22 ms·

Librem Tunnel Is Leaving iOS

167 points by Stephen304 6y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Their use of the App Store to disadvantage competitors (such as when they removed competing parental control apps in the name of privacy coincidentally when launching their own). My experience seeing parent control apps, are that they likely leak private data either intentionally or unintentionally. These apps, would have access to all sorts of data, and unless the developers are both very scrupulous and very competent, it is easy for private info to be leaked. I am far more comfortable with Apple handling that, than a third party.
imwillofficial 6y ago
This article is tired excuses dressed up as freedom. They want to travel the road but not pay the toll.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- m-p-3 6y ago
  On top of letting the toll take 30% on the merchandise on each deliveries on the ONLY road available on their platform. They already pay their Apple Developer Program yearly membership fees. If Apples deem this isn't enough, then they should raise the cost to properly take that into account.
  - zapzupnz 6y ago
    That would preclude smaller developers, people who pay the subscription but don’t submit apps but rather use other benefits of the program, and people who only or mostly make free apps.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    This is terrible business advice. Look how wildly successful their model is. It’s the example of how other app stores run their businesses.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Standard Oil and Microsoft in the 90's/00's were both wildly successful, too, yet they still engaged in anti-competitive behavior to the detriment of the market and consumers alike.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        Are they equitable? I think not. The paradigm is iPhone as an "App Console" I don't see anyone here decrying Nintendo or Playstation for their walled gardens are steep developer fees.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  To use your analogy, there is only one road and it is a toll road. Maybe they are ok with a side road, but there is none. The only thing tired is extractive monopolies. Funnily enough, Apple could make a few small tweaks and not be in this category. They've chosen instead to double down on exerting their market power.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    And? That’s how I want it. If you want viruses distributed by your App Store, go for it, Android is waiting for you. I want a tightly regulated relatively well run platform, not an open one. My phone is mission critical. There isn’t an open platform that can handle that responsibility, like say, Linux in the Cloud.
    - robmusial 6y ago
      Isn’t the sensible option then to allow third party app stores? If you want a tightly regulated environment only stick to the official channels. Apple can continue to charge their premium for that.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - adamcstephens 6y ago
      How would a secondary App Store affect you one bit? Don’t install it, problem solved. On the other side, developers and users who do want it are harmed by the current policy. Or do you not have self control? Like an alcoholic who is compelled to drive to the store and buy some alcohol?
forgotmypw17 6y ago
A few years ago, I got my grandmother an iPad. She used it for years until she passed. I just powered it on yesterday and it now "requires activation", which won't complete via WiFi. All the data on it, e.g. pictures, is now inaccessible. It is, effectively, bricked. I'll sooner eat a pile of shit before I ever touch or recommend another Apple product again. Edit: To clarify, it was never locked or password protected before, and I would use it to look at pictures in the Photos app locally. I hadn't used it for several months.
- phren0logy 6y ago
  This is unfortunate, but isn't this a fundamental trade-off for some of the privacy protections iOS offers? Or am I misunderstanding the situation.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    It was never locked before, not even a four-digit screen lock. I have no idea why this happened and no recourse.
    - trevor-e 6y ago
      >and no recourse Just curious, the Apple Store was also unable to help you? Hope you are able to recover the data. :/
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        Thank you. This just happened, so I have not been to an Apple Store yet. There isn't one near me, and it is not easy to get to the far removed ones. It may be weeks or months before I can visit one.
        rodgerd 6y ago
        This is just "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas" territory.
pojntfx 6y ago
It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30% of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal with Apple, be unable to install a certain app at the flip of a button (check Spain's Catalonia referendum or Hong Kong, etc.). I really do hope that some EU regulation will force device manufacturers above a certain market size to allow a) sideloading apps and b) allow different browser engines as boycotts seem to no longer work after a certain amount of market penetration.
- emteycz 6y ago
  EU will sooner ban encryption than do this. And who cares then...
- zepto 6y ago
  The solution you are proposing is worse than the problem. If Apple were forced to allow multiple stores or sideloading, governments that right now have no leverage with Apple would force their citizens to install government stores and apps.
  - karlshea 6y ago
    This isn't speculation, there's literally an article on 9to5mac today about how the new iOS update will be pre-selecting apps provided by the Russian government on device setup to comply with a new law there. For now you can deselect/remove them.
  - akmarinov 6y ago
    That's really not an issue right now. Governments ARE forcing Apple to preinstall government apps right now. https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-apple/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-app...
