Hacker News Reader

Comment by pi18n | Hacker News Reader

I've been recommending Android for a while, and here is another concrete reason why. Every time one of these stories appears I write the following: I develop for iPhone and I used to love OS X. The iPhone in entirety and OS X lately are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use computers even if it comes at the expense of those who do. Everyone do yourself a favor and switch to Linux on your computing platforms.

Regarding the OP; I hope the blog post kicks up enough noise that they allow the app again. Having a large public outcry is the only way to get Apple to do anything other than sue Samsung in attempt to prevent them from innovating faster.

View on HN

  > are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use
  > computers

What does it even mean? iPhone and OS X are aimed at people who want to use their computers, instead of getting CS degree. I've heard that majority of cars in US are with automatic transmissions and few people know how to drive "stick". Are there voices suggesting that auto manufacturers are aiming their products at people who don't know how to drive a car?

For the most part, yes, though it depends on your definition of "drive".

If you base your definition of "drive" as "being able to do the most basic of tasks", then sure, most everyone can drive a car. However, if you're an auto enthusiast, then to you being able to "drive" takes on a whole new definition; can you J-turn? How about drift? Can you jumpstart a car with a dead battery by push-starting? Can you correct your trajectory after losing control? To the hardcore drivers, these are the types of skills that will prove whether or not you can really "drive".

Just as with computers, I'd wager most people don't give a crap. Most people use cars to get from one place to another. Hauling groceries, kids & whatever else. Most people use computers to check email, Facebook, pay bills, write letters and play a couple of casual games. In both cases, there are users and there are enthusiasts.

Sure, most people don't care about what the car can or can't do most of the time. Many new cars do not allow unlicensed people to repair the car. You need a signed key to do changes to the car, repair it, or adjust the engine.

In the end, most people will get the normal use out of their car. It might be a bit more expensive and inconvenient, but in the end it will be just enthusiasts that actually care about being able to install custom parts on the car, or adjust the engine, or for that matter do repairs themselves.

From jargon files:

> hacker - A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.

Way to take his statement out of context to set up a piss-weak strawman argument.

His original statement (and what you excised, in italics):

> The iPhone in entirety and OS X lately are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use computers even if it comes at the expense of those who do.

That's basically a truism. What's been happening over the past three releases of OS X is testament to that.

There will come a day when users like me can no longer install and run whatever they'd like on their Apple computers; all application downloads will be funneled through the App Store, and you'll have to "jailbreak" your laptop just to do anything useful with it. I may have already purchased my last Mac.

i am sorry, but this is the largest density of drivel in a while posted here.

android, linux, suing samsung, lack of innovation - it's like reading an Engadget comment.

apple's business model around the app store is to protect users from CRAP. malware, viruses, etc. it acts like a spam filter of sorts. just like any spam filter there are false positives, some things get through, etc. but this concrete case? good riddance.

and watch how google will tighten the screws in their play store due to facebook, malware, etc. they run ads for nexus without mentioning android. they run ads for chrome.

apple's business model around the app store is to protect users from CRAP

Apple's business model around the App Store involves protecting users from crap, but it also has healthy doses of limiting competition and establishing first-party app dominance.

Apple has always put their priorities in this order aroun iOS: Apple > users > developers. As of now, it's working out quite well.

Uhh, have you been watching their stock at all for the past 6 months?

Have you been watching their revenues and profits for the past years?

The stock market is irrational and driven by fear and greed. While revenues and profits are objective performance indicators.

that's all well and good from a user perspective. as a developer, why on earth would you trust apple to determine whether or not your app is crap?

good luck with the play store then: http://unleashthephones.com/2013/04/09/google-removed-60000-...

"Google removed 60,000 Low-Quality Apps from Play Store in February"

how does Google define low-quality again?

i wouldn't need to trust google; there would always be a way to get my app to users who want it whether or not google wants it in their official play store. that is the huge difference between apple and google - google says "if we think your app is good quality we'll carry it in our store, otherwise find some other way to promote and sell it"; apple says "if we think your app is good quality we'll allow it on the iphone". with apple, there is no "otherwise".

bold prediction on my part: nexus phones and tablets soon will only be able to access the official play store. and launcher replacements will get kicked out.

this is an infantile prediction. there is no support for it, nor basis for the behavior from Google.

Well, yes and no. We don't get any viruses that run themselves and have access to our data, but we also have no way to share data between apps intelligently, nor can we prevent an app from sending our every interaction to Flurry, and we had to wait for an OS upgrade before accessing contacts asked permission first.

I haven't seen any significant innovation on their end since Notification Center. Android already has alternate lock screens, alternate keyboards, widgets.

My opinion is this; Android is both more innovative and more free. Since I know how to protect myself from malware reasonably well there's no benefit for me using the iPhone. My next phone will be an Android. It [Edit: the iPhone] would be good for, say, my wife, because she could care less about using it as a computing device and just wants to have something that works and takes photos.

PS Google can tighten the screws as much as they like; Android users can just sideload APKs without using the store AFAIK. I think that's far more appropriate. Lock down the store but allow alternatives.

You should be aware that a hefty percentage of software developers use OSX, I'd say 70% around here. They are easier to use for everyone, not just "people who don't know computers", and one of the best unix environments for development.

They are certainly (specially iOS) not aimed at people who like to spend hours messing with a thousand settings screens, buttons and checkboxes - self-proclaimed "power users".

He did say "OSX lately", and I agree. Snow Leopard was probably the best version of OS X, it's just been downhill from there. I don't want/care for things like Launchpad being in my OS.

