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

Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 667 posts

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#631

Post by ptd »

IntelMiner wrote: post #626
eanzenberg wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think aapl needs google's "billions"? No, they're making way more money selling "privacy" and building a solid search engine to replace google is high priority for them.

>and building a solid search engine to replace google is high priority for them. What are you basing that on, exactly? Apple doesn't exist in a market simply to "be" in that market. That's why they jettisoned things like their Airport routers

Why does apple exist in a market? Say phones or laptops? Not calling you out, genuinely curious to your opinion.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#632

Post by zimpenfish »

driverdan wrote: post #291
blhack wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because lots of people still think that if you own a piece of hardware, you should be able to run whatever code you want on it.

Of course you should. It's my device, I should be able to do what I want with it. The default should be protected but root should be available.

> The default should be protected but root should be available.

How do you protect against that backdoor being used by hostiles?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#633

Post by ilikehurdles »

drilldrive wrote: post #432
ilikehurdles wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, they also paid Mozilla tons to be the default search engine on Firefox and that didn’t work out so well for Firefox.

How so? They allowed the license to expire?

Because Google.com nagged people to install chrome for years. Firefox’s home page was effectively an ad for chrome.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#634

Post by simonh »

mrep wrote: post #423
simonh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing new about this model, of selling a device with optional software bought later from the vendor. It’s how games consoles have worked, from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo Switch, even cars work this way with optional after market ‘performance packs’ that are just software tweaks. VTech used sell toys like mini laptops for children, with little software ‘disks’ you could buy with educational games on the…

True, but to be fair, phones are a way bigger market and 1 of the practically only 2 operating systems is doing it which is why it is such a huge complaint. I don't complain about my Xbox because I can buy a computer that can run most the same games where I can do anything I want (not to say I don't want to be able to do anything but phones are a much bigger market with only 1 real competitor which does allow you to…

There have been many, many other competitors, some of which had huge market share to start with. The market decided this, not Apple. There has been plenty to choose from over the years. Consumers chose the options that won, because those are the ones they want.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but to paraphrase in saying there is ‘only one’ choice in the market that is truly open you seem to be arguing that any second option ought to be too. That competition on openness is more important that there even being a closed option at all. Surely that would give consumers less choice though, not more?

But as I have pointed out, there have been plenty of other options and every now and then a ‘truly’ open phone comes out again.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#635

Post by abtinf »

xvector wrote: post #621
abtinf wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merely leaking it would be of no consequence. They could even do it directly as a blog post from their security team. Attempting blackmail would be the trouble.

> Attempting blackmail would be the trouble. The point being made is that the blackmail is unsaid and implicit.

I’m not an expert, but unsaid blackmail seems like a contradiction.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#636

Post by simon_acca »

ajross wrote: post #418
simon_acca wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I signed no contract. True, but you entered in a contract with the app developer and they are bound by one with Apple. Apple’s right to act on iOS devices is in virtue of them being a service provider to google more than the company that sold you your phone

> you entered in a contract with the app developer ... wat? No, I didn't. It's easy to imagine I "must have", but in fact there's no signature, no negotiation nor in many cases any consideration. Ah, but you say: I must have signed a contract to use the app store that I downloaded the app from, and that must constrain me to honor the terms of the app that I downloaded, which is constrained by Apple's contract with th…

Go to the app store, search for “youtube”, scroll down, click on “license agreement”.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#637

Post by TheOperator »

_bxg1 wrote: post #21
dombili wrote: post #4

I don't want to pass judgment on whether Google (or in the previous case, Facebook) was in the wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that Apple wields so much power on what software their phones can run after it sells them. You may very well think that they're using their power sparingly and benevolently, but who is to say that will be the case next time around?

I used to feel that way, and I used Android for years for that reason. But since switching to an iPhone, I've found that what I really want from my phone is not a totally open platform, but a tool that's simple, secure, and effective. Something I don't have to mess with, something I can trust to do its job and respect my privacy and be pleasant to interact with. They tried going that direction a bit with macOS when t…

There was a point around the iphone 5/galaxy s4 era I really wondered what the hell Apple was doing releasing only a 4" phone, with an os roughly equivalent to androids, with less flexibility in what you could do with the device, at marked up prices. Nowadays I appreciate the things like the relative privacy, far superior OS support, and the more locked down security. I still buy Android but that's largely for value reasons. If cost was no object I would buy iPhone.

