Apple blocked the FlickType Watch keyboard then announced a clone of it
inputmag.com
inputmag.com
Man, these Apple threads are always so full of open speculation.
Edit: I find it very interesting that after multiple downvotes, suddenly I'm getting downvotes on lots of older comments of mine also. Are folks just going into comment histories to go on a downvote rampage?
https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-...
If Apple now bans the use of an alternative keyboard despite it not breaking the rules then that's the real issue: they'd be arbitrarily choosing when to apply or ignore the stated terms of use of the store. Reinstating the app later on once the damage is done is a small price to pay from Apple's perspective.
On the other hand if your product is actually just a feature for someone else's product you're always exposing yourself to a situation where the product developer just builds that feature in.
Think of other fields where you may offer an aftermarket solution like a car seat heating cover but the market evaporates the moment the manufacturer starts offering that as standard.
Well yeah, duh, they literally cannot compete. They were kicked off. The fact that you defend banning an app from the store as childish retribution for not taking a lowball offer is telling.
You have to remember that to companies like Apple everything is competition and financially related. Apple sells widgets based on product release cycles. Those cycles generally focus on features, whether those are hardware or software. Keep in mind that not everyone knows about FlickType. So in that case Apple may choose to release a FlickType clone as part of a new Apple Watch series, exclusive to that version and above. This helps sell more product for Apple. More new features that resonate with their buyers == more profit. Also you can't stand on the stage for 10 minutes and talk about a keyboard that your buyers go to the App store to get, now can you?
https://www.phonearena.com/news/flicktype-developer-files-su...
And the retroactive downvote sprees of other comments -- which I've also seen before, so don't even try to deny their existence -- are just beyond despicable. Shame, shame on anyone who is enough of an asshole to do shit like that.
To be honest, I'm quite happy about big companies revealing their ugly real face. And some people might benefit from such a reality-check.
Once all is said and done I suspect whatever apple has to pay will not meaningfully impact their profitability, and will be seen as a cost of doing business. This is a core reason these companies are so caustic. Penalties need to be harsh enough to make this behavior unprofitable. The board needs to be pissed at their executives.
Is this what being a hacker is now?
Knowing your project is going to get stomped out with uncompetitive practices from day 1,
still doing and carrying it all the the way through to court with a big player?
Apple also managed to cause lasting damage to HTC as a brand when they ventured into the US. I don't HTC ever recovered from that, although it might not have been the only problem they had.
[1] https://morningconsult.com/opinions/apple-v-samsung-scotus-s...
That is what drove me away. I assume this is still true, and my iOS devices will receive software updates for longer than Android devices.
Granted, most people would not be able to discern security updates and software updates or maybe even care about them nowadays, but back when the ecosystems and reputations were being established in early 2010s, Android vendors really dropped the ball. Everyone could see their relatives continuing to use iPhone 4 and iPhone 5 a couple more years and getting visibly updated for a couple more years than competing Androids (even from Google themselves!).
The resell value of iPhones was more as well, and I assume many or most people figured out that the probability of iOS devices outlasting competing Android devices was high.
Seems like Apple has a very anti-competitive position, no?
To me this goes all the way back to the walled garden argument. Apple sat on, what some may consider, a straw man arguing that they couldn't deliver security to their customers without it. Fast forward all these years and Apple's walled garden seems to be failing rather regularly for the trifecta of their: users, developers and the system in general. Users get less choice in the app store when Apple wants to compete directly, developers with good ideas who aren't willing to sell out to Apple will pay the price of their livelihood drying up over night if you don't give Apple what they want and finally we get things like no-click zero days on a routine basis these days.
A watch is now a walled garden? Does Casio have to open its OS?
Either these are not general computing devices or there's no line, a fridge or microwave or a console are general computing as well -- and device makers have no rights to make a product from digital parts as well as mechanical parts without having to make it open to digital fiddling, and secure it dragging in that new threat model.
And don’t squeeze out that “cOnSoLeS aReNt cOmPuTeRs” bullshit. They’re closer to computers than a goddamn wristwatch.
I think the reason this worked, and the reason it’s still sort of confusing to people, is that the iPhone is a phone, and showed up at phone stores. People viewed as a super-powered iPod, not a computer.
I think the difference is that Apple wants people to buy these devices as your primary computing device. Are you OK when Apple locks down the Mac line? What if you couldn't use Brew to install open source software? For a not insignificant portion of their buyers that may be OK.
