24 ms·
Proton joins suit against Apple for practices that harm developers and consumers
- boris2293 1y agoApple can do anything it wants with its software. Just as any person decides who comes into his house, a corporation decides on what terms others can use its software.
- polarbear67 1y agoIf I buy it and fully own it, I should be able to do anything I want with it.
- p2detar 1y agoI totally agree and this has always been my problem with the iPad. It’s a great peace of hardware that to this day I can’t fully use for development. I have to resort to _crappy_ solutions like running a VM with code-server and SSH in order to do some work on a device perfectly capable of running stuff on its own, but walled off.
- eviks 1y agoCan a person cut your leg off in his house as part of "terms of service"?
- Disposal8433 1y agoThe law disagrees with your opinion. And that's a good thing.
- Jaskolka 1y agoI stand with proton.
- bitpush 1y ago> We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit. Ouch. Those are some fighting words.
- absurdo 1y ago[flagged]
- fc417fc802 1y agoIt's a comment intended for the court of public opinion, not one of the law.
- absurdo 1y ago[flagged]
- like_any_other 1y agoThe line between law and politics is not as iron-clad as you think.
- yard2010 1y agoWe are living in the wrong timeline.
- mrbluecoat 1y ago[flagged]
- bitpush 1y agoIsnt that how the system is supposed to work, unless you think Apple would be always benevolent? I think HNers make a mistake (and believe Apple's marketing) that Apple always stands for users, cares about design, pushing the boundary, "think different" etc. It is painfully obvious, but Apple's singular goal is to make money (profit for shareholders) and THAT IS A GOOD THING. They'll cut corners, test the boundaries in pursuit of that, and sometimes cross over it. Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors.
- lawlessone 1y ago>Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors. Is it really though? It requires money. Regular people can't to this.
- Vilian 1y agoHow many spare billions you have for a lawsuit against trillion dollar companies
- yywwbbn 1y agoAnd what if you lose? Or your lawsuit has no real impact?
- palata 1y agoI agree with you that companies are profit-maximising machines. And regulations set the framework into which companies can optimise. The problem we have with quasi-monopolies is that they have too much power and don't have to care about regulations. > Suing them is the right way to fix those behaviors. The problem is that it doesn't work. I am still waiting for Apple or one of the other TooBigTech to get a fine that really, actually hurts. But nobody will do that: the US like monopolies (as long as they are US companies of course) and others (like the EU) don't dare regulating US companies because... well because the US governement won't accept it.
- butz 1y ago[flagged]
- gregbot 1y agoWhat remedies is proton mail seeking exactly?
- Redoubts 1y agolast few pages: https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-pme/proton-v--apple-class-action-complaint/proton-v--apple-class-action-complaint.pdf?_i=AA https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p... REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF To remedy Apple’s unlawful unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, attemptedmonopolization, and unfair competition, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter injunctive relief,including but not limited to the following: (a) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer to launch an app first orexclusively on the Apple App Store; (b) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement by an app developer not to launch a version of theapp with enhanced or differentiated features on a third-party iOS app distribution platform orstore; (c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore; (d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice; (e) Require Apple to permit the distribution of rival iOS app stores through theApple App Store on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms; (f) Enjoin Apple from requiring developers to use Apple’s IAP system as acondition of offering subscriptions, digital goods, or other IAPs; (g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality andaccess to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allowsfor its first-party applications; (h) Require Apple to allow developers to fully disable Apple’s IAP system; ... among other things
- frumplestlatz 1y ago> (c) Enjoin Apple from conditioning any payment, revenue share, or access toany Apple product or service on an agreement with an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)or carrier not to preinstall an iOS app distribution platform or store other than the Apple AppStore Let carriers pre-load apps and app stores on Apple's products? That's insane. > (d) Require Apple to provide rival iOS app stores with access to the App Storecatalog to ensure interoperability and to facilitate consumer choice; Wait, what? They want access to Apple's App Store catalog? Also never going to happen. > (g) Require that third-party application developers be given functionality and access to iOS application programming interfaces on terms no worse than the terms Apple allows for its first-party applications; As sympathetic as I am to this notion, I'm not sure how it's reasonably achievable. Putting aside the burden of every SPI having to be supported, documented, public API, it would also mean opening up all security-sensitive SPI to the world.
