Quit whining about Apple and just stop using them - <AUTHOR> https://rudism.com/quit-whining-about-apple-and-just-stop-using-them/ <comment><USER3> "Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining.

This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as.

And this point from the article needs to be strongly rebutted:

> I don't know, it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies. The solution is > obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you're going to take a huge hit > without access to those consumers [...]

This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be _broken up_.

<comment><USER4> Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small international market.

Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer.

The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model.

Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model.

It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market.

I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.

<comment><USER5> Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service.

So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game.

Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.

By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.

<comment><USER6> But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.

<comment><USER7> >maybe 20% of phones

Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, _the metric that actually matters_ , they account for well over two thirds of the market.

<comment><USER8> because people care about the ecosystem and that has real monetary value to all three (consumer, seller, marketplace)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you don't like how Apple does business, stop using their products.

If you don't like how Google does business, stop using their products.

If you don't like how either one does business, stop using technology all together.

I am being facetious, but mainly to illustrate the point that we now have a series of entrenched monopolies in the tech world so "stop using X" isn't a realistic solution.

<comment><USER10> That's a very cumbersome a way of getting what I want. It's much better and easier if e.g the EU simply makes Apple do the right thing by force. The market doesn't solve this kind of problem.

<comment><USER11> We already have anti-trust regulations that are supposed to stop these sorts of anti-competitive behaviors.

A company is not allowed to use its position as a "market" to ALSO give an unfair advantage to its own products - or to shut out competitors without reasonable cause.

...but these laws aren't being enforced. It's funny to remember Microsoft being forced to de-couple Internet Explorer from Windows, and yet the idea of de-coupling the app Store from IOS or the Play store from Android does not seem to occur to regulators.

I have a conspiracy theory that they _like_ that American companies have this market strangle-hold and are unwilling to give market share to EU or Chinese competitors. Imagine all the data collect lost!

<comment><USER12> In theory there is already an open technology which is decoupled from these platforms: the browser. Job's vision was exactly that.

Now we're still(!) in a place where standards are being fought by the likes if Apple, because they have an incentive to weaken open standards in favor of their closed platforms.

This is a grotesque strategy that needs to stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Unpopular opinion: the 30% that Apple charges includes customer acquisition cost.

As a thought experiment, if Hey adds In-App Purchase for subscriptions, but everyone who downloads the app has first signed up for their service due to their marketing methods (an increasing likelihood considering this controversy), then nobody will use the In App Purchase, and Hey will send $0.00 to Apple.

If someone discovers the App in the App Store due to an organic search for Email clients, then they are likely to sign up via In App Purchase, and Hey pays Apple an affiliate fee of 30% of first year revenue, and 15% of lifetime revenue after that. This is a customer that Hey would not have had if not for the App Store, so getting 75-80% of lifetime value seems better than not acquiring the customer in the first place.

I realize it's not entirely as clean as that, but cast in that way, the amounts seem merely expensive, and not egregious.

(not to defend any of Apple's behavior - particularly the most recent letter sent).

<comment><USER14> Hey is arguing that they want the choice to unlist from the app store entirely so their client would never surface in organic search results, and have no IAP link. That way the only audience they gain are from people they themselves marketed to and purchased a subscription on the web.

But it's unfair to Apple! They get 0.00 for this!

Bullshit.

Every Apple customer who wants to use HEY gets a great mobile experience to encourage them to keep buying Apple products. If enough services like Dropbox, Netflix, Spotify, were not available on iPhone, the consumer might purchase the Android phone on their next upgrade, or the company might switch their fleet to Android devices that actually support their business software.

Basecamp / Hey is providing value to Apple's products by enriching their ecosystem. They should have the choice if they want to pay a 30% cut for organic search traffic in Apple's App Store.

<comment><USER15> > Basecamp / Hey is providing value to Apple's products by enriching their > ecosystem

Apple is providing value to Basecamp/Hey by providing a smartphone and an operating system that can run Hey app. "Hey" can simply remove the app from App store and provide a web based version if they don't want to pay for convenience of iOS and iPhone.

<comment><USER16> They would, but it's a shame that that everyone is forced to use webkit on iOS and for some reason is refusing to implement push notification API need to make PWA's. I wonder what that reason could be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you're going to > take a huge hit without access to those consumers

The solution is obvious. Sabotage your own business. Sure, you're going to go out of business without any customers.

<comment><USER18> But that's the whole point of having principles. It costs something to uphold them, which you deem worthwhile to pay.

There are plenty of other ways to make money in software without needing to do business with companies you deem unethical.

<comment><USER19> What serious business, be it B2C or B2B, in today's software world, doesn't require a mobile app on either iOS and Android or a desktop app on Chrome/Windows/macOS?

<comment><USER18> Are you saying all three of Microsoft, Google, and Apple are unethical?

<comment><USER20> Unequivocally yes, MS, Google, and Apple are all deeply unethical. This is proven in their business practices as well as their manufacturing practices. The problem is we live in a society that values money over all else, including human suffering and fair access to markets.

<comment><USER21> It must be even easier to stop working with these unethical companies if you don't value money that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Disclaimer: I only read the subject line and the first paragraph.

Years ago, when Internet Explorer had market dominance, I was working on a website and I wanted to use a feature that IE didn't support yet. I asked a question on a forum about how to do it in IE. One of the replies was "just stop using IE."

Dude. It's not for me. It's for my customers.

<comment><USER23> Are we really comparing these two?

Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second place. IE had a much larger control of the market.

<comment><USER24> If your market segment is customers who are willing to pay for a high end email service, Apple's share of that customer segment is probably much greater than 50%. Large enough that not offering an iOS app will cripple your business.

<comment><USER23> Sounds like a bad business model to me.

That market segment exists because of the walled garden - remove it, and it no longer exists.

<comment><USER24> That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone.

If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear.

<comment><USER23> > That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because > those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that > doesn't work on iPhone.

Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck. It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise.

> If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple > disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year > wouldn't disappear.

Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect - because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary.

In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare.

Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules, it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that restrictive.

<comment><USER24> >It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise

>In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare.

How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store?

If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't understand how you're getting from A to B.

<comment><USER23> > How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, > allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of > apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store?

Apple is a company that is fully dedicated to product.

Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware, this impacts the product. Sideloaded apps are a dangerous vector for malware ([https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading- malware/](https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/)), this impacts the product. It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product.

The fact is we have a case study in what a non-walled garden looks like, the dumpster fire that is Android, with wildly differing levels of quality, confusing applications from different vendors, a terrible play store experience, etc. It's quite clear how we get to B.

Allowing a competing app store is implicitly supporting that app store - meaning if it bricks your phone, or installs malware, it hurts the user experience of Apple, and the product.

> If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into > low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I > don't understand how you're getting from A to B.

So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps. This ruins the product. A, meet B.

The App Store is as much a product as the iPhone. It's a product for developers to quickly, easily, and safely reach consumers to make more money. If you don't like the product as a developer, it's too expensive, or you don't like the agreement, create a web app. Safari can open it just fine. Or release only on Android, it has a huge market.

The fact is, we should not be punishing business unless there is a malpractice by the business that can't be remedied by the market - this is clearly not the case here. It is developer sour grapes because his overpriced mail app tried to cheat the system.

<comment><USER24> >Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware

Up front fees sure. But how exactly does charging 10% instead of 30% of sales, encourage lower quality software? Where is the cutoff for this? Why 30%? Would 50% encourage even higher quality software?

>It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the app store, this impacts the product.

It's not right? As in it is morally wrong?

>So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores. They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app stores for 10 different apps.

They can keep buying their apps on 1 curated app store. If the other app stores were so inferior and full of crap, no one would use them, so people such as your self could keep selling apps on the "good" app store. It's a self limiting problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all have one and you want to signal that you're one of the crowd, but it's not worth it."

