Google to Microsoft: Remove your YouTube App from the Windows Phone Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.wpcentral.com/google-microsoft-remove-youtube-windows-phone-store <comment><USER3> The Microsoft PR machine in full motion again I see.

1) Build app that clearly violates spirit and word of TOS, steals content, blocks ads.

2) Complain and act surprised like Google is being a bad guy when told to take it down.

3) ???

4) Profit!

Now they just need to some how spin in some automatic #droidfail hash tags to all the videos they show in the app and it'll be perfect!

Idiots.

(No, not the developers. I feel an immense sympathy for the people who had to work on this; their managers are the ones who are idiots)

<comment><USER4> You're right, Microsoft PR sucks.

Google PR on the other hand, is extremely good, they have lots of people believing they're all about "do no evil" and "open" while laughing all the way to the bank.

<comment><USER5> > _laughing all the way to the bank._

I agree, how dare they make money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "This isn't the first time Windows Phone users have been shafted by the Mountain View company not willing to develop for the platform."

Bullshit - this isn't Google screwing over Microsoft, it's Microsoft being idiots. If MSFT built a YouTube app that didn't blatantly violate Google's policies, I don't think it'd be a problem.

YouTube wants viewers, regardless of which platform they're coming from.

<comment><USER7> >YouTube wants viewers, regardless of which platform they're coming from.

Then why don't they make an Windows Phone YouTube app and show ads on it? Hell, show double the ads just to annoy WP users. Or are they afraid that it will hurt Android?

<comment><USER8> My guess is, [expected revenue per user] * [expected number of Windows Mobile users] - [cost to build a decent YouTube app] is a negative number.

<comment><USER9> Yet they have an official chrome browser app for Windows 8.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, it shares a codebase with the Windows 7 version if it's different at all. The number of Windows 7 + Windows 8 installs is far greater than Windows Phone users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The comments on that article are atrocious. It's like one big fanboy rage orgy. I like Microsoft and all, but Google seems to have a legitimate claim here. All Microsoft needs to do is update the app to comply with the YouTube TOS, which doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

<comment><USER4> How do they update the app if Google doesn't give them access to the API? They need to kill it and millions of Windows Phone users will be left with no legal YouTube app.

Also, if you're referring to the comments on WPCentral, of course, it's "Windows Phone Central" where obviously fans and users of Windows Phone who got frustrated for years with the lack of a quality YouTube app on their phone hang out.

<comment><USER12> That's not Google's problem. What law says that Google needs to provide an API? This is just embarrassing for Microsoft. Basically google doesn't think it's worth spending the time developing an app for Windows Phone, and Microsoft then tries to hack it together by themselves, illegally.

I haven't ported any of my own apps to Win Phone either - what's the point when nobody is using it? Out of 60,000 visits to our site over a given period, 4000 are iOS, 2000 Android, 50 blackberry and 20 Windows Phone. We haven't bothered with blackberry either (apart from providing an html5 version).

Face it Microsoft: Windows Phone is a dismal failure.

<comment><USER9> >Face it Microsoft: Windows Phone is a dismal failure.

So did a smart guy say once about Apple. I went from being a hardcore Android fan to just falling in love with my Lumia phone. Everyone I know who has a windows phone has been happy with it. So no I don't think it is a dismal failure.

I have found replacements for most Google services but there doesn't exist or may never exist one for Youtube. I was a user of Youtube before Google was a buyer, so yes it sucks to be given a second class treatment because you made the unpopular choice for your phone. Hope this doesn't repeat, you know with Ubuntu and Firefox phones coming out.

<comment><USER13> > So did a smart guy say once about Apple.

Who ever did is either eating crow for that, or isn't as smart as he claimed.

Microsoft has been in the mobile business for a _long_ time. They have tried to re-invent their offerings at least two times, probably more. There are a lot of OEMs with knives in their backs (e.g.: Sendo, OQO) in the wake.

That they have failed to succeed after blowing such a lead and countless investment dollars is a real organizational character failure on their part. That some in Redmond think they're still winning is even sadder.

<comment><USER7> Windows Phone is seeing decent numbers, 6 million in the last quarters. The lack of apps like YouTube and Instagram is hurting the platform and they're showing they're serious about fixing that issuee by picking a fight with Google.

<comment><USER14> So 6 million Windows Phones in a whole quarter, compared to 6 million Android phones in about 10 days... yeah, they're going _great_.

<comment><USER15> You don't get market share overnight when your platform has 100x less apps. On the same note devs don't want to write apps for WP because it has no market share.

See the issue?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wonder how this app got approval from Microsoft's own legal department.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the wishes of the legal department are of less importance than the overall need for good apps on the Windows Phone platform. Google didn't have the time/resources to build a Windows Phone app, so Microsoft did. And they did it well. But now that the app is in the Store, Google wants it removed. That's not a matter of 'no time/resources', that's just a matter of bullying. They've been boycotting the Windows Phone and Windows 8 platforms ever since the launch...

Quite typical actually. Google is the only tech giant with a slogan like "don't be evil", yet they are the only evil tech giant at the moment (Microsoft has gotten a lot better the last few years imho).

<comment><USER17> If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation of the YouTube terms of service. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS.

<comment><USER18> >If you actually read the article, you'd see the issue is not dislike of WP. The issue is that Microsoft is stripping off the ads that fund Youtube and its content, in violation the YouTube ToS. It also includes a button that allows people to download videos which is, again, a violation of the ToS.

Crossposting my own comment from another thread.

So, for years, Google's stated reason for lack of a Youtube client was that Windows Phone didn't have enough marketshare, and now suddenly it has so many users that it loses so many ad impressions because Microsoft's Youtube that the content creators are suffering because all the millions of freeloaders using Windows Phone?

i.e It doesn't care enough for the ad impressions on Windows Phone to itself make an app , but when MS does, the loss of the same revenue is the reason for sending the lawyers in and pulling the app?

<comment><USER19> So, when Microsoft's IP is infringed (patents, etc), it's a tragedy. When Google's (or its partner's) IP is infringed it's something sinister. Gotcha.

<comment><USER20> Are you suggesting that software patents are as worthwhile as videos and music?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Microsoft's statement: "We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs."

What's interesting is what they don't say. They don't say that Google have refused to provide them this, or even that they asked Google for this.

Assuming that Google's complaint of "Prevents the display of advertisements in YouTube video playbacks" is a TOS violation, it looks to me that Microsoft violated their TOS first, and are only now trying to imply that Google are the bad guys.

</comment><comment><USER22> As mentioned above by shadowmint, it seems that Microsoft is looking for some attention, and they have already succeeded. Well done.

But what are the long-term effects on the growth of what Microsoft really needs (a thriving third-party mobile development community)? I could be biased because of Google I/O's hype effect, but things like this only make me lean towards Android as my next platform to develop for (coming from iOS).

I agree with the definitional meaning of Microsoft's retaliation - <USER2> companies should work together to create amazing content (ie. cross-platform Youtube app) for their mutual users. As always, it's a shame to see immature rivalries come between progress.

</comment><comment><USER23> Microsoft's single agenda these days to derail Google is hurting Microsoft and is only benefiting Google.

50% of top windows8 (RT) paid apps are in Gross violation of Copyright/Trademarks (Mind you including microsoft's own Copyright/Trademarks).

Instead of cleaning up that mess and providing proper opportunities for legitimate developers, why is microsoft encouraging doing something by violating TOS of another major company?

</comment><comment><USER24> Microsoft to Google: "lol go fuck yourselves".

There's no reason whatsoever Microsoft should comply to those ridiculous demands.

And it's awesome that Microsoft removed those YouTube antifeatures for users, they for once deserve to be thanked for the good they are doing.

Google is looking more and more like the evil one (although far less evil than Apple or Oracle).

<comment><USER25> There are lots of reasons for Microsoft to comply with these demands.

At least one reason for each major media company Microsoft currently partners with (or wants to in the future)... They, after all, are the ones most invested in these particular YouTube anti-features. And should Microsoft stymie Google, I'd predict that they won't remain on the sidelines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> FTA: "Not just remove the app, but also disable existing downloads of the app. Aka, the "kill switch", which (as far as we can remember) has only been used once before."

And this is why app stores - as implemented by Google, Microsoft and Apple - are evil. 'Bought' an app? Think again.

<comment><USER27> > And this is why app stores - as implemented by Google, Microsoft and Apple - > are evil.

Evil involves intent, not capability. For example, a car can hurt or even kill someone, but it's not evil. Someone who intentionally and willfully runs down pedestrians with a car would, however, definitely qualify.

Here's how the three companies have used their kill switch:

\- Microsoft has used their kill switch once to disable a pirated app

\- As far as I'm aware, Apple has never used their kill switch, even for pirated apps or apps that were pulled for various reasons (scams, tethering apps, etc.)

\- Google routinely uses its kill switch to remove malware and "practically useless"[1] apps

So the the real questions are: is using the kill switch to combat piracy evil? What about malware? "Useless" apps? What about not using the kill switch at all for any reason?