- resolutefunctor 1y agoThere is a lot I hate about building apps and releasing them on the App Store, and I'd be happy for there to be alternatives. But that said, I don't understand how its a monopoly. There is no requirement to build an app for iOS devices. There are other devices and means for software delivery out there. What makes their control of their own ecosystem monopolistic? As someone who has paid the apple tax for digital sales, it sucks but I'm also choosing to try to capture that market and that's the cost of doing business. I'm not smart enough to get into the politics of other parts of the world, but just because the EU found something illegal doesn't mean its the basis of a good lawsuit under the US rules. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
- dwedge 1y agoTheir ecosystem is your phone. As long as you cannot install anything on your phone without going through their app store, it's a monopoly
- FredPret 1y ago- You don't need to have an iPhone - You agree to the letter of the ToS when you click "I Agree" when you set up the iPhone, - You also already agree to the spirit of the App Store when you buy it. After all, it's not some big secret - You can get by with webapps for the most part anyway - You can buy an Android, a flip phone, or pull a power move and have no phone Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work differently is acting in bad faith IMO.
- bitpush 1y ago> Buying an iPhone and then demanding that it has to work Buying something used to mean something. If you're still beholden by company rules of a product you _bought_, you have been leasing/renting it. If I buy a house from a builder, and it came with a requirement that you can only use Amazon Ring cameras, or builder-approved groceries - you'd be pretty pissed.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- andrewinardeer 1y agoI'm not an Apple enthusiast—my rarely used iPad mini is my only Apple device—but let me play devil’s advocate. If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? If my pitch is premium, high-speed hardware and intuitive software so user-friendly that a monkey can use it, the trade-off is that you agree to my Terms of Service. There are other options out there.
- josephcsible 1y ago> If a company invests billions in R&D to create hardware and its integrated software, shouldn’t it have the right to control who or what interacts with it? Why should I be forced to open up the carefully designed ecosystem I’ve built? Because once I buy your phone/tablet/whatever, it stops being yours and starts being mine, so I should be in charge of what software it can run from then on.
- fragmede 1y agoThink about this for physical objects. If I bought your hardware, then decided to paint it bright pink in celebration of the fact that I like pink, but you don't like the color pink, should you be able to tell me not to paint it pink? I bought it, it's mine, so I can do just that. Why then, for digital objects, does that not follow?
- cess11 1y agoWhy would any of these factors outweigh their dominant position in the market and the value of market competition?
- crazygringo 1y agoWhy wouldn't they? Apple isn't dominant in the market worldwide (Android is), and they are competing against Android. Apple often implements things Android did first. That's how competition works. Apple's global marketshare is 30% or just under.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y agoApple and Proton are two companies that I personally like, but the claim that the internet descended into surveillance capitalism because of the walled garden approach of the App Store is an argument in bad faith. Even if Apple allowed other app stores or payment methods, that would not have stopped Facebook and Google from capitalizing on user data to sell ads and manipulate public opinion. They would give their product away for free and spy on their users anyway. I never really understood the monopolistic argument against Apple. In the first place, there are very clear legal criteria that define what a monopoly is and what anti-competitive behaviors are, and it’s not even the case that majority of the world runs on iOS. It is actually Android that is the most popular OS globally by a wide margin, though the split is somewhat equal in the US. But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? What’s effectively happening here is that companies are using the courts to force the design of OSes in a certain way: That only open OSes can ever be made, not closed ones. Note that the businesses who are lobbying against Apple are operating on the very same capitalist, profit-optimizing interests that drove Apple to choose a walled-garden approach. They are not doing this to make the world a better place, and the vast majority of smartphone users do not even care about this “issue”.
