Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS
puri.sm
puri.sm
PIA (and others I'm sure)offers a zip of .ovpn files for their endpoints that Linux users can import to use with openVPN without using their app.
Obviously, this is a proposed solution to having the app on iOS, no dealing with Apple's access monopoly.
I wish more developers could afford to do that.
Sure, that’s exactly the secret to become a big and successful company.
This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?
What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.
I believe they do require this of large companies; it's been a while, but IIRC Netflix and Disney+ both allow you to sign up for the service in the app. The HBO app does, too.
You can log in with an existing account, but I thought the requirement was that you need to give a user the ability to sign up for a paid service account in app, and that signup needs to bill through Apple.
It's a moneymaker, no doubt; as a consumer, though, I appreciate not having to hand over credit card details to a random service I'm trying out for a month.
Disney+ does let you subscribe through Apple.
Well, for devices, its basically customer support via threat of class action lawsuit. I'm still a little miffed I had to pay $79 three times to "fix" the iPhone 6 and didn't get a refund after they finally acknowledged the issue.
Apple did not lift this requirement for the Hey email app during the controversy over that last year. Instead, they reached a compromise where Hey would offer a free trial of their service inside the app, so they could be in compliance with the rule that an app must have some functionality without an account.
> 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on _other platforms or your web site_, including consumable items in multi-platform games, _provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app_.
And by that rule there are _many_ apps from big companies that violate App Store guidelines, yet they get a pass because Apple doesn't have has much leverage over those companies as they do with small independent developers.
Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.
Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.
You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload).
Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choice to buy anything but through them. It also prevents in you from fully owning your own hardware.
So the end results they force both developers and users through them. I find the effect of not allowing side-loading even more egregious because once apple sells the phone they no longer own it.
As for your comment normal producers of goods can sell directly or choose what stores to stock their product. However, here a developer has no choice but apple and the same goes for a payment processor. Its all because the hardware is locked down infringing on the property rights of device owners. Apple does not even own the hardware after they sell it. Apple can run their store like they want however the only reason is its a problem is because they infringe on the device owners rights, and they cant run software unless apple allows that software to run on the device.
But that argument is tired. These 'smart phones' have been advertised as PC Replacements. "Run your software, your games, your choice." To many people it is the only computer they will personally own.
They are computers with cellular modems and other useful sensors built in. That's it. There are magnitudes of people with the know how to operate these things and take full responsibility for their operation and maintenance. There are scores of people who could more easily creatively use these devices in ways we can't even imagine now.
Everyday these vendors prevent free and clear operation of this type of hardware, they hamper innovation, in favor of short term profits.
And also; to reply specifically regarding the fridge, to be honest, I actually do want to run my own code there: CPU based controller boards in appliances tend to be obnoxiously prices for replacement. The cost of the parts for a controller board + related software can't possibly be more than a RPi computer and a bunch of relays. The fridge's computer's code is probably running a software based PID controller, that could be sourced anywhere else, and perhaps even software optimized to take advantage of better energy usage algorithms.
So again, locked down hardware, short term profits. "$300 part bad on a $800 fridge, just buy a new one and throw the old one away"
Find a new proto-appliance to hack and shape, or buy from a different philosophy vendor.
Locking down devices without an escape hatch enables rent seeking and hampers innovation and creativity.
I understand your point of view, but also understand that the future where the only open hardware is expensive one-off specialty stuff is rapidly approaching. Either through legal means, or limited availability, companies are posturing themselves to be the gatekeepers + rent seekers, and will hamper new 'out-of-the-box' ideas.
Maybe Apple needs to make changes to allow apps that are only a part of a service instead of the main selling point of the service to bypass those rules? Seems like it would be tough to figure out what is and isn't covered though.
Which is precisely the problem what some people have with the App Store. Actually may be that is not even the case either. There are many accepting the fact there are economy of scale and Amazon, Netflix are big enough to get special treatment. Which is fine. That is until Tim Cook stood up and said everyone gets the same treatment in App Store. Which is a lie.
This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store.
If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them.
If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%.
The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this wouldn’t be a big problem.
Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple makes from all of their services from customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc.
That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their devices.
Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect" electronics customers from scammers and other bad people who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence.
"Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this so innocent people don't download an app only to discover that they need to go to another website to create an account first." ~ Billy
> If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%
That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy, which is also what the electronics marketplace is like already.
1. Most of the apps in the App Store are games. What are the alternative app stores for other handheld gaming systems like the Nintendo Switch and 3DS?
2. I supposed it's a shame that there are no alternatives to iOS/iPhone besides Android which has an 85% market share.
3. https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut... (updated Jan. 2021.)