I agree that consoles have their own anti-competitive issues, but they're not the same. Copy-cat games have always existed. The difference is that Sony's not going to pull a Rockstar game exclusively built for their platform to directly compete. So while I'm trying to see the parallel, it's not quite the same in my opinion.
I'm struggling to see any argument about watches that doesn't apply at least as much to game consoles.
In fact, the 'general purpose computer' will historically be seen as some kind of very stupid aberration, who ever thought that giving end users that kind of power was a good idea? /s
Even in digital, beige box server, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, FaaS, applications, devices, apps, screens... different waterlines, none of them magic. Which waterline do you have the right to "run whatever you want"? Which waterline is a business ok to say, from here down, it's my product?
Anti-circumvention laws saying DRM means hands off altogether are different from saying a maker must take extra steps to make it easier for you to mod the device they invested R&D in, must allow your mod at potential harm to other mods on the device, or a maker must change their business model to facilitate malware and benevolent app devs alike.
There's a market segment for beige boxes and Raspberry PIs. Not every device with digital parts supporting digital mods, plug-ins, add-ons, cartridges, apps, whatever you call them, has to be forced to be a Raspberry Pi.
You have a right to remove the warning label from your mattress, or root your phone, but Sealy doesn't have to perforate the tag and Samsung doesn't have to give you a toggle.
I'm sorry but this is where I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation.
The problem is that building platforms is expensive and if people can use your thing for whatever they want, that thing that they want is often not giving you money. My conclusion is that there shouldn't even be game consoles. They're just a tax on everyone that wants to play games.
I’ve wondered about this for a while. After about 2015 when the MBP was steadily losing features and gaining problems I was certain that my next machine couldn’t be a Mac. I was certain that the Mac would be rapidly becoming a glorified iPhone.
The trick is, I don’t know where to draw that line. One thought about jumping ship to Linux full time, but I haven’t been able to trust the setup. I’ve heard Windows with WLS is good, but haven’t tried it.
If you don't allow any third-party developers to make apps for your device, you have a closed garden and no anti-competitive conflict. If you allow all third-party developers to make apps for your device, you have an open garden and no anti-competitive conflict. If you allow some third-party developers, but not some others, to make apps for your device, you have a walled garden and a potential anti-competitive conflict.
As long as some developers are allowed to make apps for this device -- be it a watch, a safety needle, or a 60,000 sq ft rack-server center -- barring others is anti-competitive. And barring them just to launch a clone of their product yourself is an anti-competitive super dick move.
What if I want to? I don't particularly care what the manufacturer thinks, I bought the machine. Why does Microsoft gets a pass to dictate what I can do with the hardware I bought?
See for example people that bought PS3s for operating distributed clusters (because at the time the console WAS open) and then Sony locked down other OSes with an update. Why is this fair?
https://www.itwriting.com/blog/2394-sony-locks-down-the-ps3-...
> I think the difference is that Apple wants people to buy these devices as your primary computing device.
How can a wristwatch be a primary computing device?
Oh it's not. But you don't have a choice. Last I checked Apple Watch required being locked into the walled garden [0] via ownership of an iPhone. Apple Watch is a feature, not a standalone product as it stands today.
Same case with XBox and PS. You can’t willy nilly write a game for either platform.
For some reason the unlicensed cartridge that always comes to mind for me is the powder blue Bible stories game.
These days if a company tried that Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft would just laugh and issue a firmware update "improving system stability" three weeks later bricking any unlicensed games in the process.
There was even a handful of unlicensed titles for PS2/GC.
Consoles are very different from Apple’s walled garden.
2. There isn't a horde of pitchforks because instead people's efforts with those consoles are focused towards jailbreaking them to run their arbitrary code instead of begging the company to do it - and Microsoft's Developer Mode on Xbox allows running of arbitrary code anyways, so the problems is basically solved there.
Nintendo, Sony, etc also allow other developers to sell apps on markets they created, and they also compete with those developers. If Nintendo ever removes a platforming game for competing with the Mario series, we should also raise our pitchforks and protest against unfair abuse of power.
Half Life was not a walled garden before opening up to modders, and was not a walled garden after. It was just a game opened to modders.
