Hacker News Reader

Comment by pojntfx | Hacker News Reader

It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30% of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal with Apple, be unable to install a certain app at the flip of a button (check Spain's Catalonia referendum or Hong Kong, etc.). I really do hope that some EU regulation will force device manufacturers above a certain market size to allow a) sideloading apps and b) allow different browser engines as boycotts seem to no longer work after a certain amount of market penetration.

View on HN

On the other hand, I spend 0% of my time managing iOS devices for my parents and am constantly bombarded with issues from my in-laws with Android phones. I agree that some of Apple's behavior is monopolistic and has some unfortunate, possibly unforeseen consequences, but the end result is pretty nice for the consumers who are willing to accept the compromise.

Do you think that you spending 0% of your time managing iOS devices has something to do with apps not being able to use their own payment system?

This is one of the major features yes. On iOS apps are totally prohibited from their own payment flows in app / on platform - it's completely banned.

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.

>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.

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.

Apple has focused pretty heavily on the user experience, developers be damned.

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.

>ie, anti-trust claims to allow devs to abuse users the way they can elsewhere

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...

Ya - if you look at list of complainers - folks running loot boxes, lock in uncancelable subscriptions etc, crazy privacy violators (Facebook). there is so much money in this though I don’t see how they don’t get political folks to force apples hand - joined by a surprising number of HN devs - the focus on what is best for user is long gone

It's exactly as ineffective in iOS. You are just comparing apples to rocketships (iPhone app Vs russian site in browser). Besides, top story on HN says Tiktok will track iOS users, circumventing apple's attempt to block it. So you decline and feel nice and fluffy but it didn't do much. It's worse on Android but there people with knowledge can at least fix it. In iOS you can't even install a proper adblocker. If you want the privacy you to be as effective as you say Apple will need to control every site in your browser like they do with apps.

I agree with your general point, but I raised my eyebrows at this:

> 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.

Wall Street Journal after teaser is $468 per year.

Actually, I just went to it and it's much clearer and better than it was. It is a year for me now.

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)

>Do you think that you spending 0% of your time managing iOS devices has something to do with apps not being able to use their own payment system?

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.

I suppose it is not so bad to be a serf. Your master feeds you and you don't have to worry about getting food.

> compromise

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.

To extend this analogy further, people share, load and modify ECU firmware dumps for their cars, too.

A car analogy that works! Good job, this is a rare sight indeed :)

I followed this road until the device was locked. Make sure you have a backup of stuff like photos and emails which is not Apple-managed.

I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps.

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.

> 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?

Yeah I really wish we could... how many human hours have been wasted cleaning up infected garbage on friends and family desktop computers?

there are absolutely controls you can turn on for macs that will do that. I have locked down employees computers because they couldn't be trusted.

That’s the point! There are no similar controls in iPhone, you just get the locked experience by default.

I'm always curious about this attitude. Why did you employ them if you felt you couldn't trust them?

People being good at anything else (let's say, accounting) is not correlated with safe/smart computer use habits. If you can prevent a lot of turmoil by not letting them install arbitrary programs and still keep them happy and working well on their main role, why get rid of an otherwise good employee?

Very good question!

I think it's useful to distinguish between types of trust. You might trust a mill operator with $5 million worth of automated equipment that has a well-documented UI backed with years of training and industry support. However, you might not trust that same operator with unfettered control of a $2000 general-purpose networked computing device that can silently leak company secrets and offer a foothold to attackers inside your firewall _even if the operator does nothing obviously wrong_.

I'm always amazed in the land of the free and a forum for people who build tech products that so many people favor taking away your right to create a product and sell it on your own terms. I'm just not comfortable forcing Apple to change the software on its phones (relaxing app signing) or forcing it to distribute someone else's software for free.

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.)

I strongly disagree with the OS remark, a device is nothing when not operating, device and operations should be free to be designed built and sold together for best customer experience and safety with no regulatory waterline falsely limiting progress by discriminating between behaviors/logic implemented in memory, firmware, or silicon.