- maplant 1y ago> But the core of my contention is that: if you make the platform that others run on and which creates entirely new economies and allows businesses to thrive, don’t you get to define the constraints that you want since it’s _your_ platform? This question has already been asked to the United States Court of Appeals, and the answer was "no"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
- halJordan 1y agoIt's only no in certain instances. Try and apply that ruling to Brother or Ford or in fact, MS itself.
- 1y ago
- slashtab 1y agoWhat is the logic behind everyone wanting Apple to be champion of democracy in authoritarian countries?
- energywut 1y agoIdeally we want all companies to be champions again authoritarianism, surely?
- whstl 1y agoIn this case they don't seem to be wanting it AT ALL: "We don’t question Apple’s right to act on behalf of authoritarians for the sake of profit, but Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution means it can enforce this perverse policy on all app developers, forcing them to also be complicit"
- drivingmenuts 1y agoLiving in the US, I trust Apple with securing my communications (I don't have high security needs). I don't exactly trust third party developers. So, three no need for me to use something outside of Apple's apps, unless its something that don't provide. If these apps could prove they were better, id consider them, but all these lawsuits just sound like inferior products trying to force themselves onto a platform they should be on.
- _benton 1y agoThis is exactly what it is. They're trying to force Apple to design an inferior (imo) product so they can make more money.
- bitpush 1y agoBut isnt Apple forcing an inferior product (Subscriptions API) to make more money themselves (and serving copious amounts of kool-aid for people to drink up?). Lets be honest here - Netflix, Spotify et al are perfectly capable of running their on subscription business. They dont NEED Apple's crappy payment provider, and yet are forced to use it. As a user you should be enraged, but here we are.
- palata 1y ago> We believe that Apple’s conduct, as detailed in the complaint we filed, constitutes further violations of US antitrust law. It's not a question of what you like, it's a question of antitrust laws. You can disagree with them of course, but it is their right to sue Apple if they think Apple is breaking laws.
- Workaccount2 1y agoI don't think any big tech company has ever done anything as evil and predatory as Apple walling off iMessage, giving the impression that Apple phones were high technology, and interacting with peasant androids is what made group chats fragment and pictures and videos look like trash. Few things are more enraging than people being left out of chats with friends and family because they didn't bend over for Apple. Even worse being a teenager and having to endure social shaming for it. It wasn't until the EU signaled it was going to bring down then axe that Apple capitulated to RCS. - Yes, I know you are part of the domestic US long tail that use signal/telegram with all your friends. - Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage. ETA: A note because people are pretty incredulous about "most evil". Tech companies do a lot of evil stuff, no doubt. But there is something special about putting social connection behind an expensive hardware purchase and walled garden lock in. Every other messaging app I know of is open to anyone on most platforms for little or no cost. Apple on the other hand purposely leveraged social connections in your life to force you into their garden and keep you there. Lets not pretend that Apple couldn't open up iMessage or even charge a nominal fee for outsiders. Instead you get an iphone and just seemlessly slide into iMessage. So seemless that most users don't even know that it is a separate service than sms/mms/rcs. Apple muddies that too. But they would never do that, because using people's closest social connections to force them into the ecosystem and lock them there is just too juicy. "Oh you don't want an iPhone anymore? Well looks like you have to leave your social circles main discussion hub to do so..." It's just evil on another level.
- ronsor 1y ago> - Yes, I know no one outside the US uses iMessage. Yes, people in the EU use WhatsApp, by Meta & Zuckerberg, and from what I've seen, often act as if that is some sort of mark of superiority.
- rwyinuse 1y agoI don't think most of US in the EU really mind, or even know what messaging app people in America use. The privacy conscious folk around here do tend to prefer Signal over Whatsapp though.
- 1y ago
- _benton 1y agoThis is probably a controversial opinion but I actually use my iPhone because it's locked down with a curated app marketplace and secure payment system. I don't want alternative payment methods or app stores. So I find it distasteful that other companies are seeking to control Apple's product design through the legal system. They're essentially trying to make it impossible to purchase a product I want, which is more monopolistic than the current status quo. iPhones do not have any sort of monopoly on phones. If you want that, you can purchase any number of Android devices.
