willseth

10 ms·

121.
by willseth 3y ago
The parent comment cited Web Distribution as evidence that Apple doesn't actually care about safety and security, when in fact Web Distribution is more secured than Marketplace distribution. > The goal was to get out of Apple's
122.
by willseth 3y ago
> All of this just makes it crystal clear what Apple's goal is: to prevent competition. Web Distribution requires stricter app and developer review than Marketplace distribution.
123.
by willseth 3y ago
With price fixing, would-be competitors cooperate and function as a monopoly. That’s not a functioning market. These services act as a centralization point to accomplish the price fixing without colluding directly with each other. It’s actu
124.
by willseth 3y ago
Reverse engineering APIs is fair use, not simply using APIs. Eg when Google implemented their own implementation of Java APIs, that was deemed fair use. Google only copied the interface. The courts ruled you can build a competing product
125.
by willseth 3y ago
This is just wrong. Historically application platforms charged for developer tools and support. You had to buy new tools regularly to access new OS features and you had to pay for documentation or human support. The commission model just fl
126.
by willseth 3y ago
You're off by at least an order of magnitude, and a very common class of performance problems that exists in any language is copying and allocating memory. Python is no different, and there are plenty of facilities to address that and
127.
by willseth 3y ago
The bigger question to me is to what degree will the platform owners be restricted from monetizing apps on the platform. Requiring apps to be installable at no cost to the developer makes a big assumption that platform fees are 100% rent. S
128.
by willseth 3y ago
That's a pretty broad root cause. The problem is coming up with a remedy that can't be worked around or doesn't distort the market in other ways. It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe if/when they force Ap
129.
by willseth 3y ago
Those two distinct major private markets are inside platforms that compete with each other, so it's not clear what a monopoly means in that case. That's what everyone is trying to figure out. A judge can't simply mandate a pr
130.
by willseth 3y ago
There are already good products out there and I doubt Apple could make much money off of it anyway. If it’s not at least a billion dollar business, why would they even consider it? Edit: maybe if they make it a HomePod too it would make sen
131.
by willseth 3y ago
My MIL has one and loves it. It even plays Live Photos. There are multiple apps that will keep your iCloud Photos synced to various blob storage services. If you just want to maintain a copy or have direct access to photos, that will be a l
132.
by willseth 3y ago
The library pays for the books and the copyright holder gets paid. This is no different from buying a book retail, which you can read and share with family and friends after reading, or sell it, where it can be read again and sold again. Th
133.
by willseth 3y ago
Because email is a decentralized network! iMessage isn't! iMessage isn't email! It's nothing like email! Also if an email provider wanted to charge other email providers to federate with them, they can. No one would pay it be
134.
by willseth 3y ago
You're asking specifically why would any particular iPhone user want iMessage to be exclusive? It's not that they actually affirmatively want it to be exclusive, it's that they simply don't care. They either only communi
135.
by willseth 3y ago
I think most people who think Beeper Mini was a bad idea think that independently of any opinion about iMessage exclusivity. I support higher fidelity cross platform communication. Whether that's over iMessage or RCS, I don't care
136.
by willseth 3y ago
The point is only valid about desktop monitors, so I assume he meant 200ppi.
137.
by willseth 3y ago
And I doubt it would have gotten killed, or certainly not as swiftly, had it been an open source community based project, e.g. Hackintosh. But obviously that wasn't the point.
138.
by willseth 3y ago
On a messaging network, work must be done to both send and to receive messages. For Beeper Mini to iPhone communication, cost is added to the network, but only one of the devices has paid for the privilege of using it. At best you could arg
139.
by willseth 3y ago
Another way to look at it is that there would always be a fixed cost to operating any global messaging network that would probably be at least a million dollars a year. Piggybacking on Apple's already-built network and focusing only on
140.
by willseth 3y ago
It’s completely different. Email is a decentralized network. iMessage is centralized. Email servers, like Mastodon, Usenet (RIP), etc. implicitly agree to federate (usually!) with other servers. All iMessage traffic sent or received has to
141.
by willseth 3y ago
Nothing. They got great publicity out of this. They also got Apple under serious additional scrutiny by Congress. Beeper Mini the product never had a chance at actually being successful, so I think this is about the best outcome they could
142.
by willseth 3y ago
Not really? iMessage isn't a peer-to-peer network. It's dependent on Apple's massive global messaging service. Beeper Mini simply doesn't work without co-opting Apple's servers. Unless you start from the premise tha
143.
by willseth 3y ago
> where it's folks who opted into a closed system that are complaining about the system being closed The folks complaining are a vocal minority of Android users. Everyone else doesn't care.
144.
by willseth 3y ago
Do you have Apple Stores in your country? They're almost always packed. Could you imagine how insane it would be to do that? Would you no longer be able buy iPhones online? What you suggest is completely infeasible.
145.
by willseth 3y ago
Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buy
146.
by willseth 3y ago
Ok giving up software to become a monk now.
147.
by willseth 3y ago
Are you seriously asking why someone would trust Apple over a small generally unknown Android-only app company?
148.
by willseth 3y ago
Shit. E2EE encrypting my refrigerator brb
149.
by willseth 3y ago
I didn’t even realize my mind could expand to this level.
150.
by willseth 3y ago
This is tantamount to saying we should only trust open source software. If that’s your point, then you lost me. If not, then it’s obvious that some companies are more trustworthy than others. (P.S. the many active exploits found in core low

More ›