Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's a comment intended for the court of public opinion, not one of the law.
[flagged]
Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
291–300 of 665 posts
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no technological reason for app developers to be restricted from using other payment processors But there is a customer experience reason. As an iOS user, I very much appreciate that I can ask Apple to cancel some bullshit subscription that used to otherwise try to lock me in behind a labyrinth of added friction and timewasting. Not every problem is technological.
You are free to pay ~30% extra for your preferred customer experience. The rest of us can leverage discounted pricing. Customer Choice for the win! Also, thinking that all businesses will lock one in using friction and timewasting is not a rational argument. There are a lot of honest businesses there forced to pay the Apple Mafia's tax.
Exactly. This is the part that I dont get about Apple apologists. If one really likes paying 30% extra to Apple for privacy/security (debatable, but whatever) nobody is stopping you.
But for every one of those, there are many who might want to transact with the business directly.
FWIW, I trust Spotify equally as Apple - so if I get a Spotify subscription, I'm more than happy to get a 30% discount and deal with Spotify directly. Heck, I can do that on my MacOS (another fine product the Cupertino company makes) but when it comes to iOS - OMG, virus, malware, user privacy!!
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#293I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-…
> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it?
I suppose you have the legal right to do whatever you're able to up until people notice the problems you're causing and pass laws against it (or enforce existing ones, as is being attempted here).
Why should it be legally permissible to "sell" general purpose computing devices that are locked by the manufacturer or vendor? How does such behavior benefit society? Aren't locked down, effectively unauditable devices anathema to a free and open society? Isn't the current situation evidence enough that their existence is damaging to the concept of a free market?
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#294I'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-…
The law is complicated, its a living thing, and we're living through one of the nastier episodes of its capture in living memory. So who knows there. Its also breaking sharply on this issue in what was once a fairly high-compatibility regime of US/EU common-ish values.
So then we get to like, why do we have laws, what's the goal? And this is where you get down to brass tacks. Almost everyone will agree on three basis vectors in principle:
- aggregate prosperity - broad prosperity and security from want - individual liberty
You've got to grind through a bunch of thought on a spectrum ranging from Das Capital to Atlas Shrugged to make it really tight, but it sort of simplifies down to: pick two. Put differently, for a given raw capability and Gini-like target, you get to allocate so much liberty to which people: if you don't impose punitive taxes on wealth, it centralizes and calcifies into fungibility. Rich people buy laws. This is a super linear process.
So then it becomes about:
- would I want to be rich if it was part of a system that engineers avoidable want
- if yes, could I realistically make it into the rich group
For me the answer to one is no, and so I think we should re-impose the punitive taxes and regulations that break the backs of rich people and megacorps.
But on HN a common if not typical answer to #1 is yes, and so my appeal is: be realistic, you already missed.
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fancy lawyer or some kind of top flight ceo but I feel like "being able to cancel subscriptions" doesn't require a 30% cut off the top for apple. Also, as a customer, presumably you could choose to use apple's store.
Some vital apps will stop using apple’s store entirely if they could, it’ll proliferate
So you're saying Apple's artificial stronghold is the only reason why apps are using it. Isnt that super-duper bad look on them?
It is one thing to say "listen, people are using our product even though there's another choice" but it is another to say "if we give them a choice, nobody will use us"
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#296> We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit. Ouch. Those are some fighting words.
[flagged]
The line between law and politics is not as iron-clad as you think.
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#297Can we have links to the actual class action? Case number?
It is linked at the bottom of the article.
https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p...
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#298Living in the US, I trust Apple with securing my communications (I don't have high security needs). I don't exactly trust third party developers. So, three no need for me to use something outside of Apple's apps, unless its something that don't provide. If these apps could prove they were better, id consider them, but all these lawsuits just sound like inferior products trying to force themselves onto a platform they…
This is exactly what it is. They're trying to force Apple to design an inferior (imo) product so they can make more money.
But isnt Apple forcing an inferior product (Subscriptions API) to make more money themselves (and serving copious amounts of kool-aid for people to drink up?).
Lets be honest here - Netflix, Spotify et al are perfectly capable of running their on subscription business. They dont NEED Apple's crappy payment provider, and yet are forced to use it.
As a user you should be enraged, but here we are.
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This seems like a bad faith argument. But if you're being serious, I can buy non-nike shoes in the same way you can buy non-Apple phones. If anything, the people complaining about Apple would be upset by the lawsuit because they want to buy an iPhone despite other options being available. And in that case, the alternatives are cheaper not more expensive in the case of ethically made shoes.
When the analogy obscures more than it reveals, it ceases to be a reasoning aid, and becomes a red herring.
Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a company sells me a hardware and software package, that hardware and software is no longer the property of that company once I have exchanged my money for it. That’s really the crux of the issue. If I must abide by arbitrary rules to use the package at its full functionality, then I didn’t gain ownership of it, did I?
Can't Apple say in this case "I'm selling you this package under the condition that you accept you don't fully own it, and if you're not happy with that, don't buy it". I don't like this hypothetical (or maybe real) argument from Apple, but can't answer it either. Update; well, here's the answer to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44427725
Because you can't sign away your rights no matter how much some people wish it were true.
It doesn't matter if your gym includes a clause in their contract stating that they are not liable, even through their neglect. If they cause harm through neglect then they are liable.