That's quite an over simplification of the appeal of an iPhone and comes off as him whining about whiners. I'd like to switch back to a flip phone from a privacy perspective, but there's a few conveniences that would be hard to go without. I refuse to buy any more Android phones as I've only had issue after issue with software and hardware, and Apple seems like the lesser of two evils.

It feels like we're stuck in an American political party system where our only reasonable options are to choose between two companies that only have their own best interests in mind.

<comment><USER26> The issue is app stores. Most app developers/companies won't deploy to any stores other than Google's and Apple's, so when it comes to choosing a device that can run most apps its IPhone or Android.

A solution here is to introduce a standard mobile app format, with standard APIs to interact with the OS. Then app developers write one app that can run on any supported device. But good luck getting the duopoly to agree to that.

<comment><USER27> > A solution here is to introduce a standard mobile app format, with standard > APIs to interact with the OS.

I would argue that's exactly what Android is. It's a mobile OS with a mobile app ecosystem of APIs.

But the fact that no government forced all smartphones to use it means it didn't and likely won't happen. Also, governments don't seem to move at the speed of iOS/Android features, so taking that hypothetical path would have likely meant all mobile phone features slowed a lot.

> The issue is app stores.

Another solution is for governments to enforce reasonable access to all mobile app companies and to make sure the purchases and data are portable to all similar devices (say all smartphones or all game consoles). It's not that hard to make the coupling of the app binary to the device tight but the license to use the software portable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I mean lets be honest. Developers actually like the iPhone as a development platform. They like how much money they make from it. They like the products themselves. They just don't want to pay the Apple commission or be restricted in any way by their rules.

Unfortunately those things are tied at the hip. The very rules and product decisions about the platform is what made it the popular and lucrative market it is in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you make something like say, oh an email client, excluding the 1.5 BILLION people on the iOS platform is not just a handicap, it makes your entire business non-viable. So now Apple is the gatekeeper of new businesses and services. Fortune 500's and small one man shops alike have been terrified to speak up against Apple, because Apple has the ability to deliver a death- sentence by kicking you out of their store on a whim or simply because an app reviewer takes a personal interest in you.

I think what the Basecamp folks want is entirely reasonable, and Apple's behavior is entirely anti-competitive: Basecamp doesn't care to be in the app store, nor do they want to benefit from the app store discovery and other services for free. What they want is the OPTION to have a link on their web page, that when clicked, prompts the user to install the notarized/signed/whatever application. Basically you'd just have the "double click the power button twice to install" card pop-up immediately, bypassing the entire store. Do that, and Apple can charge whatever they want in the store. Suggestions that this somehow subverts the quality of the platform or the experience is entirely bullshit, Basecamp pays their developer fees and notarizes their apps on Mac, there's zero reason this wouldn't work on iOS except Apple's greed and anti-competitive behavior, and let's not forget that sweet, sweet 30% cut of every single business and service under the sun.

<comment><USER23> This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability.

The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS world without paying anything for it.

<comment><USER24> >There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability.

Is that true for customers who are interested in a high end email service that costs $100 a year? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones.

<comment><USER23> Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone.

If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular.

<comment><USER24> >Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone.

Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

>If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it just isn't that popular.

Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where are you getting 33% from?

<comment><USER23> > Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen > to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. A handful may like this application. I can't imagine the market for a ridiculously expensive email client that isn't functional is large. In fact, it's so small, that it can't take the shock of paying 15-30% fee for the advertisement, easy transfer to customer, easy place for reviews, and updates, in other words, a platform with access to a large array of consumers willing to spend for good software.

What's more likely is this - the app is struggling to make money, they cheated the rules and they know it, so why not turn it into a marketing campaign. Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers who followed the rules get screwed).

> Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's > going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where > are you getting 33% from?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third.

The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. If you don't like it make a web app. There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this.

<comment><USER24> >The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

>Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment.

If you're assuming my scenario is true, then yes it does mean there is a segment. That's what assuming my scenario is true means in this case.

> Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while > developers who followed the rules get screwed).

If, for example, Apple decides to reduce their fees to 10% going forward are all the developers who've paid 30% in the past screwed? If so you have an odd definition of screwed.

>I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a third.

I thought you were responding to this > I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones.

And that 33% was the percentage of customers on iPhones.

>The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant.

I and many other people think that 30% is exorbitant.

>There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this.

Sure, there are always bigger fish to fry. But it's not an either or situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I can't stop. I've been buying computers and peripherals and gizmos since 1974. I have a house full of them. I code for food. But I've yet to buy my first Apple product or service. Yes, it's mostly because I'm cheap. But it's also because I avoid walled gardens. I feel pretty good about that now. Climb on out, y'all, the weather's fine out here in the jungle.

<comment><USER31> Am I the only one who loves Apple products?

I love MacOS. I love iOS. I love all things Apple. Customer service is totally top notch. Physical quality is excellent, of course I have my wishes and pet peeves (don't like cold aluminum, stupid touchbar, keyboard!).

I'm willing to pay even double the cost of other cheaply made products from Asus, Acer, Samsung, etc.

Not to mention the whole ecosystem thing and I trust Apple with my data - <USER2> than Google and I can't even think about Microsoft (windows is a billboard of ads). If China had a competitor to Apple for OS/hardware (not talking about Foxconn, that's a ODM), they would need to literally convert to democracy before they can even get in the playing field. They're not even in the same league, not even the same sport right now.

Initially, I was apathetic. Then I liked Apple products. Then I started loving them. They're arrogant, they care about you, they made mistakes, they charge a lot of premium - I love them. They must have done something right to win me?

<comment><USER32> I used to love Apple products when I was a kid.

This is Apple's 1984 commercial: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I)

They aren't the same company anymore. They started making fun of people that used other products. They started to say you can only use use Apple products this way. They started to say, "you're holding it wrong". They started to just pretend to be user-friendly and stopped actually being user-friendly.

<comment><USER31> > They aren't the same company anymore. They started making fun of people that > used other products. They started to say you can only use use Apple products > this way. They started to say, "you're holding it wrong". They started to > just pretend to be user-friendly and stopped actually being user-friendly.

Any examples? I think they're pretty user friendly in many ways. As I said, they are arrogant but I am fine with that. May be you're not, to each their own. I don't like their repairability stance and some of the shit they do to screw the consumer over. But, I can put up with that because they just replace my whole laptop or whatever device. I took the magic keyboard (standalone one) after 3 years and clearly out of warranty, and they just gave me a new one because 1 key was stuck. IMO more positive experiences than negative.

<comment><USER32> I'm a PC ads

Can't customize iOS without jailbreaking it

Antennagate

<comment><USER31> This is a weak set of arguments, no offense. I am a PC ads was almost 13 years ago. Antennagate? Samsung Galaxy Note 7? Apple also messed up their whole keyboard fiasco, but they did replace my macbook pro chassis free of cost outside of warranty. So did Samsung with their battery fiasco. Jailbreaking is done by literally impossible to see slice of the consumer base. Apple is not going to give up their T2 security and enclave and all the privacy aspects to open up their software to public hacking. This would go against the FBI case with Apple, remember?

<comment><USER32> > Any examples?

I answered your question, I'm sorry they don't meet your standards.

Speaking of anecdotes: Apple didn't fix or replace my iPhone that was under warranty.

And why are you changing the subject to hacking?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This debacle is peak popcorn. "HN Darling Reinvents Email Except Really Expensive Without SMTP Support And Asserts That Apple Is Being A Meanie For Enforcing Their Revenue Model"

Yet no one is going to divest from Apple because profit/weird consumer ideology.

Also not precluding the possibility that it's all (or mostly) a big marketing act from what is clearly a marketing-first product (Hey).

<comment><USER34> Wow, Hey doesn't have SMTP support? That's ridiculous.

<comment><USER35> Well, Hey isn't trying to be yet another email service. The idea is that SMTP does not support the kind of messaging that Hey is built around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "It seems silly to me to cry about monopolies."

