> hopefully this move pushes the government to force Apple to ...
While I strongly oppose Apple's decision, I even more strongly oppose government involvement as a solution. The government should not be able to compel association, it is essential to maintain freedom of association.
Alt-right apps, sites and people weren’t banned for associating with the wrong crowd, they were banned for their role in trying to overthrow the government.
Apple's ecosystem may not be right for you. It's widely known to be curated, and it seems the majority of Apple users appreciate the curation. It's possible you didn't know the state of the ecosystem when you purchased the device and agreed to the terms, and it's unfortunate you only had 14 days to discover it before the return window closed, if you purchased directly from Apple. Perhaps they will make an exception for you. I've heard they occasionally allow returns outside of that window. Some people have luck selling their devices, and report they retain high resale value.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
Any user that wants to could continue using Apple's curated store and apps, regardless of anyone else sideloading... just like the average Android user.
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
The iPhone is more like a train than a car. Off-tracking, let alone off-roading, is technically prevented. It’s sort of a buyer-beware situation. I get that you’re unhappy with their chosen business model, design decisions and implementation. The natural remedy in a capitalist system is to choose an alternate product from a different manufacturer. You’re free to petition them of course, but the decision remains theirs. Or maybe you can petition the creation of laws to outlaw their business model. But of your three options, the first seems most expedient and reliable.
You intentionally bought a phone with an operating system that intentionally controls what apps are allowed to be on it.
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
No they were banned for going against the democrat-left establishment. After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
There were no endless attacks on federal property, and there was no organized movement to disturb the peaceful transition of power, nor overthrowing a democratically elected government. Don't peddle lies.
> There were no endless attacks on federal property
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
I'm not seeing these people trying to kidnap Senators. I'm not seeing an organized movement to stop a democratic transition of power, nor incitement by the President in favor of such actions, not people walking with guns threatening the lives of others. Vandalism, sure? Are you going to stupidly compare one thing with another?
Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
> Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
There were millions of people in the streets, and the number of violent events was disproportionately small, and was an _excuse_ used by unaffiliated people to loot. To this date there is no association between BLM protesters at large and any willful intent to cause damage at scale or destabilize democracy.
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
This is the equivalent of saying "if you don't like the laws, just move to a new country!".
Besides the logistical hurdles, one is not a substitute for the other. The pros still outweigh the cons, but that doesn't mean I can't push for better policies to fix the things I don't like.
Could there possibly be anything more against the spirit of the Apple 1984 commercial than them kicking off a messaging system that lets people say whatever they want?
What's next, email? Are they going to ban text messages because people say no-no words on there?
I think browser could be a logical next. It’s not more rational for Apple to censor the content of the apps you run on your device than the content of the Website you browse on your device.
In a way this is a form of death of net neutrality. What your ISP couldn’t do, Apple and Google happily will.
Could you at least try to argue in good faith? Speculation that email and text messages will be banned by Apple isn't in good faith, or even minimally interesting.
There's no need to ban email. It's unencrypted plain text, with a small number of majority providers. Filtering extremist content at that level should be easy enough.
Or the web could be what the web was intended to be, platform less. We effectively killed the notion of “web” when we doubled down on “there’s an app for everything and stopped adding hardware access to mobile browsers.
Makes me said that there’s an app to order a burger from Shake Shack for example.
> People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.
Under what justification?
These people agreed to the contract. Their BATNA is Android, which allows sideloading, or their web browser, where they can be as unmoderated as they want to be.
There is no problem here. If you want an Iphone supporting app store with more permissible side loading, go build one.
Look for open source phones. There are several to start with, and they support Linux and even Firefox's attempt with an OS. Perhaps even a chromium type of Android. Have fun!
It's largely been the House side that has taken the lead so far, but a new Democratic Senate would also be interested in regulating Apple's "services" including the App Store.
They can easily get enough Republicans onboard to stop a fillibuster. After the Parler situation, Republicans would no longer feel the need to defend Apple's App Store margins (regardless of whether or not Parler can come back under the proposed laws, the political damage is done).
You're missing my point. It will be far easier to get laws changed than to develop a whole new phone.
The party that will control Congress in a couple of weeks does not like trillion-dollar companies like Apple. They believe that Apple and others should be considered monopolies, and if there is a court case they believe Apple should have the burden of proving that they aren't a monopoly (unlike current law).
I didn’t sign up to anything other than buy an iPhone and while I’m not sad I can’t have a Nazi app on my phone if suddenly they say I can’t have Twitter I will be. It seems weird to have a computer and for the manufacture tell me what I can do with it.
Apple advertises that they review everything that goes on their store. It’s a feature that some people choose it for. It sounds like you chose the phone that had the wrong feature for you.