    - 6y ago
protomyth 6y ago
Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store. This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?
- akmarinov 6y ago
  It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    > It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc I believe they do require this of large companies; it's been a while, but IIRC Netflix and Disney+ both allow you to sign up for the service in the app. The HBO app does, too. You can log in with an existing account, but I thought the requirement was that you need to give a user the ability to sign up for a paid service account in app, and that signup needs to bill through Apple. It's a moneymaker, no doubt; as a consumer, though, I appreciate not having to hand over credit card details to a random service I'm trying out for a month.
    - zapzupnz 6y ago
      Netflix took out their sign up screen years ago; you have to subscribe via the website. Disney+ does let you subscribe through Apple.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    Yeah. Apple says they don't like developers going to the press, but its pretty much the only thing that actually works. Well, for devices, its basically customer support via threat of class action lawsuit. I'm still a little miffed I had to pay $79 three times to "fix" the iPhone 6 and didn't get a refund after they finally acknowledged the issue.
prophesi 6y ago
Does Librem One allow you to download the OpenVPN/Wireguard profiles? Because then you can just download OpenVPN Connect and get just about the same experience. Sounds much more free than using a VPN app that can't be used with other VPN servers. This way you can still pay for Librem One outside the app, and thereby circumvent the 30% toll, and continue to serve your iOS users.
- Stephen304 6y ago
  The Android docs seem to hint that it's using ovpn profiles under the hood - it shouldn't be too hard to get the config file if it isn't already provided in the librem one website: https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Android/VPN_Tunnel.html https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Android/VPN_Tunnel.html
incongruity 6y ago
If I understand correctly, Apple would only get 30% of the in-app subscriptions but not those from outside the app? If so, I think there are likely multiple motivations here. Apple has long been willing to force certain standardizations in the name of simple and uniform user experiences (they’re not perfect but the intent is clearly there). Having to drop out of an app experience to do something isn’t good UX - so enforcing the option to do it in app makes for a simpler experience - as much as it also adds to Apple’s bottom line. To be honest, the issue seems more to be just how big of a cut they want to take - but that’s even harder to fight against (capitalism and all) so this is the easier target.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  You do understand correctly, yes. (Also, Apple only gets 30% of the in-app subscriptions in the first year, then it drops to 15%.)
newbie578 6y ago
Talk about putting one's money where their mouth is. Respect to Librem, and I hope the EU will act soon and force Apple to start playing fair. I feel like the tide is turning and change is coming.
zepto 6y ago
I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see the adoption of free devices running free software as a necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics in the industry. They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution. On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched. So, I can no longer recommend librem, and will only recommend Pine.
- rictic 6y ago
  > Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched. Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.
  - crowbahr 6y ago
    Because his arguments are against the fundamental structure of iOS rather than against the app store. A second app store inside of the walled garden still ends up being a walled garden, just one with more of an illusion of choice. That means that the users will have even less reason to leave.
    - rictic 6y ago
      Hm, that's accelerationist logic, wanting iOS to collapse to opposing things that would improve iOS for real world users. The downside is that if the brinkmanship fails and iOS doesn't collapse, then the primary outcome is just that iOS users are worse off for no obvious gain.
- ece 6y ago
  I disagree, it's perfectly fine for a developer to say no, I can't be in a closed ecosystem for these reasons like Purism stated. We need developers and users to choose open ecosystems.
  - zepto 6y ago
Semaphor 6y ago
Sidenote, but their font has a really horrible "3". I was reading and wondering why Epic needs to pay 80 % toll instead of 30 %. Even after realizing it’s a 3 I’d always see an 8 at first.
crazypython 6y ago
Any software distributed on the App Store immediately becomes nonfree software. The free software definition is linked to the end-user's freedom to modify the programs on his computers, not whether a developer can fork it. Specifically, distribution on the app store denies "The freedom to... change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of the self-compiled version under GPL terms. But you cannot upload software to the App Store under GPL terms without violating the GPL. In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS. You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and unless they CLA all their developers so that they can actually distribute the port legally. If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA requirement for contributors, then consider that particular example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can build and run on their device outside the app store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping them.
stalfosknight 6y ago
tl;dr version: "We think we're too special to follow the App Store's rules regarding not forcing users to sign up somewhere else instead of in the app they're trying to use but Apple doesn't agree so we're taking our marbles and going home."