Android's 85% market share is global, and a lot of those are low budget garbage which makes them less important for a lot of industries (particularly gaming). In the US, Android's market share is more like 50%, and while I obviously can't speak for every developer, I at least consider the US market to be my primary focus. Doing significant business in another country is more complicated than just localizing strings and clicking a checkbox on the developer console (unless your business is relatively simple, like a utility or a game)
And while Android does allow third-party stores to exist, they're at a significant disadvantage competitively. It is practically impossible for any store to compete against Google play with the current systems and barriers Google put in place (as proven by companies that have attempted it over the years). That is also clear "anti-competitive behavior". From the point-of-view of users, the situation is better. But from the perspective of developers, it's the same bullshit. You are not going to escape Google on Android and hope to have a successful business, unless maybe you can manufacture and sell your own hardware.
And regarding Steam, I too think that 30% is too much (especially because Valve are not entirely innocent of anti-competitive practices themselves). However, it's not the same situation because there currently are many realistic alternatives to Steam, both for gamers and for developers. The same can't be said about Android or iOS.
1. Android doesn't have 85% market share, whether that is inclusive of Google Android or Android without Google.
2. Android doesn't have 85% market share, whether that is in US or Worldwide.
3. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. And increasing.
4. Apple could have a seperate Game Store and locked in at 30%. I would have been completely fine. I may not like it, but there isn't much to debate.
5. When the whole economy are moving to Online and Digital, while Apple having the dictating power and a near monopoly of 30% cut on Digital Goods. We have a problem. Especially doing so without alternative payment system allowed. I cant have a separate signup link, nor can I advertise it with link to Web.
All I’m suggesting is we just discuss what Apple actually does rather than exaggerating it to poorly make a point.
> That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
I wouldn’t have even mentioned this if you hadn’t blown the first more important point out of proportion.
There is an absolutely massive difference between “All their revenue” and “All revenue from in app purchases”.
The OP is about Librem Tunnel, an app which is one part of a subscription service called "Librem One".
By forcing this company to add in-app purchases, Apple is taking 30% of all the revenue of the entire Librem One subscription, since Librem doesn't sell VPN access by itself.
I don't see how I'm blowing that out of proportion? The kiosk taking 30% of iCloud subscriptions is pretty much a perfect analogy to what's going on. I haven't exaggerated anything as far as I can tell.
Above, you gave (to me at least) the impression that you were referring to all of Librem’s revenue. Not just the revenue which is filtered through the App Store, every penny they earn.
I don’t care for a lot of the way the App Store works, including the point you make here. But your original post was not very clear if this is what you meant to say.
There should be room in the App Stores for businesses which sell services where the App is only part of the offering.
Real-world Billy doesn't hold the "license to sell electronics," but the various mall management companies - of which there aren't very many - do in fact exclusively control the real estate in the shopping malls. They don't charge Apple a percentage of sales, but they charge them some amount of money for simply having the store, regardless of sales, which can be even more: if you look at the latest MacBook in person at the store, go home, and decide you want to buy it from apple.com, the landlord still gets money from Apple.
The various mall management companies make, quite literally, billions of dollars a year. The landlords who own non-mall property for the Apple Store downtown also make piles of money. And they don't need a license, nor do they need to convince anyone that they're protecting anyone. They just own the land.
And Apple also sells products through various other retailers, like cell phone companies, Best Buy, etc., each of which work out deals of various sorts. You generally can't buy an unlocked, no-contract iPhone from a cell phone company. You get an iPhone with a contract that commits you to spending way more money than the cost of the phone.
Arguably, Apple's role is a lot fairer; there's no scarce resource like properly-zoned land in a populated city on which the App Store was built. Anything that happens on the App Store is entirely Apple's doing; anything that happens in a mall or in an existing retail store is partly the owner's doing and partly their good fortune to have put themselves there before someone else did. If someone wants to compete with iOS and the App Store, they are free to build their own version from scratch - nothing Apple did is stopping them. If someone wants to compete with a shopping mall, you can't just plop down a new shopping mall - the land is in use. If we think Apple doesn't deserve to take a cut for use of their platform that they built, the landlords certainly don't deserve rent for use of land that they bought.
(Which is, to be fair, my own personal opinion, but the market doesn't agree with me, and there's very little point in me pouting at the market.)
If Apple were to allow alternative app stores, I think we’d see price normalization in this space. The various app stores would then be competing on price based on the costs of hosting their App Store service.
Landlords have exclusive use of land, a limited resource. If I am running a clothing brand and I want to have a store in a particular city, my options are to build a store on empty land very far from the city center, or to negotiate with the person who has the land.n If I want to have a store in a mall, I certainly can't just built on my own, and in many cities, there's probably not even another mall to provide competition.
Apple is charging for use of the Apple App Store platform. They are not charging for the Android Play Store platform. They are not charging for anything happening anywhere else. There is no exclusive resource like land involved, as demonstrated by the fact that Android was able to build the Play Store.