First sale means I’m free to break my device, fine, but cannot mean it must be left more breakable.

It's not about grandma. I also don't want to deal with bullshit myself.

- 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 Mac and Windows, I have to think twice about whatever applications I install because, as you said, any application could royally screw with the system.

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.

The problem with the 'don't buy it' argument is that Apple spearheads the 'what can you get away with' movement. Most companies follow Apple and customers bear the brunt. Examples are headphone jack removal, non-removable battery etc.

If iOS allowed sideloading, you could just stay in the app store though. Problem solved.

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.

> I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps.

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.

Hardly comparable when a slave doesn't choose to be a slave while an Apple user has to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars to become one.

We also have the freedom to ignore people who want the freedom to blow off both feet and demand that everyone else also has this ability. Freedom is choice, but for some reason these people will not just choose another platform and finally STFU. I guess it is just too galling to see other people decide to treat a computer as if it was a hammer with which to accomplish a job and not a way of life around which you organize your self-worth.

I bought my dad a chromebook 2 years ago, because it's the most locked down laptop form factor I could find. My tech support calls have dropped from monthly (yes, monthly) to once. Before it was "I can't find my email" (whatever windows' default url handler for mail:foo@bar wasn't logged into his account) or "office isn't working" (that's a zip file, not a document), or " every time I try to run X it does Y" (the final straw was windows defender stopped him from opening a docx file because it came from an untrusted source, which was his GP/doctor who had self hosted mail bring flagged as spam by Hotmail). Bought a chromebook, moved him to google sheets and google docs, and haven't had a call since. If there was a locked in, $200 phone that wasn't apple that I could buy for him that would have the same effect, I would.

Chromebooks are great! But funny thing about them, you can also unlock the bootloader if you want, and install whatever you like.

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.

It really does seem that personal responsibility is a dirty word these days. Whether it comes to being able to critical review some news/social media someone has read online or maintaining the computer in your pocket.

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.

> I'm always amazed that in the land of the brave and free butchering general purpose computing machines is supposed to be justified by the fact grandma doesn't install the wrong apps.

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.

And I have an Android and I guess we probably spend all our time in the same apps

Not true, it depends on what one is used to. My father for example always used Android, now he got an iPhone and he find it more difficult to use, to the point that it asks me even trivial things. It's a myth that iOS is more simple to use than Android, there are things that are more complicated.

Biggest headache that Apple has solved is updates. They are very clear if a phone is still supported or not.

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."

Curious which phone this was because 1 year sounds really short upgrade lifetime.

> My father for example always used Android. [...]

> [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.

Oh there are plenty of things that are way more difficult or impossible to do on iphone. An incomplete list:

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.

> 6. Copy files to/from a flash drive.

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.

This is an argument. My elderly parents are stupid argument. for why you should buy iOS. No- its not signalling at all.

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.

iOS UX is so bad that to clear big attachments off the phone you have to individually select each item in a huge, multipage check list. There's not even a select-all option.

I spend a lot of time fixing iOS devices to relatives and friends. I think what you are referring to is just a myth created by the PR department at Apple

How many of those issues from your in-laws are due to installing programs from outside Google Play?

It’s just consoles vs. PC playing out in the consumer handset market and beige boxes are gradually losing ground.

This freaks builders out but shouldn’t, PCs are still a thing.

> On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple.

Citation needed? I don't believe this is true. Tunnelblick and qemu both exist on macOS independently of Apple's approval.

Also would like a citation. Onboarding mac users at work is "here's your .ovpn file, go install Tunnelblick and import it, start connection, and go".

Tunnelblick uses OpenVPN under the hood, which means it's using a TUN/TAP virtual NIC.

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.

Well the Wireguard app exists both for macOS and iOS so I guess is not that big deal to support VPN on these systems.