Oh, wait. So let's go back in time. When Microsoft was sued and forced to allow other browsers onto Windows. IE was the default and was free.

Microsoft forced OEMs to pay for Windows for every computer they made, whether or not they installed Windows on it. Effectively killing out other operating systems.

If you don't believe in monopolies... if the solution was "stop buying computers that come pre-installed with Windows"...

Or is it that you don't believe Apple is a monopoly but you're still happy Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers to be the default in Windows?

</comment><comment><USER37> Nooooo!!!!

I am sustained by Apple hatred. It is an essential part of my balanced diet.

Every time someone complains about how expensive Apple is I grow a centimeter and every time someone bitches about their App Store policies I gain a month of lifespan.

I am now 40km tall and will live for 50,000 years but ultimately a lack of whining about Apple would see me wither away and die.

<comment><USER38> This is such a funny comment in a thread with so much divisiveness.

Apple's position sucks for those who rely on their customers (and yes, it is THEIR customers) for a living. No matter how much we complain, they developed their ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> In my opinion, developers do have the right to articulate critics - be it towards Apple or any other gatekeeper. Just stopping to use/develop for a platform isn't enough.

However, I feel the discussion often misses a central point when it is focused on "developers" against "Apple" (or be it Google): the interest of the customer.

Of course, a developer wants to maximize return, as wants Apple. But what about the users? As a user, I love discounts on iTunes gift cards. I love Apple handling subscriptions instead of a developer I don't know. I choose iOS because of the perceived better support and lifetime value (and perhaps even the feel of some security and privacy, but of course, one can argue about that). And I even like the editorial content of the AppStore, which is some form of marketing but also a form of recommendation.

As a customer, the AppStore is much more than a simple storefront, some sometimes wonky review processing and some servers and payment processing: it is a 360-degree-experience. Sometimes, as a customer I'm frustrated by the AppStore as well, but I would not buy my apps at a developers site. I even buy Mac Apps in the AppStore if I can, for similar reasons.

As a developer, I sometimes hate myself for not giving other developers more than 60 or 70 percent of the share. But on the other hand, I remember the old days when software was sold on CDROMs and was only available at Frys and other large electronics/computer shops. Getting your software listed there cost much much more than 30 percent ... and you had to prepay all these expenses as the developer/publisher.

<comment><USER40> Should Apple ban non App Store apps from Macs too? Doesn't your argument extend to computers? Why would phones or tablets be different.

<comment><USER21> I hope they don't, but if they did I would either accept it, circumvent it (jailbreak) or stop using Macs. It's their choice and I'm entirely informed.

<comment><USER40> > or stop using Macs

I would too, but I'd be upset because I like Macs. I also like iPhones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > The Solution for Consumers

> Stop buying iPhones

There's the problem with this argument. Consumers are suffering, but don't realize it. The lack of competition, and the increased cost to developers, are depriving consumers of innovative products like Hey, but they don't know it. You can't expect consumer to know when they buy a phone, that it will cause a future company to fail to launch an innovative new product. It's this very reason why we have anti-trust laws.

<comment><USER41> Please. You can argue it's bad for developers, but saying it's bad for consumers is unsubstantiated and just an appeal to emotion. Whether or nor other not the cut is fair, Apple has done an amazing job running the app store - as well as the broader platform in delivering a platform used by millions that is both free from malware and spyware.

<comment><USER40> > Apple has done an amazing job running the app store

It can be true that they've run a great app store, but also true that some aspects of it are bad for developers and consumers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> As an alternative solution that doesn't depend on defining what a monopoly is, or how to boycott a large brand, how about forcing companies to apply the same terms to everybody?

I think at least part of the core of the problem is that Apple applies their subscription requirements differently depending on who owns the app. That is what I think needs to stop. If Yo has to do it one way, then Google, Microsoft, Netflix and Spotify should have to do it the same way too.

</comment><comment><USER43> This strikes me as one step removed from that meme: "I see you complain about modern farming practices and yet still eat. Interesting..."

</comment><comment><USER44> > _Stop buying iPhones. Seriously. They're overpriced and locked-down and > controlled by Apple in infuriating ways that hurt you, even if Apple has > succeeded in keeping you ignorant of that fact._

I'll take your word for it... not! iPhones are fine, everyone who has used both current Android and iOS devices can see that. It's not hurting me that "Hey" has to pay 30% for their subscriptions. Hotels, restaurants and other companies have to pay similar rates to their respective dominating "gatekeepers" as well. For the consumer it doesn't matter. For someone like "Hey" the way to go is to pay up now and if they are successful, they might be able to negotiate better terms later.

</comment><comment><USER45> I love it when someone tries to tell me what _I_ should like or do. I don't care if you like Apple or not. I happen to like them, not everything of course, but overall yes. And you're advocating limiting their success? They, like all of us, can succeed or fail in America. They are successful because people like their products and software. Duh. Jealousy does not suit you very well. Don't get me wrong, I like Android and Linux too, I'm an expert on Linux myself. But there's a reason I use an iPhone, iPad Pro and MacBook Pro. It's called convenience and productivity. And I like it!

Who basically invented the App Store? And now you don't like that they make money on it?

Your whole article just strikes me as sour grapes.

</comment><comment><USER46> I have seen mainly three groups of people who continue to use Apple products. Those who want their phones, computers etc to just work together and don't want to spend time on this. Then there are those who want to get out of the walled garden but there is too much lock-in to bother spending time on it because they have other things to do. And finally those who think Apple products are aspirational/status symbol.

So when it comes to switching from Apple, the first group doesn't need to, the second can't afford to and the third doesn't want to. Nothing much we can do about it.

</comment><comment><USER47> 30% is extemely steep and I think if it was 15% hardly anyone would complain.

This is just my opinion, but a 30% tax is there because they provide something that the competition doesn't. And that is automated security updates by default for at least 5 years and user friendly app permission management where I really can trust my settings to provide me privacy by default.

You will not get that from Google, they barely support their own devices for more than 3 years, I still have no idea if advertisers are allowed to read my gmail or not.

I remember recently a friend getting an old ipad mini with a nice screen but poor cpu specs, 1gb ram. And guess what, it ran fine, it's getting security and feature updates the same day as every other apple device. TouchID worked, everything actually just worked I can trust that thing my bank account.

And recently I found my old Nexus 7 with amazing specs, quad core , 4gb ram, 1920:1200 screen and now I have to do bootloader & operating system surgery just to get the thing to work.

Everytime I've heard of someone get their bank account hacked it usually has started with a text sent to an out of date android phone. For that reason alone I can't recommend a non-technical person to use android unless they understand security or it's on a brand new Pixel device.

If I'm building and deploying software and I want to have the piece of mind that all my users are running it on a secure platform that at least tries to respect their privacy my best choice is an iOS device and for that Apple wants a 3rd of my revenue.

</comment><comment><USER48> My job is to fix other people's technology / computer problems. When I'm not working I want to use a smartphone that does what I need, behaves as expected every time, and respects my privacy concerns. I want to spend as little time as possible configuring, fixing, or troubleshooting my phone.

The iPhone is the closest thing to what I want. It's not 100% but it's better than any other smartphone I've come across at that price point ($400 for iPhone SE).

</comment><comment><USER49> I am a long-time Apple customer, but my first reaction to this title was, "well I've never used cigarettes, does that mean I can't 'whine' about them?"

There is, to an extent, 'second hand smoke' in any industry with a dominant player who doesn't agree with your sense of ethics. The App Store and its imitators have changed the landscape of software that is available to you and I.

I didn't run to OS X so much as I ran away from the chaos and aggravation of custom drivers and kernel compiles for Linux laptops (compiling on a subnotebook is quite painful), and doing tech support for friends & family, so the pickiness of the App Store solves a huge pain point that I am willing to _compromise_ on other things to get. That it's a compromise means that the dissenters have a point, it's just not enough for me.

