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

Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 208 posts

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#181

Post by JohnFen »

restore_creole_ wrote: post #174
modeless wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... with a $700+ Mac purchased from Apple, and usually a $99/yr subscription purchased from Apple, plus a network connection to Apple's servers to obtain code signing permission, which must be periodically refreshed or your code will stop running, to ensure you are never independent of Apple's ongoing approval.

I'm pretty sure you can sideload without an Apple developer account($99) but you need to reinstall the app every 7 days and you can only have 3 installed at once. The processing on refreshing the install and swapping between more than 3 apps can be automated by using desktop software like AltStore.

> but you need to reinstall the app every 7 days and you can only have 3 installed at once.

So not a realistic option, then.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#182

Post by newtritious »

smoldesu wrote: post #96
newtritious wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The working conditions are not horrifying. That’s the misinformation. The suicide rate at Foxconn when the suicide nets were installed was lower than the average at US colleges. Everything about this story is just sensationalism.

The horrifying working conditions are more of a reference to the children and political prisoners of China who are forced to work in factories for Apple suppliers.

No, you said it in reference to suicide nets. Nobody mentioned children and political prisoners before now.

Children and political prisoners may be used as forced labor in China, but pretending that has something to do with Apple in particular is more misinformation.

Apple have programs in place to try to prevent this.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#183

Post by kbenson »

tomByrer wrote: post #119
musicale wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence on the Android side doesn't seem to support this line of reasoning. There are multiple app stores on Android (including Amazon's), and sideloading is permitted, yet there is still a dispute over the platform fee rate that Google is charging for Google Play. At the end of the day, it's a dispute over money, and specifically the platform commission rate: developers want a bigger cut of the retail app price…

But like Windows having IE/Edge installed by default (& being sued for it), Google Play is the default store for Android, & 95% of public doesn't know otherwise.

To be fair (pedantic? devil's advocate?) Samsung ships all their phones with the Samsung store as well. I suspect there's a few other bit names that do similar. A great many Android users have alternative stores, some some probably use them without knowing the difference as well.

To be honest, I doubt many of them care, given all they want is apps from a trusted source, and most people probably trust Samsung if they are buying Samsung phones with specialized Android builds made by Samsung, if they even know the difference.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#184

Post by fingerlocks »

modeless wrote: post #177
fingerlocks wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you would agree it’s fair to rephrase your original post as “It’s quite possible to install native code on the device you ostensibly own unless you want ultimate device control”?

Your phrasing doesn't make sense. Whether you "want" ultimate device control or not is irrelevant because you can't have it. The relevant thing is that Apple retains ultimate control, you never have it, and Apple uses that control to extract rent. My original phrasing is correct and doesn't need to be changed. BTW I forgot to mention that the "Chromium for iOS" that you linked to is not a "non-Safari browser". It is…

No the popular belief is not correct. Perhaps the link the wrong, but you can mmap W^X and roll your own JIT, which is the only syscall preventing non-safari browsers.

> Why would anyone bother to maintain an iOS port for software that can't be practically distributed?

There is very little difference between a Mac and iOS app these days, and could be practically none at all if engineered correctly.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#185

Post by modeless »

fingerlocks wrote: post #184
modeless wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phrasing doesn't make sense. Whether you "want" ultimate device control or not is irrelevant because you can't have it. The relevant thing is that Apple retains ultimate control, you never have it, and Apple uses that control to extract rent. My original phrasing is correct and doesn't need to be changed. BTW I forgot to mention that the "Chromium for iOS" that you linked to is not a "non-Safari browser". It is…

No the popular belief is not correct. Perhaps the link the wrong, but you can mmap W^X and roll your own JIT, which is the only syscall preventing non-safari browsers. > Why would anyone bother to maintain an iOS port for software that can't be practically distributed? There is very little difference between a Mac and iOS app these days, and could be practically none at all if engineered correctly.

LOL you think it would be easy to just recompile Blink/V8 for iOS and get a browser you could actually use day-to-day? How many web browsers have you worked on? I have done several years of work on both Chromium and WebKit and I'm here to tell you that an iOS port of Blink and V8 good enough to actually use as a replacement for WebKit on iOS is going to require a huge coordinated effort of a large number of engineers, with a large ongoing maintenance cost afterward. It would probably require a ton of private APIs other than mmap W^X, too.

