3 ms·

>> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for. >And most would be satisfied with less. So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > If I

by zepto 6y ago

>> That’s exactly what Epic, for example is asking for. >And most would be satisfied with less. So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > If I was wrong, you’d have been able to respond with an example. > Qubes OS. You do realize that isn’t completely secure. > Last time was the EBook settlement. That was over five years ago. So what? > I guess you aren’t aware of Epic’s case. Epic's case isn't getting very far Complete bullshit. Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. > and it's quite possible that it would not have arisen at all if Apple had shown any interest at all at managing it's own opening rather than putting itself at risk of being opened by others. You do realize that doing something because otherwise you’ll be forced to, is the same as being forced to? Also, that paragraph is an amazing piece of Orwellian writing. Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > Erm, you do realize that these technologies have nothing to do with preventing scam apps in stores, right? Sure they do. They are all examples of products that are differentiated from others in the same space by their focus on security. Thus, in the realm of competing app stores, there could be stores that exist that focus on secure, privacy-focused apps, just as there are already app stores such as F-Droid that differentiate themselves by focusing on FOSS apps. One could reasonably expect that if iOS supported multiple app stores, there would be stores that tried to focus on the luxury high-end aspect of the platform by offering carefully curation. Third-party app curation services already exist. So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores? > The counterclaim, that a single scam free store would have all of the apps in it is obviously false because the premise is a future with multiple stores. Actually, the simplest counterclaim is to point at the current and past existence of alternate app stores such as Cydia or the Altstore, which do in fact contain apps that customers want anyway. They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free. Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores.

Apocryphon 6y ago
> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. > You do realize that isn’t completely secure. Source? > Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. So what? > Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack? > So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores? There would not be thousands of stores. Already on Android, there is a handful of stores and most stick to the Google Play Store. There aren't even thousands of stores on PC. > They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free. But they don't need to have all of the apps. If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps. > Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores. Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.
- zepto 6y ago
  >> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. Not literally, but it was still a lie: > No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS >> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. > So what? >> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack? I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed. The suggestion that Apple should choose to do something if they want to avoid being forced to do it, is impressively authoritarian doublethink. A clever gambit. > If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps. Right, which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores, so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot. > Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, If there was a point I’d refused to engage, you’d be able to provide an example. > opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points. I haven’t made any personal attacks. I have commented on what you said, not who you are. For a moment I considered that you might be being disingenuous, but I don’t think you are. I believe that what you have written reflects your way of thinking.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    > Not literally, but it was still a lie: Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it. That said, this entire conversation was only tangentially related to Epic, there are people beyond them who want third party app stores on iOS, and not all of them want them to be first class alternatives, nor is Epic's case the alpha or the omega on this subject. Epic does not get to shape this conversation, even if they are the ones pushing the court case. If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill and expose Epic for the power-hungry empire builders they really are. > I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed. Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets. > so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to. Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future. > you’d be able to provide an example I did. >That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 > I think you fully stand behind what you are saying. I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation.

by zepto 6y ago

Apocryphon 6y ago

> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. > You do realize that isn’t completely secure. Source? > Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. So what? > Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack? > So you expect users to choose between thousands of stores? There would not be thousands of stores. Already on Android, there is a handful of stores and most stick to the Google Play Store. There aren't even thousands of stores on PC. > They don’t have all the apps and they aren’t scam free. But they don't need to have all of the apps. If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps. > Also they are tiny experiments used by enthusiasts and are completely unrepresentative of what will happen when several billion dollar corporations and VC backed plays open stores. Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points.

zepto 6y ago
>> So you lied when you said ‘no one is asking for this’. > I have literally never written "no one is asking for this" until now. Not literally, but it was still a lie: > No one is mandating first class alternative stores on iOS >> Their case is proceeding as they planned and oral arguments are to be heard soon. > So what? >> Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > Have you considered trying to have a conversation without making a personal attack? I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed. The suggestion that Apple should choose to do something if they want to avoid being forced to do it, is impressively authoritarian doublethink. A clever gambit. > If anything, that previous line of conversation is talking about third party stores that would differentiate on greater security/privacy than the App Store, which would necessitate them having fewer apps. Right, which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores, so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot. > Which is unlikely to happen, based on previous points already made, which you have repeatedly refused engaged in, If there was a point I’d refused to engage, you’d be able to provide an example. > opting instead to debase yourself and your position with personal attacks instead of substantiative points. I haven’t made any personal attacks. I have commented on what you said, not who you are. For a moment I considered that you might be being disingenuous, but I don’t think you are. I believe that what you have written reflects your way of thinking.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  > Not literally, but it was still a lie: Very well, I can actually admit fault, unlike others in this conversation, and I was indeed mistaken when I claimed that no one is mandating it. That said, this entire conversation was only tangentially related to Epic, there are people beyond them who want third party app stores on iOS, and not all of them want them to be first class alternatives, nor is Epic's case the alpha or the omega on this subject. Epic does not get to shape this conversation, even if they are the ones pushing the court case. If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill and expose Epic for the power-hungry empire builders they really are. > I’m sorry you feel attacked. I was genuinely impressed. Passing off an insult as a compliment? Have you considered writing for an authoritarian politburo? > which means that users would be forced to use a range of stores This point is unsubstantiated and does not match current reality in other software markets. > so the fact that some security focused stores might exist is moot It really doesn't, as users can choose to use those security focused stores if they want to. Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future. > you’d be able to provide an example I did. >That is debatable, and discussed throughout this thread, including in my own comments: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799453 > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26799283 > I think you fully stand behind what you are saying. I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation.