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

Apple vs. the "Free Market"

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#141

Post by johannes1234321 »

rchaud wrote: post #81
areoform wrote: post #39

> Tumblr still remains heavily moderated and heavily censored. Why? Because Apple kept kicking Tumblr out of the App Store on the basis that it contained sexual material, and without Apple users, Tumblr was dead in the water > Apple claims this is merely a matter of "editorial standards," no different from a bookstore deciding not to shelve pornography. The difference is that in this case, Apple can block you from pa…

While the examples are all valid, the restrictions don't apply on mobile Safari. Why do corporations and devs continue to accept a share cropper role by paying Apple to host native apps? FirefoxOS had the right idea, make the browser the principal gateway for applications. It was a decade ahead of its time, but the mobile web is now at a level where native apps aren't needed for the most part.

Way better tracking. Getting ad/trakcing blockers for apps is a lot harder than on the browser.

Also an app can observe things while in the background (with a cat and mouse game on how much vendors allow)

And for broaden the tracking they can still open the browser from the app transferring some unique id, thus tying browser cookies to the app user.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#142

Post by talldayo »

vundercind wrote: post #110
katzinsky wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a problem on Linux because instead of force you have a small group of maintainers who the users are able to outsource the decision making to. There are other ways to do this which work much much better and don't constrain the user's freedom.

Fine and dandy until half the software I want and/or need to run requires a root kit or otherwise dangerous access and the alternative is “don’t get to do that thing” where “that thing” may include stuff like communicating with clients or a job interview or whatever. Short of legislation (please! Please just outlaw shitty behavior like this!) you need a platform too big to ignore that prohibits the worst behavior, or…

Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairytales, and that we repeat them as an axiomatic comfort and not a truth.

Similar problem pervades with Apple. They have no written obligation to protect you, they've been caught lying about security at the request of larger entities than them. They have no technical obligation to provide a secure experience; no GrapheneOS equivalent exists for iPhone, and Apple sues researchers that attempt to dissect the production build of iOS. They cooperate with governmental bodies worldwide and cannot fend-off state-sponsored attacks even when thousands of personnel are targeted. Default programs like iMessage, Facetime and iCloud Mail are all vulnerable to zero-click exploits. The App Store regularly approves trojan horse variety malware masquerading as brands people trust. Apple's platform security is a veritable trainwreck.

If you liken Apple's approach as the diametric opposite of Open Source security, then they are the perfect example of why this mindset fails. There are no half-measures with security, when someone locks your room without giving you the key it's not for your protection. Lord only knows people will argue that the cell door makes them feel safer though. Tall tales, and all that.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#143

Post by marxisttemp »

katzinsky wrote: post #86
marxisttemp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t say all of the privacy changes or even the majority of them are to ensure lock-in, but they have certainly been using their privacy stance as a pretext for lock-in.

If Apple cared about privacy ssh would be well supported OOTB and you'd be able to build your apps from the source. There's no way to do this, even if you pay all the fees push notifications won't work unless you publish to the app store and that will get rejected for being a duplicate.

Like all corporations, Apple only cares about making a profit. Their business model let them implement much stronger privacy guarantees than their competitors, and this differentiation has been a profitable avenue for them. But ultimately if there’s any lock-down they can get away with (i.e. without affecting their profits either directly or via fines and legislation) they’ll try it, and privacy/security misfeatures are a great way to couch these regressions without appearing directly hostile.

That being said, I don’t think Apple’s privacy stance is all hot air, they publish plenty of white papers on their infrastructure. I mostly think they’re greedy and don’t mind harming the user and developer experience to ensure they get their cut from every transaction that occurs inside their ecosystem.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#144

Post by WillAdams »

talldayo wrote: post #103
WillAdams wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, there aren't many hardware examples which allow installing an arbitrary OS, esp. if one has specific hardware requirements. I prefer machines with a Wacom EMR stylus, and it's simply not possible to find a device which: - supports the same Wacom EMR technology as my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ and Kindle Scribe - has a high-resolution display - decent battery life - tablet form-factor I currently compromise…

I used to use a Surface Pro 3 on Linux just fine, I really don't think the hardware requirements are an issue. And circumstantially, Linux has upstream Wacom device drivers that still supports hardware from 2003 (at least my CTE 430).

Surface Pro 3 is NTrig, not Wacom EMR.

I'd be glad of a guide to installing Linux on a Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#145

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

dmm wrote: post #124
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not. This has been established for quite some time. You’re not forced to purchase Apple. If you like Apple, you know you’re getting the ecosystem that comes with it. Honestly the App Store is already garbage with the heavy amount of moderation it has. I can’t imagine what a cesspool it would be without that oversight. Admittedly, I’m a fan of this approach. I like it. If I didn’t, I just wouldn’t buy Apple pro…

> You’re not forced to purchase Apple. Smartphones are necessary to interact with the modern world. This level of importance opens them to regulation. Just because Android is an alternative doesn't change this. My town has two hospitals. The existence of some sort of choice doesn't mean hospitals should be able to be unregulated. "Don't blame me I voted for kodos!" > Honestly the App Store is already garbage with the…

I did not argue against Apple being regulated. But the “how” and “to what extent” are very important details.