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).

That’s what I do too.

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, ...

After Big Sur deprecated network kexts, I switched over to Viscosity-- which is another OpenVPN client, and supports both tun and tap VPNs without an extension (using only built-in macOS capabilities).

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.)

in order to use one's own device properly

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.

Exactly. Many users don't have a concept of how to use a phone "wrong." For example, they blame the phone when they follow internet instructions to sideload an app which causes bugs.

Let’s not fall into the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because a majority of people don't understand how a phone/computer works does not mean their property rights are not being infringed.

You want to restrict Apple's right to sell a limited computing device. I would argue that you are infringing on their freedom.

You don't normally sell things with limited ownership rights. Selling something generally involves the transfer of all rights in real/tangible property. Here apple is reserving some rights even after sale. Last I checked apple was not leasing devices or something similar.

You are free to try and jail break your device if you want. Also, your statement is false: buying most things don't involves the transfer of all rights. You aren't free to make copies and resell. The app store is a service that comes with the phone.

The fact you mention one must Jail Break to even have hope of maybe enjoying all their property rights, implies some kinda of Economic tort. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_torts)

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.

> On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple

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.

> the user has control over their Mac.

for now, because observing the current trends, they'll likely won't for much longer... all for the sake of safety and convenience.

People have been saying the same thing since the Mac App store came out. And yet, here we are in exactly the same position.

Clearly we are not. The amount of changes Apple have made are plenty. VPNs are harder to use, side loading is harder, adblockers are ineffective, etc.

None of those things are true on macOS. Maybe you could argue sideloading is harder, but only insofar as it requires a three word Terminal command. One I know by heart. `sudo spctl --master-disable`.

The solution you are proposing is worse than the problem.

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.

This isn't speculation, there's literally an article on 9to5mac today about how the new iOS update will be pre-selecting apps provided by the Russian government on device setup to comply with a new law there. For now you can deselect/remove them.

That's really not an issue right now. Governments ARE forcing Apple to preinstall government apps right now.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-app...

That article completely proves my point.

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.

> 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.”

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."

I’m paying for a walled garden. I own the hardware, and with it bought software which I want to aggressively maintain it.

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.

Walled gardens are also legally enforced by police power of the state. Otherwise, Epic would just distribute their own jailbreaks and tell Fortnite users to jailbreak their phones.

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.

Epic is free to distribute a jailbreak. Apple is also free to update their phone to cover that security vulnerability.

They're also probably free to get sued

It’s not “construed as me demanding you go outside the walled garden at all times”, it’s that you’re making demands on a private company thru the police power of the state, rather than just not buying the product - and that such demands have consequences that reduce security and degrade via other unintended consequences.

So Apple is suppose to break the law of China? Why don't you go there and start openly distributing illegal material and see what happens.

The only way to prevent large, billion+ dollar corporations from existing is via highly intrusive state regulation, so people who are appalled by the monopolistic and authoritarian behaviors of big tech should really be asking themselves (1) whether they are against capitalism, because there isn’t a model of optimizing economies for market freedom and profit that disallows the existence of billion/trillion dollar companies, and (2) whether they are okay with breaking up the concept of a “nation-state”, since its size requires it to have large economies.

What I find amazing is that in this capitalist world, these companies are really against private property (yours, not theirs) I am not sure if private property is in the definition of capitalism, probably not, so there may be no contradiction. But still it is really amazing.

Capitalism is about using capital to produce something. Capital and the means of production are privately owned. This is the opposite of communism, which lets people own things but not the production system (actual implementations might vary.)

It's in the spirit of capitalism to be competitive so don't be surprised if those companies want all those things from us.

It's ironic, because the delineation[1] between personal and private property is often blurred by capitalism, yet it is laid bare in this example.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...

EU will sooner ban encryption than do this.

And who cares then...

Not everyone is a developer or reader of HN. Apple has evolved their software to make users safe.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com