I don't think it makes any sense to say that Apple has a monopoly over use of their own product, since a monopoly is about control of a market. But if we're going to make that claim, we should definitely say that each mall owner has a monopoly over use of that mall! That is at least as sensible as saying that Apple and Android both have monopolies over their respective competing products.
And I think that the concern people have isn't whether the price has been decided by the market - it clearly has, and tons of participants are willing to participate even with the 30% cut - the question is whether the price is fair in a moral sense. I do agree with the answer that it is not. But I think you have to ask the right question to get the right answer.
To access 60% of US mobile phone users, App developers must go through Apple. Apple faces no competitor pressure when deciding on their prices, it is their discretion alone. Landlords face competitor pressure but Apple does not in this space so in that sense, no, the market has not decided apple’s prices.
Aside from the practical issues concerning their control of the market, the argument that Apple should be able to charge whatever they want because it’s their product is normative. These normative claims can be challenged when we consider the practical effects their market dominance has on app developers and users alike.
[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-iphone-record-sales-us...
But anyway - there are something like 1,000 to 2,000 indoor shopping malls in the US, depending on how you count, and there are companies that own hundreds of malls, and they're consolidating. Would it become a problem if one landlord ended up owning 60% of mall retail? Why?
And how are you concluding that Apple faces no competitor pressure? Apple's 30% cut is exactly equal to Google's 30% cut. Is this a massive coincidence, or is this the market doing exactly what you'd expect a market to do and equalizing prices between competitors for similar products? Why hasn't Apple raised their take to even 35%, if it really is their discretion alone?
(Microsoft, as it happens, also takes a 30% cut of Xbox-related sales on their store. They take a 5-15% cut of other apps. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... This is pretty much exactly with what you'd expect if 30% is what the market will bear for reasonably successful products, and if Microsoft is obligated to compete on price for non-Xbox-related store purchases.)
The fact that they own 60% is not a problem in itself but it is a problem when you consider the practical effects it’s having on app developers. A growing number of developers who reject their 30% price tag have no alternative to reach that segment of the market.
If we were seeing the same level of dissatisfaction with landlords hoarding real estate and the inability of their potential customers to go elsewhere, I would of course consider their monopoly a problem as well. I don’t think we are seeing the same level of monopoly and its failure modes happening in retail real estate.
I cited US statistics because US-based companies (Epic, Purism, Basecamp) seem to be at the center of this debate. If this discussion turns into proposal for legislation or an anti-trust case, it will likely happen in the US.
> Apple's 30% cut is exactly equal to Google's 30% cut.
Google actually has decreased their fees to 15% for smaller developers [1]. This is also much less of an issue on Android because there exists alternative app installation methods on that platform. Users can install app packages without needing to go through the google play store. So there is an alternative for developers.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/google-app-store-fees-cut-fo...
Probably because we live in the US and we will have to depend on our courts to force Apple to open up. Those courts require a certain amount of market power, which a majority market share indicates, to move forward with an antitrust judgement.
> Microsoft, as it happens, also takes a 30% cut of Xbox-related sales on their store.
Game consoles are not nearly as ubiquitous or as important to society as smart phones. We have different laws for things important things like cars than we do for toys like bicycles.
This is why Apple will eventually be forced to allow users to install software from outside the app store.
And why is that ok?
That’s why my persona exercised free consumer choice to opt into this philosophy instead of the competing camp. Years after last Android died I still had subs I couldn’t cancel unless I did chargebacks.
Stop trying to use regulation to take away my free market choice of ecosystem approach. I want the app appliance I can trust with one experience I can trust.
For example, I've had plenty of issues on iOS with refunds. On Android refunds are given automatically if you uninstall the app within 2 hour of purchase. Why isn't Apple doing that?
> Stop trying to use regulation to take away my free market choice of ecosystem approach.
Blame Apple for trying to make enemies of the developers who created the app in the first place and added value to the ecosystem you use. Blame Apple for the increased 15 to 30% you will have to pay because Apple thinks it can extort that money from us developers - in effect Apple is only screwing you, the end user.
> Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store.
> Why are they making that requirement even though we already have our own independent payment infrastructure? Because once that app allows in-app purchases, Apple can then automatically take their 30% cut.
You can niggle on the 15% or 30% cut that Apple takes, but they raise a very valid concern -
- why should any developer pay Apple anything at all in the first place?
- Why should they allow themselves to be blackmailed by Apple to use their payment services?
- Why should their customers bear the burden of this extra 15 to 30% that Apple demands for using their payment service?
Specifically, distribution on the app store denies "The freedom to... change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."
In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS. You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and unless they CLA all their developers so that they can actually distribute the port legally.
If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA requirement for contributors, then consider that particular example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.
Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can build and run on their device outside the app store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping them.
Again, simply not true. You don't need a paid developer license for local installs, and this has been the case for a very long time.
Sideloading Blender misses the point. If you need to buy a real computer to compile Blender, then you already have a computer to just run Blender on directly. Furthermore, sideloading isn't exactly Apple-sanctioned. It's actually fairly cumbersome: you either need a Mac to run Xcode on, or you have to run a piece of third-party software that you put your iCloud password into, which then uses some Mail/iTunes plugins to forcibly resign and sync your IPA. Oh, and you need to redo that every seven days or the app breaks. Furthermore, Apple could break or prohibit sideloading at any moment and you would have no recourse.
If sideloading was a useful way to distribute software, Epic would be distributing a sideloadable EGS and Fortnite on iOS right now.
Distribution under the App Store's terms is a GPL violation itself.
> Because, counterexample, Telegram is licensed under GPL and is has not been actively banned from the app store.
As long as Telegram owns the IP for the app, or has contributors sign a CLA that allows for relicensing, nothing is stopping them from distributing the app under the GPL and distributing it under an App Store friendly license.
Taking GPL code that you do not own the IP of, or that you do not have a license to distribute under your own terms, and distributing it under the App Store terms is a violation of the GPL.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-gpl-apps-for-apples-app-sto...
[2] https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
The GPL issues are more to do with GPL fans being overly pedantic about the license. The source code can be shared outside the app store, the only thing the app store build/signature is doing is baking in the app store wrappers which aren't adding extra functionality. By this logic, distributing a signed build of a GPL app would violate the license.
I believe GPL 2 might be ok.
You can also distribute your own GPL software on the app store, it you dual-license it.
But I believe distributing someone else's GPL 3 software is a problem, because as RMS said he realized he had to add freedom zero, the freedom to RUN the software.
Remember that Apple stops you from RUNNING software, then gives/sells you the permission.
This way you can still pay for Librem One outside the app, and thereby circumvent the 30% toll, and continue to serve your iOS users.
And who cares then...
If Apple were forced to allow multiple stores or sideloading, governments that right now have no leverage with Apple would force their citizens to install government stores and apps.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-app...
1. Russia has sufficient leverage. Most smaller countries do not.
2. “These pre-installed apps will also be deletable after setup is complete, just like any other third-party app that is downloaded from the App Store.”
That’s as far as Apple was willing to go. The Apps also don’t have privileged access to anything private.
If the US or EU forces Apple to allow alternate stores, both of these protections will be gone, forever.
And once they are gone on Apple devices, why would anyone imagine we’ll ever again have a widespread platform that doesn’t have government mandated software?
Apple’s dominance is at best a transient problem. Let’s not trade it for a permanent one that is far worse.
They aren't even preinstalled. You get a prompt during setup and they're pre-selected to be installed after setup, but you can uncheck them.
"All apps in the list are pre-selected to be installed as part of setup; however, users are able to deselect apps individually if they don’t want them."
This is extremely noticeable in a couple of areas.
Subscription - you get an email from apple BEFORE renewal, and can easily cancel subscriptions - all located in one place - no phone calls or other stupidity (try cancelling a myheritage account by contrast!)
They have integrated monitoring so if you delete an app, it will ask if you also want to cancel out the subscription for the app.
The prompting for purchase and trials is VERY explicit. So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month- I mean, the scams and tricks are endless off app store.
Especially with elderly relatives or younger folks or just folks who don't want to be hassled with this game playing, these features are what make using apple so nice and help drive the premium users are willing to pay (which can be ridiculous!).
One tip - if you have elderly folks, scan their bank statement / cc statement 1x per year, you usually can save them thousands on auto-renewing stuff they no longer use.
I really wish government or credit card companies would impose rules on merchants that prohibit this kind of behaviour. It's very easy to get bitten by subscription scams, even from companies that appear legitimate.
The lack of regulation on this matter just leaves Apple with justification to act as a payment gatekeeper.
I know this is not popular on HN (ie, anti-trust claims to allow devs to abuse users the way they can elsewhere).
They haven't been stupid / annoying about it. You contrast their controls with those outside ios.
The russian site I visit with the cookie notice, they can still track me and what am I going to do about it? So the cookie notice is both annoying an ineffective against bad actors. On iOS, I decline a permission, and it's done.
I can't lie. When I see companies like Match Group complaining that iOS policies prevent them from surreptitiously locking their "customers" into subscriptions[0], I can't help but chuckle. This is precisely why I bought an iPhone.
0: https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/tinder-owners-stock-tumbles-af...
> So for example, NY Times has a banner (not on ios) saying signup for $1/week. Great, you do it. Then you find out that in a month it switches to something like $15/month
Out of curiosity, I went incognito (as I'm an NYT subscriber) and clicked that banner just now, and it says it's $1/week for a year, not a month ($4.25/week afterwards). I'm pretty sure I've been seeing that offer for years, too.
Maybe you're in a different cohort or something but that's a weird and antagonistic way to treat a customer that's going to drop people out of a funnel so I'm wondering if you're misremembering.