If we get over ourselves, and allow that there's new category of thing, devices made of mechanical and digital parts both, that the maker may or may not selectively open for mods as a legitimate part of their business model they're within their rights to choose, then we'd be less religiously militant in ways that harm innovation and consumers.
Then what are you engineering?
---
Edit to elaborate:
I'm convinced this is the essence of the debate that has intensified as parts that move at the speed of light are devouring physical parts.
Switch, transistor, if statement -- a maker should be able to convert one type of part to another type of part without losing their rights, or accidentally triggering a "oh, look, general computing, therefore it's no longer up to you to decide!" flag of some sort.
Ease of reconfiguring electrons shouldn't change right to design and distribute a product with whatever blend of physical and digital one wants, facilitating whatever purpose one wants, and not being forced to facilitate other purposes.
That’s so last century. :-)
At least without the App Store reviewers crawling all over everything you do, putting an enormous level of scrutiny over everything you do. And the functionality has to justify it (not that it should operate without it, but with it has to validate why -- is it using some massive cloud resource to guess your next word, etc?)
That he ever got away with it was during confusion over keyboards on the watch where they weren't officially sanctioned and thus policed.
But otherwise he's engaged in building features for someone else's platform. Eventually those features get first party inclusion. This is the surest thing in this industry, and people comparing it to sherlock, etc -- ridiculous. Apple made a larger Apple watch so they decided it's time for a keyboard. That this guy is trying to claim some sort of moral/intellectual ownership over keyboards and/or swype typing is ridiculous, and it's the sort of overreach that is usually criticized viciously on HN.
And if Apple truly made an offer to "buy" his keyboard, it was certainly just to settle bad blood. The likely outcome would have been that they toss his solution and then do exactly what they did, which is build their own.
Completely wrong. I assume you saw some source online saying that network access was banned across the board for keyboard apps, maybe someone looked at the default restrictions and extrapolated from there. Easy mistake to make. Anyway, see below:
----
> To be clear, Apple’s own developer guidelines specify that “full access” isn’t a problem: the only dispute here is whether the app continues to work if a user turns it off — which it does, says Eleftheriou, if you turn VoiceOver on. “They’d have to try it as a VoiceOver user, something that they don’t seem to bother doing. I’ve had several rejections in the past because the reviewer didn’t know anything about VoiceOver,” Eleftheriou says.[0]
And from Apple's (as far as I can tell, still current) developer documentation:
> By default, a keyboard has no network access and cannot share a container with its containing app. To enable these things, set the value of the RequestsOpenAccess Boolean key in the Info.plist file to YES. Doing this expands the keyboard’s sandbox, as described in Designing for User Trust.[1]
Which then goes on to extensively document how network access can be added to a keyboard utility. Pretty far away from a utility-wide ban.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/16/22627515/flicktype-ios-ke...
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...
This is 100% false. Both the apple keyboard and gboard from google require network access for gif, search support etc
On the one hand, this is not pretty, on the other hand, this was happening, happens and will happen, so anyone starting business should think of this - that's one more risk to take into account. I think there was a good post on this by Joel Spolsky - if you create app that improves someone else product, the owner of the product soon or later will come after you.
Apple probably is not going to extend iOS with capabilities useful for plumbers, so one is safe building app for plumbers, however I would hesitate to build app for runners, as Apple is clearly looking on the health & sports sector.
"A gift he couldn't refuse", indeed.
> Newly-released emails reveal how Google hoped to pay $50 million for YouTube in 2006, and why it ended up paying $1.65 billion
> https://www.businessinsider.com/email-reveal-google-hoped-bu...
I can image when acquisition happens, the keyboard team under software org will need to have some sort of requests to M&A(?) org, and then let them negotiate the details like price and make decisions. And app store review team is not involved in this discussion process.
For the M&A (I don’t know the actual name) org, IMO there is no incentive to block an app update due to a failed acquisition, they handle acquisitions every day and turned down offers are normal to them.
For the keyboard team, do they really want to block the app updates for a revenge? It’s possible but I think unlikely, they’re not competing with FlickType. Yes, they sherlocked the FlickType, but they don’t have the pressure to increase adoption because the native keyboard will have better experience (may not fair to developers if no API provided), and only available on watch 7.