When you are trying to keep conceptual coherence in a thing, you have to reject a lot of ideas that would be really cool to do. It doesn't mean people aren't entitled to grieve, and it doesn't mean that you will always pick the correct winners ("why did my idea get rejected but your stupid ideas 1, 2, and 3 were included?"), and in some cases the bigger person would encourage someone to 'spin off' that idea. If the market of ideas gets too constrained then it's bad for everyone.

I suppose you could say that I want them to win, but only as long as that doesn't mean that everybody else has to lose. Like Chrome beating Microsoft without taking out Firefox (whups). We are not very good as consumers at ensuring that.

</comment><comment><USER50> What's the monopolistic case against Apple? Is Apple anticompetitive?

Here's my grievances, but I don't know if any aspects are actually monopolistic.

Are they competing against their own partners? Their stock apps have remained vanilla enough that there seems to be enough oxygen for alternatives for premium and power users.

They've definitely done monopsony. Business strategy wise, they've been wicked clever. It's always made me uncomfortable. And I'm pretty grumpy their control of the supply chain doesn't permit third party repairs. I get that they're pulling out all the stops combatting counterfeiters and fraud, which is easily pro-consumer, but there's got to be a balance.

I've always felt their 30% cut from App Store is excessive, unfair. But I don't know what a reasonable cut would be. Cost of doing business plus reasonable margin?

Pay to play schemes, like search ads and paid placement, are complete bullshit. Aka payola. But is that monopolistic?

All the "marketplaces" need the rule of law. Transparency, accountability, fair and impartial courts, appeals processes. This applies to apps, content, personas. No one entity can be allowed be legislator, police, judge, jury, and executioner. This is the biggest apparent conflict of interest, anti- competitive, anti-consumer, anti-democratic behavior of all these "marketplace" hosts, Apple included.

I'm still pissed off about the wage fixing. Sharing the bounty more fairly, broadly would diffuse a lot of the festering resentment.

</comment><comment><USER51> I really like the iPhone. Maybe not the full Apple ecosystem so much (everything else I own is Linux), but that's only because I think Linux is the best fit for me. iPhone is the same way, and Apple's business practices don't change my fit with my phone, no matter how disappointing they may be. I think that's why many of us use Apple.

My happy place would be something like "Heroku for mobile", where you can jswrap a React.js app into an HTMLView or something like that, and do 'git push ios master'. Notifications API, localStorage API, and maybe authentication / session persistence API are all I really care about natively (like Firebase); React Native is too heavy. Add in a TestFlight "permanent beta" invite, or the ability to build the app from a remote mac ([https://www.macincloud.com/](https://www.macincloud.com/)) with a lambda and transfer it to my phone (...somehow), and I'll just use the app store for things I don't make myself (which hopefully should be less and less).

<comment><USER52> Isn't that what a PWA is? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application)

<comment><USER51> PWAs are going in that direction, but they don't have access to native storage, notifications, and other stuff. They're still mostly webapps, which is great for portability but not great for mobile UI/UX. I want the "native- ness" of React Native (or really, true native) combined with the flexibility of a webapp. Reduce mobile down to another build target, but still not give up access to native APIs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Everything is a trade-off.

I use iOS because I want a smartphone and I'd prefer Apple's restrictions to Google's data-gathering. I'd like to see iOS be better and I'd like to see Apple's App Store policies improved.

If I choose to use Apple products because I find the trade-offs inherent in using iOS/ MacOS, I don't lose the right to expect better of them and want those products to improve.

<comment><USER54> By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't display ads.

<comment><USER53> > By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't > display ads.

My post wasn't meant to push one perspective or another, merely to point out that wanting your platform to be _better_ doesn't mean you want to switch. If I was on Android, I would complain a lot about Google's advertising policies, then someone would say "Quit whining about Google and just stop using them".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If you look at the selection of apps on the Mac App Store, where developers aren't forced to use the store, it's pretty easy to see that their 30% generally outweighs the usefulness of the service. So, semantic discussions of monopoly aside, Apple is charging a rent. In general, we should be against rent-seeking in technology.

</comment><comment><USER56> Google has _not_ a similar model as Apple, alternative stores are possible.

These rotten apple gangsters need to be stopped (by legislation). A huge fine (50 billions) is in order!

It's not only about the 30 % extortion fee but also e.g. Phone Story. A member of a platform duopoly should be disallowed to uniquely control the single access point.

<comment><USER40> > Google has not a similar model as Apple, alternative stores are possible.

They also allow custom payment methods within apps distributed via Google Play. See Apple Music on Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Easy to say, were Android not a complete dumpster fire of an OS. Stop using the iPhone and... buy into an ecosystem where every phone manufacturer installs random crapware on your device, google gets to spy on you, and whether or not you get security updates is a game of Russian roulette? Nah.

</comment><comment><USER58> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine if I wanted to stop using Google, and created my own web based spreadsheet software, or video conferencing software, that I would face a legal battle with these big tech companies if it did end up becoming successful.

Searching for spreadsheet patents returns a lot of really banal concepts [1]. Maybe they wouldn't hold up in court, but having been served before, it's a very terrifying experience.

Or, if you create a successful competing product, you'll probably just get bought out (whatsapp, keybase, instagram).

[1] [https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadshe...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadsheet+google&oq=Spreadsheet+google)

</comment><comment><USER59> I recently bought a system76 lemur pro after being a long time macbook user:

[https://system76.com/laptops/lemur](https://system76.com/laptops/lemur)

I will not claim that there are no trade offs, but I find it a very productive machine, and very light weight. I use an external monitor and keyboard, plugged in to a usb-c hub, and it works well.

I am hoping that the mudita pure can replace my iphone:

[https://mudita.com/products/pure/](https://mudita.com/products/pure/)

I do wish someone would do a not-dumb-but-not-too-smart e-ink phone with basic maps and a physical keyboard, but I recognize that I am likely a market of one for that product.

<comment><USER52> Not e-ink, but Nokia 800 does have Google Maps.

<comment><USER32> How about OpenStreetMap?

If I'm ditching Android to get away from Google, I'd rather not use Google Maps.

However I do concede that only having an run some of the time is better than an bad OS running all the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> > Let's say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message > that because they're so successful they no longer have a right to dictate > their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices and how much > money they can charge developers to have access to their platform. Just > think of all the ways that precedent could be abused against other > companies.

Ok, how about we instead tear down this idea that it's legally OK for a company to sell you a computer, and then prevent you from installing whatever software you want on it? Doesn't sound like we have any bad precedents then! And, apple can keep their app store if they want, and pitch it as a curated, safe walled garden.

</comment><comment><USER61> > The idea that they have a "monopoly" seems patently ridiculous to me. A > monopoly over what? Their own brand of computing devices that they are the > sole manufacturers of? Operating systems for which they are the sole > developers and maintainers?

I'm not sure where I fall on this, but I feel this is less direct than some people make it sound. I can also see the argument that the iOS phone has become it's own market segment. It might be a bit of stretch to make this comparison, but we don't just a have a market segment for electronic communication devices, we break that down further. Why can't the smart phone market be broken down further as well?

</comment><comment><USER62> Wow, this is a long-winded semi-rant that goes through a lot of contradictory points. Summing up, it seems to take two opposite sides, the first aligned with the title:

1) Don't take legal action against Apple because "think of all the ways that precedent could be abused against other companies" and "it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies", so "The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS" because if you "can't survive without the ability to suckle at Apple's teat then you've made bad decisions" and "Stop buying iPhones" and "Don't buy Macs while you're at it"

...but the second totally opposed to it:

2) "In reality, I know none of these solutions are actually going to come to fruition", "Maybe the ultimate solution is an anti-trust legal one", and "My hopes for such legal action ever succeeding are not particularly high."

