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

91–100 of 665 posts

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

#91

Post by elliotec »

ronsor wrote: post #48
Workaccount2 wrote: post #39

I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash. Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even…

> - Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage. Yes, people in the EU use WhatsApp, by Meta & Zuckerberg , and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.

A lot of people, in Austria at least, have moved to signal in my experience. My communities in the US and Austria have trended toward adoption of Signal with very few holdovers between messages and WhatsApp, some partly due to my pressure but overall it’s just getting away from the BS of the alts

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

#92

Post by whstl »

_benton wrote: post #66
whstl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? In their own machines they can do whatever they want. Once they sell it to you, not anymore.

Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.

I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws.

What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society.

I actually desire my country to intervene and change laws forcing Apple give me that control.

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

#93

Post by MaxPock »

I was curious about the suit by proton because I'm a user until I read authoritarian this democracy that . Proton wants us to believe that corporations should be above nation states and national interests. If country X deems a certain App as a security risk, it is not the work of apple or some vague state department funded organization to protest .

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

#94

Post by palata »

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #24

Apple and Proton are two companies that I personally like, but the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store is an argument in bad faith. Even if Apple allowed other app stores or payment methods, that would not have stopped Facebook and Google from capitalizing on user data to sell ads and manipulate public opinion. They would give their pro…

> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform?

Not if you effectively have a monopoly. If there were plenty of (relevant) other app stores, Apple wouldn't be able to tax 30% on every app. The only reason they can is that developers don't have a choice: there are far too many Apple users to ignore, and the only way to sell them an app is through the Apple Store.

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

#95

Post by ryoshoe »

crazygringo wrote: post #56
cess11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?

Why wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.

Why does Apple's global marketshare matter when the suit is being brought to US courts where Apple holds the majority of the market

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

#96

Post by whstl »

Velorivox wrote: post #77
_benton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.

Exactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. I…

I'm all for corporations "trying to get theirs" if it benefits the rest of society.

iPhones are a premium product and they don't have a natural right to 30% of transactions going through it if the participants don't want Apple to know about it.

> It’s the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought

That describes what you and _benton are advocating. "If I can't have the phone be the way I want, no one can".

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

#97

Post by ghaff »

danaris wrote: post #69
Workaccount2 wrote: post #39

I don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash. Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even…

This is hopelessly exaggerated and bad-faith. First of all, when Apple created iMessage, there was no possible way for them to predict that friend groups would use it as a reason to treat members of their groups poorly due to using Android phones. Second of all, Apple did not deliberately make interacting with non-iMessage users in group chats "look like trash" in order to exclude them. Apple went out of its way to m…

I'm in a frequently-used group chat in which some people apparently have Android phones and others use iPhones. It works perfectly well.

If some teenagers see green bubbles as some sort of challenge to their identities, it's probably a useful life lesson.

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

#98

Post by _benton »

whstl wrote: post #92
_benton wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you legally prevented from controlling your device in any way you wish after purchase? I think people are conflating ease of modification from legally being able to do so. If it's legal, then Apple retains no control over the device.

I don't see how the legality question is relevant here. My country is not forbidding me from exercising my ownership rights. This "are you prevented by law" question is fallacious, it implies that Apple can do no wrong, since it can't create laws. What Apple is taking away is practical control for owners of a class of device that has become essential to my practical participation in society. I actually desire my coun…

Maybe if the iPhone was the only phone available to purchase this argument has merit. But it's not, there are no shortage of other phones that provide the same features which are "essential to (your) practical participation in society)". If anything, you are attempting to remove my ability to purchase a device I want to own. And I don't really like that.

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

#99

Post by o11c »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #20

I'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-…

> 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?

Do you think the same about printer ink?

Regardless, we need to look at the law - and interoperability has a long history of legal support. Patents protect the product itself, but allow interoperable products. Trade secrets product the product from theft but not reverse engineering.

Even the DMCA has explicit carve-outs for interoperability, though that doesn't stop copyright-abusers from trying to wield it (and sometimes winning due to the money game).

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

#100

Post by wilsonnb3 »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #20

I'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?

Yes, except when they use that control to stifle competition. Competition is good, so we want to promote it.

That is sort of the basis for all anti trust law, to my layman’s understanding at least.

Post reply on HN