Let’s say the keyboard team do want a revenge. Then some manager under keyboard team, which is a few levels down the tree of software org, needs to talk with another manager in app review team, which is also a few levels down of marketing org, for the blocking of updates for a specific app. Why would the manger of app review team accept such request? Imaging you’re that app store review manager, someone down the line of another org ask you to do something not only hurt the reputation of the company, but also yourself either externally or internally. Will you accept that request?
To be clear, this is my guess, and I don’t know what’s really going there, I could be wrong, and this is indeed a revenge. But my point is things may not connected as they look like.
edit: Sorry, I didn't include the source, the Developer License Agreement. Here's a link (relevant section on page 23) -- https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/terms/apple-de...
They simply said keyboards on the watch are not allowed.
I can’t think of a technical reason for that.
The rejection was only because the app existed on the Apple Watch, and it was only rejected after the reviewer knew the new Apple watch would include the same feature (Note, you can’t use this feature on < 2021 apple watches, you have to pay to play.)
They rejected his app while going ahead and releasing a clone. Why?
Weird because it did.
-offer to buy the keyboard. -don't come to agreement. -refuse to remove scam copycats. -ban keyboard. -release own keyboard.
This is 100% false. Apples own keyboard as well as gboard from google both require network access to facilitate gif, search support etc
“ keystroke logging done by any such extension must be clearly disclosed to the end-user prior to any such data being sent from an iOS Product, and notwithstanding anything else in Section 3.3.9, such data may be used only for purposes of providing or improving the keyboard functionality of Your Application (e.g., not for serving advertising);”
I guess it would help if he's also American (don't know where he's from) so he could fight Apple on home turf and use the jury system on his side like "Evil megacorp steals from the little guy" (does it even work like this in the US or did I watch too many movies?), but I'm more curious how a lawsuit would go if he'd be in a jurisdiction different than the US.
Like, if for example, the author would be Russian, could he sue Apple's Russian legal entity and they would just shrug it off as "Yeah, that's not us who screwed you, go to the US and sue the Apple US HQ."?
As a non-lawyer I'm really curious how the legal system works for such disputes.
Not fair by any account, but I think that’s what is likely to happen.
I'd think Apple would want to win the case to discourage other developers from doing the same thing.
Disclaimer: Sorry for postvac ramblings
Ivy Leagues serve the purpose of giving individuals the minimal artifacts of knowledge and virtue to get ahead, without its actual substance.
Ivy League schools are designed to be a filter for people who would make good amoral agents of capital, not an educational system in the classical sense.
They will however probably end up settling. Take the money and wait for legislation.
Doesn't stealing someone's idea for an app/innovation and respinning it into your own implementation count as IP theft?
IIRC the Winklevoss twins got paid handsomely as a settlement for Zuckerberg stealing their idea for Facebook. Granted, they were very rich and well connected so that helped.
Apple could pay this guy off, but apparently their executives have decided he is not a sufficient PR problem or time expense to merit a payoff yet.
Are you sure about that? Obviously, you mean outside of the patent framework and the concept of infringement, so never mind that.
There is law against executing someone else's idea which is public, and over which they have no patent.
What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking into an organization and stealing trade secrets: ideas that are not known outside of that organization, and are (consequently) not patented.
What is this law? I am pretty sure flying cars, underwater cities, space travel, etc are ideas that someone else has had, but no US court is going to stop you from executing an idea just because someone else fantasized about it.
>What if the idea isn't public? Not that it applies in this case, but I think there is such a thing as breaking into an organization and stealing trade secrets: ideas that are not known outside of that organization, and are (consequently) not patented.
The theft itself would be a crime, but an entity not involved in the theft would be able to take advantage of the trade secret without any legal liability. That is the tradeoff for not registering a patent to gain exclusivity for 20 years via legal mechanisms.
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/connectus-secret-6...
Connect U obviously did not have proper documents stating Zuckerberg was working for them, or a non compete or anything since they were willing to settle. Hence it seems like a he said she said situation where Connect U got lucky that Facebook was going to be so huge that their agreed upon settlement amount was inconsequential to Facebook.
No, there is no such thing as IP theft. There is theft, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and patent infringement.
Also there is Monopoly\anti-competitive behavior law, which this seems an obvious violation of.
He didn't invent virtual keyboards on touchscreens. I don't suspect he holds a patent in this area.
That would not be a reasonable basis for a lawsuit, since it could not be expected to succeed.