That said, here is a recent BBB complaint. When I cancelled 2 years ago it was worse (no option to chat, you had to call and they left you on hold).
--- Complaint Type: Billing/Collection Issues
02/16/2021
I am nearing the end of a promotional offer from the NYTimes which offered a 1 year digital subscription for $4/month. I don't plan to continue a subscription at the full price and logged into my account to cancel my subscription. Within my online profile, there is no button labeled "cancel my subscription" or any similar option. I am only given the options to change my email or password, or update my card. This seems like a serious abuse to me a customer to decide whether or not I want to pay for the service. I have now been chatting with an agent for 15 minutes and still haven't been given an option to cancel my account. As of right now, I've been chatting long enough with a representative to fill out this BBB complaint and still haven't had anyone help me close my account. I have screenshots of my entire conversation with the agent if that's helpful.
https://www.bbb.org/us/ny/new-york/profile/publishers-period...
----
It's not that every fly by night website does this (NY Times is not exactly fly by night), but enough do that people really hesitate to sign up outside of the more trusted Apple walled garden - I know I do because I don't have time for this.
MyHeritage was even worse though, surprised there are not more lawsuits, they somehow found out my NEW card number after I cancelled my card to avoid them.
So while Apple is allowed to run their store their way without the scammers getting into the mix, I'll keep giving them my money happily. That said, HN devs and these types of companies all hate it I'm sure (not realizing that this is why apple phone users spend so much more - the well hasn't been poisoned by their stupidity)
Indirectly sure - it pays for the app store and all of the curation that goes on there. Admittedly there's a crazy healthy profit for Apple, but I believe you are arguing principles so the amount shouldn't be relevant.
This is not an inherent compromise. iPhones could be just as safe and issue-free if they were rootable, just as cars don't need hoods welded shut to prevent their owners from messing with the engine. If you find the compromise acceptable, simply don't root your phone.
Funny is this argument always exclusively pops up when it comes to Apple smartphones. Are we supposed to lock every desktop down too because mom and pop installed a wrong toolbar? It's like the reverse 'but think of the children', and people keep using it who would scoff at it in every other context, just to engage in this constant Apple apologia that has infected tech people who should know better but don't because they've grown up with macbooks with shitty stickers on it. The sort of brand influence that Apple exercises and the stuff it gets away with is truly astonishing.
Yeah I really wish we could... how many human hours have been wasted cleaning up infected garbage on friends and family desktop computers?
While I don't like the Apple tax, I really don't like the idea that forcing Apple to open up its App Store is the right solution.
I wish we could start with these ideas first:
- pricing transparency: force the UI to show exactly how much of every transaction goes to Apple. We already do this with many other taxes, so I don't see it as an intrusion.
- first sale doctrine fully applied: force Apple to allow users to install any OS they want on an iPhone. Prohibit locking, etc. But if you choose to use Apple's OS, then you have to accept their policies. This same policy should apply to game consoles and other hardware. (And this does contradict slightly my above point about app signing, but I'd argue that letting people use hardware unfettered is different than letting them use your software unfettered. But it's an admittedly weak and flawed compromise.)
First sale means I’m free to break my device, fine, but cannot mean it must be left more breakable.
- In the country I grew up I have to install rootkits in my computer in order to use the bank website. Some of them are borderline impossible to uninstall, and some banks have rootkits that conflicted with the ones of other banks. How do I know if it's not spying on me or not? It's a multi-megabyte kernel extension. I can't even use Linux or a Virtual Machine to access the website!
- For some apps I use for music making I had to install iLok which is (or at least used to be) the biggest piece of shit ever and crashed my computer all the time, because it was terribly written. I still refuse to buy anything that uses physical DRM.
- Even today in macOS (which is supposed to have a sandbox) I keep finding stuff in the disk from programs I uninstalled several years ago, because developers can't keep their telemetry spying garbage off every single corner of my machine.
- Every single scummy websites (which is 99% of all sites, HN and Reddit are the only exceptions I can think of) requires a login with Email so they can send me spam and send my information to third parties. With iCloud Sign Up I can sign in without that fear.
So yes, most of the time I wish my desktop was limited the way my phone is locked because I own my computer, not some asshole developer who decided my computer is their playground.
As long as I keep developing my software and compiling open source stuff, I'm good. Other developers can embrace the sandbox or piss off.
On iOS I can download effectively whatever I like from the App Store without worrying about it screwing up my system. That peace of mind is worth a lot of money, and is why people pay a premium to be in this walled garden.
I have no desire for for my iPhone to have the same threats presented to my Mac or PC. I also have no desire for my Mac or PC to be as locked down as my iPhone. There is room in the market for both. Trying to legislatively eliminate this option is ridiculous. If you don't like the device's security policy, then don't buy it.
As a developer, I just want to be able to distribute my apps to myself, my family and my friends without having to pay $100 per year and without having to ask Apple's permission for us all to do whatever we want with our $1,000 phones.
