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

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#201

Post by someonehere »

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…

Not everyone is a developer or reader of HN. Apple has evolved their software to make users safe.

I get fewer problems managing friends and family on Apple products vs Android/Microsoft products. I work in enterprise and am a lot happier managing macOS devices than PCs.

I get the whole “I own it and shouldn’t have to have it walled/leased/owned by the developer,” but the success for Apple when Jobs returned was simplifying the product lineup and making products that just work.

I agree I don’t like being locked into a hardware manufacturers box, but not everyone can build a kernel from source or use Gnome/KDE/whatever desktop manager there is out there. It should turn on, be easy to use, and be a safe experience for everyone.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#203

Post by knubie »

3grdlurker wrote: post #184
wmf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

> Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed. What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though? This really is just a story of two businesses who can’t agree with the terms of engagement: Apple requires subscription-based services to use their payment system if the services want to be available in their platform, and Librem doesn…

> What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though?

Nothing is stopping them, but the question was why Apple's policies are bad. If people need to buy a completely new device because they can't use the apps they want, then I would say those policies are bad.

They're bad for Apple because they make apps on the app store less capable or not available at all. They're bad for developers because they make it far more expensive to do business on iOS devices. And they're bad for consumers because they make apps on iOS devices more expensive, more confusing (unable to sign up / upgrade / manage account) or just plain unavailable in this case.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#204

Post by hnick »

ncw96 wrote: post #185
wvenable wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see them try to enforce that rule with banking apps...

Apple’s in-app purchase/subscription rules only apply to digital goods — not things like banks, Uber, food delivery, etc.

Where would a bitcoin exchange fall in this categorisation? I've seen BTC referred to as a digital good in some pieces.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#205

Post by random5634 »

spideymans wrote: post #134
random5634 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has focused pretty heavily on the user experience, developers be damned. I know this is not popular on HN (ie, anti-trust claims to allow devs to abuse users the way they can elsewhere). They haven't been stupid / annoying about it. You contrast their controls with those outside ios. The russian site I visit with the cookie notice, they can still track me and what am I going to do about it? So the cookie notice…

>ie, anti-trust claims to allow devs to abuse users the way they can elsewhere I can't lie. When I see companies like Match Group complaining that iOS policies prevent them from surreptitiously locking their "customers" into subscriptions[0], I can't help but chuckle. This is precisely why I bought an iPhone. 0: https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/tinder-owners-stock-tumbles-af...

Ya - if you look at list of complainers - folks running loot boxes, lock in uncancelable subscriptions etc, crazy privacy violators (Facebook). there is so much money in this though I don’t see how they don’t get political folks to force apples hand - joined by a surprising number of HN devs - the focus on what is best for user is long gone

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#206

Post by anfilt »

comex wrote: post #175
jasonjayr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect any device with general purpose computing capabilities to allow me to use those capabilities anyway I want. Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.

What if the way you want is using the App Store's payment infrastructure?

Then dont do business with that developer/company.

You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload).

Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choice to buy anything but through them. It also prevents in you from fully owning your own hardware.

So the end results they force both developers and users through them. I find the effect of not allowing side-loading even more egregious because once apple sells the phone they no longer own it.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#207

Post by anfilt »

mullingitover wrote: post #69
crazypython wrote: post #31

Any software distributed on the App Store immediately becomes nonfree software. The free software definition is linked to the end-user's freedom to modify the programs on his computers, not whether a developer can fork it. Specifically, distribution on the app store denies "The freedom to... change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."

Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.

I would hardly call it being able to run the app on a device for only 7 days before the app no longer runs not having to pay for apple. You still need a developer account to sign your app with a digital signature blessed by apple otherwise after 7 days it no longer will run.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#208

Post by silly-silly »

wvenable wrote: post #180
mullingitover wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For that you need to be registered as an iPhone Developer Program member ($99) Again, simply not true. You don't need a paid developer license for local installs, and this has been the case for a very long time.

But then the app only works on your device for 7 days.

7 days longer than you should own an idevice.

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#209

Post by pier25 »

ogre_codes wrote: post #149
bogwog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something customers discover through Librem's marketing, buy from Librem on Librem's website not using Apple's payment/account systems, and not exclusive to Apple platforms in any way. Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.

> Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can. This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store. If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them. If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%. The…

> they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store

And why is that ok?

Re: Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

#210

Post by Google234 »

anfilt wrote: post #206
comex wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the way you want is using the App Store's payment infrastructure?

Then dont do business with that developer/company. You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload). Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choi…

Yes you can. Try and sell a product at any store and demand they take a 0% cut
Post reply on HN