You're not going to be able to do it in your spare time. You probably wouldn't even be able to get a crippled and buggy version to build at all by yourself. Google's not going to invest in it for no reason while Apple expressly prohibits distribution. The only way there will ever be an alternative browser engine ported to iOS is if the EU actually follows through with forcing Apple to allow alternative browser engines on their App Store and/or alternative app stores, and Apple subsequently loses all of their inevitable appeals in court. Only then would Google (or Mozilla) be able to justify the investment.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#186

Post by dkonofalski »

smoldesu wrote: post #91
dkonofalski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is the only company that regularly audits their suppliers for exactly the complaints that you're saying are their fault. What would you have them do? And why aren't you this vociferous against Microsoft or Samsung or any other companies that use the exact same suppliers? All your posts come off as being just anti-Apple as opposed to reasoned complaints.

It's great that Apple audits themselves, but it doesn't mean much if they're repeatedly being called-out for bad working conditions. It would appear that they don't work very closely with their manufacturers, and if they do then the optics are that they're turning a blind-eye to their manufactures. You're asking me what I want them to do? I want them to stop working with people who hunt down religious minorities and…

So, in summary... you're just an anti-Apple troll. Apple does stop relationships with companies that violate their guidelines. This is objectively true and there is evidence of them severing ties with suppliers that don't fix issues found during their audits. They do claim privacy is a human right and every action they take supports that goal but that doesn't mean that they can just start doing illegal things. They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't comply with the laws of the governments in the countries that they operate in. By that standard, how are you doing business or buying any products with any company that operates in China? You're either a hypocrite or you're just selectively choosing where your unrealistic standards are applied. Are you saying you don't own any Microsoft products? Samsung products? Google products?

Apple is legitimately the only company that puts their money where their mouth is. It obviously is not far enough to satiate you (which, in my opinion is wholly unrealistic for a company with operations of that size) so I have to wonder what companies you actually do buy products from. If you use a smartphone or computer of any kind, you're just a huge hypocrite. It's fine to say that they don't go far enough but, considering that they go farther than literally any other electronics or tech company to make sure that their products are sustainable and made with fair labor, it doesn't make any sense that you would be against them to the extent that you are.

So... what type of phone and computer do you use?

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#187

Post by dkonofalski »

smoldesu wrote: post #96
newtritious wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The working conditions are not horrifying. That’s the misinformation. The suicide rate at Foxconn when the suicide nets were installed was lower than the average at US colleges. Everything about this story is just sensationalism.

The horrifying working conditions are more of a reference to the children and political prisoners of China who are forced to work in factories for Apple suppliers.

So now you're just moving the goalposts of this discussion because it's been shown that what you've said is, in fact, misinformation?

It's really fruitless to engage with you.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#188

Post by dkonofalski »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #150
treeman79 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got really serious about ending issues after bad publicity.

They are a modern multi-national corporation. They don’t care about anything until it hits their bottom line. I don’t really understand why so many commenters go out of their way to defend Apple for free here. They have a paid PR department for that.

We're not defending Apple. We're against misinformation. In the same way that people hurt the "Right to Repair" movement by claiming that Apple sues third-party repair stores merely for existing (they don't, they only sue for IP infringement), this misinformation hurts this cause because it makes it easy for people to ignore it. If you can easily disprove an accusation like this, it makes it easy to ignore other accusations coming from the same sources or surrounding the same arguments.

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#189

Post by fingerlocks »

modeless wrote: post #185
fingerlocks wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the popular belief is not correct. Perhaps the link the wrong, but you can mmap W^X and roll your own JIT, which is the only syscall preventing non-safari browsers. > Why would anyone bother to maintain an iOS port for software that can't be practically distributed? There is very little difference between a Mac and iOS app these days, and could be practically none at all if engineered correctly.

LOL you think it would be easy to just recompile Blink/V8 for iOS and get a browser you could actually use day-to-day? How many web browsers have you worked on? I have done several years of work on both Chromium and WebKit and I'm here to tell you that an iOS port of Blink and V8 good enough to actually use as a replacement for WebKit on iOS is going to require a huge coordinated effort of a large number of engineers…

Well fortunately the JIT-less work has been done already. One entitlement and a compiler flag away from being done!

https://v8.dev/docs/cross-compile-ios

Re: Apple is top funder of lobby group that says it represents small developers

#190

Post by int_19h »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #153
int_19h wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would small developers work to prop up a giant who already has so much power imbalance wrt them that they pretty much cannot do anything if it decides to, say, yank their app from the store for uncertain reasons?

> Why would small developers work to prop up a giant who already has so much power imbalance Because the alternative to fighting that power is wielding it. Coalitions are temporary alignments of interests. They're a hallmark of democracies. Their mechanics are highly selective against dogmatists; generally a good thing. Unfortunately when it comes to communities with a high concentration of purists, this knack for pr…

I see small developers profiting most from allying with big governments against both Apple and big developers.
Post reply on HN