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

Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#101

Post by thelopa »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #51
Angostura wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it was an iPad with a SIM snd somehow the carrier SIM has gone bad. Pop a new SIM in and reactivate?

Yes, that's got to be a carrier thing. iPads do not "require activation," and many iPads are wifi-only. I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but I am extremely skeptical it is a problem caused by Big Bad Evil Apple doing Big Bad Evil things.

I think you are mistaken. Activation is unrelated to cellular service. Activation is an anti-theft feature. E.g. even M1 macs are subject to activation and activation lock.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987

Replacing the sim card in a device immediately triggers activation (e.g. to stop someone from using a stolen, passwordless device as their own). So, if the sim went bad, it seems plausible that the device might need to re-activate.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#102

Post by wmf »

3grdlurker wrote: post #58

Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why Apple’s App Store policies are bad? The argument that always comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses, and how they design their platforms? Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how…

Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed.

Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#103

Post by kmeisthax »

ctdonath wrote: post #92
pojntfx wrote: post #5

It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30% of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal with Apple, be unable to install…

I’m paying for a walled garden. I own the hardware, and with it bought software which I want to aggressively maintain it. If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. Don’t compel them to satisfy your whim via police power of the state.

Walled gardens are also legally enforced by police power of the state. Otherwise, Epic would just distribute their own jailbreaks and tell Fortnite users to jailbreak their phones.

Furthermore, I find it really frustrating how my desire for the ability to go a little bit outside of certain walled gardens is construed as me demanding you go outside the walled garden at all times. 95% of the walled garden is perfectly fine - it's the 5% of apps that won't fit inside of it that are the problem.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#104

Post by em-bee »

gsich wrote: post #98
em-bee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you expect someone to pay for a windows license just so they can run itunes just to reactivate a device they own? seems a bit much

No need to pay, you can run Windows 10 without activation. I think it was either 90 or 180 days, so should be plenty of time to recover the device.

oh, i wasn't aware of that. good to know

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#105

Post by saagarjha »

ehutch79 wrote: post #99
Barrin92 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps. Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong toolbar? It's like the reverse 'but think of the children', and pe…

there are absolutely controls you can turn on for macs that will do that. I have locked down employees computers because they couldn't be trusted.

That’s the point! There are no similar controls in iPhone, you just get the locked experience by default.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#106

Post by ballenf »

Barrin92 wrote: post #87
jsperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.

I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps. Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong toolbar? It's like the reverse 'but think of the children', and pe…

I'm always amazed in the land of the free and a forum for people who build tech products that so many people favor taking away your right to create a product and sell it on your own terms. I'm just not comfortable forcing Apple to change the software on its phones (relaxing app signing) or forcing it to distribute someone else's software for free.

While I don't like the Apple tax, I really don't like the idea that forcing Apple to open up its App Store is the right solution.

I wish we could start with these ideas first:

- pricing transparency: force the UI to show exactly how much of every transaction goes to Apple. We already do this with many other taxes, so I don't see it as an intrusion.

- first sale doctrine fully applied: force Apple to allow users to install any OS they want on an iPhone. Prohibit locking, etc. But if you choose to use Apple's OS, then you have to accept their policies. This same policy should apply to game consoles and other hardware. (And this does contradict slightly my above point about app signing, but I'd argue that letting people use hardware unfettered is different than letting them use your software unfettered. But it's an admittedly weak and flawed compromise.)

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#107

Post by heavyset_go »

MikeUt wrote: post #63
jsperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.

> compromise This is not an inherent compromise. iPhones could be just as safe and issue-free if they were rootable, just as cars don't need hoods welded shut to prevent their owners from messing with the engine. If you find the compromise acceptable, simply don't root your phone.

To extend this analogy further, people share, load and modify ECU firmware dumps for their cars, too.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#108

Post by pmontra »

akmarinov wrote: post #23
protomyth wrote: post #6

Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store. This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?

It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.

Not even Apple can sell devices that don't do Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc. At least not as many as they are selling now.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#109

Post by syrrim »

nemothekid wrote: post #12
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #4

A few years ago, I got my grandmother an iPad. She used it for years until she passed. I just powered it on yesterday and it now "requires activation", which won't complete via WiFi. All the data on it, e.g. pictures, is now inaccessible. It is, effectively, bricked. I'll sooner eat a pile of shit before I ever touch or recommend another Apple product again. Edit: To clarify, it was never locked or password protected…

"Apple won't let me to break into an iPad I don't own" isn't as bad as you are trying to make it seem. In other words, why are you surprised that you can't hack into an Apple device?

Are you aware of the concept of inheritance?

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#110

Post by eropple »

spideymans wrote: post #62
random5634 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the major features yes. On iOS apps are totally prohibited from their own payment flows in app / on platform - it's completely banned. This is extremely noticeable in a couple of areas. Subscription - you get an email from apple BEFORE renewal, and can easily cancel subscriptions - all located in one place - no phone calls or other stupidity (try cancelling a myheritage account by contrast!) They have…

>The prompting for purchase and trials is VERY explicit. So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month- I mean, the scams and tricks are endless off app store. I really wish government or credit card companies would impose rules on merchants that prohibit this kind of behaviour. It's very easy t…

I agree with your general point, but I raised my eyebrows at this:

> So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month

Out of curiosity, I went incognito (as I'm an NYT subscriber) and clicked that banner just now, and it says it's $1/week for a year, not a month ($4.25/week afterwards). I'm pretty sure I've been seeing that offer for years, too.

Maybe you're in a different cohort or something but that's a weird and antagonistic way to treat a customer that's going to drop people out of a funnel so I'm wondering if you're misremembering.

Post reply on HN