mullingitover 6y ago
I'm not clear on why Librem would need to add an in-app purchase option under app store guidelines, and their article doesn't really explain it either. App store guidelines on this topic are: > 3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app. So are they offering purchase inside the app? I downloaded it, and there's a bare login prompt with no mention of purchasing outside the app that might get them in trouble.
- kop316 6y ago
  This seems to be where they explain it: "Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store." However, what you show seems to contradict that? EDIT: If I were to guess, the flagging was an automated process, i.e. Apple flagged it and sent an automated email to Purism. Whether or not Purism tried to respond or not I do not know, but in the end they decided not to deal with it and pulled their app.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    my company had the exact same problem. This is no automated process. We had to enable EITHER in-app free trials OR in-app purchases (or both). And you cant use stripe, paypal, amazon payments, google pay, or alipay in-app.... it MUST be apple pay.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Did they cite the particular part of the developer agreement that was violated in your case?
      - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
vultour 6y ago
Off topic but this website has the most obnoxious lower case letter 't' I have ever seen. I had to stop reading after the first two paragraphs and try to figure out what was wrong because the text felt off.
- CarVac 6y ago
  I think it's hinting. Zoom in or view it on mobile—it's probably a fine font for print, just not at default zoom on a low DPI display.
- 13415 6y ago
  I was more annoyed by the '3', which made the 30% look like a distorted 80%.
3grdlurker 6y ago
Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why Apple’s App Store policies are bad? The argument that always comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses, and how they design their platforms? Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at how it was dethroned, it wasn’t dethroned because of government regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What, then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is the expected outcome?
- wmf 6y ago
  Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed. Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.
  - 3grdlurker 6y ago
    > Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed. What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though? This really is just a story of two businesses who can’t agree with the terms of engagement: Apple requires subscription-based services to use their payment system if the services want to be available in their platform, and Librem doesn’t want to share their profits. I’m struggling to see why Apple’s terms are unreasonable here. Any business that has an ecosystem of products isn’t and shouldn’t be legally required to support competing ecosystems/platforms—and Apple already does have Google’s and Facebook’s apps in the App Store, by the way.
crusty 6y ago
Wouldn't the spirit of librem here suggest the solution would just be to make and distribute an open VPN app on iOS and tell your librem one subscribers to install it and have an easy and secure method of downloading a file with your endpoints? Then there is no argument to be made that it's tied to a subscription because anyone could use it for their own or yours or anyone else's that supports it. PIA (and others I'm sure)offers a zip of .ovpn files for their endpoints that Linux users can import to use with openVPN without using their app. Obviously, this is a proposed solution to having the app on iOS, no dealing with Apple's access monopoly.
- brian_herman 6y ago
  Yeah, the wireguard guys can maintain their app. Why can’t a company like librem?
- jojobas 6y ago
  This way people get to choose whether to stick to a monopolistic eyecandy or get more control over their devices and life in general. I wish more developers could afford to do that.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Pretty sure you can already download an ovpn config for Librem Tunnel [1], the only reason for Librem to develop its own iOS app would be to make it easier than a generic client by connecting directly to the paid service. [1] https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Generic.html https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Generic.html
m-p-3 6y ago
They could offer alternate ways of accessing their VPN service either through IPsec (native to iOS), OpenVPN or WireGuard.
martin1975 6y ago
one of the many reasons I never bought an iPhone... not because I have some beef against iOS/OSX... I just dislike Apple's business antics, a.k.a. greed.
knubie 6y ago
This is timely considering I just got hit with a rejection from Apple for my app. It's insane to me that a $1 trillion company is willing to put someone out of business for a measly $300/mo.
- Google234 6y ago
  I’m glad there’s a company that is willing to protect its customers from abusive devs. If there are a few false positives then too bad, nothing is perfect.
  - nospy4312 6y ago
    More like the company is more of a bully to devs and users than a protector.
    - zuhsetaqi 6y ago
      > More like the company is more of a bully to devs and users than a protector. Sure, that’s exactly the secret to become a big and successful company.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  What a useless comment. You made no attempt to articulate what your app is or why it was rejected, you just immediately started blithering random vague whiny shit as if anyone would care even in the case that we did know what you’re talking about, but we don’t. This sort of midwitted rambling is what reddit is for. You need to go back.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