But as in most cases, reality isn't that black and white. The author is ultimately correct in saying "boycott Apple" is simply not viable, as it should be -- it would be like taking a sledgehammer to level a nail. Unfortunately, the author is being incredibly condescending and unrealistic that a business shouldn't depend on the iOS market, which is something like 2/3 of all mobile app store revenue.

But government intervention here doesn't mean a slippery slope -- that's a common but totally unfounded fallacy. Economists are well acquainted with all the different ways markets can fail, and how targeted governmental remedies are required for healthy market competition to function.

Identifying that Apple is abusing its market position in one area to stifle competition in another is easy to show, if we write appropriate legislation to define it (applying to Amazon etc. as well). The only question is what remedy best serves consumers: whether to treat this like a monopoly situation that gets broken up (force Apple to allow apps and app stores that bypass Apple's walled garden) or regulated like public utilities (the security and trustworthiness of the App Store is valuable, so set a yearly profit limit of e.g. 12% to that segment of the company).

</comment><comment><USER63> No, I'll do both.

<comment><USER64> And that's great if you just want to vent. Just don't expect change.

<comment><USER29> Both the EU and the US are already looking into Apple.

Here's the CTO of the Hey app and the chairman of the US Antitrust Subcommittee discussing this very case yesterday: [https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app- store-...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-hey- email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020)

These "nothing's going to change, why even try" attitudes are so lazy. Absolutely things can change, but surely not if we don't try. Microsoft was massively impacted by the antitrust action against them, every decision they made since then has been run through the lens of that verdict (I know lots of people inside MS) and it fundamentally changed their culture and reduced their stranglehold on the industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> No, they haven't earned the right to exploit their monopoly this way. It's a monopoly because the only way to get an app onto an iPhone (at least, without rooting the device) is via the app store. The writer thinks that it is perfectly appropriate for Apple to steal from the poor and not from the rich, exploiting their power to score every dollar they can get. But antitrust law exists for a reason, and though the current US administration isn't very interested in enforcing it, the EU and Japan are less likely to let Apple continue to get away with their practices.

<comment><USER66> Except what counts is what law defines as monopoly, and the fact that Android owns the European market, makes it even less relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Anti-trust problems can't be solved by individual consumer choices.

<comment><USER68> Especially when there is no legitimate anti-trust issue to begin with.

<comment><USER69> In your opinion.

In my opinion, apple is using its monopoly (or duopoly) power to force companies like hey into business relationships they would not enter into otherwise. Which represents an abuse of their position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, MS in the 90s? Which one isn't doing things people consider to be absolutely awful in some way or another.So given that, I stop buying iPhones, and do what buy an android phone? I have not really improved the moral calculus of the world. What we should do is insist on moral behavior from companies across the board, equally and fairly applied to all organizations big and small. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong and it's ok to call it out.

</comment><comment><USER71> We need the same solution as the one Microsoft implemented in Windows N.

Once you set-up your new phone (android, iOS whatever), you get to select your default app store. Different stores will have different cost / curation structures, but it will be the user's decision to make.

The OS manufacturer can still require that all of the apps need to be digitally signed to allow them to be installed, regardless of the store, to guarantee system safety.

Mobile App stores in 2020 are what browsers were to Windows in 90's.

</comment><comment><USER68> Seems to me there is a lot of heat and very little light flying around on the entire App Store issue. A lot of those "whining" the loudest——although let's call it legitimate debate instead of whining——don't seem to be fully grasping all the benefits of a walled ecosystem along with the drawbacks.

I don't think debating this issue gets us very far unless we're intellectually honest with each other about all the benefits as well as the drawbacks.

</comment><comment><USER72> It's not that simple -- as Churchill said about democracy: "It's the worst form of government ever invented -- except for all the other ones".

I switched to Mac almost 10 years ago, and I'm basically pretty happy with it. So when it looks like Apple is planning to screw it up, I get upset -- I don't want to switch again (it was a huge PITA), and there's nothing out there even remotely close.

</comment><comment><USER73> "Now let's say they decide to offer a new service that allows content providers to reach Yo's subscribers–like a newsletter or something."

I stopped reading after this and came here to say that we all know Hey would NEVER do that. This is exactly the kind of shit they fight against.

So it's not just hypocrisy from their side, they're fighting for an idea.

Of course the PR also can't hurt, but it's not like they planned it.

</comment><comment><USER74> Which in this context probably means don't operate your business on the assumption that you can have an application in the Apple app store.

</comment><comment><USER75> I will continue to use Apple but I pulled both of my apps from their app store years ago due to maltreatment. I don't use their app store as a consumer either. IMO it's a wasteland.

Unpopular opinion but I also think it should be completely up to them to set their revenue share. Let their app store wither away as developers create platform-independent web applications instead.

</comment><comment><USER76> Fundamentally it's hard to see how the current situation is any different from the situation in which anti-trust regulators moved against Nintendo and Sega in the mid-90s.

In both cases you have a duopoly which essentially controlled the market and used access to the platform to force fees and conditions onto developers using their gatekeeping abilities.

<comment><USER19> One difference that comes to mind relatively quickly is that you didn't need a gaming console to live in practice.

Try being part of today's society without a smartphone running either Apple or Google software.

Apple's goal to shove off 30% of subscription fees, if successful, most likely would lead to more expensive subscription fees for end users. I wonder whether that's finally a case that has a chance to stand in court w.r.t. anti-trust laws. (Driving up end user prices through anti-competitive behavior.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> The article completely ignores that the only way most consumers can not buy an iPhone is to buy an Android, which is as bad or worse, depending on what particular concerns you have. (Apple's got a slightly stronger walled garden, Google has far worse privacy and security. At the end of the day, their app store models are the same.)

</comment><comment><USER78> What I find interesting is that developers usually complain about the one time app purchase, saying that this doesn't incentivize big updates and the way around it is to use in-app purchases. Some even propose an update app fee. Also, developers complain that Apple is squeezing a fee from every transaction. Which seems like the same problem, Apple wants that constant stream of revenue just like developers want that constant stream of revenue to incentivize updates. Anybody else notices this symmetry?

On a side note, this could be fixed with

1) Unpopular apps don't pay a fee until they reach a certain amount of downloads. This promotes apps created by devs just starting out. 2) Fees only apply until an upper limit is met which corresponds to the total cost they generate. i.e. Every year the count resets, the first 50k downloads have 30% fee, the next 100k have a 20% fee, the next 200k have a 10% fee, etc.

If you play with this parameters there might be a win-win scenario for everybody. I wonder if Apple will propose something before EU or USA governments start looking deeper into the problem. I'm guessing Apple and Google lobbyist are measuring the temperature of Congress right now to see how to proceed.

</comment><comment><USER79> "I'm going to make one of those unpopular opinions, but alas, it must be said: It is far easier to just drop Apple support entirely."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883)

(Its becoming more popular! Yaaaaaay!)

</comment><comment><USER80> I have never used them, but I guess I am still allowed to complain about how their action impacts my life.

</comment><comment><USER81> Users can stop using Apple with minimal consequences.

Many businesses can't. Apple puts tolls around users, and people think the pricing model is unfair.

That's what this uproar is about. It has nothing to do with consumers beyond the fact that consumers see how unfair the pricing model is.

</comment><comment><USER82> Isn't this the tipping point when a company crosses the line, becomes a monopoly, restricts consumer choices, and suffocates competition by leveraging the entire playing field? We've been through that before. Sad to see Apple of all companies turn evil.

</comment><comment><USER83> > Let's say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message > that because they're so successful they no longer have a right to dictate > their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices ...

Their devices? So you can only rent your iPhone?

</comment><comment><USER84> > I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all > have one and you want to signal that you're one of the crowd, but it's not > worth it.

This is when the author lost me. That's not why I or many others own Apple devices.