I liked SL for it's stability and performance, but nothing changed much in my workflow after ML. Sandboxed apps are nice, now I don't have to worry about every download. Launchpad doesn't do anything unless you launch it, and it can be disabled.

I don't understand why people complain about Launchpad. It's no dumber than Front Row, which shipped on Snow Leopard and several versions prior, and like Front Row, it's totally hidden unless you choose to invoke it.

Why does this actually matter? This is an honest question. I don't use Launchpad, but its presence on the system doesn't affect me any more than the presence of Photo Booth does.

I've been using OS X since version 10.2, I think (maybe even 10.1, looking at the timeline), and came to it in large part because it married things I liked about the Mac--but never quite enough to justify buying one--with the things I liked about FreeBSD and, to some degree, BeOS. And with every iteration of the OS it got easier for everybody to use.

But it's also gotten better for power users to use. Automator keeps seeing improvements. AppleScript, for both better and worse, doesn't seem to be going away. The Terminal app has gotten improvements with every release. And Mission Control -- whether you personally like it or not -- represents the latest in what's very clearly a quixotic quest on Apple's part to get everyone in the world to love virtual desktops. Mission Control may not be nerdy enough for you personally, but its very existence is pretty nerdy. (And I actually think power users should give it a chance; it's certainly not like anybody else's virtual desktop management system, but once I got used to it I found it struck a really nice balance between power and usability.)

Certainly, OS X is getting better at catering to neophytes and is bringing over ideas from iOS. But I don't see anything substantial that they're taking away from OS X in the process, and that should really be what concerns us, shouldn't it? If you start hearing credible rumors that they're taking away your shell prompt, then the sky may really be falling. But as long as you can still do everything you could before, complaining about the fact that you can also do swipey stuff on your trackpad and pull up a big iPhone grid of applications seems just a little silly.

They're slowly locking down the ability to install what you want from the Internet. Sooner or later, it'll be App Store-only or jailbreak. The (not-quite-a-rumor) transition from x86 to ARM will only hasten this.

As a developer I use OS X only because I do iOS development. I wouldn't say OS X is easier for everyone, it's not easier for me than my Linux or Windows machines.

I know. I use OS X. I started using it for the exact reasons you list. I don't like where it is heading.

Assuming you still develop for iOS, what is your setup for developing while using linux?

You can get OSX up and running in VirtualBox/Vagrant.

Not that I'd want to do actual development that way, but we do it for iOS CI.

Which is a violation of the OS X EULA.

install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/OSX1082.pdf

B.2.iii

The way that reads it seems valid to create a virtual instance of osx for development.

As long as you are already on Apple hardware running Apple software

Only if you're running it on top of OS X using something like VMware Fusion.

When was the last time a developer got sued for violating the OS X EULA? Start worrying about real world problems for a change.

Oh, so just because you don't get sued for it means you should go ahead and do something illegal?

I don't know if breaking a contract or EULA is strictly illegal.

[citation needed] that breaking a EULA is illegal.

Just so I'm clear, where is the list of which ToS and EULAs are OK to break and which ones aren't? AppGratis seems to have gotten boned for violating one, yet you're advocating people break another in the same thread?

Sure, the odds of Apple coming after you are low. But that doesn't mean that it's any less of a violation of the license agreement that you agree to when installing the software. AppGratis also thought they were in the clear with their ToS issue.

Here are the ones that it's not OK to break:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Here are the ones that it is OK to break:

(Most of the rest)

Isn't it obvious? It's OK to violate the EULA if there's no chance of them catching you, and if other people haven't been caught before. No end user has ever been caught or sued by Apple for running OS X in a VM, because that's not easily detectable and Apple doesn't care about it. But stories of App Store EULA violation nightmares are a dime a dozen.

TL;DR use your common sense

EULAs are crap, as they attempt to tell me what I'm allowed to do with an entity that I own. Once the transaction is complete, we're done, and the creator doesn't get to control what I do, beyond the restrictions laid out in copyright law. If I violate a EULA, the creator has no recourse but to sue, and they'll be suing me for taking legal actions with my own property.

A ToS, on the other hand, lays out terms for the ongoing use of a service. If I violate the ToS, the service provider is within their rights to decline to provide me service. They're within their rights to do that anyway for nearly any reason they feel like, because this is an ongoing relationship and I don't have them enslaved. Beyond that, they could also sue, at which point things get a bit murky.

There's nothing wrong with breaking a EULA, and their legal enforceability is worrying. There's also nothing wrong with a service provider terminating service when a user breaks a ToS, which is what happened here.

There's no inconsistency.

> There's nothing wrong with breaking a EULA, and their legal enforceability is worrying.

Luckily they're not legally enforceable (at least in the U.S.) under many circumstances, though you may not want to take it to court since you could get unlucky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enfo...

Would this hold up in court? It seems laughable upon reading it.

Depends on your locality. In some countries/states/cities, EULAs are utterly unenforceable. In others, they might have a legitimate case.

"You can only run our software on our hardware" has already held up in courts. It's been a few years, but I think it was Allen Bradley or Siemens.

I can legally run Windows on my Mac or Linux boxes but I can't run OS X anywhere besides an official Mac. To which I say, get bent Apple, I have work to do.

BTW, I'm sure all Apple Boot Camp and Parallels users pay the $250 Microsoft license, NOT.

If I didn't have an Apple computer and sorely needed one I would probably use http://www.macincloud.com/ or get a Mac Mini.

I have an OS X machine. Otherwise I would jailbreak the device for developing and buy a Mac Mini or something if it turns out I need OS X to do codesigning when I submit it.

If anyone develops for iPhone without Xcode I'd love to hear it. I'd switch in a second if something could provide even half the functionality as long as it had half the usability issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com