167 points by Stephen304 6y ago

> Their use of the App Store to disadvantage competitors (such as when they removed competing parental control apps in the name of privacy coincidentally when launching their own). My experience seeing parent control apps, are that they likely leak private data either intentionally or unintentionally. These apps, would have access to all sorts of data, and unless the developers are both very scrupulous and very competent, it is easy for private info to be leaked. I am far more comfortable with Apple handling that, than a third party.

imwillofficial 6y ago

This article is tired excuses dressed up as freedom. They want to travel the road but not pay the toll.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
m-p-3 6y ago
On top of letting the toll take 30% on the merchandise on each deliveries on the ONLY road available on their platform. They already pay their Apple Developer Program yearly membership fees. If Apples deem this isn't enough, then they should raise the cost to properly take that into account.
- zapzupnz 6y ago
  That would preclude smaller developers, people who pay the subscription but don’t submit apps but rather use other benefits of the program, and people who only or mostly make free apps.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  This is terrible business advice. Look how wildly successful their model is. It’s the example of how other app stores run their businesses.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Standard Oil and Microsoft in the 90's/00's were both wildly successful, too, yet they still engaged in anti-competitive behavior to the detriment of the market and consumers alike.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Are they equitable? I think not. The paradigm is iPhone as an "App Console" I don't see anyone here decrying Nintendo or Playstation for their walled gardens are steep developer fees.
adamcstephens 6y ago
To use your analogy, there is only one road and it is a toll road. Maybe they are ok with a side road, but there is none. The only thing tired is extractive monopolies. Funnily enough, Apple could make a few small tweaks and not be in this category. They've chosen instead to double down on exerting their market power.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  And? That’s how I want it. If you want viruses distributed by your App Store, go for it, Android is waiting for you. I want a tightly regulated relatively well run platform, not an open one. My phone is mission critical. There isn’t an open platform that can handle that responsibility, like say, Linux in the Cloud.
  - robmusial 6y ago
    Isn’t the sensible option then to allow third party app stores? If you want a tightly regulated environment only stick to the official channels. Apple can continue to charge their premium for that.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    How would a secondary App Store affect you one bit? Don’t install it, problem solved. On the other side, developers and users who do want it are harmed by the current policy. Or do you not have self control? Like an alcoholic who is compelled to drive to the store and buy some alcohol?

forgotmypw17 6y ago

A few years ago, I got my grandmother an iPad. She used it for years until she passed. I just powered it on yesterday and it now "requires activation", which won't complete via WiFi. All the data on it, e.g. pictures, is now inaccessible. It is, effectively, bricked. I'll sooner eat a pile of shit before I ever touch or recommend another Apple product again. Edit: To clarify, it was never locked or password protected before, and I would use it to look at pictures in the Photos app locally. I hadn't used it for several months.

phren0logy 6y ago
This is unfortunate, but isn't this a fundamental trade-off for some of the privacy protections iOS offers? Or am I misunderstanding the situation.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  It was never locked before, not even a four-digit screen lock. I have no idea why this happened and no recourse.
  - trevor-e 6y ago
    >and no recourse Just curious, the Apple Store was also unable to help you? Hope you are able to recover the data. :/
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      Thank you. This just happened, so I have not been to an Apple Store yet. There isn't one near me, and it is not easy to get to the far removed ones. It may be weeks or months before I can visit one.
      - rodgerd 6y ago
        This is just "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas" territory.