- TulliusCicero 1y agoYou're free to keep your own device locked down yourself and to only use Apple's own app store if you want.
- _benton 1y agoIf they have to make changes in software to allow an "unlocked" device that makes it inherently less secure.
- Velorivox 1y agoExactly. Jailbreaking is WAI for the folks who want the “Android experience” on an iPhone. Much of this drama is merely corporations vying to “get theirs” from the ecosystem, without understanding that the extant nature of the ecosystem is why it is the most valuable platform by user spend (that is to say, they care little for the consumer). Shouting "monopoly" from the rooftops is not enough to affect real change. If I wish not to pay property taxes, my options include moving to another state, but courts do not recognize a general right to challenge tax liability on the grounds of personal preference or disagreement with taxation. Perhaps it's worth sparing a thought as to why, and who ultimately empowered that stance. Plus, this is often the “if I can’t have it no one can” line of thought, sometimes from companies engaging in anticompetitive practices themselves (like Epic Games). Edit: WAI stands for working as intended
- 1y ago
- MaxPock 1y agoI was curious about the suit by proton because I'm a user until I read authoritarian this democracy that . Proton wants us to believe that corporations should be above nation states and national interests. If country X deems a certain App as a security risk, it is not the work of apple or some vague state department funded organization to protest .
- BlackFly 1y agoProton is explicitly suggesting that a company can choose to help a government with an authoritarian agenda, so they agree with you that a company has no obligation to protest. They make no assertions as to whether corporations should be above nation states but they do wear their politics on their sleeve (that authoritarianism should be opposed). Their point is that they, as a separate company, can choose to object and attempt to offer products to help people evade authoritarianism and that Apple shouldn't be able to interfere with that in the US market in ways that they do. Obviously in the market of the authoritarian regime they can interfere, but that has no bearing to a US court.
- shmerl 1y agoMozilla should join it too, Apple banned Firefox in iOS for decades.
- smohare 1y ago[dead]
- trinsic2 1y ago> Earlier today, Proton filed court papers in the US District Court for the Northern District of California to join an existing class-action lawsuit against Apple. Proton is a plaintiff in the case, but we are representing and suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated developers. Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in the history of capitalism is not a decision we make lightly, but Proton has long championed online freedom, privacy, and security, and we believe this action is necessary to ensure the internet of the future lives up to its potential. Challenging one of the most powerful corporations in history, god I feel so much safer already. Sounds like PR campaign speak. I trust Proton as much as I trust Microsoft.
- bitpush 1y agoAre you seriously suggesting that Apple is too big to fail/be questioned/be scrutinized, or worse - can do no wrong?
- sneak 1y agoCan we have links to the actual class action? Case number?
- bitpush 1y agoIt is linked at the bottom of the article. https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-pme/proton-v--apple-class-action-complaint/proton-v--apple-class-action-complaint.pdf?_i=AA https://res.cloudinary.com/dbulfrlrz/images/v1751299117/wp-p...
- sneak 1y agoOh thank you, I totally missed it. Hyperlinking sentences or the nouns or phrases themselves seems to have mostly gone out of style in these sorts of posts these days.
- dcow 1y ago> Companies that monetize user data in exchange for “free” services that abuse your privacy aren’t affected by this [the app store tax], as they don’t process payments through the App Store. However, privacy-first companies that monetize through subscriptions are disproportionately hit by this fee, putting a major barrier toward the adoption of privacy-first business models. Huh. I’ve never seen it framed this way and it might be the most compelling argument I’ve heard to date. It’s not simply a debate about whether a company should be allowed to be vertically integrated in isolation, but whether that vertical integration allows them to exert unfair distorting pressure on the free markets we are trying to protect.
- DidYaWipe 1y agoIt's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet." No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period. But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy" No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.
- solarexplorer 1y ago> They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. They also control the OS and don't allow side-loading or other app stores (without putting absurd obstacles in the way) So in the end they completely control the devices they sell.