[1]: [http://readwrite.com/2010/06/25/google_activates_android_kil...](http://readwrite.com/2010/06/25/google_activates_android_kill_switch_zaps_useless_apps)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Microsoft is a bad actor. No sympathy for them at all

</comment><comment><USER29> When I saw the original app announcement (also on wpcentral) I quickly downloaded even though I already purchased metrotube, which is a perfectly good YouTube app for Windows Phone. I knew it wouldn't end well with the download of video and ad removal features. Now I play the waiting game to see if Microsoft nukes the app remotely after they are eventually forced to acquiesce :)

</comment><comment><USER30> Does anyone seriously believe violating the YT TOS in the app was an honest mistake?

This is ridiculous. Why would anyone expect a special TOS just for Microsoft?

</comment><comment><USER31> I have a Windows Phone so I just tested some of these objections out.

> Allows users to download videos from YouTube

That was pretty cool, but I honestly don't need that. I can already download any video from anywhere online using Google Chrome and the curl trick.

> Prevents the display of advertisements in YouTube video playbacks

I never saw ads on the mobile web version of YouTube, but this could be a problem when Google wants to insert them.

> Plays videos that our partners have restricted from playback on certain > platforms (e.g., mobile devices with limited feature sets)

This was great! I actually remember trying to play a video that worked on my laptop and failed on my phone. I just went back to that same video and it worked.

The overall mobile web experience of YouTube is terrible on my Windows phone (and on my iPhone). Since most of you guys are probably iPhone users here is an analogy. It's like trying to switch from a native iOS maps (Apple or Google made) client, to Googles web version of maps. Yeah it works and does everything, but the performance is crap compared to the native mobile application.

</comment><comment><USER32> Simple solution; screew Google and offer Vimeo instead. In my opinion, the quality in both sense is better there...

<comment><USER33> Vimeo doesn't want a lot of kinds of videos though: <http://vimeo.com/help/guidelines>

For a lot of people, it's not an option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Lots of hate on Microsoft "It's a secret ploy to deceive innocent hackers into thinking Google is anti user. HISSSSSSSS"

The fact is, Microsoft built a user-centric application, focusing on all the things a user might want to do. An application that treated youtube's servers exactly for what they were, servers, servers serving content. No different than browsers that have ad blocking extensions, or extensions to download videos, or whatever else a computer might want to do with data (did you know a smartphone is computer? Cool huh? ).

Microsoft made an application that put the user first. Finally. Even if this is just a PR stunt, even if they have the worst intentions, they did the right thing. If Google wants to contend this they can go suck on my freedom.

The proper response to this was: "Wow Microsoft, great app!" It doesn't MATTER what Microsoft's intentions were.

</comment><comment><USER35> Consider the idea that an article might get flagged due to the level of flame war generated by a particular topic, and you don't need a conspiracy theory to explain its downdraft.

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting compared to how Samsung dealt with this "problem" for a third- party app that they've just awarded of best app award:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chefuturo.it%2F2012%2F11%2Fla- app-made-in-sicily-piu-scaricata-del-mondo-non-ce-piu%2F)

</comment><comment><USER37> So I'm curious about something.

1\. Do ad blockers remove ads from YouTube? 2\. Do the people in support of Google's stance use ad blockers?

<comment><USER7> Would be interesting to see people's reactions if Google sent a takedown notice to addons.mozilla.org for AdBlock because it's hurting video creators and web sites.

<comment><USER38> So far they don't seem to have even taken down YouTube ad blockers from their own Chrome store, unlike video downloaders that support YouTube.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> They dont publicize "Dont be evil" much these day. True. They shouldnt even.

</comment><comment><USER40> Why are the article calling it the official YouTube app? It seems a strange use of the word official, as normally that would imply a Youtube (or google) made application.

Is the word _native_ the common term here?

</comment><comment><USER41> Oh, the first paragraph explains why Youtube's official app sucks so much (no offline caching etc.). Piracy and piracy prevention ruins it all (even when it are laughable prevention methods).

</comment><comment><USER4> Edit: [[[ This story is getting heavily flagged as well.

<http://i.imgur.com/LiUSpCy.png>

Looks like the Google fans, employees and shareholders on HN with good karma can't let this story break on the day of Google I/O? And people accuse Microsoft of astroturfing! What is this then?

If PG does not want to stop this blatant and continuous moderator abuse, he might as well declare HN a Google and Linux fiefdom so that the rest of us using other platforms and who can think for ourselves and are not Microsoft haters can stay away. ]]]

Posted this story earlier and it got flagged off the front page.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714520>

Reposting my comment here:

This is the latest in a long saga. From a post from Microsoft in 2011:

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft's new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It's done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn't offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft's new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft's YouTube "app" on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube's mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding- our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx)

<comment><USER42> My bet is on Google employees. I get a good dozen or so downvotes from them when I post something negative about Google. Usually it happens in a short period of time, as if someone gave them marching orders.

I have also noticed that Googlers aren't fans of saying "Disclaimer: I work for Google" but go straight into praising Google's Product A and Feature B as if they had no bias.

"Google is good and Microsoft is evil" is getting a little tiring and IMO is no longer true. Google will do almost anything for a quick buck:

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/13/google- keny...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/13/google-kenyan-rival- mocality-database) [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190478740457652...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576528332418595052.html) [http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/technology/google_verizon_ne...](http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/technology/google_verizon_net_neutrality_rules/index.htm)

Just imagine what may hide in their black box algorithms as Google claims fairness an unbiased results.

<comment><USER43> >I dislike large corporations of all stripes (especially smooth talking ones) that are trying to take over the web for their own financial good.

From you profile. You don't think that _maybe_ this bias is showing through in some of your comments?

<comment><USER42> So what? People have biases, I never claimed to be unbiased and we're just sharing our opinions. I do not get paid by anyone for what I say. What I said about Google is heretic to some, only because they have this notion of an angelic Google. They'd believe it for Apple, most other companies and especially for Facebook and Microsoft.

Anyway, bed time is almost here.

<comment><USER44> > So what?

Unless I missed something, your OP was one big complaint about biases.

<comment><USER45> Not bias: abuse of power which is quite a different thing. On HN opinions only have interest, votes have power.

<comment><USER44> Abuse? Votes are influenced by bias. Abuse only happens when there is a large coordinated effort to snuff something out.

<comment><USER45> No: you abuse a vote when you vote not led by reason but by opinion. Downvotes are not for differences of opinion but for lack of interest, etc...

Downvoting affects directly the visibility of a message and this should not be based on opinion.

<comment><USER44> Since when is reason not influenced by bias?

You seem to be splitting hairs here. The OP complained about the bias of others but didn't like it when he had his own biases pointed out.

I'm suspicious of any claim that says "votes" somehow have more "power" than words. Words, opinions and ideas all have power too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's an ongoing discussion in this thread.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714639>

</comment><comment><USER46> I think Vimeo deserves more love. It allows you to download videos too which is very handy. Windows Phone and Windows 8 users will be better off in the long run using Vimeo. I think Google has made it pretty clear by now that Windows users are not welcome in their ecosystem.</comment>


SpaceX successfully landed a rocket in the ocean - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-abandons-rocket-landing-test-2015-2

<comment><USER2> I would really like to know if it is likely that any video footage was captured of the soft landing. From afar or from cameras on the first stage itself.

Edit: Elon Musk tweeted a still image from what looks like video footage from aboard the first stage.

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/565716774260576262](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/565716774260576262)</comment>


Flash Player 10.1 for Android on track for First Half of 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/04/19/flash-player-10-1-for-android-still-on-track-for-h1-release/ <comment><USER2> I cant imagine Flash on my Droid will do me any good, sure ill be able to see some other websites, but i will also have to suffer through Flash ads in the browser,and this will slow mobile browsing even more.

The one killer app i need on my droid is an ad blocker for the browser, everything else is less critical for me.

If anybody is willing to pick that glove up and port adblock plus to the droid browser, i tell you it will be worth 10$ on the store for me without flinching.</comment>


Opera GX Gaming Browser - <AUTHOR> https://www.opera.com/lp/gx-light <comment><USER2> I really loved Opera before it became chromium based but I do still like opera. They've integrated a lot of nice features which makes it a more compelling offering than chrome without any additional add-ons.

I also think that setting resource limits for the browser is a good feature.

I do not see why this needs to be broken out as a separate browser for #Gamers though. I guess it might help them gain market share because it's "new" but I think it's more likely to cause a lot of eye-rolling instead.

<comment><USER3> You might check out Vivaldi, created by one of the founders of Opera Software. Has a ton of UI customization options built-in.

[https://vivaldi.com/](https://vivaldi.com/)

<comment><USER4> It's also Chromium based

<comment><USER5> But it's not owned by a Chinese company. Opera is and that makes me question how trustworthy it is. There hasn't been evidence to suggest it's not, but I'm not comfortable running it on my machines.

<comment><USER6> The term I heard recently was "distrust and verify", a modern spin on the Russian proverb "Trust, but verify" which was made famous by Ronald Reagan during the first Cold War [1].

In software industry, following the "distrust and verify" strategy makes particularly good sense. Software that is not open-source cannot be verified, so should only be used in carefully sandboxed environments.

In 2020, why would anybody use a closed-source web browser?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify)

<comment><USER5> I believe it was Pompeo who recently said that. It's about right for some of the things going on lately.

Any software from China or Russia falls into that category for me. Some other places would too if it was more common to see mainstream software from them.

I agree with you on the web browsers. Hardly anyone uses an open source browser though. Most of them have open source components mixed with closed source blobs to the point where you don't really know what it's doing. Chrome is a good example where they go as far as to scan your machine for malware, but it's not the only one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I actually really love the idea of browsers tailored towards specific segments. They were made before the dangers of always-on social were super apparent, but I loved the idea of Flock and Rockmelt when they initially came out.

<comment><USER8> Also a user of Flock. Metaweblog was the best

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't quite get what this is... Is it a gaming platform like steam? They don't list any of the games you can play on it. There are very few details on this page.

The download link just grabs an .exe file, so I can't test it because I'm not running Windows.

<comment><USER10> Seems the main point of this browser is that it limits the memory and cpu cycles, so more memory and cpu cycles are available for games.

I guess it can be nice. When I use Safari, it seems some sites can bring my Mac down to its knees occasionally. Especially back when my Mac still had only 8 GB RAM, though recently I upgraded to 24 GB and I don't have many of these issues anymore.

<comment><USER11> Found a workstation for a $179 with 96gb of ram and a quadro card. King of pci 2.

<comment><USER12> Linky?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> abc-xyz Qihoo 360, the Chinese company that brought Opera, recently showed the world why you should never trust Chinese hardware and software.

On the outside a browser seem harmless, but Qihoo 360, Alibaba, Tencent and all the other Chinese companies that operate popular browsers, kindly showed the world what they're capable of when they decided to make the 966 GitHub repo inaccessible to everyone using the Chinese browsers (which many people are unknowingly doing since they come preinstalled with their cheap phones).

Just to be clear, they didn't block GitHub as a whole, but they instead rewrote the content of a specific repo despite HTTPS being present. They could do the same with every website in the world, such as rewriting the content of Wikipedia articles, rewrite the content and websites returned in your Google search results, in your Facebook, YouTube feeds.. write fake NYTimes articles and modify the frontpage to link to them, or push the fake article to a specific group of users on social media, or rewrite Google Chrome's download page to download a modified version that is bundled with malware. The possibilities are endless, and keep in mind that the companies themselves were willing to abuse this power to silence software developers complaining about long work hours.. imagine what the CCP would force them to do.

<comment><USER13> Do you have links to provide about this? I'd like to read more

<comment> abc-xyz [https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/3/18294030/tencent-xiaomi- ch...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/3/18294030/tencent-xiaomi-china- censorship-browser-block-github-page-worker-grievances)

[https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU/pull/24891](https://github.com/996icu/996.ICU/pull/24891)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's worth noting that Qihoo 360 still owns Opera and has a reputation for spyware/adware (separate from the Chinese Communist Party / Made In China issues).

<comment><USER14> And there's that whole predatory lending business Opera makes a lot of its money from.

<comment><USER15> Here's an example, right on Google's Play store: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.loan.cash....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.loan.cash.credit.branch.tala.fast.lending.mexico&hl=en_US)

Translating their "example" scenario: > For example, for a loan of $1,000 to pay in 91 days, you will have to pay only $82 of interest, a commission of $180 and VAT (16%). The total amount to be paid would be $1,384. CAT: 151.1%, annual interest rate: 21.9%.

You get $1000, then three months later you pay it back plus 38%. Sounds legit /s

Hiring post linking Okredito to Opera: [https://www.simplyhired.mx/search?q=cobranza+preventiva&l=be...](https://www.simplyhired.mx/search?q=cobranza+preventiva&l=benito+ju%C3%A1rez%2C+cdmx&job=AfGTaw91kEmdHRB1fuk0mN5SDwtqfrG9AAQaoOJUKZmNSkebsYwRGw)

<comment><USER16> To customer belonging to high risk group (which would be main customers of lending apps) banks simply refuse to even start conversation about credit. But then it is not called predatory. Pretty clean solution. Since banks take customers with low default probability, here risk has to be unfortunately priced in. Load that is not repaid is not only revenue loss, it is also loss of capital (that company is obliged to protect) as there are really slim chances/high price to recollect.

It is not fair that usually the poorest pay the price, but the whole system is not fair. And I believe that it is actually financial apps that have some chance to democratize it more.

I do not know about Mexico, but such businesses are usually also regulated, wich is good, because at one end market knows the local conditions like capital cost and risk and at the other they do not fall into usury.

In your example: the bank lending rate in MX is already more than twice than US. Later, if you assume that for new unknown customer the delinquency probability cost has to be fixed in the price, then annualising the rate of short term loan makes it really scary. Such companies usually have better rates for returning customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Kind of like Discord has in its space, I love how gamer-centric optimisations can lead to better use case experiences for non-gamers. I could imagine using something like this for much more than just games.

Is there a way to configure Firefox to boot up in some sort of similarly- scaled back fashion?

</comment><comment><USER18> Unrelated, but it's borderline frustrating how used to I have gotten to the Chrome ecosystem by now - to the point that the mere thought of switching to any other browser makes me queasy.

I tried Brave for a couple weeks but they didn't support DRM videos, so back I went to Chrome.

<comment><USER19> I really wonder what I would be missing, using Firefox almost exclusively.

Netflix works fine. Spotify works fine. Extensions work fine. Gmail works fine. Pocket integration (I also own a Kobo) is awesome. Syncing between all my devices works great.

Multi-Account containers are such a great feature, now I can't live without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Cool, I have absolutely no way of telling what this is or what it does without downloading it first?

<comment><USER21> What? If you just click the page it tells you pretty efficiently; it's one of the few good marketing pages that exist right now.

Literally without scrolling at all:

 _Discover Opera GX

CPU, RAM & bandwidth limiters

Need every ounce of power your machine can give you? No need to close your browser. GX Control lets you set limits on how much RAM and CPU usage your browser will take up.

Choose favourite design and color

You can customize your browser with any color you want and choose from different special effects and themes.

Twitch Integration

Never miss a live stream. With Twitch right in your sidebar, you can easily see channels you follow, who's online, and choose to receive notifications whenever someone you follow goes live._

<comment><USER18> No idea why you're being downvoted.

<comment><USER22> He's being downvoted because nowhere on that page does it mention that it's a _web_ browser. If I didn't know what opera was before hand, I wouldn't of been sure if it was a web browser, game browser (like steam), or something else.

Also, From the HN Guidelines: In Comments

[...]

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I thought this might be a Steam style browser overlay but without having to add every game to Steam.

Doesn't look like it, though.</comment>


Did Civil War Soldiers Have PTSD? - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ptsd-civil-wars-hidden-legacy-180953652/?utm_source=smithsonianhistandarch&no-ist <comment><USER2> Odds are I'll get downvoted for this.

Did calculus Exist in 3 B.C.?

Did the Earth orbit around the Sun in 2800 B.C.?

Did dinosaurs exist way, way back in the day?

My point being, does discovering something suddenly mean it exists? Perhaps things do not suddenly exist, perhaps they are discovered. Math has always existed. It still exists to this day. Math is discovered. The rules don't change.

PTSD exists. It existed the first time Man A saw Friend B die in conflict. Did it have a name? Did it have a definition in a book? No. Did it exist? Yes. Was it 'discovered?' Recently.

Just like in 100 years, some formal definition of technology addiction will exist. It will be some extension of ADD or whatever. It was always there, it just didn't have a name.

<comment><USER3> > Math has always existed.

I would say that laws of the Universe that math describes always existed but not math. Math is more of a language to describe something, and you can't say that the word "apple" always existed and was only discovered later. Apples existed long before the word got invented to describe it, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This brings to mind the 19y/o with the 1000yd stare I met not long ago. Shell shock isn't just something that happened a long time ago to your uncle who was in 'Nam. It lives with us here and now every day, and it's sad as hell. That kid will never function normally again most likely.

Much of modern combat personnel management (rotations, leave etc) revolves around minimizing the inexorable insanity that comes from exposure to mechanized slaughter.

</comment><comment><USER5> Food for thought: of late, the 'D' in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is being left off. The reasoning behind this is two fold: to feel nothing substantial after traumatic experiences is more of an indicator of problems and the term 'disorder' is unnecessarily negative

I support this fully and I would like you all to consider it. Ino way am I advocating Political Correctitude. I hate that shit.

<comment><USER6> Being emotionally affected by traumatic events is normal for humans. Being affected to the point where you're unable to live your life, when minor stressors make you feel as though you're under attack and respond accordingly, where you're abusing drugs and alcohol to get by - that's where it becomes a disorder.

> Ino way am I advocating Political Correctitude. I hate that shit.

There was zero need to include this, it's entirely irrelevant to your point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> No matter how brave you are, spending time killing other people and watching your friends blown to bits will affect you for the rest of your life.

</comment><comment><USER8> This was covered somewhat in Peaky Blinders (series set in post-WWI Birmingham). One of the secondary characters suffers PTSD (or shell shock, to use the parlance of the time), up to and including psychotic breaks resulting in violence.

</comment><comment><USER9> Some of them, probably. Did cavemen have insomnia from time to time? Probably.

</comment><comment><USER10> No, I don't think they did. Nor did their kids have ADD nor their wives depression.

Instead the whole family had moral character flaws... (probably the thinking at the time).

</comment><comment><USER11> tl;dr

Yes? No?

<comment><USER12> Of course they did. It would be silly to assume differently - the value of this article is not the yes or no answer, but its exploration into how PTSD was perceived (poorly) and how it was treated (again, poorly).

I'd recommend reading the article, it's interesting.

<comment><USER13> Given what happened in the civil war, it must have mentally broken many people.

But if you live in a society where it is fairly normal for mothers to die giving birth, or for children or friends to die or be maimed for life (and where it must have been fairly common to see corporal punishment of slaves) seeing healthy men die suddenly in horrible ways may have had a smaller effect than it does today.

But of course, outside the battle field, they had it way worse than present- day soldiers (at least those for rich countries such as the USA). No antibiotics, no rescue helicopters, no air-conditioned hospitals, etc. That may well have compensated for that.

<comment><USER14> What always fascinates me about the Civil War is the sheer number of deaths, and how quickly they mounted. Wikipedia estimates 215,000 deaths in a roughy 4 year period.

The Battle of Gettysburg saw over 4000 dead on each side in a 3 day period. That means, in 3 days, more US soldiers died than in 13 years of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

<comment><USER15> People forget that about the American Civil War, quite often.

It's estimated that the Normandy landings on D-Day had 14,000-19,000 casualties total (all sides).

The Battle of Antietam had 22,000 casualties in a single day. Cold Harbor may have had up to 7,000 in a matter of _minutes_.

At Gettysburg, Pickett's division suffered around 60% casualties in their one charge, including a 100% casualty rate among regimental and brigade commanders, prompting his famous comment to Lee (on being told to prepare his division for a possible Union counterattack) "General Lee, I have no division".

It was a relentlessly and almost unbelievably bloody conflict, and yet both sides found the will to keep it going for four years. What sticks out to me is Grant's comment after the first day at Shiloh (which had been close to a massacre of the Union forces) in response to Sherman, who said to him "Well, Grant, we've had the Devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant simply said "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."

And he did. In the end it was that stubbornness and willingness to keep pressing on in spite of the horrific casualties that won the war.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Technology Superpower You've Never Heard Of - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/24/switch_switchnap_rob_roy/

<comment><USER2> Their "man trap" and guards seem like any one of the dozens of data- centers/co-los I go to on a regular basis. Most of theses are NOT located in strip malls either. Many of these host servers for fortune 100's and governments as well as ordinary schmos like me. Some even have vaults like banks. I'm thinking the reporter just got dazzled by the _altogether ordinary_ trappings of a datacenter that does co-lo simply because reporters don't usually visit many datacenters. I guess the man-traps and biometrics must have seemed pretty "Star Trek" to me the first time I went to a co-lo as well.

Completely unremarkable. I call "don't believe the hype" on this one.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting that they have gun-carrying guards. Are you really allowed to kill someone for unplugging Google's server?

<comment><USER4> It may be standard practice in Brazil to issue guards with guns to prevent wholesale theft of hardware ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=182463> ). Stolen hardware isn't worth much but the cost to replace it could be millions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> From what I've skimmed from the article - it is just a giant colocation centre.

<comment><USER6> True, but this is pretty cool:

"the company managed to acquire what was once meant to be Enron's broadband trading hub for a song. This gave Switch access to more than _twenty of the primary carrier backbones_ in a single location."

<comment><USER7> Why is that important?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone else feel pretty creeped out by this?

</comment><comment><USER9> I get the sense that a big part of the story didn't get told here. For instance, how did those guys get the financing to buyout the Enron stuff? Where are the investors coming from -- locally, inside-the-company, etc.

I'd also like to hear how a relatively small startup pulled down some big international players. Getting business from local investor-types is one thing: loading up with huge DoD sensitive stuff isn't something you just wake up one day and do.

<comment><USER4> From the article: close to 70 per cent of the employees have military backgrounds, including a COO who used to wire fighter jets.

So, they got military hosting contracts through their contacts.</comment></comment>


The "Sharing Economy" is dead and we killed it - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3050775/the-sharing-economy-is-dead-and-we-killed-it <comment><USER2> what a stupid article.</comment>


A new data model and functional query language for InfluxDB and Kapacitor - <AUTHOR> https://www.influxdata.com/new-data-model-query-language-influxdb-kapacitor/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, happy to answer any questions!</comment>


Your Phone Is Your Castle - <AUTHOR> https://puri.sm/posts/your-phone-is-your-castle/ <comment><USER3> > Because iOS software, backed by iPhone hardware, actively prevents a > customer from installing any software on an iPhone outside of the App Store, > it does also prevent attackers from installing malicious software. Because > the App Store has rules about how applications (outside of their own) can > access customer data, if Apple discovers a competitor like Google or > Facebook is violating its privacy rules it can remotely remove their > software from iPhones, even internal corporate versions of software owned by > Google or Facebook employees.

This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone and also because the apps pulled there did not go through the App Store, they were actually sideloaded using enterprise deployment. Apple does have the ability to remotely disable applications downloaded from the App Store, but to my knowledge it has never used this ability.

> These companies have built very sophisticated and secure defenses all in the > name of protecting you from the world outside their walls, yet in reality > the walls are designed to keep you inside much more than they are designed > to keep attackers out. The security community often gets so excited about > the sophistication of these defenses backed by secure enclaves and strong > cryptography that their singular focus on what those defenses mean for > attackers blinds them from thinking about what they mean for everyone else.

I mean, all you have to do is look at the things that are implemented to see that Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you. There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.

<comment><USER4> > This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of > stopping malware from reaching your phone

Spotty relative to what? The App Store hasn't had a 100% perfect record, but it's pretty darn close to it. I really can't think of any other software distribution channels for general purpose computing devices (including the open web) that have had a better security track record than the App Store

<comment><USER5> Have there been widespread instances of malicious software in Linux repos? It might just be that Linux distros are lower value targets than apple phones, but they do seem be pretty good in terms of both keeping out actual viruses (which Apple is pretty good at keeping out) and also keeping out shady advertisement/snooping based software (which Apple seems to have done less good at keeping out than the repos. Although, they are doing good for a private company, right?)

Also, Steam seems to do all right as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER6> With 1% desktop market, there are more juicy targets to exploit.

<comment><USER7> Like the server market; high bandwidth, always on and likely running and endpoint for z mobile service.

<comment><USER6> Those are easier to bring down with DoS attacks.

<comment><USER5> Denial of service is just one of many potential goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Speaking as an Android user, the usefulness of the eco-system is undeniable and leaving that is too much friction for most, even for those who do care about privacy.

I think in addition to the focus on hardware, one approach should be to provide the tools to the users for more control. Provide a rooted phone by default. Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes. Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like (e.g. an app is sending analytics to some domain, let me turn that part off without turning off the whole app in a relatively simple way). Help with planned obsolence by providing updates etc and so on.

Basically give back some control of jail/castle to the users without asking them to leave it completely.

Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option.

<comment><USER9> > Provide a rooted phone by default.

Librem 5 is rooted. It's basically just a Desktop computer in the form-factor of a phone.

> Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes.

Everything is open source. You have all the power to study what your phone is doing. Standard GNU/Linux tools should work.

> Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like

Everything is free software, you can change it as you like. Also, there is no analytics by default: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHcHi0TBFv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHcHi0TBFv4)

> Help with planned obsolence by providing updates

Lifetime updates are promised. Even if the company dies, the community can support the phone, since it's FLOSS: [https://wp.puri.sm/posts/librem-5-longevity-solving-the- prob...](https://wp.puri.sm/posts/librem-5-longevity-solving-the-problem-of- disposable-technology/)

> Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of > cards again is not an option

Unfortunately, not in the first version. One step at a time.

<comment><USER10> >> Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes.

>Everything is open source. You have all the power to study what your phone is doing. Standard GNU/Linux tools should work.

Yes, for the base system, however for third-party stuff, it would still be nice to prevent the apps from phoning home and stuff.

<comment><USER9> But how do you already do it on GNU/Linux? You can do the same.

<comment><USER10> Of course you can, but is it obvious and user friendly?

<comment><USER11> Linux phones are never going to be especially obvious or user friendly. To get those types of features you need a boatload of investment that the open source community can't hope to muster in any sort of reasonable timeframe.

For now the choice is privacy vs user friendliness. Currently rooted/de- Googled Android provides one of the best compromises for the average privacy- minded power user, but maybe in a few more years these Linux phones will be mature enough to give Android more of a run for their money.

<comment><USER12> > To get those types of features you need a boatload of investment that the > open source community can't hope to muster in any sort of reasonable > timeframe.

The Linux desktop is an obvious counterexample. If the open source community can develop user-friendly desktop environments (GNOME, KDE Plasma, Xfce) they can surely develop user-friendly mobile stacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It will be great to have more players in the smart phone OS domain so I hope this makes it big. On the other hand, the downside of taking the security and privacy of your phone into your own hands, is that ... you've taken the security and privacy of the phone into your own hands.

I'm happy to pay Apple to do it for me because my phone is nowhere near my main or most important computing device and I also quite like that they poke google and Facebook in the eye from time to time. Sure, Apple is just a profit driven enterprise like the rest but their business model is directly related to keeping users happy at least for some value of users and happy.

The only downside for me is that I can't write an app for my device because I haven't bought into the Apple computer ecosystem.

<comment><USER14> That last one is big for me. I like using an iphone and I have an idea for a nice app but I do not like macbooks. I have tried them a few times and just do not like macos as much as linux. Now I can't work on my app idea because apples policy is you buy all apple products or things just don't work properly anymore.

<comment><USER15> You can could develop with React Native and use a Mac VPS to do the final build.

Not sure what you want from Apple here. Is it to port their entire iOS/OSX SDK to Linux just to support the 0.000001% of users who would want to develop that way.

<comment><USER16> > to Linux just to support the 0.000001% of users

Because Windows users don't ever want to write iOS apps? Particularly game devs, who are primarily using Windows computers to develop games because Windows PC is their largest market? None of those people would like to develop iOS games without switching to an entirely new OS?

> Not sure what you want from Apple here

Open up their SDK to the point where communities like Linux can realistically set up their own build tools or emulators. Don't sue people who are providing iPhone emulator access[0]; instead create code/SDK licensing opportunities for companies to ship these environments to customers/developers without running afoul of copyright laws.

I lose sympathy for companies claiming "this is too hard", when they're going out of their way to make the problem harder for other people to solve.

I don't know why we're pretending that there's anyone at Apple thinking, "wow, I'd love to make it easy for Windows/Linux devs to target iOS, but it's just _too hard_ for me to engineer." We know that's not really happening, we know that Apple's management is very happy to force developers to buy Macs, we know that's a status quo that Apple has every incentive to reinforce at every opportunity.

[0]: [https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/16/apples-corellium- lawsuit-...](https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/16/apples-corellium-lawsuit-is-a- direct-attack-on-ios-emulation/)

<comment><USER17> Preach. Also, pretty sure that Linux accounts for higher than 0.000001% of developers.

<comment><USER18> > pretty sure that Linux accounts for higher than 0.000001% of developers

Definitely! As an quick example, I make a cross-platform developer tool with no particular focus or obvious bias towards any OS ([https://httptoolkit.tech](https://httptoolkit.tech)), and the active user base is:

44% Windows

42% Mac

14% Linux

Developers are everywhere - limiting tools like Apple's to just their platform is a huge disservice.

<comment><USER17> That's a cool looking tool.

Have you marketed it towards pentesters at all? I guess Burp has that market pretty well locked down, but I'm always open to seeing more competitors.

As far as Apple limiting their tools, well, that's why I'll never own an Apple product. Why would I buy a device that I can't develop for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this is a great point.

Our personal computing devices should have the same sort of protections and affordances that our homes have. We should have an expectation of privacy and control over our domain. We should have the rights to build, repair, and more.

If we're not leasing a phone or leasing a house, if we are owners of the phone or the house, then we should have full control to every aspect of it.

<comment><USER20> >If we're not leasing a phone

But that, unfortunately seems to be the thinking behind most companies these days...that consumers don't own their phones, among other things, in fact most manufacturers seem to want to get onto thr bandwagon, they lease right to use them.

I'm fully in agreement with you though. Phones and most end consumer devices should not be treated as leased devices.

I may need to pay for a service to fully use said device, mobile data, wifi, etc. But those services should not be locked into one provider and should be seperate from the manufacturers.

Limits on repairs and modification should be few and a void warranty should be the steepest penalty. Modifying or repairing a device should not be grounds to have that device bricked at the whims of a manufacturer.

<comment><USER21> > Phones and most end consumer devices should not be treated as leased > devices.

I lease my home. Even though I don't own it, I still have an expectation of privacy! The law protects me from having my landlord just decide to walk in whenever they want, for example.

Privacy is something everyone should have, even on leased devices. People have things like private conversations and banking credentials on their phones.

<comment><USER22> > The law protects me from having my landlord just decide to walk in whenever > they want, for example.

Depends on the state

<comment><USER23> Does it? I thought it was pretty much a given that landlords had to provide 24 hours written notice, excepting emergency.

<comment><USER24> How do you define what constitutes an emergency?

<comment><USER25> What you can prove or disprove in court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think librem/purism has a point when you look at it isolated. But when looked at it holistically it completely missess the point. You can put in all the kill switches you want and sure thst will benefit in some small way but until the users data is with Apple/Google/Fb etc it dosnt matter Largely Which phone you use As you are still very exposed. Until that problem is solved (users truly owning their data) everything is simple a bandaid fix. Sure purism/librem might be a slightly better bandaid than what is offered by current vendors But it remains a bandaid never the less.

The reality today still is that you can't have greatly useful tools and it's super powerful functionality separated from where and how it's data is stored. Until that is separation comes all these security and privacy issues can't be solved at its root.

Once you look at it holistically you see it's not just a hardware issue that you are dealing with. You are dealing with a much larger and complex set of issues: user caring about privacy; development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc; pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful; business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.

It's quite complex and kill switches and secure hardware can't solve for thst. At least not alone.

<comment><USER27> One step at a time.

I know multiple people who use voice assistants like Alexa that are effectively wiretapping their house. When asked how they feel comfortable with that, they say, "Well, my phone's already compromised anyway..."

I think people do care about privacy, but right now they just don't see any practical way to make it happen. The root of it all is the smartphone itself, because "Don't use a smartphone" is not a serious option.

<comment><USER28> Using a voice assistant like Alexa isn't like wiretapping your home. It's introducing a powerful vector and risk for easily wiretapping your home, to be sure, but your phone is a vector for wiretapping your room (and your vicinity wherever you go), as is your laptop or desktop if they have microphones that aren't hardware disabled, as is your smart TV or remote if you have one. It's not effectively wiretapping your home, it's effectively making your home wiretappable, which isn't great but isn't the same thing.

It's all about the risk profile you're willing to accept. I personally have much more private information accessible through my phone, computer, and certain cloud accounts than I do from things I'm saying in my home, and I believe a malicious actor (potentially including a large corporation like Amazon or Google) would have a much easier time and/or would be much more likely to engage in tapping one of those sources than a voice assistant in my home.

It's certainly very possible - there was a recent story about how a malicious Alexa skill, if downloaded and installed, could siphon your entire voice history - but those sorts of risks also exist for almost any internet- connected device you own.

So, in my opinion and going by my own risk profile, those people responding "my phone's already compromised" are behaving rationally.

<comment><USER29> "Using a voice assistant like Alexa isn't like wiretapping your home."

True. Wire tapping implies it only listens to you during an active "call" to Alexa. Alexa is more like a bugging device.

<comment><USER28> By wiretapping, I mean bugging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > _Your security and privacy aren't really protected inside these walls > because the main point of these security measures is to enforce control, > security against attackers and protecting your privacy is mostly marketing > spin._

The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. I'm not sure why we should assume it is true when two decades of history of malware on Windows (and to a lesser extent, Android) clearly demonstrate the problems with having no walls at all.

The irony of course being that this article _itself_ is a marketing piece for this company's product.

<comment><USER31> > The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the > claim.

Let me fill in the justification then:

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google- explicitly-b...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly- bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web- browsers-apparently/)

[https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used- by-...](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/03/apple-bans-app-used-by-hong-kong- protestors/)

[https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app- delete/](https://time.com/5497200/samsung-facebook-app-delete/)

Edit as reply:

They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to security.

And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of reasonably secure systems without walled gardens. (Or more accurately, walled gardens, but where the user has the key to the garden gates, and can install alternative repositories/app stores).

With all that, it takes a downright reckless degree of trust in corporations that have already betrayed that trust many times, to believe their motives in locking down ever more computing platforms are to benefit the user, and that this continual retreat of user freedoms won't end badly.

<comment><USER30> > They justify the claim that phone vendors enforce control unrelated to > security.

That's not really the claim that was being made in the original quote. I don't disagree that phone vendors _also_ sometimes enforce control unrelated to security.

But, the original claims were that "your security and privacy aren't really protected" and "the _main point_ of these security measures is to enforce control". Your examples don't really support these (much stronger) claims.

> And the various linuxes and FOSS Android ROMs can serve as examples of > reasonably secure systems without walled gardens.

I'm not really sure how that follows? I suppose you could argue that the various linuxes have fewer malware problems but I suspect that's more a function of demand than anything else. I'm not sure how other Android ROMs are relevant? In any case neither of those examples address the issue of privacy. (As in mechanisms to help prevent "rogue" apps from exfiltrating your private data via abuse of legitimate APIs.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is it just me or does this feel to be written in a FUD marketing style? Very strong focus on fear in the writing and what seems like cherry picked examples.

