3 ms·

>> 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 sti

by 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.
- zepto 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. Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case? > If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, This is a restatement of the Orwellian argument that if Apple doesn’t want to be forced to open their store, they must open their store. Also it seems like although you downplay Epic’s role, you have deployed this argument repeatedly now, and it relies on there being someone to force Apple, such as Epic or an Antitrust authority. > as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment. > 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? Yes. When I was a teenager I was enamored with communism. I grew out of that phase. > 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. What other markets do you have in mind? > 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. Not if they want commonly used Apps that are not in those stores. > Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, No, it’s not similar because the iOS store does have all the apps. > users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future. No, because then they wouldn’t have access to the wide range of apps. > you’d be able to provide an example I did. No you didn’t. >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 All you say that seems relevant in those links is: “ Really hard to say what would happen in a hypothetical situation where Apple allowed iOS alternative app stores. Maybe the overwhelming majority of users will continue to download only on the App Store, with a tiny minority of power users going to alternatives.” Linking to somewhere else where you have expressed the same opinion doesn’t do anything to strengthen your position, except perhaps in the minds of people who don’t follow the link. >> I think you fully stand behind what you are saying. > I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation. Are you suggesting you do not stand behind what you are saying?

by zepto 6y ago

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.

zepto 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. Are you saying you weren’t familiar with Epic’s case? > If anything, Apple willingly ceding some power to non-first class third party stores could potentially defang Epic's complaints, This is a restatement of the Orwellian argument that if Apple doesn’t want to be forced to open their store, they must open their store. Also it seems like although you downplay Epic’s role, you have deployed this argument repeatedly now, and it relies on there being someone to force Apple, such as Epic or an Antitrust authority. > as it could increase both developer and consumer goodwill It could, or it could do a great deal of harm to the market. Perhaps Apple simply doesn’t agree with your assessment. > 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? Yes. When I was a teenager I was enamored with communism. I grew out of that phase. > 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. What other markets do you have in mind? > 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. Not if they want commonly used Apps that are not in those stores. > Similar to how users who value security or privacy may choose iOS over Android already, No, it’s not similar because the iOS store does have all the apps. > users can choose security-focused stores over the App Store in the future. No, because then they wouldn’t have access to the wide range of apps. > you’d be able to provide an example I did. No you didn’t. >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 All you say that seems relevant in those links is: “ Really hard to say what would happen in a hypothetical situation where Apple allowed iOS alternative app stores. Maybe the overwhelming majority of users will continue to download only on the App Store, with a tiny minority of power users going to alternatives.” Linking to somewhere else where you have expressed the same opinion doesn’t do anything to strengthen your position, except perhaps in the minds of people who don’t follow the link. >> I think you fully stand behind what you are saying. > I think assigning personal motivations and intentions is not conducive to proper conversation. Are you suggesting you do not stand behind what you are saying?