from addictive games and scams and tolerate the occasional false positive that nukes a legitimate developer? Or do we spend significant resources curating an…
"The loss of developer good will is worth far more than that."
This has been going on for a long time.
Developer good will lost? Then they can just go to the other iOS store to sell there apps, oops.