This makes the assumption that apple hasn’t been putting deep thought into the keyboard design since before the first watch was physically built. I think it’s safe to assume there’s a 30 slide keynote filled with different designs and user study results.
"Stealing" someone's idea to make a keyboard.
Or the discovery may uncover evidence of poor behavior. You just don't know.
Seriously folks, consumer devices are being used internally for a long time before they become known to the public. UI improvement ideas are being thrown around constantly and are logged, discussed, prioritized, etc. Just because something isn't there on launch day, or v2, v3 or v4 of the software, doesn't mean they didn't think of it or didn't plan to do it.
I'm tired of this meme. Getting better lawyers doesn't let you cheat the law.
It's not a fair playing field. Apple knows that, but pretends that it is.
I say it's a problem, but I don't have a solution. It's hard to say "Apple can't make apps for the iPhone". Or "Amazon can't sell stuff on Amazon". Or "Google can't by ad space on Google Ads".
There clearly needs to be some sort of laws to restrict these kinds of behaviours, to encourage a diverse and open economy rather than rigged games.
Anticompetitive behavior is more subjecting third party apps to rules that their own apps aren't subject to. Or arbitrarily changing the rules to suit their own apps. Any number of behaviors really that affect competitors and prevent them from competing with Apple's apps.
Yes! During the last US election cycle I thought Elizabeth Warren was smart to make a point of this about Amazon... I don't think this issue gets enough attention and very few people seem to care.
There are numerous ways this is an unfair practice, and the problem gets worse as the marketplace owner continues to grow and devour competitors.
https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-criticizes-...
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2346233/apple-shows-tru...
It's hard to imagine a time when iPhones couldn't download podcasts over the air. I can understand why banning Podcaster would have made OP sour on Apple.
The actual podcasts app was released in 2012
I recall Apple had previously said they tested and abandoned an on-screen watch keyboard for the Series 0, as the screen was too small. And yesterday they said the screen was finally large enough for a keyboard. I think Flicktype proved it was viable on a smaller screen, and Apple is being crappy limiting availability to the new watch.
I don’t know if Apple legally or morally owes the developer anything. I doubt it, but I’m all for them sorting it out in court.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/09/15/apple-refutes-fli...
Edit: Watson was name. See child comment.
Sherlock was the Apple tool that (in version 3) took heavy inspiration from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelia_Watson.
Allegedly etc etc.
Of course, Alfred was always designed to work alongside Spotlight since all the actual indexing relies on Spotlight.
TIL.
Medical professionals have malpractice insurance / budget where if a doctor was to make a mistake and was sued for it then it is used to settle. Similarly companies like Apple seem to feel like they keep doing what is right for their own personal interests and profits while at the same time set aside money to settle such cases and see it as collateral damage. Even if you were to get a tough judge in a case like this you’d still as Apple at best get a slap on the wrist with a few hundred thousand or a million in fines to some individual developer. The only difference between medical professionals and big tech is that once a medical professionals licence is pulled he can’t practice medicine again. I wonder what similar punishment big tech should get for pulling such stunts.
I think that spotify has a much stronger case, given the fact that apple is selling a directly competing service with an obvious price and bundling / integration advantage
As far as I understand, those two things are unrelated. Lack of competition by itself is considered to hurt consumers. Assuming that Apple's choice was based on monopolistic behavior (which is for the courts to decide), whether they got money while doing it is not relevant.
We don't know why Apple's offer was rejected. But in a case like this, it is conceivable that it was felt the Swype founder had demeaned his successor's achievements.
That this exec alone was singled out by name suggests that the negotiation's breakdown might have been triggered by a clash of personalities.
If so - despite having already delivered their fait accompli - in the interest of fairness Apple should remake its previous offer. This time with heightened sensitivity to the pair of egos.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-uses-seller-data-copy...
Sometimes they just buy out the app developer. think they did this with Dark Sky?
I can't set custom alerts anymore for e.g., umbrella or UV, but the automatic alerts are exactly how I wanted them anyway... and it's nice that the app changes which data is shown based on the current conditions: if it's going to rain, the map shows weather radar instead of temperature
I get why the developer might be ticked, in this case, but I still think it's a stretch to speak of "cloning" a very very basic QWERTY keyboard, and the breathtakingly-original concept of putting a keyboard onto a touchscreen. /s
As if that is some kind of grand-scale theft of intellectual property. Please.