Iphone offers no common services that Android cannot provide. This is why they are saying it.
[X] Phone
[X] Text
[X] Compute Applications
[X] NFC or other near items
I guarantee the vast majority of consumers aren't using more than an extremely limited feature set that both phones happily share with their customers.
Are they produced by the same designer? Nah. But that really doesn't matter for functionality purposes.
So? There are still alternatives on good old laptops/desktops.
What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android? You may have found your next business opportunity if you get moving. You'll simply be responding to capitalism as Parler did when they started, and as Google and Apple are doing now.
> So? There are still alternatives on good old laptops/desktops.
I can't carry a laptop in my pocket.
> What application of computing (not specific compiled binary, but rather generic spreadsheet, ssh, chat, etc.) is not available on Android?
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant, but regardless you know very well that it is completely disingenuous to suggest that someone just "build a new app" for another platform.
Not every spreadsheet is the same. Not every chat app is the same. Someone isn't just going to go out and build another Fortnight because you can't get Fornight on the iPhone anymore.
It is not disingenuous, Iphone legitimately offers no major feature you can't get from Android.
You're arguing that feature parity is required for subsitutition, and that is an addled argument. It's not even temporally consistent, as you have prior versions of applications with features removed.
You can carry a laptop in your pocket. Sony VAIO had a mini edition around 2007. You can also use a bag, which has big pockets, and you can connect to networks and even cell networks.
Point is -- your argument here is very weak that the two platforms aren't substitutable, and there really is nothing left to say. Have a pleasant evening or morning, as the case may be.
It is, if one of your highest use cases is “Parler we an app on my phone”
One of the main features of buying an iphone is “Apple guarantees my privacy and security”.
If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter. Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
> It is, if one of your highest use cases is “Parler we an app on my phone”
That is not my highest use case at all. I have an Apple Watch. An Android phone works very poorly/not at all with it. I have an iPad. An Android phone does not easily sync between them. I have a Mac laptop. An Android phone does not sync well between them.
I think the UI on the iPhone is much more intuitive. I can't get that on Android. There are a bunch of apps that are only available on iPhone. The iPhone has better apps for my kids.
I could keep going on, but my point is, there is a lot my iPhone can do that an Android can't, for me.
> If you are choosing the former it strongly suggests you don’t care as much about the latter.
It doesn't in any way suggest that.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security especially for the non technical majority.
I agree. So make it hard to do. Put it behind a set of options. Make me have to install a text file on a BSD machine and then sync my phone to enable it. Just make it possible and let me assume the risk.
I didn’t mean you specifically. But for those super motivated to use a Parler app the ability to sideload probably trumps the factors you listed.
I agree they’re not fungible. I like being on iphone for all the ecosystem aspects you describe. But if android worked for some key feature I’d switch, and keep a secondary iphone for my apple watch, imessage etc.
I like that your position offends both iPhone users and Android users equally. (I really do.)
Ultimately, is there anything that can be done? If you had to pick one specific world-changing action, what would it be, in detail? Your original premise was interesting, but perhaps difficult to codify.
If I could change anything, I would codify interoperability and access equality into law. If you have an API on your device and any app has access to it (1st party or not) than all parties should have access to it. It's fine if you want to have private system APIs, but if you're publishing apps for your platform than all apps should have access to the same APIs.
Maybe even specially call out that anyone can install any app they want on their mobile device, and this must be made accessible. You could even add in some weasel words like "after reasonable precautions have been taken" so that Apple can make you jump through some hoops to install an "unapproved" app. Let the courts sort out what is reasonable or not.
If a user is willing to go through the hoops to get exposed, I'm not sure anyone should stop them. Also, this is an old and tired argument. Computers have been this way forever. And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.
“And yet you can build a platform that has a reasonable tradeoff between security and usability.“
What examples do you have in mind and what has ‘usability’ got to do with this?
Also - as soon as one reputable App requires users to ‘go through the hoops to get exposed’, any app that can fool users into thinking it is reputable will be able to do so.
> Being on a system that allows sideloading is a serious step down in security
How? The iOS system sandboxes the binary, so it can't do anything without permission. It can't read files, can't read data like contacts, can't connect to the internet, etc. I think it would be relatively easy for Apple to allow sideloading while maintaining great security. Plus, it would be off by default, so know-nothing users would not be doing it.
Not if you're comparing a Prius and an f350. They both do the same task of 'people moving' but have very different appeal and featuresets. Most people could get away with either, regardless of their situation. But there are edge cases where their differences shine.
Prius and F350 are specific models. Android and/or iOS can be on small phones, big phones, tablets, Televisions, etc... So I think the analogy is broader - Ford and Toyota.