</comment><comment><USER85> I wouldn't say "stop using" but in a lot of businesses iOS seems be always be launched first with Android as an after-though. I think this backslash is partially about Apple falling from its pedestal and favouritism.

</comment><comment><USER86> Serious question: Is there a non Google app store/Apple app store based smart phone that gives user control, like on a Linux box?

Duopoly , walled gardens, spying is getting annoying. I would like to stop using them.

</comment><comment><USER87> The conclusion sort of "undoes" the title... and I kinda hate articles like that. I just read a bunch of stuff and we get to.

"Well what you just read doesn't work, maybe something else, bye..."

</comment><comment><USER88> That's what I have been doing for more than 20 years... Apple didn't really ever change, not even when Steve Jobs died. Too many anti-user rules...

</comment><comment><USER89> Adam Smith would disagree I think. Apple have a quasi monopoly and are imposing an 'absurd tax' on any other business operating in their fiefdom.

</comment><comment><USER90> Quit whining about the internet and just stop using it.

</comment><comment><USER32> This post was just removed from HN's front page.

</comment><comment><USER91> Not all can freely choose platforms. Clearly a fully free one would be ideal, but unless you do web development, who has that kind of luxury?

</comment><comment><USER92> Not like there's much of a choice. Windows… well, offends my sensibilities and Linux doesn't run Adobe suite.

</comment><comment><USER93> How about we regulate them instead? We can force them to change using the power of the state.

</comment><comment><USER94> Can't use Apple, can't use Google ... can't have a cell phone. Who needs that?

</comment><comment><USER95> Brace yourself; it's the yearly wave of Apple-negging just before every WWDC.

</comment><comment><USER96> If you don't like Amazon, good luck not using anything that touches AWS.

<comment><USER97> yes, even Apple uses AWS for some of their services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> So author would have us abandon a duopoly, and give google a monopoly? That should work out well. Anybody remember microsoft in the 90s?

</comment><comment><USER98> As if Google/Android or any other phone is different/better...

</comment><comment><USER99> Who is this person and why do they feel they're an authority?

</comment><comment><USER100> Pardon, but it is actually the author who is whining here. DHH has raised some very valid points, especially when many businesses rely on Apple Store. There is nothing wrong to talk about it, especially when Apple itself provides a "web option" instead of IAP to avoid X% of cuts.

</comment><comment><USER101> Apple a monopoly? Letting Google become the monopoly? Once again Linux is forgotten in the scene and Linux community means nothing. Stop taking profits as a reference, there's a world beyond your iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER102> so the solution to Apple's (or google's) behaviour is to stop using their stores? basically stop having a business altogether?

</comment><comment><USER103> Or root, mod, buy on secondary markets and avoid updates, can't expect them to not piss the pool if you let em…

</comment><comment><USER104> Don't like Apple? Just build your own multinational global corporate hegemonic superpower, bro.

</comment><comment><USER105> > an email service I will be calling Yo in this article

Why?

</comment><comment><USER106> Oh right like Android/Google is better

</comment><comment><USER107> _...Apple stepped in and essentially said "Nah, fuck that, you either implement in-app subscriptions in your app and give us our 30% or you can go suck an egg"..._

For the record they actually said [https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1)

...but thanks for translating it into mid-oughts hip-hopper mixed with 1940s farmer/GI/zoot-suiter!

<comment><USER107> No, a paraphrase bears a burden of being better than the original in some way, otherwise just link to the original. Brevity is usually the default improvement being sought, but ideally there would also be honesty, or maybe even, dare we hope, eloquence - perhaps the use of some kind of metaphor or other dimension that makes clear the meaning of the original in a way that's better than the original itself. Translating into young-person conformist speech patterns like "nah" and "fuck that" doesn't count, because everybody already understands Apple's non-hip way of saying it. And then it turns suddenly from hip and nowish, to talking about sucking eggs, which hasn't been uttered since everybody's grandparents gave up poultry farming and moved to the city after the war. That's the clue that it's a disingenuous characterization of the original, which tends to be the case almost every time anyone says "So basically you're saying..." on the internet. Maybe this was an attempt at satire and I just got _whoosh_ ed?

On the plus side the paraphrase did achieve brevity, and clarity (at least when compared to Apple's sugarcoating and contortion).

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> Is this satire?

</comment><comment><USER109> Apple :D, for long time you've been doing whatever you want.</comment>


Good Enzymes are Hard to Make (de novo computational protein & enzyme design) - <AUTHOR> http://michaelgr.com/2008/07/05/good-enzymes-are-hard-to-make/

<comment><USER2> Our understanding of the physics of protein folding and protein design is still so limited that I continue to be amazed at the results that David Baker (and some others) can get. I am still skeptical about how general these methods are, what the false positive (and false positive) rates are and how much specificity we can design into our systems</comment>


Japan faces extinction in 1000 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/world/population-clock-shows-japan-faces-extinction-in-1000-years-20120513-1ykh7.html <comment><USER2> To be clear, the Japanese face 'extinction'. The lumps of rock called Japan will still exist and though they may no longer be called Japan in one thousand years.

Does anyone really care about these things? Granted there is the tipping point where there aren't enough young to pay for/ look after the old (usually natural immigration can fix this). Other than that does it really matter? The useful genes that reside in the Japanese population will have made it out by then anyway.

I seem to remember that the Europeans have ~500 years. As a European I don't feel threatened or moved by this.

<comment><USER3> They certainly don't seem to care. They're more willing to give up the political entity of Japan than open the borders to immigration. To be fair, it's 1000 years in the future so maybe in a few hundred years they'll change their mind, but for now no one cares.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If their birth rates continue to decline for 1000 years. They've got a lot of time for that to adjust.</comment>


The FBI Is Arresting People Who Rent DDoS Botnets - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/fbi-arrests-customer-of-xtreme-stresser-ddos-for-hire-service/ <comment><USER2> Good.

Next, they need to start going after the operators of these services. While many botnet operator claim that their sites are for "stress testing" or "security research" only, those claims are a sham -- these services have no legitimate use, and their operators are fully aware that their sites are being used to commit crimes.

(And, of course, Cloudflare needs to stop serving sites that advertise DDOS- for-hire services. By protecting the operators of these sites, they have allowed them to escape detection.)

</comment><comment><USER3> >Investigators estimate that total damages caused by his attacks at over $5,000. If found guilty, Sharma faces up to ten years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and/or a fine.

Not to condone in any way the behaviour, but "up to ten years" in prison sounds to me a little bit harsh for the procured damage of US$ 5,000 or so, maybe it is a typo and the actual damages are much bigger?

<comment><USER4> News reports the maximum possible sentence for a crime, whereas the crime would be sentenced under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, so 10 years max is often 1 year for a first time offender.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentenci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines)

Edit: Also see [https://popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence- el...](https://popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy- million-years/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A little misleading headline, it is missing "... to attack other sites."

But yeah, that's what the FBI is supposed to do, is it not? If people use a tool to commit a crime, you arrest them.

Nobody cares if you use a service like that to test your own site.

<comment><USER6> A botnet isn't just a fancy name for a distributed system. You're hacking into people's computers and using them. The FBI might not prioritize more innocuous usages, but it's a crime either way.</comment></comment>


One man's email address is another man's Apple ID - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@danehillard/one-man-s-email-address-is-another-man-s-apple-id-61470c3a4a34#.irec5xnjj <comment><USER2> "I remarked that I would theoretically be able to choose any email I come across and create an Apple ID if one did not already exist for that address, crippling the address' owner in the same way I have been. The support employee simply said, "Yep, that's correct.""

Is that true? Doesn't Apple send a confirmation email to the address to make sure the user is in control of this address?