"Limited Vision. FlickType is designed to be as accessible as possible, featuring large keys, highly readable visual announcements, high-contrast color themes, and much more.
Type With Your Ears. FlickType can speak back to you when you type or edit, enabling a completely eyes-free writing experience. People who are blind write millions of words every month using it, typing just as fast as everyone else.
Comfortably Smart. Say goodbye to painfully slow editing operations. Delete and change entire words with a single flick of your finger. Control the cursor directly from the keyboard. When typing, don't slow down and try to be accurate. Simply tap-type where it feels right and FlickType's unique algorithm will find the correct word from the pattern of your taps."
I think he lost his chance.
https://hitechglitz.com/the-creator-of-the-previous-highest-...
Blocking it from the store was an ass move, if it indeed happened as described and there’s no hidden context.
I agree that scam apps should be removed, but why did he expects copycats to be removed?
I’m not opposed to Apple introducing a system keyboard as a clone but the independent developer should not be strong-armed off their platform.
Honestly it just shows weakness of character for the entire Apple company. This is no different than voter suppression when candidates can’t garner votes from the public legitimately.
Oh wait, I guess half the government is fine with voter suppression and whining like 4 yr olds about voter fraud.
That’s the new Apple for you…
Then again, they have the power and capability to make this move. Whose to blame them? A keyboard is something that should be locked down from a security standpoint and a fundamental piece of the system.
That being said you won’t catch me ten feet near an Apple Watch as a dev. Or as a citizen—that is a huge privacy concern. Not to mention the battery life is shit. I tried one for a week and couldn’t bear to have 3 charging cables by my bed at night. I would need at least a week but 2 weeks charge would be ideal…
Not really, that is the old Apple before they had to get a Microsoft cash injection to avoid closing doors.
"A separate version for the Apple Watch would remain [in the App Store], but then Apple pulled that one as well, telling Eleftheriou that keyboards aren’t allowed on the Apple Watch."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/iphone-keyboard-...
I don't like Apple, but come on. Reading documents is what computers have historically proven best at, and a keyboard is a pretty logical extension of any given electronic device. Would sure save everyone a lot of time if these things were built in.
This is only from memory, but for me, the pattern is the same.
This is a fundamental, existential problem with the App Store model.
You can't compete with Apple; they simply will not let you.
She used Amazon as the example but thinks the same about the App Store. As much as I agree with her, the problem with this has been, where do you draw the line between applications and system software? What can be included out of the box? This has constantly changed as companies like Apple vertically integrate the user experience.
Example.
Numbers on my iPhone. Fuck it, use libreoffice on my laptop and have no online spreadsheet solution. Didn’t really need it. Sometimes things can wait. Shrug.
Microsoft did not have a way to block Lotus from running on Windows at the time (other than intentionally breaking their system calls, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10432608).
They're clearly abusing their monopoly here. I hope this will bite them in the face.
A video of it in action here: https://youtu.be/KYnAB4jYJV4
So it did take you out of a flow to do it.
In the process they've transformed into the 'big brother' from their 1984 T.V. ad campaign.
The commonly shared tale is that Apple was not only founded in the garage of 2066 Crist Drive in Los Altos, California – Jobs’s family home – but that the first Macs were designed and built in the garage as the company was bootstrapped.
“The garage is a bit of a myth,” Wozniak told Businessweek. “We did no designs there, no breadboarding, no prototyping, no planning of products. We did no manufacturing there.”
[…]
“The garage didn’t serve much purpose, except it was something for us to feel was our home,” said Wozniak. “We had no money. You have to work out of your home when you have no money.”
If this isn't a monopolistic behaviour...
So basically don't develop for half of the market and then if google uses similar anticompetitive tools (as they have) just don't develop at all.
Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides those technically necessary for performing the actual function the user installs the app for should be warned once and then banned for years.
None at all, no, and I did not mean to assert that they didn't. I was not saying anything about the program itself, only responding to the claim that permissions had to be requested for optional features (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538104):
> Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides those technically necessary for performing the actual function the user installs the app for should be warned once and then banned for years.
which was a response to a question about why the permissions were requested if they were not necessary (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28538036):
> Then why did it even ask for full system access? Did it? IMHO developers of the apps which ask for any permissions besides those technically necessary for performing the actual function the user installs the app for should be warned once and then banned for years.
