Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spindritf | Hacker News Reader

Why is PayPal even in the title? They seem to have handled the case fine. Yeah, the additional freezes probably weren't necessary but it was Apple who went completely crazy.

A user was hacked so they stop allowing him to update their software?! So that it can more easily happen again?

And they will revoke his account (and license?) that allows him to use the software he bought?! This is like a horror story written by Richard Stallman.

EDIT: On second thought, why do you even need an account to update the software? When I'm updating my Ubuntu, it's the software that's signed so that I can trust the repository. The user is not signed so that the repository can trust them, you can stay completely anonymous. Hell, even Microsoft never required me to jump through any sort of hoops to get updates. I once had to verify my key, that's it. Does Android require a Google account to use the market and get updates? Even if, you still can get an anonymous one.

Why would anyone need my name to update their own software? It happens to run on my computer but that doesn't change anything.

> And they will revoke his account (and license?) that allows him to use the software he bought?! This is like a horror story written by Richard Stallman.

Hardly. Valve has been doing this with Steam for years. Microsoft does it with Xbox Live. It's the main caveat of a managed environment, sometimes the manager makes the wrong decisions.

This might be bad or distasteful, but it's not novel or unique. It's par for the course when it comes to software distributed through a central DRM system.

> Does Android require a Google account to use the market and get updates? Even if, you still can get an anonymous one.

You can do that with iOS too. Likewise, If Google decides to revoke your access to your Gmail account that all your Android purchases are associated with because you violated Gmail policy perhaps, you would be in the same boat.

Once again, not unique to Apple. Par for the DRM course.

I don't think you've actually disagreed with the original point in any way. :)

As you point out, Steam and Xbox Live have exactly the same disturbing retroactive revocation property that Apple does; that doesn't make it any less of a horror story, just more disturbing that people put up with it. (I suspect people mostly just don't think about it, because it probably won't come up for them.)

But so do Android Market purchases, and any other managed DRM system. You put up with it just like everyone else. Where I disagree is my level of concern. I have plenty of games on Steam and plenty of purchases on the iOS and Mac app stores. It doesn't bother me because it's status quo. I got over it quite some time ago.

No, I don't. :) And the ease with which this can become "status quo" makes it that much more of a horror story.

Fair enough, I just assumed from the Android comment. IMO you're making your own life harder for dubious benefit, but whatever floats your boat.

It's true that if you use no digital services and buy almost no mobile apps, you can avoid this. That kind of blows, though.

I didn't comment on Android, though in the case of Android you can at least bypass the Android market and install arbitrary apps without revocation. (I don't have an Android device, though; still looking for a comparable replacement for my n900, since it won't last forever.) I use quite a few digital services, just not any that control my access to bits I've already purchased. And I use a pile of mobile apps, all FOSS.

I wouldn't even consider the entirety of mobile apps ported to the N900 a pile, but whatever. GP commented on Android and you followed up pretty directly, so I just assumed.

True, I should have said the vast majority of popular digital services, not ones targeted towards the kind of people that would use an N900 to make a point.

At the time I wrote my comment, the original post hadn't actually mentioned Android; that appeared in a later edit.

> True, I should have said the vast majority of popular digital services, not ones targeted towards the kind of people that would use an N900 to make a point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ? :)

I don't think services offering the not-quite-purchase of data represent "the vast majority of popular digital services". Also, services like Netflix don't have this problem, since they very clearly position themselves as analogous to a rental, not a purchase. iTunes, the Android Market, Xbox Live, and Steam all very much position themselves as purchasing mechanisms, which makes the ability to retroactively revoke purchases unacceptable.

(And I don't use an N900 to make a point; I use it because it does the things I want it to do better than anything else I've tried, and that includes Android devices. I only mentioned it because you seemed to assume that since I didn't use iTunes or Android I must not use mobile apps at all.)

> At the time I wrote my comment, the original post hadn't actually mentioned Android; that appeared in a later edit.

Ahh, makes sense.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I'm looking at the truest scotsman in the world right now.

> I don't think services offering the not-quite-purchase of data represent "the vast majority of popular digital services".

I would, assuming you aren't counting rental services. Netflix isn't really the same thing. I'm referring to purchasing digital goods tied to an account.

> And I don't use an N900 to make a point; I use it because it does the things I want it to do better than anything else I've tried

Right...

> and that includes Android devices. I only mentioned it because you seemed to assume that since I didn't use iTunes or Android I must not use mobile apps at all.

Nope, I assumed you use an N900 or something similar the moment you said you didn't use an Android device. You seem like the type. I stand by my original comment, there are very few mobile apps published for MeeGo. I didn't say you utilized no mobile apps, I said a small handful. Still true. Hell, for MeeGo a handful might even be overly generous.

Gotta love the "run through and downvote everything I said" response because I was being honest. I guess a certain HN member is channeling reddit a little today.

Certainly wasn't me; users don't even have the ability to downvote replies to their own comments. I do find it surprising that someone would systematically downvote everything you said (and AFAICT systematically upvote everything I said in the process). I certainly don't think your comments need to disappear; mostly I'd say "I resemble that remark". :) I've upvoted them to compensate.

I realized after I posted it that the "certain person" remark made it sound like I was accusing you. I wasn't, I literally meant a certain person, as in some random other user.

Either way it was a very nice gesture. Cheers.

> Hardly. Valve has been doing this with Steam for years. Microsoft does it with Xbox Live.

Which is disturbing but when it regards software your livelihood depends upon, not "just" games, the story gets that additional umpf.

> Once again, not unique to Apple.

Sure, but the article is about Apple.

> Which is disturbing but when it regards software your livelihood depends upon

I like the implication that nobodies livelihood depends on a game. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. I'm sorry but to find it disturbing it kind of has to be novel, and it's not.

IMO it's pretty sad that what is supposedly a community of developers is "shocked" by something that has been going on for years now on plenty of platforms, including iOS and Android. You might still have a problem with it but it shouldn't cause an incredulous reaction like that.

> Sure, but the article is about Apple.

I'm not discussing the article, I'm discussing your incredulous reaction like this is something out of some dream. It's not, in fact there is tons of precedent for it.

> On second thought, why do you even need an account to update the software?

From what I can tell, it seems to be largely based on having a record that you've checked the box that says you've read their legal agreements.

Interesting thought. But MS deals with that by showing you an agreement when you first run Windows, do you need anything more nowadays?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com