- mvanbaak 1y agoThe end user is _NOT_ forced to buy into their ecosystem though. There are alternatives, and depending on where on this globe you ask, apple is not even the one with the biggest marketshare. So while I'm not against the general outcry and need for change, it is not just apple. The problem is way way bigger, and it should not be put onto one of the players in my opinion. Create regulation/platform that sets the limits, then put ALL players into the process not just one
- b0a04gl 1y agoevery developer knows safari is the new ie6 but we all just shrug and build native apps anyway because what else are you gonna do. leave 50% of your users on the table. classic embrace extend extinguish but in reverse. embrace web standards then purposely not extend them so you can extinguish competition
- adastra22 1y agoChrome is the new IE6 if anything. Tons of websites fail to work on safari.
- fc417fc802 1y agoIE6 was stagnant and not standards compliant. Safari at least complies with standards. Chrome is the polar opposite of IE6. Turns out it doesn't really matter what you do, if one party controls too much of any market it's bad news for end users one way or another.
- adastra22 1y agoThat’s not exactly accurate as standards for new web technologies didn’t exist back when IE6 was dominant. The WHATWG had to be founded and the standards made post facto before IE6 was non-compliant.
- zarzavat 1y agoDifferent eras. The "IE6" here is the IE6 in 2009 that stubbornly refused to die.
- bitpush 1y agoMaybe because Safari isnt funded by Apple, and would rather pump that money into extracting rent from App Store? The few engineers that Safari has are top-top notch, but they wouldnt let them grow the teams and would much rather drag their feet.
- thunderfork 1y ago
- bowsamic 1y agoLots of explicitly anti freedom takes here, not surprising for HN I guess
- lrvick 1y agoI detest Apple and would happily switch to a timeline where they never existed. That said, I do not think this is the way to fight them. Just do not make apps for iPhone, or pass the 30% Apple tax to the Apple fanboys. They enjoy being submissive to walled garden overlords and paying for the privilege, so give them what they want. These are perfectly valid options. Create value for more open ecosystems if you want to hurt the closed ones.
- gilfoy 1y agoYeah, I’d probably pay $1.30 instead of $1 for subscriptions just to have them all in one single view where I can cancel them without jumping through hoops.
- owebmaster 1y agowhat about $130 instead of $100?
- lrvick 1y agoSomeone who did not want to spend money for an apple logo could choose a $50 Android device and put F-Droid on it for 100% free tracking-free open source apps. People pay extra to be in walled gardens, presumably because they think it will make them cool. If they -like- pointlessly spending money, let them. No one needs an iPhone, and there is no monopoly. Just educate consumers on alternatives.
- RataNova 1y agoIt's hard to deny that the App Store rules have created a massively uneven playing field
- litmus-pit-git 1y agoNot related directly and not related to subscription — a recent case of Apple’s anticompetitive and user hostile policies is Apple essentially locking down email push notifications and essentially forcing everyone to use fetch. They had given a way via some signing and now they just shut it down or it broke and they didn’t fix it. Now if every mail provider have their own app then they can circumvent via some shenanigans of non mail push notifications and then fetch mail or some circus. My mail provider doesn’t have their own app so I am stuck with third party apps where push stopped working. We can play technical gymnastics around this but this just sucks!
- superlupo 1y agoDo you have more sources on that please? Thanks.
- litmus-pit-git 1y agoSources on this thing/news? I had made a post recently which didn't see any traction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398136 maybe it can be a pointer
- neya 1y agoThe point I found myself resonating with a lot is: >Apple’s App Store policies disproportionately favor the surveillance capitalism business model employed by companies like Meta and Google and therefore entrench an online business model that routinely violates consumers’ personal privacy. Spot on.
