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

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

proton.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 665 posts

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

#541

Post by mysteria »

andrepd wrote: post #522
mysteria wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless. A smartphone from Google or Apple is also pretty much required for certain government apps, banking…

That's an excellent point. I use Android LineageOS with no google apps. The amount of bullshit that I, a literal computer science PhD, have to put up with to somewhat avoid the more pernicious parts of the monopoly, is insane. Critical and even mandatory parts of my life (banking, government services) require me to engage with google in one way or another. Non-technical people have absolutely no hope.

I actually put up with Lineage for many years before it got so bad that I had to switch to an iPhone. Before 2020 many apps still worked fine with it. All my computers are Linux and I self host everything, but I just couldn't risk an account lockout or a broken bank app.

Honestly I wish there was a legal requirement for those services to provide full access via a relatively open platform (like a web site), not a mobile app.

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

#542

Post by pjc50 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #511
mjevans wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm. Depends what you're referring to - iPhone is indeed a closed system, by contractual arrangement, but Android isn't, and it absolutely is feasible for third party Android devices to exist. Occasionally someone does a new phone startup.

Not especially a matter of patent, just good old fashioned contract exclusivity.

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

#543

Post by thunderfork »

Ray20 wrote: post #524
like_any_other wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because not doing so harms the market and society (the article details how). Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. Ideals (e.g. "a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow") are valuable guides, and worth bearing even significant costs to keep, but they are not to be followed blindly, at any cost. > Th…

>Governments do not exist solely to enforce contracts and property rights. And it's a shame >Law and politics (should) step in when "voting with your feet/wallet" fails. No, they shouldn't. Such stepping in is always vulnerable for abuse and always leads to results worse than original failing

[dead]

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

#544

Post by spogbiper »

davidjade wrote: post #528
spogbiper wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if all you want is for your apps to come from Apple's store and your payments to go through Apple's system, you would simply continue to use only those options and allowing other people to have other options would not impact you. what you actually want is to force all developers to use Apple's distribution and payment systems, so that you can have every app and service from any provider delivered via your chosen mech…

Except, what happens when apps get removed from the iOS App Store and moved to another store for distribution? If people want to continue or need to use those apps then they would have to use these other app stores. What if those apps moved to other stores so they can skirt Apple's review and other consumer-friendly restrictions? How is that better for consumers that use Facebook, Insta, etc... for them to have apps…

A) this has not happened on Android, where 3rd party stores and side loading have always been possible

B) if people truly value the Apple lock down system, they will not use applications that don't comply with the lock down system

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

#545

Post by danans »

jrflowers wrote: post #257
danans wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I routinely buy printer toner and ink from companies that are not my printer's manufacturer. Where did you get the idea that it isn't possible to do so?

https://gizmodo.com/hp-printers-drm-update-block-third-party...

Didn't realize HP was still up to those tricks. I've used Brother for a while and no issues with 3p ink/toner.

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

#546

Post by reedlaw »

swat535 wrote: post #538
Validark wrote: post #529

I'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?

How is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?

Amazon charges 15% for physical media, including software [1]. Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable.

1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...

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

#547

Post by wavemode »

al_borland wrote: post #411
wavemode wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always a customer experience reason. Every anticompetitive company that has ever existed has benefited from the customer experience of everything being in one place and coming from one company. Unfortunately, "my product benefits from being anticompetitive" is not a valid justification for anticompetitive practices.

I struggle to paint a company with a minority marketshare, after having first mover advantage, as anticompetitive. That said, their argument that the payment policies disproportionately impact apps trying to create sustainable business models that don’t monetize user data is a compelling one that I very much sympathize with. I’m a Proton subscriber, but I went through their website, just because I tend to do that for…

Anticompetitive practices don't mean that you have a monopoly. In fact people often get this wrong - having a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself. What's illegal is using one's market position to prevent other companies from being able to compete in a market. Whether that market position is 100% or 10%, what matters is that it's significant enough for you to pressure other companies out of the market.

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

#548

Post by pjc50 »

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…

I don't think it's so much patent or copyright as iPhone sits on a huge stack of technology which is proprietary by contract as well. It's very, very vertically integrated.

New Android startups appear now and then. The sort of thing that's achievable with a few tens of millions of dollars of funding. But Android as a whole represents a huge pile of work .. sitting on top of Google Play Services and the App Store, as we can see by the relative non-success of Amazon Fire.

(I was actually involved in the development of a phone-like handset device that was built around phone SOMs from Sierra Wireless. The first minimum order for assembly was ten units, scaling to a thousand after alpha test.)

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

#549

Post by DidYaWipe »

SkiFire13 wrote: post #437
DidYaWipe wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet." No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopol…

> They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store Which is also the only allowed way to run software on 58% of US smartphones? > Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon I could agree with Google, but how are Meta and Amazon gatekeepers of the internet? Especially _more than Apple_

So what? Controlling how many fart apps are available on its platform does not make Apple a gatekeeper to any part of the Internet. Apple does not funnel Web traffic into its properties.

Think it through: Amazon dominates shopping-search results. It easily swamps any other shopping portal or indie vendor. So it is a de facto gatekeeper to a huge portion of online shopping. You're citing Apple's alleged 58% of phone-platform share as making it a gatekeeper to the Internet? Amazon is actually an Internet-based entity with huge dominance in its field.

Meanwhile Meta (Facebook) IS the Internet for a large (less tech-savvy) portion of the public. Akin to when AOL slapped Internet access onto its platform.

Apple controls its app store. Is it douchey as hell to developers? Yep. Has it antagonized governments and flouted legal rulings? Yep. Has it lied about App Store search? Yep.

But it is not an Internet gatekeeper or a monopoly.

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

#550

Post by DidYaWipe »

Nevermark wrote: post #398
DidYaWipe wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet." No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopol…

Try shipping a web browser not based on Apple’s browser functionality on iOS. See how free of gatekeeping the internet is.

How is that gatekeeping? Does Webkit prevent you from visiting certain sites, or funnel you to others?

No.

And the browser-engine ban is being lifted; something that sounded good at first, until you realize that Chrome is already a cancer on the Web that is only held back to the dominance of Safari on mobile. Cheerleading for a total takeover by Chrome isn't smart if you think it through.

Post reply on HN