Our government will sort this out eventually now that iPhones have over 60% of the active phones in the US and that number will not be shrinking since 90% of the youth market is on an iPhone.
Apple will be forced to open up sooner or later, just like when "Ma Bell" used to force you to rent a phone from them just to use the landline that you also leased from them - once they had a majority market share, they got broken up. Same thing with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows - they were forced to share their APIs with third party companies. Consumers and small developers don't decide this. Lots of small, medium and large businesses are affected by Apples restrictions and they'll keep fighting it for us.
This is because we have so much "freedom" that Apple is free to do this. I would argue this is a false freedom, like the freedom to own slaves.
It's not an either or. I agree that most devices should probably be locked down by default, but there should still be an off switch. The so-called dancing bunnies problem everyone brings up doesn't appear to have caused a problem.
I wonder if it's an off-shoot of the concept of 'victim blaming', meaning it's not allowed to lay the responsibility for someones actions on them, there should be safeguards that prevent someone from making a mistake in the first place, even if it's at the expense of people who know that they're doing. I haven't fully fleshed out in idea in my head yet.
If you want a low-quality platform with limited security updates, multiple app stores, and other debris then buy an Android. I chose an iPhone so I wouldn't have to deal with these issues.
The following is a conversation I had with a relative, while trying to troubleshoot their phone.
Q: "Why doesn't my Bank App work?"
Me: [after many steps]"Because you need to update your OS"
Q: "How do I do that?"
Me: [many steps later] "Sorry you can't update your OS. You will need a new phone."
Q: "But this phone is only a year old."
Me: "The phone had been out for over a year before you got it. The [manufacturer] stopped updating it. You have to get a new phone to use your Banking app."
Q: "But new phones are so expensive, my phone is still plenty fast, and the battery lasts all day, why do I need to get a new phone?"
Me: "The manufacturer stops making updates to make you buy a new phone from them."
> [H]e got an iPhone and he find it more difficult to use [...]
I guess that's precisely because he is used to Android, not because iOS is more difficult.
1. Run a desktop window manager when connected to TV/monitor.
2. Share files using wifi direct or bluetooth.
3. Download torrents.
4. Switch between front and back cameras while recording a video.
5. Play fortnite.
6. Copy files to/from a flash drive.
7. Cast screen to TV.
8. Copy whatsapp chats from older phone.
It's possible (but yeah, it's been a problem for long).
Anyway:
> 4. Switch between front and back cameras while recording a video.
This is the only point that actually affects a typical user. The others are cherry-picked technological differences between the two platforms. They have nothing to do with usability, which is what people mean when they say iOS is simpler to use.
> 8. Copy whatsapp chats from older phone.
Yeah. If you kept the chats only locally (which you should).
> 5. Play fortnite.
Got me!
PS. I used Android for long and liked it. I just think iOS is somewhat nicer and safer to use for common people.
iOS is just as confusing as Android. Its a matter of which one you use first or regularly. Just as Linux is confusing to non-linux users.
Also. Android works on the dodgiest mobile hardware available to mankind. Something not a lot of HN users seem to know - from tractors in farms to research equipment in the arctic. I dont know about space, but if we are going to use a modern OS on space craft - I'm willing to bet it will be an android fork.
This freaks builders out but shouldn’t, PCs are still a thing.
Citation needed? I don't believe this is true. Tunnelblick and qemu both exist on macOS independently of Apple's approval.
LeoPantera is referring to the new way of creating VPNs in macOS and iOS, the Network Extension framework. You need an entitlement to develop with that framework, and sideloading is not possible.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/networkextension
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
I have no idea if Apple is committed to support tun/tap in the future, but I doubt.
Also services like this one to circumvent the Apple policy couldn't just give you a Wireguard configuration file and say to you "just install the Wireguard app and import the config"? It would work and of course Apple couldn't do anything (beside removing the whole Wireguard app from the store).
Not having entitlements or not being able to sideload is more of an issue while trying to tweak or patch an existing code base.
E.g.: contributing to WireGuard or iCepa, ...
It does not require the Network Extension framework, is not App Store distributed, and does not have any entitlements. (It is Developer ID signed and notarized, but that's just for user convenience; it'd work just fine unsigned if the user wanted to click through macOS's warnings to get there.)
It's in the spirit of capitalism to be competitive so don't be surprised if those companies want all those things from us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...
It boils down to someone's personal definition of "properly."
You are on HN. Your definition of using a device "properly" is very different from the vast majority of the other human beings on the planet. You're not Apple's target audience, and that's OK. The more of you there are, the more force there is for creating other options. But don't pretend that there is only one "proper" way to use a device.
And no when you buy something it generally involves the transfer of all rights in real/tangible property. Please notice I said generally. Copyright is one of the few exceptions (also it's not real property, but intellectual). However, you are allowed to make copies of Books and CDs, although how one may distribute/reproduce said copies is limited under copyright. Also when you buy a copyrighted work you can for instance open the cover and see that it states it's copyrighted.