pojntfx 6y ago

It is still absolutely fascinating to me how we have arrived at a point where in order to use one's own device properly, one has to ask a US company nicely or be unable to do so - and people pay money for it. On macOS, it is now impossible to distribute a VPN or a virtualization software without permission from Apple. 30% of the world's population would, if their government cut a deal with Apple, be unable to install a certain app at the flip of a button (check Spain's Catalonia referendum or Hong Kong, etc.). I really do hope that some EU regulation will force device manufacturers above a certain market size to allow a) sideloading apps and b) allow different browser engines as boycotts seem to no longer work after a certain amount of market penetration.

emteycz 6y ago
EU will sooner ban encryption than do this. And who cares then...
zepto 6y ago
The solution you are proposing is worse than the problem. If Apple were forced to allow multiple stores or sideloading, governments that right now have no leverage with Apple would force their citizens to install government stores and apps.
- karlshea 6y ago
  This isn't speculation, there's literally an article on 9to5mac today about how the new iOS update will be pre-selecting apps provided by the Russian government on device setup to comply with a new law there. For now you can deselect/remove them.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  That's really not an issue right now. Governments ARE forcing Apple to preinstall government apps right now. https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-apple/ https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/16/russia-pre-install-iphone-app...
  - 6y ago

protomyth 6y ago

Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store. This the basically the summation of it all. Doesn't Apple require the ability to have anonymous logins too when creating accounts on iDevices?

akmarinov 6y ago
It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc What Librem are doing is the right thing though - go to the press, raise a big stink and Apple will back off. It's been proven to work time and time again.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  > It sucks, they don't require it of Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, Disney, etc I believe they do require this of large companies; it's been a while, but IIRC Netflix and Disney+ both allow you to sign up for the service in the app. The HBO app does, too. You can log in with an existing account, but I thought the requirement was that you need to give a user the ability to sign up for a paid service account in app, and that signup needs to bill through Apple. It's a moneymaker, no doubt; as a consumer, though, I appreciate not having to hand over credit card details to a random service I'm trying out for a month.
  - zapzupnz 6y ago
    Netflix took out their sign up screen years ago; you have to subscribe via the website. Disney+ does let you subscribe through Apple.
- protomyth 6y ago
  Yeah. Apple says they don't like developers going to the press, but its pretty much the only thing that actually works. Well, for devices, its basically customer support via threat of class action lawsuit. I'm still a little miffed I had to pay $79 three times to "fix" the iPhone 6 and didn't get a refund after they finally acknowledged the issue.

prophesi 6y ago

Does Librem One allow you to download the OpenVPN/Wireguard profiles? Because then you can just download OpenVPN Connect and get just about the same experience. Sounds much more free than using a VPN app that can't be used with other VPN servers. This way you can still pay for Librem One outside the app, and thereby circumvent the 30% toll, and continue to serve your iOS users.

Stephen304 6y ago
The Android docs seem to hint that it's using ovpn profiles under the hood - it shouldn't be too hard to get the config file if it isn't already provided in the librem one website: https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Android/VPN_Tunnel.html https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Android/VPN_Tunnel.html

incongruity 6y ago

If I understand correctly, Apple would only get 30% of the in-app subscriptions but not those from outside the app? If so, I think there are likely multiple motivations here. Apple has long been willing to force certain standardizations in the name of simple and uniform user experiences (they’re not perfect but the intent is clearly there). Having to drop out of an app experience to do something isn’t good UX - so enforcing the option to do it in app makes for a simpler experience - as much as it also adds to Apple’s bottom line. To be honest, the issue seems more to be just how big of a cut they want to take - but that’s even harder to fight against (capitalism and all) so this is the easier target.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago
You do understand correctly, yes. (Also, Apple only gets 30% of the in-app subscriptions in the first year, then it drops to 15%.)