Then again I have learned to have a defensive and negative reaction to anything that even smells like marketing so it's hard for me to tell anymore.

<comment><USER33> Instead of attacking the writing style, how about you attack the questions raised.

It's bang on. You don't own your iOS or Android phone, you're renting a platform, which you be deplatformed without recourse.

<comment><USER34> The incentives between me (a regular user) and my smartphone OS are (mostly) aligned. Yes, Apple has anti competitive practices which they shouldn't be allowed to partake in. I also don't like how all iOS web browsers are forced to use Safari under the hood. But as a user, that doesn't affect me much - <USER2> am happy with most of Apple's default apps and I prefer using mobile web clients (even if they are using Safari) to apps usually. I don't think I am at any risk whatsoever of being deplatformed as a user. Maybe as a developer, but I'm not a mobile developer for the most part.

I understand the benefits of Libre software. But taking the principled stance in favor of Libre software will create a lot more work for me in areas I don't normally think about much - security, the internals of my mobile OS, having to find app workarounds an replacements, etc. The reason I use iOS to begin with is that I like that Apple takes care of the basic decisions for me. I don't want to fiddle with things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> In Sweden, all users are locked to whatever OS:s our mobile ID verification app BankID [1] supports. Yes you can opt to use a physical 2fa device to log onto your bank, but you're missing out on 99% of the digital banking infrastructure.

So, even if I'd like to order one, I won't. The friction is too great.

[1]: [https://www.bankid.com/en/](https://www.bankid.com/en/)

<comment><USER36> For context, this is not just about banking services. This is our trusted e-identity card. It is used for tons of systems where we need to prove that we are who we day we are. Everything from declaring our taxes to signing documents electronically to, yes, various banking apps.

Also, I feel the same as you, notemaker. I would if I could, but without BankID, I could just add well get a dumbphone.

<comment><USER37> Fellow Swedes, change is coming in the form of the new national e-identity ID- card[1]. With this you would only need a smart card reader and a compliant browser in order to use eID and electronic signatures. As opposed to BankID this can be used to create derivative e-identities.

[1]: [https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2019/03/utredning...](https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2019/03/utredning- foreslar-nytt-statligt-id-kort-och-e-legitimation/)

<comment><USER38> Has there been any progress on this? Seems like one of those things that sound great but might take a decade to get through the bureaucracy and implementation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I noticed it's powered by an "ethical operating system", however they don't really go into any detail about what an ethical operating system is.

<comment><USER40> An operating system containing only libre software, I assume. At least in my book, software must respect the freedoms of its users in order to be ethical. And their OS is indeed libre and respects its users.

<comment><USER15> Sounds pretty hypocritical if you're not running it on libre hardware as well.

I assume Purism makes their own CPUs, memory etc ?

<comment><USER41> No, but they _are_ running on hardware they've carefully selected that does not require any non-free software or binary blobs to operate, and they include hardware kill switches for all the sensors and radios so if you still don't completely trust this "third party" hardware, you can at least shut it off and only turn it on when you really need to use it.

At some point you do, unfortunately, have to compromise, because expecting a small, privacy-focused upstart to do their own silicon design and run their own fabs is just not reasonable.

<comment><USER42> Also the modem doesn't have DMA access to the phone's memory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I don't need much from a phone, and just about any Android-capable phone would work for me, as far as OS and hardware capabilities go. The thing that's going to keep me tied to a Google-controlled phone for the indefinite future is Google Fi. I'm not aware of any other cell service plan that does what Fi does: $20/mo base, $10/gig after that (with everything from 6G-15G at no additional cost, after which you either get unlimited throttled data, or can start paying $10/gig for again). And the most important part of that (for me) is that it's the same price no matter where you are in the world. I haven't been traveling this year, but normally I would, and there's no other way I know of to use my phone internationally for so little (at least not without constantly swapping SIMs and changing the phone number).

<comment><USER44> While Google Fi is understandable for your situation, for the majority of Americans who don't need international roaming, Google Fi is not the most cost-effective solution.

Mint Mobile offers unlimited plans with 35GB of unthrottled 5G and 4G data for $30/month, 12GB for $25/month, 8GB for $20/month, and 3GB for $15/month. All of these options are significantly cheaper than the same amount of data on Google Fi.

The relevant part is that Mint works just as well on phones not optimized for Google Fi as it does on phones optimized for Google Fi, eliminating vendor lock-in. Mint works on the Librem 5 and the Pinephone (and also on iPhones). Future FOSS phone hardware that uses GSM-based cell networks will be Mint- compatible.

[https://www.mintmobile.com](https://www.mintmobile.com)

The catch is that the rate is for annual billing, although Mint offers a 3-month trial at the annual rate.

<comment><USER45> I have been using this service for about a year and a half now and I have to say the cost is great but you get what you pay for. It's very unreliable (drops incoming calls, and incoming texts are delayed very frequently) and there are lots of places my friends will have coverage that I will simply have no network at all. So it's servicable, and I would recommend for e.g. a hobby project that needs a cell data connection like a Pinephone/Librem 5, but not for critical cell lines that you need to guarantee won't miss calls.

<comment><USER46> If I'm not mistaken, don't Mint Mobile and Google Fi both use T-Mobile infrastructure in the US?

<comment><USER44> Mint Mobile is an MVNO that runs on the T-Mobile network. Google Fi is also an MVNO, but it runs on T-Mobile, Sprint, and the regional US Cellular. Since T-Mobile merged with Sprint, the coverage of Mint Mobile and Google Fi will eventually be similar once T-Mobile converts the Sprint towers, which is in progress.

If you live in an area where T-Mobile is weaker (rural areas or areas outside of metropolitan areas), AT&T and Verizon will provide more consistent coverage than both Google Fi and Mint. AT&T is GSM-based and will work on the Librem 5 and the PinePhone. Verizon is CDMA-based and might not fully work on these phones.

AT&T Prepaid is currently offering an unlimited plan with 22GB of unthrottled 5G and 4G data for $50/month plus tax with monthly billing. There is also an offer for 8GB of 4G data for $25/month plus tax with annual billing.

[https://www.att.com/prepaid](https://www.att.com/prepaid)

<comment><USER47> > _Verizon is CDMA-based and might not fully work on these phones_

CDMA is no longer activated on new contracts/devices, and the CDMA network is planned to be shut down by next year (December 31, 2020).

Verizon is now LTE (GSM/3GPP)-based.

<comment><USER44> You're right about that. It looks like some PinePhone users are reporting success with Verizon while others are not. Your mileage may vary.

[https://forum.pine64.org/showthread.php?tid=9150](https://forum.pine64.org/showthread.php?tid=9150)

[https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_APN_Settings#Ver...](https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_APN_Settings#Verizon_.28USA.29)

Some Librem 5 users suggest activating the Verizon SIM card in an Android phone or iPhone, and then moving the activated SIM card to the Librem 5:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Purism/comments/cjjcdv/well_librem_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Purism/comments/cjjcdv/well_librem_5_support_verizon/)

GSM-based networks still seem to be the more reliable option for Linux phones, but it's good to see that Verizon might also be compatible with some effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> An alternative to making your phone is castle is not building your castles in the air. Don't use your phone as your primary computing device. You'll never be allowed to own your phone because it's a radio transmitter and _it has a license_ , not you. You cannot own or control it.

<comment><USER49> The librem phone comes with a hot swappable mobile radio (or no radio). That hardware and firmware is actually separate from the phone entirely.

PureOS also comes with VoIP call and texting apps which can be used on WiFi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I just want a phone with full Windows 10 that is as customizable as desktop computers are. Phones are very powerful nowadays. There's no reason for them to have the same limitations as 10 or even 5 years ago.

<comment><USER51> There is a good reason: battery life.

<comment><USER50> It's my device. I should have the choice to override the standard use case to unlock the phone's full functionality at the expense of battery life. I almost always have a charging cable with me, and a 20,000 mAh powerbank. Furthermore, there is a lot of room to increase charging speeds, but most phone manufacturers have dragged their feet because extremely fast charging speeds aren't necessary for the standard use case. However, that "standard use case" is outdated and needs to be reevaluated.

<comment><USER52> >> Furthermore, there is a lot of room to increase charging speeds, but most phone manufacturers have dragged their feet because extremely fast charging speeds aren't necessary for the standard use case.

And you know, the very small matter of rapid charging destroying phone batteries quickly. There are phones out there which will charge at 30 or every 40(!!!) watts of power, but it tends to kill the battery rather quickly. Vast majority of people charge their phones at night, and then the phone gets a good 6-10 hours of uninterrupted charging. If anything, phones charge too quickly by default, at the expense of battery life.

>>It's my device. I should have the choice to override the standard use case to unlock the phone's full functionality at the expense of battery life.

You're free to do with your device as you please, but I don't see why anyone else should be obliged to cater to your wants and needs.

<comment><USER53> > You're free to do with your device as you please, but I don't see why anyone > else should be obliged to cater to your wants and needs.

Most devices are very locked-down so I guess that's not true, he can't do as he please with his own device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter."

Except in a "State of emergency" in Victoria, Australia, in this present day.