Since the permissions become necessary when the user chooses to use the optional features, I took kevingadd to be claiming that the permissions had to be requested whether or not the optional features were used.
This is wrong, as far as I can tell. The watch app is still in the App Store.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/flicktype-watch-keyboard/id135...
I just installed it and verified that it works, although the Watch keyboard itself is hidden behind a $10 in-app purchase.
Not sure what the conclusion should be here.
On one side this runs on Apple platform:"it is my platform, I rule it".
On the other hand, they have a de-facto position to abuse by just kicking out companies at will to enlarge their businesses and monoplolize them...
I wish there was choice beyond Apple and Android. I am myself starting to look for alternatives. Espcially because of privacy concerns. Things like these at the end go against us customers.
I really don't know how anyone can see this sort of crap and say they're against regulations. The market obviously isn't fixing itself, do you have any other solution?
"Market fixing itself" describe relationships between consumer and supplier. In this case "consumer" is better off so seems like market works as intended.
Developer's being f-ed over is sad thing but unless the situation for developers is so bad that they abandon App Store in troves then nothing will fix anything.
Also one could argue that overall situation is pretty-pleasing for everyone, apps that do not go into Apple's territory (system stuff) seem to be thriving and don't complain too much.
I'd rather them not to regulate it because they start with Apple and end up killing shareware and everything else. Who knows what kind of crazy stuff they'll invent for open source, can they outlaw it? I'd rather them to not even start.
How is the consumer better off when a choice for them has been removed? If Apple's keyboard is superior, then consumers will automatically chose that and not buy this guy's software. How is this "nanny state" behaviour by Apple justified?
If Apple's option is worse (which I doubt, at least for English) and/or original app is free then probably consumer suffers a bit. But if consumer is worse off then it is better because AFAIK American anti-monopoly system focuses on consumer's well-being so the more examples of consumer being worse off the easier to attract courts and regulators, isn't it?
And there are very EVIL incentives in having regulators. More free market is a way better solution.
I agree it is a shitshow.But it is also true that these companies created products. What does a regulator do? Regulate and having incentives to regulate in certain directions (come on we all have seen that). However they bring zero value to people (unlike Apple, for example, with all its defects)
There are sooo many absurd regulations that prevent people from building businesses or even working that Ithink we should start there. And later, and only later talk aboutthe rest.
Just my two cents.
It seems that regulators would be kind of gods where there is nothing else to say about it.
I am still waiting for a real, logical reply to who regulates regulators.
After all, we live in an overregulated world where people always complain about corporations.
However, much of this power is accumulated through lobbying to legislators. Do you people really think that regulating MORE is better?
I bet this is not the good way to go...
Again, just my two cents from my intellectually honest (I can be wrong, of course) analysis by seeing what I see day by day.
And after what they've shown today they'll have only themselves to blame and what they've shown today.
Unfortunately whole community will suffer because of them being insufferably arrogant.
What those people are really saying is that the regulations that exist are the ones they want, and no more.
History has shown over and over that left to their own devices people will act in their own self interest. And from a biological point of view it would even be the correct thing to do IMHO. But we ain't running hungry through the wilderness no more. A win-win would be better for everyone.
I think inequality creates fear. Even in those who profit, the fear of loosing their wealth. There was a case of a town in the US, were the population was pretty homogenous, their culture forbade the flaunting of wealth, so everybody acted humble and even dressed the same. Then the younger generation went to college out of town, came back with a differnt mindset. Pools were built, cars bought, inequality made obvious for everyone to see. What happenend? Cases of heart disease were low before, but rose afterwards. Found a link: https://www.unimedliving.com/living-medicine/illness-and-dis...
(edit) formatting
It is as if I am a soldier and hit you and you ask for an army to feel safer on the basis that "soldiers should be good in theory, they are here to protect us"and u see it again and again and ignore the facts.
Well, even if regulation has loopholes for bad actors, is it better to live in a world without it?
This is not what we want? I want that.
Most customers just don't care about any of that, so they continue to buy Apple.
Remember, money "wasted" on apps is straight revenue for Apple. It's why they want to win the case against Epic (and by extension Netflix, Spotify, etc) so badly, because they get a sweet 15% on every purchase made at minimal cost.
There are other ways to solve the "wasting their money" problem - offer refunds or similar (again, not at the expense of the developer)