If build quality is my main factor, than Ford is not a substitute for Toyota. If having a Hybrid SUV as big as the Highlander, Ford is not a substitute.
There are lots of reasons people want a Toyota, and Ford doesn't have all those things.
It is either a substitute or a complement as they both are in the automotive industry. A complement is like peanut butter and jelly -- buying both makes life that much better. Clearly this isn't the case here. So let's drop the misapplied definition for "substitute" and move on. Your point is better made by identifying perhaps unjustified cost increases in purchasing (i.e. Toyota unionizes and causes a 0.002% increase in the car price, analogous to the increased difficulty in communication these insurrectionists now have in communicating with their proto-terrorist cells).
No, not really. That brings up a good point. Would people complain if all the car dealerships decided you could only buy American cars from now? Would they say "why are you complaining, you can just get a Ford instead of a BWM"?
People would complain at first, and then either ship their cars or build a new car company.
In fact, this is exactly what folks did to Tesla in the beginning. Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
> Of course the difference here was that Tesla owners were not seeking to overthrow democracy in the US.
I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant to the discussion of Android and Apple being substitutes or not. You keep bringing that up in your other comments too.
To be clear, I don't support people who want to rise up against the US, quite the contrary.
But they still bring to light an important point -- why does Apple get to say what apps I can install in my phone?
Because Apple is running the store. It's their store. And users have voluntarily and intentionally bought into an ecosystem that Apple moderates and curates, because that curation has substantial benefits.
I'm well aware that they curate. I can still complain about it try to fix it though, since I like all the other things Apple does. I don't want to switch, I just want my device to be better.
No, it doesn't bring up a good point, and your analogy is poorly drawn.
The situation with Parler and Apple is analogous to expecting a Ford dealership to sell, and promote, Tesla's products, or another car-maker's products.
This is an important point that I haven't really seen addressed anywhere. Notifications are a crucial engagement tool, and the web doesn't seem to have any API on mobile to allow for them, even for consenting users.
Web push notifications work on most android phones. But not on apple. Apple hasn't figured out a way to get their cut on web apps yet so will make sure they are missing key features.
It exists, but Apple purposely drags their feet when it comes to implementing web standards in mobile Safari that include the web notifications API, and they make it impossible to use a different browser or JavaScript engine on iOS.
Just wanted to point out that iOS Safari currently does not support web notifications, even for PWA. Works on Safari for macOS, but Apple hasn’t allowed it on iOS yet (along with a lot of PWA useful APIs).
I think the web is already the corporate-agnostic way to do apps in. If they lack some device features I think this is a technical limitation and a different topic. Things have got so much better in that regard already in just the last 5-10 years.
Absolutely. I have no problem with them not wanting the app in the app store, but they should allow side loading or alternative app stores. We should have the same situation on ios that we have on macos.
Not sure why this was dead, or why Apple seems to get a pass on this walled-garden behavior. If Microsoft were to require Windows apps to be installed from the store, people would be outraged. When it's done on mobile (how the majority of the world accesses computing these days), it's seen as a valid "security measure".
Apple doesn't require apps be installed from the Mac App Store. If they did, people would be outraged.
People have different expectations from smartphones (tables, and Chromebooks as well). So long as you know what you are getting when you buy it, this isn't an issue.
Apple doesn't make phones to be hacked or tweaked or whatever, they make them to be simple to use and as secure as possible. For most people, this is far more interesting and appealing than being able to side load apps.
Isn't the Pine Phone fundamentally a device made for hackers?
Fundamentally, the market for hacker oriented products is far smaller and less interesting than the market for iPhones. So hacker oriented tech is by nature going to lag the market or be more expensive.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. You can't do this here, regardless of how right you are or you feel you are.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules and never post like this again.
The api should not be insecure and able to be abused (and it largely is very secure today). Sure they might be able to violate some ToS items like embedding their own payment processor but they won't compromise the security of the phone like they could on a desktop OS.
Ok, agree partially. I mostly meant privacy rather than security. What i wanted to say: iOS is nowadays famed for siding with the user (gateway process to weed out bad/malicious apps), restricting tracking and giving the user more control over what data is shared and so on. 3rd party stores would change that. Security could also be impaired by 3rd party stores neglecting to police malicious apps (eg. compare to some android 3rd party stores that often host pirated apps piggybacking malicious code). Likewise, apps on iOS 3rd party appstores might act maliciously (copying your credentials during auth in an embedded browser etc)
I also dont like what Apple did to Tumblr when they had to change their content policy and how BigTech generally projects US values onto the world (eg. nudity).
PS: I trust Android's F-Droid store more than the PlayStore due to its strong gateway process (anti tracking, pro privacy, FOSS only).
People should be able to run Parler on their phone if they want to, with full API access, not the half-measures that having a web app allow.