- Nevermark 1y agoReply to a couple hundred comments: You don’t have to be a monopoly to be deemed to be acting in an anti-competitive manner. Just dominant by some significant measure, in some significant dimension, enough for many people to complain. And for a judge to review the practices and find the company is leveraging that dominance to maintain dominance or hold dominance over adjacent markets in a way that is blocking competition. Apple is using their control of their phone hardware and OS to preclude any alternate source of apps or app stores, in order to charge a large vig on every app and in app purchase. And block competitive, tech like alternate web browser engines, and any app they don’t like. They are big enough to warp the whole market for mobile apps and browsers. A large percentage of apps become much less viable if they don’t supportiOS. So “choose another phone” isn’t a viable solution to the harm. Nothing stops Apple from having an App Store. Using it to enforce security rules. Nothing stops users from using it exclusively (EDIT: Don’t download from other sources, or if you do, click “no” when you get asked if you want to install apps from other sources. This is trivial for Apple to do.) The problem is the app market is massive, highly dependent on having iOS versions to compete in the overall mobile device space, and Apple is both blocking alternative app sources and taxing all those apps, and completely prohibiting some apps, while prohibiting any other options. Enforcing rules against anti-competitive behavior isn’t a zero cost practice. it is reasonable for some people to prefer the status quo. But it’s better than allowing anti-competitive behavior, which would encourage more such behavior because not having competition is incredibly profitable. And the harms of letting anti-competitive behavior go unchecked tend to be significant but only obvious in hindsight, or never. That’s part of the problem. Without healthy competition lots of significant but non-obvious progress gets snuffed out before it has a chance. Either you nip it in the bud, or end up dealing with much worse abuses.
- red_admiral 1y agoBesides the "One App Store" policy (that tbf keeps out the worst scams you can find on android), what bothers me most is that an app can be banned fors speech like "here's the FAQ on our HOMEPAGE".
- rkrisztian2 1y ago
- bobosmrad 1y ago[flagged]
- Validark 1y agoI'm still stuck on the whole 30% tax. How is that considered even remotely reasonable?
- illiac786 1y agoI don’t think any developer considers it reasonable. I mean, apart from apple and the really brainless section of their fanboys, who thinks this is reasonable?
- stahtops 1y agoHow do you think Target and Walmart work? They pay someone $10 for a widget and mark it up 100% and sell it for $20. App fees have basically been the same amount for all time. Literally every single developer looked at the numbers and decided to go into business.
- swat535 1y agoHow is the 30% tax different than other platforms? Further, how much do you think should this be (20%? 10%? 5%?) and if zero, why? Finally, do you believe Apple should be compensated for the services and marketplace that they are offering, if so, what other strategies do you recommend that they deploy to make everyone happy?
- reedlaw 1y agoAmazon charges 15% for physical media, including software [1]. Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. 1. https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GTG4BAWSY39Z98Z3?locale=en-US#wjz_cjc_jcb-3 https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
- gruez 1y ago>Since Apple is not shipping physical media, it seems something less than 15% would be more reasonable. The link you provided is only for "Referral fee", not whatever fee charges to fulfill the order (ie. warehousing and shipping), which is separate: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/GPDC3KPYAGDTVDJP?locale=en-US https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external...
- tehjoker 1y agoI'm so tired of lawsuits and "market competition" regulating these companies. Just nationalize or regulate them already.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y agoI am not sure why I am commenting here but proton, please can you give up an api to your drive (particularly) docs and the fact that now we can have anonymous writes and reads if the document is shared properly can genuinely create an interesting stack for blogs with comment engines and the potential is basically limitless. I think I haven't asked them but I was just trying to do it and I am so frustrated the best I have got is that there is a way to get a curl command with proper cookies etc. to get text written in the comments section but that text is (rightfully) encrypted and I don't know how to decrypt it... I am not sure. A really dead simple api or library would be.. wonderful. I wish proton could also go like cloudflare except way way more private and could have some proton s3 or proton workers or something tbh.
- tabbott 1y agoApple's app store practices are an abusive monopoly, and I wish the Proton folks luck. We once had a Zulip update rejected by Apple because we had a link to our GitHub project with the source code for the app in the app itself. And it turns out, if you then click around GitHub, you can find a "Pricing" page that doesn't pay Apple's tax. Details are here for anyone curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28175759