<comment><USER3> While technically true, anyone creating an ID using someone else's email would be unable to verify the account making it unusable. All someone would have to do is go through [http://iforgot.apple.com](http://iforgot.apple.com) to reset the password for the ID setup under their email. From there the account would be under control of the email owner.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did change the password, but it had reached the point where the impostor had security questions in place so that I could not take certain actions against the account without answering them. Namely, I wanted to delete the account or change the email address so that I could change MY email address to the desired one. There appears to have been a large delay in the system, as I was finally able to change it just now. The support employee was less than helpful in stating this as a possibility, however.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I started writing about production ML systems - <AUTHOR> https://mlinproduction.com/why-i-started-mlinproduction/ <comment><USER2> Just read this yesterday - glad to see it on HN. I always enjoy reading these types of post very motivating - if only I could stop reading them and focus on my own projects instead :)</comment>


On the inadequacies of academic papers and the need for a better medium - <AUTHOR> http://profoundlypaige.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/publications_be_cray/ The scientific community's primary tool for communication is a low-bandwidth, almost incomprehensible, static page. We can and must do better. <comment><USER2> I'm working on a web app alternative to academic papers, reports, wikis--Give me a couple of months. I'll put you on my beta list.</comment>


Google Code University - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/edu/courses.html

<comment><USER2> From Introduction to Databases and MySQL:

 _Such keys make it possible to relate the tables to one another, so we can, for example, find the customer information given a key value in the order table. A foreign key is a key used to link two tables together. Typically you take the primary key field from one table (customer) and insert it into the other table (order) where it becomes a foreign key (it remains a primary key in the original (customer) table). This type of structure is called a relational database: we have multiple tables that connect to one another via keys._

It's really jarring to see such wrongness published under the banner of "Google Code University." I've come to terms with the fact that in the minds of most web/MySQL programmers the term "relational database" means graph/network database. But I still don't expect to see it published by the denizens of a top engineering firm that hires only the best and brightest.

<comment><USER3> If you look closely enough, they didn't say anything incorrect. The name "relational database" is the correct name for the structure they describe. Their description might not be precise, but it's accurate.

Yes, the common misconception is that the word "relational" has to do with relationships between the tables, where in fact it comes from the mathematical concept of relations. However, the text you quoted doesn't claim anywhere that the word "relational" has to do with relationships between tables.

<comment><USER2> _the text you quoted doesn't claim anywhere that the word "relational" has to do with relationships between tables_

Hmm, I disagree.

 _This type of structure is called a relational database: we have multiple tables that connect to one another via keys_

The emphasis here is on the connections rather than the tables. Why say "multiple tables"?

In writing for beginners the author should just say something truthy like: "A relational database is a database where all data is stored in values of an algebraic data type called a 'relation'. SQL uses the word 'table' instead of 'relation', but the two words mean roughly the same thing."

<comment><USER3> This is why I used the word "claim". The sentence you quoted can be _construed_ to imply that relational databases are relational because of the relationships between tables, but it certainly does not _claim_ that.

I'm not merely nitpicking here, I'm trying to explain that what you perceive as the author's mistake is, in fact, your interpretation. I do, however, completely agree with you in that the text would have been better if the author phrased it in such a way as to deliberately avoid the possibility of that particular interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's an awesome collection of resources, really! I've worked my way through Google's Python Class ([https://code.google.com/intl/de/edu/languages/google- python-...](https://code.google.com/intl/de/edu/languages/google-python- class/index.html)) for a crash course in Python, and it helped me quite a lot so far.

<comment><USER5> I did those, too. You should check out thenewboston's programming tutorials on Youtube. They are awesome.

<http://www.youtube.com/user/thenewboston> or <http://www.thenewboston.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found myself in a startup last year with web applications to write and no idea how to write them; a colleague pointed me to GCU. I didn't find it very useful at the time, but in retrospect this was simply because I don't have the attention span to watch videos and the textual content is pretty basic and limited.

</comment><comment><USER7> Dear web sites comprised of videos of lectures: videos of lectures are not "courses" or "universities". In fact, the lecture is arguably the least valuable part of a course or a university. Stop degrading the value of online learning by pretending you're a university. Thanks.

<comment><USER8> Wrong side of the bed? They didn't say it was an accredited university. Learning is learning.

 _heads over to watch some videos_

<comment><USER7> So I'm allowed to throw together just anything and call it a university, that's OK with you? All right.

<comment><USER8> It's the internet. I won't stop you. But, honestly, are you really calling this online resource of educational videos a _bad_ thing....because they dared call it a university?!

No one is saying, hey future students, good news! You don't need to go to university anymore because of code.google.com/edu!

<comment><USER7> I didn't call it a bad thing. I said it was purporting to be something that it isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Cool, didn't know there was so much stuff on distributed systems on there. (I have like 100h of Videos I want to watch Interduction to Algorithems, Multicore stuff, compiler courses and much more)

<comment><USER10> What videos do you have on compilers? I looked around a few months ago for a complete compilers course in video form but came up lacking.

<comment><USER9> I searched for a long time to heres my list: (I only watched half of the Washington ones)

Washington Universaty: [http://freevideolectures.com/Course/2827/CSEP-501-Compiler-C...](http://freevideolectures.com/Course/2827/CSEP-501-Compiler- Construction)

MIT: (not all lectures) [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering- and-comput...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer- science/6-035-computer-language-engineering-sma-5502-fall-2005/lecture-notes/)

Edinburgh: Advanced Compiler stuff <http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/vision/VIDEO/2007/CO/index.html>

Berkley: [http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=...](http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2011-B-26554&semesterid=2011-B)

<comment><USER10> Thanks a lot!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Would have been much more convenient if they had converted all these Word documents to a more multimedia-rich web format

</comment><comment><USER12> Aha! I didn't realise they had resources on algorithms, very nice, nice to have some overview slides on the fundamentals.

</comment><comment><USER13> I find it humorous that the Programming Languages list only covers imperative languages that are roughly similar in design.

Scheme mentioned here, [http://code.google.com/edu/submissions/ucberkeley- parallelis...](http://code.google.com/edu/submissions/ucberkeley- parallelism/index.html)

The following link, [http://code.google.com/edu/languages/index.html#_java_racede...](http://code.google.com/edu/languages/index.html#_java_racedetect), is even more fascinating. _It shows how to detect race conditions in concurrent Java programs_. What does it use? JChord? What is JChord built on? _Datalog implemented via Binary Decision Diagrams!_

Yet no classes on Logic Programming.

<comment><USER14> It's written by Google. It's only natural that the material covers programming languages used at Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> thanks for the useful link :D

</comment><comment><USER16> Has this not been submitted to HN many times before?

<comment><USER4> I've queried Google for an old submission of GCU on HN, and the top comment of the first found submission[0] (which is 250 days old) is by you complaining that GCU has been submitted many times before. What a coincidence :)

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1654440>

<comment><USER16> Thanks, but there's nothing wrong with my memory. That only puts a fine point on my comment: how many times does GCU have to be submitted before everyone here "gets it"?

<comment><USER17> Someone answered that question in the old post too by saying that every 6 months doesn't hurt. People will stop upvoting if they think it's old news. Lots of stories get resubmitted on HN. The audience is probably growing. Lots of new people weren't here 250 days ago?

<comment><USER18> This. I wasn't here 250 days ago and I'm always glad to find another solid programming resource. I wasn't the first and surely won't be the last.

Besides, this type of link isn't necessarily a "news" story that will become outdated.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reverse-Interviewing for CS Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://openradix.org/archives/292

<comment><USER2> Based on my, admittedly quite limited, experience as an interviewer I think the author is mistaken. The type 5 questions, which he praises, are not very useful in practice. "Tell me about your research" is only good as a warm up question, to make the candidate feel a bit more comfortable before getting to the real questions. You can have very bad candidates that will nevertheless be able to reasonably discuss their research. It's the topcoder-type algorithm/coding questions that will give you a much better insight into the candidate's coding skills and analytical abilities.