<comment><USER55> ...or "security forces", if they have a warrant.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily, depending on the country a warrant is not something that security forces care much about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> > illustrates how Apple markets their castle's defenses as protecting the > castle residents when in reality it's about controlling all that goes on > inside the castle.

.. which ensures best in the market protection of the castle residents, for which they happily pay premium.

> The biggest threat to most people ends up not being from uninvited hackers, > it's from the apps Apple and Google do invite in that capture and sell your > data.

Thats completely wrong. Apple does not make money on users data. They sell protected, private devices and services. Google is direct opposite.

</comment><comment><USER57> Without commenting on the overall thesis, it's inaccurate to say that if Apple removes Fortnite from the AppStore that it is also removed from users phones.

Anyone who has already purchased Fortnite via the AppStore can still use it on their phone, in whatever version they had downloaded prior to the removal.

<comment><USER58> If it disables login with apple id, can those users use the app?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> My phone is not a home. It's a filament in a fabric of affordances. I rely on others to support those affordances. I pay for some of them with money. I don't want a castle. I want a society.

<comment><USER60> Your phone contains records of all the actions you take with those affordances. What you are looking at, who you are talking to, messages you've sent, inside and outside apps, plus a time series of sensor data that position you and can give audio/video of you at all times...it is foolish not to treat access to this device with great care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Yes, the phone is your castle, and the castle is breached.

By design. Whether that's by your phone automatically backing up your data to the cloud, or whether that's because your OS decides to roll out a 'track and trace' update to be used by governmental agencies, or any number of other possibilities.

Privacy cannot be regained by petitioning Google, Apple or the government for the features you think you should have - ie total control, repairability, headphone sockets, etc. You are the product.

When it turns out our own phones are snitches, the answer is to get out. Why stay in a breached castle? And these snitches can't get stitches. The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.

<comment><USER62> You still have the ability to not use these services and have a reasonable privacy. Makes GPS and blue tooth superficial and you might need to carefully select the apps you trust, but theoretically it can work. I know that most people don't care and it is imposing that others suffer from their indiscretion, but at least there are solutions aside from tracking ambitions of your ISP.

<comment><USER61> But you don't know what privacy you have or don't have.

And they can install an update to covertly 'track and trace' you. How do you even know that this is what is being done?

Frankly, I think this was already possible to do. If anything I'm slightly mystified as to why this was announced as if they didn't already have the capability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> They've taken so long to deliver Librem 5 that even normies have started reverting back to candybar phones in the meantime

<comment><USER64> Shows the strength of the pinephone. Release something cheap, quick and hackable rather than try to deliver everything. It's been a really impressive project so far!

<comment><USER65> Thanks for reminding me about it. I can see it's already sold out:

[https://store.pine64.org/](https://store.pine64.org/)

Curious if there's going to be another batch.

<comment><USER66> They're doing CE batches which run about a month each but the underlying hardware is the same for all of them. Just follow their blog ([https://www.pine64.org/blog/](https://www.pine64.org/blog/)) and wait for the announcement for the next batch preorder.

<comment><USER67> Not quite the same; they're now selling two slightly different versions. One has 2GB of RAM, while the other has 3GB RAM and is usually marketed under a "Convergence" label. For example, the UBports CE and the pmOS hardware has some slight revision that changes your ability to connect with the phone over Ethernet. I believe that the upcoming Manjaro CE will have the same distinction between models.

[1] [https://store.pine64.org/product/pinephone-community- edition...](https://store.pine64.org/product/pinephone-community-edition- postmarketos-with-convergence-package-limited-edition-linux-smartphone/)

<comment><USER66> Right, but that's a different model. The 2GB CE's are otherwise identical to each other aside from bug fixes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This is the content that really gives me hope. I think Purism is doing great work. But somehow I can't stop thinking that they are too small, and that these companies striving for user privacy and user choice should unite to make the fight against the Duopoly (Apple&Google) easier. I hope one day we can see a curated AppStore, ruled by an alliance formed by companies like Purism (e.g. Huawei -> HarmonyOS, Samsung -> TizenOS), but which doesn't impose what to install (people can opt-out without jail-breaking, like described in the article).

</comment><comment><USER69> I want to like their phone, but this will be a lot like using Linux on the desktop in the 90s. Software won't be available and it will get in the way of anything productive I need to do.

<comment><USER70> > Software won't be available and it will get in the way of anything > productive I need to do.

This is Hacker News, where many of us are weirdos who prefer to do almost everything in Emacs. In that case, the software for these phones is definitely already available. What is still missing is the hardware keyboard like the Nokia N900 had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Sigh. Double checking my email: still the same. Order placed: January 16, 2019. Shipping ETA: mid-to-late November 2020. Off topic, I know, but ghrghghr....

</comment><comment><USER72> Y'all are really complaining about an ad in an post that makes reasonable claims. At a grand scale they're right, your phone is not your castle.

</comment><comment><USER73> I've been running two accounts on my Android phone for a while.

And I'm on the second account.

It really doesn't work perfect, I can't hotpot for instance, I have to swap to the initial account.

But I don't see the phone as my castle, more the second instance.

Same diff perhaps. I do know when I handed it to someone to view something I though I really need a button to mute all the notifications while it's in their hands.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you have a question about the GNU/Linux phone advertised in the article, look at this: [https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community- wiki/-/wikis/Freque...](https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community- wiki/-/wikis/Frequently-Asked-Questions)

</comment><comment><USER74> OT: but there is something wrong with the "t" in that font. Does everybody see the same thing as me? It wasn't till I read trustworthy that I thought wtf.

[https://imgur.com/a/UrwSjA5](https://imgur.com/a/UrwSjA5)

<comment><USER75> Looks fine to me: [https://imgur.com/hKhPIPP](https://imgur.com/hKhPIPP)

I'm running Firefox 80.0.1 on Manjaro Linux. The font is loaded from [https://puri.sm/wp-content/themes/wp- purism/fonts/librebaske...](https://puri.sm/wp-content/themes/wp- purism/fonts/librebaskerville/librebaskerville-regular-webfont-regular.woff2)

Check you're not blocking that URL.

<comment><USER74> weird, thanks for helping.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Ah geeze, I thought this was going to be something interesting and it turned out to be a stinking _AD_. I'm not going to have much faith in your arguments if your final point is going to be "buy our stuff instead of theirs."

<comment><USER9> What's wrong with stating a problem and suggesting a solution? Solutions are never free.

<comment><USER76> Lots of solutions are free. And the fact of the matter is that this was not presented as an ad initially. It was disingenuously presented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Not castle, rental car. You're just a guest on your device, at least in real life.

</comment><comment><USER78> A part of me feels the next Apple ad is going to be "Your phone is your castle". I do like their pro privacy stance against the big dogs. I just really hope the phone was more akin to the bicycle of the mind that Steve Jobs promised us.

<comment><USER79> They already did (about 1 week ago): [https://youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw](https://youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> I really like the philosophy of Free Software and particularly applaud the efforts of Purism.

But the phone is unusable!! 4 hours of battery life, persistent bugs and hefty price tag.

Maybe privacy has a huge premium to pay, which I doubt 99% are willing to pay

</comment><comment><USER81> It can't just be your phone -- we should each have an inviolable online cache.

</comment><comment> jerome-jh If you have a dummy account dedicated to your phone, use e.g. K-9 to check email on real accounts, manually export/import your address book, never share it, never sync it, you are pretty close to that.

<comment><USER82> good to know thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> First I've heard of this. What is the software situation like on a device like this? I assume no comptability with Android, so apps have to be developed specifically targeting their OS?

<comment><USER9> This is GNU/Linux based on Debian, so apps should be developed in the same ways as for desktop Debian. Android apps could work in a VM, see anbox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I know it is nice and convenient having a smartphone, but you all are creating the demand for these horrible phones. And since you keep buying them why should anything change? You complain and complain and google and apple laugh with your trillions of dollars.

If you do not like what apple and google are doing, boycott them.

I know it is hard, you are all addicted to the quick information and the dopamine rush. I know because that was me. And many of you here are probably developers sucking off the teat that you complain about.

Myself? I use a flip phone while I wait for a phone that somewhat meets my criteria for something close to my linux based laptop.

<comment><USER85> > you are all addicted to the quick information and the dopamine rush

No, I'm addicted to being able to coordinate with my friends, and the additional friction of not being on WhatsApp means I won't be invited to stuff as often.

This sanctimonious diatribe isn't going to make a flip phone any more useful in a country where nobody calls or uses SMS.

<comment><USER84> The trouble is you think this cannot happen without a smartphone.

If you want things to change you have to take a stand and SACRIFICE. If your friends will not reach out to you because you are not on an App, are they really your friends?

<comment><USER85> > If your friends will not reach out to you because you are not on an App, are > they really your friends?

No, certainly not. That's why I make all my friends send me their invitations through the mail, to test their loyalty. I'm sure I'll get the first one any day now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Man I wish:

\- I could use a librephone without major drawbacks

\- puri.sm in the future Teaming up with Fairphone, so that you don't have to choose between a free software or fair hardware

</comment><comment><USER41> I would really love to have a third possibility in the mobile space, especially one as privacy- and user-focused as Purism, but I'm not convinced I'll have the same breadth of experience that I have on Android. Reading through their FAQ[0] and their app list[1], it just seems like they haven't worked hard enough to achieve "app parity" with Android or iOS.

