People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
While I strongly oppose Apple's decision, I even more strongly oppose government involvement as a solution. The government should not be able to compel association, it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
Exactly. That's why the government should enforce my freedom to associate with who I want on my phone.
Could there possibly be anything more against the spirit of the Apple 1984 commercial than them kicking off a messaging system that lets people say whatever they want?
What's next, email? Are they going to ban text messages because people say no-no words on there?
It's not the same, but it's the same ballpark.
In a way this is a form of death of net neutrality. What your ISP couldn’t do, Apple and Google happily will.
Section 230 on the other hand...
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
[0] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1347157489456975872
[1] https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=28145...
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Besides the logistical hurdles, one is not a substitute for the other. The pros still outweigh the cons, but that doesn't mean I can't push for better policies to fix the things I don't like.
I'm not trying to force anyone to make software for my phone. I want Apple to let other people make software for my phone.
That involves forcing Apple to design their software to do what they don’t want it to do.
Why not just buy the product that does?
I know the answer to that, since you have given it earlier.
It’s because you want Apple’s nice products, and have chosen that over the desire for an open ecosystem.
Nobody is stopping you from having the freedom you want. In fact many companies provide it.
This has nothing to do with rights at all.
It’s just that Apple makes nicer things and you want to force them to meet your needs because the products that do aren’t as nice.
Makes me said that there’s an app to order a burger from Shake Shack for example.
Under what justification?
These people agreed to the contract. Their BATNA is Android, which allows sideloading, or their web browser, where they can be as unmoderated as they want to be.
There is no problem here. If you want an Iphone supporting app store with more permissible side loading, go build one.
They can easily get enough Republicans onboard to stop a fillibuster. After the Parler situation, Republicans would no longer feel the need to defend Apple's App Store margins (regardless of whether or not Parler can come back under the proposed laws, the political damage is done).
The party that will control Congress in a couple of weeks does not like trillion-dollar companies like Apple. They believe that Apple and others should be considered monopolies, and if there is a court case they believe Apple should have the burden of proving that they aren't a monopoly (unlike current law).
Disagree, as substitutes presently exist in the form of Android models, which can be sideloaded.
I didn't know it would happen, never thought it could happen, and I would have reconsidered my purchase if I knew.
It'd have to support the apps, though, otherwise mine would have none.
Android is not an alternate for iPhone. They are not interchangeable. I don't know why people keep saying this.
Maybe for some people they are interchangeable, but they are sufficiently different that they are not true substitutes.
In fact, this is exactly what folks did to Tesla in the beginning. Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant to the discussion of Android and Apple being substitutes or not. You keep bringing that up in your other comments too.
To be clear, I don't support people who want to rise up against the US, quite the contrary.
But they still bring to light an important point -- why does Apple get to say what apps I can install in my phone?
Could we stop feigning ignorance about this?
The situation with Parler and Apple is analogous to expecting a Ford dealership to sell, and promote, Tesla's products, or another car-maker's products.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
For HN's landscaper? Sure.
One of the main features of buying an iphone is “Apple guarantees my privacy and security”.
If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter. Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.
Ultimately, is there anything that can be done? If you had to pick one specific world-changing action, what would it be, in detail? Your original premise was interesting, but perhaps difficult to codify.
Maybe even specially call out that anyone can install any app they want on their mobile device, and this must be made accessible. You could even add in some weasel words like "after reasonable precautions have been taken" so that Apple can make you jump through some hoops to install an "unapproved" app. Let the courts sort out what is reasonable or not.
What examples do you have in mind and what has ‘usability’ got to do with this?
Also - as soon as one reputable App requires users to ‘go through the hoops to get exposed’, any app that can fool users into thinking it is reputable will be able to do so.
I agree they’re not fungible. I like being on iphone for all the ecosystem aspects you describe. But if android worked for some key feature I’d switch, and keep a secondary iphone for my apple watch, imessage etc.
Citation needed.
How? The iOS system sandboxes the binary, so it can't do anything without permission. It can't read files, can't read data like contacts, can't connect to the internet, etc. I think it would be relatively easy for Apple to allow sideloading while maintaining great security. Plus, it would be off by default, so know-nothing users would not be doing it.
[X] Phone
[X] Text
[X] Compute Applications
[X] NFC or other near items
I guarantee the vast majority of consumers aren't using more than an extremely limited feature set that both phones happily share with their customers.
Are they produced by the same designer? Nah. But that really doesn't matter for functionality purposes.
What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android? You may have found your next business opportunity if you get moving. You'll simply be responding to capitalism as Parler did when they started, and as Google and Apple are doing now.
I can't carry a laptop in my pocket.
> What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android?
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant, but regardless you know very well that it is completely disingenuous to suggest that someone just "build a new app" for another platform.
Not every spreadsheet is the same. Not every chat app is the same. Someone isn't just going to go out and build another Fortnight because you can't get Fornight on the iPhone anymore.
You're arguing that feature parity is required for subsitutition, and that is an addled argument. It's not even temporally consistent, as you have prior versions of applications with features removed.
You can carry a laptop in your pocket. Sony VAIO had a mini edition around 2007. You can also use a bag, which has big pockets, and you can connect to networks and even cell networks.
Point is -- your argument here is very weak that the two platforms aren't substitutable, and there really is nothing left to say. Have a pleasant evening or morning, as the case may be.
Neither Apple or Android are a commodity. They are a differentiated good, but they compete in the same market and are substitutes for each other.
This was the hacker ethos from the 90s. Where did that go?
Looking at their other posts, likely because the user was banned.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/switching-out-of...
People have different expectations from smartphones (tables, and Chromebooks as well). So long as you know what you are getting when you buy it, this isn't an issue.
Apple doesn't make phones to be hacked or tweaked or whatever, they make them to be simple to use and as secure as possible. For most people, this is far more interesting and appealing than being able to side load apps.
Isn't the Pine Phone fundamentally a device made for hackers?
Fundamentally, the market for hacker oriented products is far smaller and less interesting than the market for iPhones. So hacker oriented tech is by nature going to lag the market or be more expensive.
There still are.
Nothing has fundamentally changed.
There is also an option for people who want a curated environment.
Alternate app stores would jeopardize its famed security
I also dont like what Apple did to Tumblr when they had to change their content policy and how BigTech generally projects US values onto the world (eg. nudity).
PS: I trust Android's F-Droid store more than the PlayStore due to its strong gateway process (anti tracking, pro privacy, FOSS only).