However, again a book is the tangible property not the copyrighted idea/work. Copyright does not give them the right to stop you from writing/drawing or using a highlighter or doing anything else to the book. The copyright does not extend to the pages, glue, ect... of the physical book.
Treat Apple's iPhone as a book. The words on the page the OS. The paper and binding ect.. is the hardware. However, Apple's book if you try crossing out words or writing new words on blank pages (aka empty memory) the book tries to stop you from doing that unless Apple approves those words. However, Apple does not advertise this as a book that they can choose what you can and can't do with it. They just call it a book. Apple is doing two things here they are interfering with your use of the book, and not telling people that they interfere with your use of the book when advertising it. They get away with this because most people only read books they buy.
If you don’t like the product, don’t buy it. Don’t compel them to satisfy your whim via police power of the state.
Furthermore, I find it really frustrating how my desire for the ability to go a little bit outside of certain walled gardens is construed as me demanding you go outside the walled garden at all times. 95% of the walled garden is perfectly fine - it's the 5% of apps that won't fit inside of it that are the problem.
No it’s not. It’s impossible if you don’t want to require your customers to change some security settings.
We can have a discussion about whether that’s practical for a developer, but either way, the user has control over their Mac. Completely different situation from iOS.
for now, because observing the current trends, they'll likely won't for much longer... all for the sake of safety and convenience.
I get fewer problems managing friends and family on Apple products vs Android/Microsoft products. I work in enterprise and am a lot happier managing macOS devices than PCs.
I get the whole “I own it and shouldn’t have to have it walled/leased/owned by the developer,” but the success for Apple when Jobs returned was simplifying the product lineup and making products that just work.
I agree I don’t like being locked into a hardware manufacturers box, but not everyone can build a kernel from source or use Gnome/KDE/whatever desktop manager there is out there. It should turn on, be easy to use, and be a safe experience for everyone.
App store guidelines on this topic are:
> 3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app.
So are they offering purchase inside the app? I downloaded it, and there's a bare login prompt with no mention of purchasing outside the app that might get them in trouble.
"Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store."
However, what you show seems to contradict that?
EDIT: If I were to guess, the flagging was an automated process, i.e. Apple flagged it and sent an automated email to Purism. Whether or not Purism tried to respond or not I do not know, but in the end they decided not to deal with it and pulled their app.
My experience seeing parent control apps, are that they likely leak private data either intentionally or unintentionally. These apps, would have access to all sorts of data, and unless the developers are both very scrupulous and very competent, it is easy for private info to be leaked. I am far more comfortable with Apple handling that, than a third party.
I feel like the tide is turning and change is coming.
Edit: To clarify, it was never locked or password protected before, and I would use it to look at pictures in the Photos app locally. I hadn't used it for several months.
Just curious, the Apple Store was also unable to help you? Hope you are able to recover the data. :/
I've also tried reasoning with the device and unlocking it myself, which also did not work.
I don't see how you can say I haven't tried anything.
By the way, in case you missed it, this happened yesterday, I just happened to come across a thread which was relevant.
From previous experiences, it's my understanding that activation means resetting and erasing it.
In lieu of itunes or mac, you could also take it to an apple store I believe.
seems a bit much
In other words, why are you surprised that you can't hack into an Apple device?
It does sound like the other commenter's theory that the SIM has "gone bad" may be true, but I had no idea this could happen, and I don't see how that makes it any more valid.
Since he bricked his iPad I had to submit a recovery through iCloud and that invokes a twenty four hour delay before it sends recovery information to his listed authentication device; as in his telephone.
So that comes in which directs you to apple.com/recover or such and when you put the id in you have the option to get a 2FA code back to the phone which we did. I then simply put my phone number into the account so all future recoveries would be simpler.
Apple will allow for more than one authentication method, use it for ANY gift you give to an elderly parent or such. Frankly the best option you have is to get yourself on their email account recovery page as well.
Its just common sense in this era of identity theft that you do your due diligence so you can protect those you care for.
If your iPad is asking for a passcode and you don't know it you are lost unless it was backed up which brings up the second point.
When giving gifts like these out make sure to help the recipient learn how to back it up to a computer or have them let you back it up to yours when they visit.
I've quite a bit of experience with consumer tech, but I did not anticipate this kind of issue happening. I don't think it's right that the iPad can just lock itself and require Apple's intervention to make usable and access the data stored.
I will definitely never consider any Apple device as a gift to anyone ever again. I chose Apple for the same reason another commenter suggested, to reduce problems with support calls. But this eclipses all the times put together I would've had to help her with another device.
I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but I am extremely skeptical it is a problem caused by Big Bad Evil Apple doing Big Bad Evil things.