So, if a company put emphasis on type 5 questions, it doesn't mean that they value "thinkers". It simply means that they're bad at interviewing.</comment>


Show HN: Wearable Tech Database - <AUTHOR> http://vandrico.com/database

<comment><USER2> Quite the list, how'd you get all this data?

<comment><AUTHOR> Most of it is sourced from the official websites. Some of it is sourced from reputable news sources. The rest is from communication with the manufacturer/developer.</comment></comment>


How much do YouTube celebrities charge to advertise your product? - <AUTHOR> https://capitalandgrowth.org/questions/414/how-much-do-youtube-celebrities-charge-to-advertis.html <comment><USER2> Kylie Jenner is now a billionaire. Only by clever self marketing and ad targetting.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/natalierob...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2019/03/05/at-21-kylie- jenner-becomes-the-youngest-self-made-billionaire-ever/amp/)</comment>


Ask HN: Individuals and Companies, How do/did you regain lost trust? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Well, when a person is an asshole in his/her core, lost trust is actually you starting to see through the masks. Me personally... when trust is lost, it is never regained. I move on (Move on professionally to other company; For people, those who truly showed their asshole-ness are dead to me forever).

</comment><comment><USER3> Trust but verify.</comment>


Thanks to streaming fragmentation, BitTorrent traffic is suddenly rising - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180926/10321340720/thanks-to-streaming-fragmentation-bittorrent-traffic-is-suddenly-rising-traffic-share.shtml <comment><USER2> This can't really be surprising, can it?

Anecdotal, but when Star Trek Discovery was announced it would only be available on CBS All-Access in the US, the consensus in /r/StarTrek was that most people were going to torrent the series. Nobody wants to pay for yet another streaming service for one or two shows. Thats just mental.

Soon enough every major network will need to have their own slice of the pie, their own $10/month streaming service, and we'll be looking at the cable TV problem all over again. At what point does the average person decide enough is enough and starts to watch/download everything illegally again?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Referenced article on TorrentFreak: [https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent- traffic-is-not-dead-its-...](https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-is- not-dead-its-making-a-comeback-180926/)</comment>


What Eric S. Raymond and Richard Stallman gets wrong on Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/u/0/103401775933335847164/posts/QitLvUyJgZC

<comment><USER2> Jobs got good at focus and killing off old products. I'd suggest RMS start with autoconf.

</comment><comment><USER3> Stallman's entire approach is "free === good, proprietary === bad". His comments on Steve and "fools" is basically saying that freedom means we should all be using what he claims to be good.

Stallman is no less a "dictator" than Steve ever was, he's just not successful at it.

<comment><USER4> I think you misunderstand. You're right that to him "free === good, proprietary === bad" and since his software (GNU) is one of the few platforms that really qualifies as "free" he encourages people to use it, however he's made it perfectly clear what it takes to qualify something as "free" and many many other independent developers have released software that meets this qualification.

To consider Stallman a "dictator" is simply ludicrous, the entire point of his philosophy is that once software is released to the end user, that end user has almost all the rights to do anything they please with it, The only thing they can't do is take those rights away from others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the first time I hear that programming languages can have charisma. Sounds slightly ridiculous. But I would like to see a study on the subject. What programming languages feel like and how does that affect the end results.

<comment><AUTHOR> Different languages definitely have their prominent styles, but languages also have places where they are commonly used. Something like shell scripts are usually used for quick hacks, acting as a glue between different systems. However, all shell scripts don't have to look 'hacky'.

So a language's 'charisma' is determined by how people use it, and if most people use it for a certain purpose, most won't consider it for other purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The big difference between Jobs and RMS? Jobs shipped.

<comment><USER7> Incorrect: <http://www.gnu.org/software/#allgnupkgs>

<comment><USER8> Probably he means: Jobs shipped some world changing tech.

Now, what exactly GNU offers that appeals to non-geeks?

It took Google to make Linux something the big masses will use (in Android).

<comment><USER6> Jobs helped create and industry, Stallman helped create a licence Jobs drove a company to be a commercially significant platform (twice) and more recently redesigned the way such an entity could produce desirable goods people want to buy. Stallman will be remembered as the man who failed to produce HURD, quibbled about licences and fell on his sword when arguing an extreme position rather than, y'know, shipping an alternative.

You just don't get to categorically decry a market leader's strategic, commercial, and production accomplishments as 'jail made cool' unless you're willing and able to show a functional option. People will buy what they like and, to some degree, like what they buy. Whether they purchased goods with time, money, labour or some form of opportunity loss it doesn't matter: every sale is a _sale_ and Stallman has never sold. He's had a hand in building some niche 'ware (some of which makes my little world go 'round, to be sure) and championed some ideas which others have utilized to great good but the man himself doesn't ship or cause to ship in anything like the league that Jobs did.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


BGP Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://as2914.net/#/galaxy/ipv4?cx=5535&cy=1859&cz=2796&lx=0.2627&ly=0.4957&lz=0.5056&lw=0.6555&ml=1000&s=1.75&l=0&v=2016-09-03 <comment><USER2> Ok this is pretty impressive with the VR style display on the mobile device</comment>


Google proposes user threads for Linux - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/ <comment><USER2> "The PDF and video can go pound sand; you get to fully explain things here."

<comment><USER3> [https://firstname.lastname@example.com...](https://email@example.com- ass.net/)

Yeah, that reply made me laugh. Never change Kernel mailing list, never change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like Google Fibers, and it'll be pretty groundbreaking if this happens. It's basically an elegant, and extremely scalable way to do N:M threading which obviates the need for async in a lot of cases, and all the debugging complications that result from that. Your code looks "linear" and feels "linear". It's easy to debug and understand. Yet you get to have essentially as many threads as you like within each process, and you have effective, useful patterns to manage those threads, and reduce the opportunity to introduce threading bugs.

That'd be one of the most welcome additions to the kernel in years IMO. And the change is fairly minimal.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, Google is finally open-sourcing this - it was first presented publicly in _2013_.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sweet! I've been asking for this for a while. This seems to me the best way to do M:N threading: with true kernel support.

</comment><comment><USER7> I recall M:N threading being attempted in the past (in some BSD systems, at least), with mixed results ultimately resulting in a move to 1:1 threading for most of them.

What's different about this attempt that puts it over the old? An honest question

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Via [https://www.golem.de/news/kernel-google-will-user-threads- fu...](https://www.golem.de/news/kernel-google-will-user-threads-fuer- linux-2007-149885.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Can someone explain this a bit more? Is this closer to say Goroutines for user space, with a light scheduler but handled by the kernel?

<comment><USER6> The idea is to get the benefits of things like goroutines in a 1:1 framework. The main inherent advantage of userspace threads like goroutines is that you can context switch between them without going through the OS scheduler. Although the OS scheduler is quite efficient, sometimes you know that you want to immediately run some other thread, perhaps because you're passing a synchronous message to it.

The reason why you would want this instead of the traditional implementation of goroutines is that it's compatible with existing code. When you buy into an M:N framework you lose compatibility with all existing libraries, because they could use things like blocking I/O, thread-local storage, or signals. The traditional solution to this that e.g. Go uses is to have some OS threads that you proxy all such calls from your userland M:N threads to. This works, but it's slow, and if you forget to use that mechanism you can end up starving your OS threads or worse. With the switchto patches here, you can get the best of both worlds: fast and precise control over thread scheduling from userland and compatibility with existing libraries. Ideally, it'd enable interoperability among different threading implementations: you could imagine that calling C++ or Rust functions from Go goroutines could become as fast as calling Go functions (though you would still have to deal with the small stack problem).

<comment><USER8> Thanks, this was really helpful!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh cool. I've been wondering to myself why the complexities of async cannot be abstracted into threads instead in an efficient way. I hope this pans out.

</comment><comment><USER10> What pro and cons does it have versus project Loom?</comment>


Surface 2: Grand-Slam - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4DgoBysoLQ

<comment><USER2> i'd love to hear the reasoning behind an ad like this.</comment>