>Workstations need to be totally user-controlled,

I believe chromeOS is a good example of a stripped down less tunable OS that works great and is perfect for inexpensive Atom based machines that still have good build quality, battery life, and displays while being simple to use.

I believe trying to push the "store" model to desktops smacks of a solution that generates a lot of $$$ for M$ and Apple in search of a problem.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#638

Post by zimpenfish »

gojomo wrote: post #627
xenadu02 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how many people have to keep explaining this to you. "Contractor" is a term of art that has specific meaning with regard to employment and contract law. You're using what is known as a "cute trick". Judges are rarely amused by "cute tricks". Like a Sovereign Citizen believer you can keep claiming to be correct all the way to a loss in court, followed by denied appeal after denied appeal.

Separate from tax and employment regulation, ‘contractor’ is also plain language meaning “someone under contract”. If these people weren’t paid what they were promised, they could sue for breach-of-contract. There’s no trickery here: that’s the ordinary legal meaning, and it is those who insist on only the far narrower regulatory/tax ‘contractor’ category who are playing semantic tricks. It doesn't matter how many pe…

> Compare this account from a reporter at VentureBeat – who also happens to be a member of the California State Bar

Not since 2007 - http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/215049

And his CV suggests he only practiced any law at all between 2001 and 2004 - http://www.jhorwitz.com/jhresume.pdf

Disingenuous of both him and you to claim he has any authority to speak from a legal point of view on this, really, no?

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#639

Post by landryraccoon »

aasasd wrote: post #601
landryraccoon wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge making an HTTP GET request and then receiving a document does not involve agreeing to any TOS, implicitly or otherwise. If the server didn’t want to send the data over an authenticated channel, then why does it send the data?

I'm pretty sure that a server, being a stupid piece of inanimate junk, is unable to enter any agreements or disagreements. In contrast, people, being endowed with free will supported by the ability to reason, need to apply said will and reason when directing actions of pieces of junk, so as to follow the same procedures of inter-party conduct as in direct interaction. Since a web server, by its primary mode of operat…

> Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request, it follows that the duty of choice lies with the client.

Sorry, why isn't it the duty of choice the server owner, who chooses to put the server online in the first place? What exactly are these rules you think exist? This is the first time I've ever heard of them.

> Since a web server, by its primary mode of operation, does indeed more or less indiscriminately send replies to whomever makes a request,

This is completely false. The server owner can authenticate GET requests and return an unauthorized response if the client is not permitted to access the document. We are not talking about a situation where a hacker attempts to brute force a password or gain unauthorized access to a server. If the server is on the internet serving anonymous GET requests with no authentication the reasonable assumption is that anyone is permitted to access the data.

Re: Apple blocks Google from running its internal iOS apps

#640

Post by Zanni »

landryraccoon wrote: post #582
aasasd wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gives it to everyone who asks Yeah nah, that's where the concept of agreements comes in. You walk up to Fes Boock and say: ― I want to have business with Fes Boock. ― Fes Boock will have business with you if you promise to not stab Fes Boock in the back. ― I give my word to not stab Fes Boock in the back. Turns out, this thing is so valuable, it's supported by law everywhere that I know of, in multiple forms, inclu…

To my knowledge making an HTTP GET request and then receiving a document does not involve agreeing to any TOS, implicitly or otherwise. If the server didn’t want to send the data over an authenticated channel, then why does it send the data?

My mailbox opens and closes for my mailman to collect outgoing mail and deposit incoming mail. But anyone can open it. That doesn't mean I want them to, or that they are allowed to. But if my mailbox doesn't want to allow access to private information, then why does it open for unauthorized individuals? Because physically securing it would be a pain in the ass, most people are honest, and if I can keep my mail safe through force of law and social contract, that's easier for everyone, including legitimate users of my mailbox (myself and my mailman).
Post reply on HN