This could be (and I suspect very likely is) a problem with your iPad's SIM that you could check by powering off the iPad, removing the SIM and turning it back on again. It could be that there's some kind of corruption that you might need to fix by connecting it up to iTunes or even bringing to the dreaded Genius Bar. It could conceivably be some weird bug in iOS that has somehow sprung up and turned your iPad into a flat flowerpot. All of these things suck! But what it is not is Apple forcing you to "authorize" your iPad in order to let it boot up.
Do you disagree?
(I am nowhere near a "Genius Bar".)
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208987
Replacing the sim card in a device immediately triggers activation (e.g. to stop someone from using a stolen, passwordless device as their own). So, if the sim went bad, it seems plausible that the device might need to re-activate.
A bit of Googling shows the "Activation Lock" screen as a screen that says, well, "Activation Lock"; I think it's really a separate thing. If that's what happened to the OP, then it can be unlocked from the web:
Also, do you know if I could have prevented this by removing the SIM before it happened?
Do you have a mobile phone? Pop it out, put it in the iPad, activate it, take it out again.
In New Zealand, where I’m from, you can get SIM cards from supermarkets, petrol stations, convenience stores …
I'm just lucky in that I didn't have any important data like pictures, passwords or 2FA apps on it. Sorry for your loss.
If the device never had a passcode/fingerprint/face id before you certainly don't need one to unlock it even if it has auto-updated.
It looks like the device auto-updated, so you should be able to complete the activation.
Now if you are talking about accessing iCloud, then you may need the iCloud password.
Apple should be able to help you fix the issue if you can't fix it yourself.
If so, I think there are likely multiple motivations here. Apple has long been willing to force certain standardizations in the name of simple and uniform user experiences (they’re not perfect but the intent is clearly there). Having to drop out of an app experience to do something isn’t good UX - so enforcing the option to do it in app makes for a simpler experience - as much as it also adds to Apple’s bottom line. To be honest, the issue seems more to be just how big of a cut they want to take - but that’s even harder to fight against (capitalism and all) so this is the easier target.
Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at how it was dethroned, it wasn’t dethroned because of government regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What, then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is the expected outcome?
Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.
What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though?
This really is just a story of two businesses who can’t agree with the terms of engagement: Apple requires subscription-based services to use their payment system if the services want to be available in their platform, and Librem doesn’t want to share their profits. I’m struggling to see why Apple’s terms are unreasonable here. Any business that has an ecosystem of products isn’t and shouldn’t be legally required to support competing ecosystems/platforms—and Apple already does have Google’s and Facebook’s apps in the App Store, by the way.
Nothing is stopping them, but the question was why Apple's policies are bad. If people need to buy a completely new device because they can't use the apps they want, then I would say those policies are bad.
They're bad for Apple because they make apps on the app store less capable or not available at all. They're bad for developers because they make it far more expensive to do business on iOS devices. And they're bad for consumers because they make apps on iOS devices more expensive, more confusing (unable to sign up / upgrade / manage account) or just plain unavailable in this case.
It's sort of like net neutrality and your ISP.
You pay your ISP for access to the internet.
If your ISP is also charging others for access to you, then either:
- you will pay more for those services, or
- the services available to you will be diminished
same for apps.
There is no such right. There is a right to free association, but incorporation is a privilege granted by the state. It comes with many benefits, such as being able to walk away from the business if it goes bankrupt. It also comes with some responsibilities, such as not violating civil rights and antitrust laws.
In practice, some businesses start exerting too much power and start harming other entities, so they have it reduced.
There's been plenty written about antitrust. Check out some of the works of Lina Khan, who's slated to join the FTC soon: https://www.wired.com/story/lina-khan-ftc-antitrust-biden-ad...
They already pay their Apple Developer Program yearly membership fees. If Apples deem this isn't enough, then they should raise the cost to properly take that into account.
The only thing tired is extractive monopolies. Funnily enough, Apple could make a few small tweaks and not be in this category. They've chosen instead to double down on exerting their market power.
On the other side, developers and users who do want it are harmed by the current policy.
Or do you not have self control? Like an alcoholic who is compelled to drive to the store and buy some alcohol?
They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution.
On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched.
So, I can no longer recommend librem, and will only recommend Pine.
Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.
A second app store inside of the walled garden still ends up being a walled garden, just one with more of an illusion of choice. That means that the users will have even less reason to leave.
The downside is that if the brinkmanship fails and iOS doesn't collapse, then the primary outcome is just that iOS users are worse off for no obvious gain.
I couldn’t agree more that people need to choose open ecosystems.
It’s the writing in support of Epic’s anti-trust suit that I dislike.
Supporting Epic’s anti-trust campaign has nothing to do with open source.
I think one of the most damaging things that could possibly happen to open source is that government starts to regulate how software is distributed.
This might damage Apple’s stock price and make a few more billions for Tim Sweeney, but it will make it much harder for an open free platform to succeed.