newbie578 6y ago

Talk about putting one's money where their mouth is. Respect to Librem, and I hope the EU will act soon and force Apple to start playing fair. I feel like the tide is turning and change is coming.

zepto 6y ago

I have been a vocal supporter of Librem, and Pine64 because I see the adoption of free devices running free software as a necessary solution and the way to ultimately change the dynamics in the industry. They are literally doing the thing I think is the solution. On the other hand, I oppose the generic bashing of Apple and Epic’s antitrust campaign, because these have nothing to do with creating an alternative. Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched. So, I can no longer recommend librem, and will only recommend Pine.

rictic 6y ago
> Indeed if Epic wins, iOS will become even more entrenched. Hm, care to expand on that? I don't see why that would be.
- crowbahr 6y ago
  Because his arguments are against the fundamental structure of iOS rather than against the app store. A second app store inside of the walled garden still ends up being a walled garden, just one with more of an illusion of choice. That means that the users will have even less reason to leave.
  - rictic 6y ago
    Hm, that's accelerationist logic, wanting iOS to collapse to opposing things that would improve iOS for real world users. The downside is that if the brinkmanship fails and iOS doesn't collapse, then the primary outcome is just that iOS users are worse off for no obvious gain.
ece 6y ago
I disagree, it's perfectly fine for a developer to say no, I can't be in a closed ecosystem for these reasons like Purism stated. We need developers and users to choose open ecosystems.
- zepto 6y ago

Semaphor 6y ago

Sidenote, but their font has a really horrible "3". I was reading and wondering why Epic needs to pay 80 % toll instead of 30 %. Even after realizing it’s a 3 I’d always see an 8 at first.

crazypython 6y ago

Any software distributed on the App Store immediately becomes nonfree software. The free software definition is linked to the end-user's freedom to modify the programs on his computers, not whether a developer can fork it. Specifically, distribution on the app store denies "The freedom to... change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)."

mullingitover 6y ago
Not true at all - you can modify the source code from open source apps, build, and install on your own device without asking permission from Apple or paying a fee for a developer license. The only control Apple has is over app distribution.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Yes, but if you take the software from the App Store, you are bound by App Store TOS. The TOS supercedes any Free Software rights you may have had from the license; and prohibits you from redistributing the software, which trips GPL's no-further-restrictions clause. Of course, you can take both sets of terms for the App Store and a self-compiled version, and you can then distribute modifications to the source code of the self-compiled version under GPL terms. But you cannot upload software to the App Store under GPL terms without violating the GPL. In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. This means a lot of perfectly good GPL-licensed applications will never actually get ported to iOS. You'll never see, say, Blender or Krita on iPad until and unless they CLA all their developers so that they can actually distribute the port legally. If Blender Foundation or whoever runs Krita does have a CLA requirement for contributors, then consider that particular example corrected, but my point still stands: You should be able to distribute GPL software on the App Store and have the GPL terms supercede the App Store TOS.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > In practice, this means you cannot actually put GPL applications on iOS unless you get a CLA from every developer on the project. Again, simply not true. If you obtain the source code, build, and run your own iOS apps on your own device you have no issues with GPL compliance. Honestly I'm disappointed that more open source projects don't go this route. Blender could easily provide an xcode project that anyone can build and run on their device outside the app store. They choose not to, but there's nothing stopping them.

stalfosknight 6y ago

tl;dr version: "We think we're too special to follow the App Store's rules regarding not forcing users to sign up somewhere else instead of in the app they're trying to use but Apple doesn't agree so we're taking our marbles and going home."

mullingitover 6y ago

I'm not clear on why Librem would need to add an in-app purchase option under app store guidelines, and their article doesn't really explain it either. App store guidelines on this topic are: > 3.1.3(f) Free Stand-alone Apps: Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app. So are they offering purchase inside the app? I downloaded it, and there's a bare login prompt with no mention of purchasing outside the app that might get them in trouble.