I get that in some ways that's a non-goal, but when I consider my usage patterns, I just don't see myself being able to replace my Android phone with something like this. There's no replacement for my banking apps, things like Uber/Lyft or Postmates, streaming video/music services, etc. The web experiences for most of these are either nonexistent or just generally terrible.

I think in some ways we've gone too far with the current dominant platforms for a third party to emerge for common usage, or even usage by fairly technical people who rely on mainstream apps. A third player would need to have deep pockets and a ton of industry and financial connections to get a viable alternative to Google/Apple Pay working, for example (and the FAQ says the first phone model won't even have NFC). Do you think Chase, Capital One, Wells Fargo, Vanguard, Robinhood, Schwab, ETrade, etc. are all going to write new apps for a new platform, or make their mobile web experiences good enough to act as a substitute? I really doubt it.

There's a FAQ entry about making it possible to run Android apps on PureOS, but it didn't feel like that's much of a priority for them. And it's unclear whether many of these sorts of apps would even run: for example, I expect apps like Google Pay and some banking apps have some hard-to-emulate checks in place that ensure they're running on a conformant, non-rooted Android device. Even if there are workarounds for these sorts of things, it doesn't seem like it'd be safe to rely on those workarounds to not stop working at an inconvenient time.

If they truly believe they can build a sustainable business with a super-low- volume product that only caters to an incredibly niche audience, then that's great, and I genuinely wish them the best of luck. But I fear that any third- party, open platform that ignores mainstream use-cases will just become more and more marginalized over time to the point that they won't even be a viable option for their intended audience. Or, at least, their users will have to have a second device that they use to interact with everything their Librem phone can't talk to.

[0] [https://puri.sm/faq/](https://puri.sm/faq/) (scroll down to the "Librem Phone" section)

[1] [https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/mobile_optimized_apps/](https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/mobile_optimized_apps/) \-- which shows that the stock _email app_ is unusable, and the calendar is usable but the UI doesn't fit on the screen properly.

<comment><USER87> I can't believe MS dropped the ball so bad in the mobile space. It would be nice to have a third ecosystem to rival Apple and Google. With a huge install base for both Windows and Xbox, HOW do you eff that up? _sigh_

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I feel this is a great initiative, in the mobile OS android and ios goes unchallenged, similar to how it was when windows/mac were ruling earlier, and then linux came and became popular.

I really hope many people get to know of this and can use/contribute to it. One big challenge might be to how to have something as an APP store, without a lot of malware/ poor quality apps.

</comment><comment><USER89> I'm a bit skeptical about their presumption to be both an app store and a phone provider, but ok, I guess.

> $749 USD pre-order

Unfortunately, it seems the "security-focused" phone is only for very rich people. I mean, ok, if you can afford a new iPhone you can also afford this, but most people in the world can't spend half this much on a phone.

<comment><USER90> I think it's worth mentioning that the PinePhone exists as well an can be had for 150$ whenever they launch a new batch (every 2 months or so). It is also a Linux phone, maybe not as privacy focuses as the Librem 5, but it serves a similar niche in my opinion.

<comment><USER91> What's the best OS to use on the PinePhone?

<comment><USER90> In terms of UI, UBPorts with lomiri seems to be the best, however it's extremely restrictive in what you can do with it. (Read only root, fstab resets itself after every reboot). It's also based on Ubuntu 16.04.

Personally I have Mobian on it, which is basically Debian with tweaks to work on the Pinephone. You have access to everything in the same way you would have on the desktop. It's using Phosh for the interface.

PostmarketOS is cool, but based on alpine and I have no idea how alpine works.

Fedora and Arch also have (unofficial) Pinephone spins similar to Mobian, so get whatever package manager suits you best.

There are also the Manjaro editions, but I don't really like Manjaro.

That's the stuff I tested, though there's more on the Pinephone wiki.

<comment><USER91> Thanks! FWIW, I currently run Ubuntu Touch on a OnePlus One.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> A house is physical property.

A phone holds intellectual property and digital information, perhaps belonging to other people. It's complex.

The comparison is overly simplified, I think.

For example, as soon as you subscribe to corporate email, your device is considered "managed" and can be remote wiped. I was surprised not to see this in the article.

<comment><USER93> > A phone holds intellectual property and digital information, perhaps > belonging to other people.

And a house can't? Not to belabor the obvious, but houses often contain phones, along with other storage media holding a wide range of digital information. The phone, like the house, is still your physical property, regardless of any information it may contain.

<comment><USER92> I really think there is a big difference between digital devices and houses, and saying that the old "house is your castle" laws should apply to a phone is silly, especially when talking about app stores.

Saying that "the phone is still your property" is true physically, but that's not what the OP is saying. He's saying that whoever sold you the phone shouldn't be able to control or limit what happens to it. Why not though?

I wonder what he thinks about homeowner associations in the US. Or gun laws. Or zoning restrictions. Or all of the other laws that society has added since then.

My Samsung TV won't let me install apps from anywhere but the Samsung app store. Is that really breaking the Magna Carta? This is silly.

<comment><USER93> > He's saying that whoever sold you the phone shouldn't be able to control or > limit what happens to it.

I can't speak for the OP but I would generally agree with this statement. Selling something implies turning over control to the new owner. If the device still answers to you after the transaction you haven't really finished your part of the sale. This is somewhat like the concept of inalienable rights, where e.g. you can't voluntarily transfer ownership of your body to someone else while you're still alive because regardless of what you claimed to agree to you still have effective control over it. Except in this case their control _is_ alienable but they simply choose not to relinquish it. One can make a reasonable argument that claiming to sell a device while actually retaining control over it is a form of fraud—that this isn't a sale but only a lease. Imaging selling someone a house with unbreakable locked doors, and keeping the keys to those doors for yourself, so that the new "owner" must beg permission from you to enter. This make a mockery of what it means to _own_ something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> My phone is a plunger: a tool that I don't like using, but need to use anyway.

</comment><comment><USER95> I'm fine with the Apple moat. The average user is too stupid to defend a castle.

</comment><comment><USER96> >your phone is your castle, you decide what is on it >systemd

<comment><USER89> Where I read this, I laughed; then it occurred to me that maybe systemd actually gets installed on some phones; then I cried a little.

<comment><USER97> There's quite a bit of variety in OSes I checked. Anything from systemd, to upstart, to random bash init scripts (some oses are based on devuan).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> US: Not your phone, is our phone.

</comment><comment><USER99> I collected a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I've yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these:

\---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

• Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.

• Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.

• Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).

• Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.

• Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.

\---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

• How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?

• Third-party stores would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

• Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).

• Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.

This is the biggest kicker for me as an indie dev. You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.

• Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.

• Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.

• iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).

• If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive.

• Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources.

</comment><comment><USER100> Obligatory CGP Grey video: [https://youtu.be/e-ZpsxnmmbE](https://youtu.be/e-ZpsxnmmbE)

</comment><comment> phoe-krk Missing "your" in the beginning of the title.

<comment><USER3> I suspect that Hacker News editorialized that title automatically.

<comment><USER101> In case anyone reading's unaware, when that happens (if it seems silly/obviously not an improvement) you _can_ edit and resubmit exactly the same title as originally submitted, and it will then be accepted as-is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Always wanted for someone to make a copy of Apple's products but without their insane level of control over your device. Looks like someone is finally going to do it :)</comment>


Ask YC: Preparing for a pitch contest - <AUTHOR>

Tomorrow I'm pitching my startup GeekStack (http://geekstack.com) at the Chicagoland FastPitch Competition (http://www.chicagoeweek.com/fast_pitch_competition.asp).  I've got my 3 minute script mostly memorized and I'll be videotaping myself tonight.  Does anyone have any other tips for preparing for a pitch contest? <comment><USER2> I'd avoid memorizing a script. Memorize and push bullet point phrases, rather than a full 'story'. You'll be so familiar with the project that you should easily be able to recount the story.

Focus on what the judges want to hear, eg if they are investors then make sure you cover:

1\. business model 2\. market trends / size 3\. how your startup solves a problem or fulfils a need 4\. your team 5\. what you need to implement 6\. and how you plan to execute.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason for the script is the 3 minute time limit. It took me about four hours to get the pitch down to 3 minutes while still covering all the points they wanted covered. These are the criteria:

1\. What is your technology, product or service? Briefly describe what you sell and the need it fulfills.

2\. Who is your target market? Briefly state who buys this product or service and the size of the market.

3\. How do you expect to make money? Describe the source(s) of revenue and how you will sell.

4\. Who is your competition?

5\. What is your competitive advantage? How can your company provide this product or service better than the competition?

6\. Who is behind the company? Share your and your team's background and accomplishments. Explain how your background gives your business credibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No tips, but good luck! I didn't even hear about this until today. From a fellow chicago suburbanite!

</comment><comment><USER3> So how did it go?</comment>