Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers • Hacker News Board

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#511

Post by whywhywhywhy » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #487

pjc50 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. All the free market logic assumes that barriers to entry are low. They are incredibly high and the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution. There's basically room for two smartphone ecosystems. Microsoft/Nokia couldn't sustain a third. Android-adjacent things like Amazon Fire and Tizen have little market share. > factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing Ironic…

Laws need to be revised to make it easier to remix off the shelf components. I argue, default compulsory license fees should be a feature of copyright and patent. A 'reasonable' cap to the maximum it costs to reuse an existing device / idea. (Also that it should be a LOT tougher to patent things, maybe 1 patentable thing per expert examiner's work week, which would be the cost of filing for a patent. That only indivi…

Remixing off the shelf isn't really the issue if you want to compete, it's the fact that you wont even be able to buy the competitive components at all because they wont sell you them even if you ask and have the money.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#512

Post by parineum » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #458

microtherion wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in a way it's a rather good argument. But if you take it to its conclusion, if Apple finds it harder and harder to monetize the App Store through fees, then THEY might eventually decide to switch to privacy violating advertising as their revenue strategy.

At that point consumers would be free to make a choice to switch away from Apple if they value their privacy enough. The problem right now is that Apple is 'abusing' the fact that privacy-aware consumers are drawn to their platform to charge onerous fees to app developers. They're leveraging their (de facto) monopoly on high-end mobile privacy-aware devices to restrict competition in mobile app fee charging. It's tha…

> They're leveraging their (de facto) monopoly

If it's necessary to put a qualifier on the word "monopoly", it's a great indication that it's not a monopoly.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#513

Post by rpdillon » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:12 PM UTC

8fingerlouie wrote: post #169

wavemode wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Samsung is using their market position to stifle competitors, then by all means yes.

Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ? Anybody (possibly except Epic Games) can develop and publish on the App Store. There's a cost associated with it, which in Apples case is 30% (or whatever you negotiate apparently). If you play by the rules, you can keep doing that as long as you like. If you rent a shop in a shopping mall, there will be costs associated with that as well, and it's almost…

> Sideloading is usually a very bad idea in this day and age

You've been tricked into thinking that you're not qualified to select software to run on devices you purchase. I wouldn't hand over control of your digital life to Apple so readily.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#514

Post by parineum » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:13 PM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #477

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At that point consumers would be free to make a choice to switch away from Apple if they value their privacy enough. Consumers who spent hundreds of dollars in Appstore purchases and have 10+ years of photos, movies and data tied to Apple won't just suddenly leave all that and move to Android and start their digital life from scratch. And the young consumers just starting their digital lives, are jumping in the ecos…

And switching to Android, which is only technically not the only alternative, doesn't exactly help privacy anyways.

The alternative is not having a smart phone.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#515

Post by mock-possum » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #376

dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

The entire business model that monetises user data, where the actual customer is the advertiser, users do not vote with their wallets, and honest competition is impossible because no one can compete with free, should simply not exist and maybe regulated against—especially in social media, where it incentivises algorithms to push aggravating content in the name of engagement and ad views. Whether Apple should be regul…

What’s weird for me is that users can effectively vote with their wallets - they can refuse to engage with ‘freemium’ or ad-supported media - and they can refuse to consume ads when presented, refuse to engage with calls to action, refuse to pay for products advertised to them in this way.

Have you ever been shown a mobile ad, and thought to yourself, “this is a good thing, this is an honest description of a product that I am eager to spend money on?” No, on the contrary, they’re the subject of universal ridicule… and yet they persist. Why? How? Who is paying for them? How are they generating revenue? How can that be worth anything? Where is the value coming from?

So even though I delete apps that force you to sit through ads, and I refuse to be led by ads towards spending money - even though I am in effect ‘voting’ by doing so - it doesn’t seem to have any impact. The ads keep happening anyway, I can only assume because they do actually work on other less canny consumers.

Is the problem really an inability to vote with our wallets? Or is the problem a complete lack of media/marketing literacy, that leads the credulous to engage with ad slop, against their own best interests?

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#516

Post by devmor » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:16 PM UTC

hks0 wrote: post #259

devmor wrote: post #256

Earlier 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

Well yeah, they can and do say that.

My stance and others that align with me are that ownership in trade is an inalienable right and their statement should be challenged.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#517

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

basisword wrote: post #488

dcow wrote: post #270

> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way an…

It's a good argument but I'm not sure it'll hold up. Apple went to great lengths to clamp down on privacy-abusing advertising via ATT. I think Facebook have been quite open about the huge revenues it cost them alone.

In the short-term, this happened. Facebook recovered though, as what Apple actually accomplished was destroying all of the smaller providers who didn't have huge first party datasets for modelling.

It's similar to the notion that killing third party cookies is basically a gift to Facebook and Google.

And lets be honest here, Apple themselves are not subject to ATT and (potentially coincidentally) have a rather large ads business. Many moons ago Apple suddenly started becoming the number 1 provider of installs on Apple as they claimed credit for the click to install which is also bonkers.

One can agree that targeted advertising is bad but also note that Apple made these "privacy focused" decisions for commercial rather than idealistic reasons.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#518

Post by FirmwareBurner » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #514

thfuran wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And switching to Android, which is only technically not the only alternative, doesn't exactly help privacy anyways.

The alternative is not having a smart phone.

No, the world is not either smartphone or no-smarthone, it's not binary. The correct alternative is not having anti consumer vendor lock-in practices in smartphones.

We had PWA even before we had locked in app-stores but then Apple saw the dollar signs of locking people and app devs in their graded and gave up on PWA and doubled down on draconian lock-in.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#519

Post by thfuran » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:18 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #285

hks0 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, the point is that we should not allow such contractual arrangements. You buy the software, you should own it. Regulations are often required to enforce this.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that we shouldn't allow that sort of contract at all, but it should be considered fraudulent to call it selling or what the customer does buying. If you're only offering limited right of use subject to conditions and restrictions, then you're offering something else entirely. And the limitations should be required to be clearly conveyed before money is exchanged.

Re: Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers

#520

Post by rpdillon » Tue, Jul 01, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

8fingerlouie wrote: post #190

wavemode wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Explain stifle, or more specifically how Apple is doing that ? I wrote a comment about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44426128#44427725 > You may not like the price associated with it, which is what most of these complaints are about, the fact that Apple scoops up 30% of recurring subscriptions created through the App Store as well. People tend to forget that running your own infrastructure is also…

> Then don't do it. Who exactly is forcing you to? The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected. > Simply having a link in my app to a page where someone pays through Stripe instead of through Apple Payments, But it hardly stifles…

> The problem is, when the option exists it opens up an attack vector that I need to defend against, as it will surely be exploited by malware at some point, downloading an app when you visit some scam site, and boom you're now infected.

This is completely fabricated. I've been using Android for more than 15 years, and this has never happened, ever. Nothing even close to it. To be clear, you're advocating to take away people's freedom to install software of their choosing in order to mitigate a hypothetical security problem. It's not a good trade.