writepub

43 ms·

361.
by writepub 8y ago
The only reason it is a "platform" is because of lock-down. Imagine if Jobs' original vision of HTML5+JS runtime as the iOS app runtime engine had come true.
362.
by writepub 8y ago
A year after iPhone X went on sale, they admit to a problem? And 1 more year before their performance throttling kills the usability if this model What if they delayed admission to reduce repair costs, and minimize brand damage? I don'
363.
by writepub 8y ago
How exactly? What in the definition of the app market is disingenuous. If "browsers" were a market at the time of the Microsoft anti trust ruling, a $70B app store space is very much a market according to prevailing economic theor
364.
by writepub 8y ago
They also don't take competition lightly. Just look at how they banned Steam's game streaming app [1], and retroactively modified app-store policies to substantiate their abuse of power. [1]: https://www.cultofmac.com&#
365.
by writepub 8y ago
How do you protect developers & their businesses from abuse at the hands of a channel (Apple) that controls access to ~70% of revenues, and probably more in profits. The answer is not for users to switch to Android, but for the FTC &amp
366.
by writepub 8y ago
Time for some anti-trust regulations on the app store. In the "mobile apps" market, Apple is an overwhelming monopoly with 66% market share [1]. Some stats: - Total app store market revenues for 1st half (1H) of 2018: ~$33B - Appl
367.
by writepub 8y ago
When the grocery store accounts for 80% of profits, and about 70% of revenues in it's category [1] (mobile app store), it stops being legal, and falls into the category of anti-trust. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2018&#x
368.
by writepub 8y ago
With the advent of WASM, the mentioned sandbox is no more language specific. Threads & garbage collection are coming soon to WASM, which should open up most relevant languages in use today to this more efficient sandbox
369.
by writepub 8y ago
Convenient. You refute something, as if you have data to back it, and when asked for evidence, you weasel out on technicality. Please, go play partial judge elsewhere. Oh BTW, your friend just implied I was a fascist, (see quote). > The
370.
by writepub 8y ago
Zero. She didn't claim it was realtime, and cycle accurate
371.
by writepub 8y ago
What tyranny and who's cheering for it? No one here wants anyone's constitutional rights violated. Pro tip - if there was brazen constitutional violations arising from this tech, Amazon lawyers would probably be the first to sue t
372.
by writepub 8y ago
I can agree with this wholeheartedly. But the opposition at Amazon is not what you stated. Anyways, I concur.
373.
by writepub 8y ago
Please please explain how rekognition aids ICE in caging children. This is indeed a strawman, unless you prove a direct connection. And then there's the deathly silence on actual evidence that a majority of Amazonians even want this.
374.
by writepub 8y ago
And what data can you offer to prove that a majority of Amazonians support not serving law enforcement?
375.
by writepub 8y ago
"Extremists" are those who compel, nay blackmail, their corps. to stop selling to agencies and people whose politics and world views differ from theirs. 100% of law enforcement isn't in the business of caging children. Pleas
376.
by writepub 8y ago
It's VERY relevant - regular Amazonian employees do not care about selling to US law enforcement - the agencies that protect and allow Amazon to thrive and exist. This whole anti law enforcement narrative has been popularized by inter
377.
by writepub 8y ago
> trend that concerns me. No one cares about what trends concern any one person.
378.
by writepub 8y ago
If the intersectionalists had it their way, they'd ban Amazon from selling any and all services to all agencies and people whose politics they disagree with. They're yearning to stop serving Republicans and conservatives - almos
379.
by writepub 8y ago
> If you don't like it, don't buy it. No one on HN needs a crash course in market economics, choice, and free will. Un-substantive comments are strongly discouraged. > Do you honestly believe that the majority of iPad owners
380.
by writepub 8y ago
About 99% of grandmoms and moms in India and China use Android. The only thing "histrionic" & "hysterical" here is your normalization of Apple's penchant for trampling on freedoms to inflate their bottom line. H
381.
by writepub 8y ago
This appalling lack of information regarding MFI DRM in the open is exactly the kind of secrecy Apple thrives on!! There's no way for anyone privy to the program to convince outsiders without breaking NDAs. Try dealing with an army of
382.
by writepub 8y ago
You keep thinking lightning is different from USB. Lightning is a physical form factor, not a protocol. Also, nothing in Apple's MFI DRM limits it to the lightning form factor as the electrical signals are identical to USB, even USB-C
383.
by writepub 8y ago
You are right that iOS has no native OS support for USB storage devices - precisely because Apple restricts access to them via MFI. i.e. as a storage accessory manufacturer, you need to add an MFI DRM chipset and pass MFI certification for
384.
by writepub 8y ago
Products you've cited do implement MFI DRM themselves, like Apple's SD reader. It has an MFI DRM chip, plenty of teardowns are online. Additionally, the original post is about USB-C storage accessories not working with the new iPa
385.
by writepub 8y ago
MFi is quite literally DRM for USB [1][2][3]!! You're probably confused by the form factor (Lightning vs USB-C), and understandably so. The MFi program prevents successful USB link establishment for non DRM-ed (i.e. unauthorized ) acce
386.
by writepub 8y ago
The free tier has a rather limited 500MB limit, but I guess that's all a small company can give away, without the ability to monetize with ads.
387.
by writepub 8y ago
It's not a view , it's a fact. Please feel free to browse publicly available MFI policy. [1] Cheers! [1]: https://mfi.apple.com/MFiWeb/getFAQ.action#1-1
388.
by writepub 8y ago
Yes - the most evil companies go for after well established freedoms. Apple has gone after the freedom of it's users to run apps of their choosing, or use industry standard computer accessories of their choosing, just to inflate their
389.
by writepub 8y ago
That's the sad part - their move towards USB-c reduces their costs, increases supply chain diversity, etc. But, they're likely locking down non MFI certified accessories, at least in storage, for profit, because they can. Imagine
390.
by writepub 8y ago
Why oh why should I drop a cool ~$2000 for Apple to take away some fundamental computing freedoms? How long before the public starts seeing through the "Apple knows best" philosophy of taking away your computing freedom? Anyone wh

More ›