You want to force them to allow 3rd party app stores? That’s fine. But theirs should still be the default. Regulate how hard it is to swap them out if that bothers you, but their defaults are the best choice for most technically-inept users.

I’m open to alternate app stores. But I also think Apple is fine the way it is. It’s a premium brand with opinionated design and if you don’t like that, there are more than 100 alternative phones spread across at LEAST 5 major phone manufacturers.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#146

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

pointlessone wrote: post #108
adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do not. This has been established for quite some time. You’re not forced to purchase Apple. If you like Apple, you know you’re getting the ecosystem that comes with it. Honestly the App Store is already garbage with the heavy amount of moderation it has. I can’t imagine what a cesspool it would be without that oversight. Admittedly, I’m a fan of this approach. I like it. If I didn’t, I just wouldn’t buy Apple pro…

The issue is there’s no choice. There’s Apple, Google, Samsung and there is utter trash. You just can not buy a good phone that you can fully own. You can’t even buy a mediocre phone you fully own.

So now we’re going to regulate how “good” phones have to be? That’s silly. There are 100s of different phones across at least 5 different major manufacturers.

The argument of no choice is not based in reality.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#147

Post by vundercind »

talldayo wrote: post #142
vundercind wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine and dandy until half the software I want and/or need to run requires a root kit or otherwise dangerous access and the alternative is “don’t get to do that thing” where “that thing” may include stuff like communicating with clients or a job interview or whatever. Short of legislation (please! Please just outlaw shitty behavior like this!) you need a platform too big to ignore that prohibits the worst behavior, or…

Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairyta…

The need comes from a set of pragmatic concerns, current reality, and the way human systems behave.

What’s the concrete proposal here? There ain’t much in the Debian repos, for example, that’s useful to me for anything but tinkering, as far as things that make my everyday life better and easier. I’d have to bring in closed-source software and engage with a bunch of megacorps to make an open-ecosystem device do anything I care to do beyond playing with it. How is that an improvement? What do I tell my wife to do with all this? My dad? “Here, I put an open-source os on your phone, it’ll get worse battery life, much of the automation you use daily is now not available, a bunch of platform features you use are gone, most of the apps you like aren’t here, and things like notifications are probably flakier than you’re used to. Just use the web browser for everything important”?

Apple sucks. Sure, we agree. So what? The alternative is—unilaterally—largely disengaging with the benefits of computing technology in day-to-day life and waiting for the government to fix the whole shitty industry.

The appeal of Apple is I get a partial solution to the problem of every damn “legitimate” company trying to spy on me and open up back doors to my system, that I can recommend to other people in my life, and since this solution is basically the exact opposite of “become a tech hermit” people will actually do it and be glad they did it. Me included, because I don’t want to become a tech hermit (unless everyone else is also going to, in which case, yes please, very much yes).

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#148

Post by pornel »

detourdog wrote: post #129
pornel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app ecosystem is the lock-in, and creates a very high bar to entry for other players outside the Apple-Google duopoly. Note that Google has created a dependency on proprietary Google Play Services, and owns the Play Store, so even leveraging AOSP is not sufficient to overcome the barrier to entry. There are two established players. Apple can charge whatever they want, and Google can copy their strategy, because t…

Customer satisfaction is high and there are other platforms with lower bars. The high bar is the product differentiation that Apple is using.

The phones do lots of things, and a lot of them well, so overall satisfaction doesn't mean that App Store pricing is satisfactory, nor fair.

Apple forbids developers from itemizing pricing and telling users how much Apple takes, interfering with informed consumer choice.

The cut is well known on HN, but I'm not sure that most users are fully aware that they're overpaying 10x on transaction fees, and the major consequences that it's a cut of revenue and not profit — the developer takes all the risk, and needs to cover all the development costs from their part, and can be even in the red, while Apple has a guaranteed profit with a guaranteed margin from every sale. Apple can be easily making more profit than the developers themselves.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#149

Post by talldayo »

fundad wrote: post #109
tazu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do corporations and devs continue to accept a share cropper role by paying Apple to host native apps? Push notifications. That's it, and presumably why Apple waited 8 years[1] before allowing them on iOS PWAs. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/push-notifications-on-the-...

I remember companies pushing their own listening apps so they could collect more of your behavior than from podcast apps. Patreon will not pay the fee if they pull all payments from their app. It can be a player/browser app with all the instrumentation they want.

Oh hey, that's kinda like how Apple designed a proprietary undocumented Push Notification system so they can harvest your personal information as a secret accessory to the NSA and international surveillance organizations: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

Skinner: "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the third-parties that are wrong."

Post reply on HN