kop316 6y ago
This seems to be where they explain it: "Even though Librem Tunnel is just part of the overall Librem One offering, because it’s part of a subscription service, Apple is requiring us to add the ability to sign up and pay for Librem One subscriptions within the Librem Tunnel app before they will allow updated versions into the App Store." However, what you show seems to contradict that? EDIT: If I were to guess, the flagging was an automated process, i.e. Apple flagged it and sent an automated email to Purism. Whether or not Purism tried to respond or not I do not know, but in the end they decided not to deal with it and pulled their app.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  my company had the exact same problem. This is no automated process. We had to enable EITHER in-app free trials OR in-app purchases (or both). And you cant use stripe, paypal, amazon payments, google pay, or alipay in-app.... it MUST be apple pay.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Did they cite the particular part of the developer agreement that was violated in your case?
    - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

vultour 6y ago

Off topic but this website has the most obnoxious lower case letter 't' I have ever seen. I had to stop reading after the first two paragraphs and try to figure out what was wrong because the text felt off.

CarVac 6y ago
I think it's hinting. Zoom in or view it on mobile—it's probably a fine font for print, just not at default zoom on a low DPI display.
13415 6y ago
I was more annoyed by the '3', which made the 30% look like a distorted 80%.

3grdlurker 6y ago

Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why Apple’s App Store policies are bad? The argument that always comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses, and how they design their platforms? Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at how it was dethroned, it wasn’t dethroned because of government regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What, then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is the expected outcome?

wmf 6y ago
Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed. Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.
- 3grdlurker 6y ago
  > Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed. What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though? This really is just a story of two businesses who can’t agree with the terms of engagement: Apple requires subscription-based services to use their payment system if the services want to be available in their platform, and Librem doesn’t want to share their profits. I’m struggling to see why Apple’s terms are unreasonable here. Any business that has an ecosystem of products isn’t and shouldn’t be legally required to support competing ecosystems/platforms—and Apple already does have Google’s and Facebook’s apps in the App Store, by the way.

crusty 6y ago

Wouldn't the spirit of librem here suggest the solution would just be to make and distribute an open VPN app on iOS and tell your librem one subscribers to install it and have an easy and secure method of downloading a file with your endpoints? Then there is no argument to be made that it's tied to a subscription because anyone could use it for their own or yours or anyone else's that supports it. PIA (and others I'm sure)offers a zip of .ovpn files for their endpoints that Linux users can import to use with openVPN without using their app. Obviously, this is a proposed solution to having the app on iOS, no dealing with Apple's access monopoly.

brian_herman 6y ago
Yeah, the wireguard guys can maintain their app. Why can’t a company like librem?
jojobas 6y ago
This way people get to choose whether to stick to a monopolistic eyecandy or get more control over their devices and life in general. I wish more developers could afford to do that.
themacguffinman 6y ago
Pretty sure you can already download an ovpn config for Librem Tunnel [1], the only reason for Librem to develop its own iOS app would be to make it easier than a generic client by connecting directly to the paid service. [1] https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Generic.html https://docs.puri.sm/Librem_One/Generic.html

m-p-3 6y ago

They could offer alternate ways of accessing their VPN service either through IPsec (native to iOS), OpenVPN or WireGuard.

martin1975 6y ago

one of the many reasons I never bought an iPhone... not because I have some beef against iOS/OSX... I just dislike Apple's business antics, a.k.a. greed.

knubie 6y ago

This is timely considering I just got hit with a rejection from Apple for my app. It's insane to me that a $1 trillion company is willing to put someone out of business for a measly $300/mo.

Google234 6y ago
I’m glad there’s a company that is willing to protect its customers from abusive devs. If there are a few false positives then too bad, nothing is perfect.
- nospy4312 6y ago
  More like the company is more of a bully to devs and users than a protector.
  - zuhsetaqi 6y ago
    > More like the company is more of a bully to devs and users than a protector. Sure, that’s exactly the secret to become a big and successful company.
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
What a useless comment. You made no attempt to articulate what your app is or why it was rejected, you just immediately started blithering random vague whiny shit as if anyone would care even in the case that we did know what you’re talking about, but we don’t. This sort of midwitted rambling is what reddit is for. You need to go back.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]