I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.
Once I subscribed to New York times. The newspaper that was advertised to me for years in all Hollywood movies as a place where honesty and freedom are of highest priority. I had to spend an hour on a phone with their representatives to cancel it refusing to accept discount or a free subscription.
I don't trust many other companies. Especially if all my interactions with them are virtual and they are not specialized in information technology. At least big tech is quite rich to afford to think about users.
Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there: pay for utilities, for your phone etc. I want more progress here. I want to be able to see all my fees upfront in a clear format. I want to know my credit score. I want to be able to take this credit score to different organizations. etc. etc.
Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver. There are some successful ones, but I think finance is too regulated for them to have a shot at a serious scale. Apple and Google have a shot at that and they will create a road for smaller companies.
The situation in Belarus is bad. And believe me I know. I was concerned as well about my device security. But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem. Belarussian government must be replaced by Belarussian people and Apple has nothing to do with that. And on top of that - what choice do I have. Android devices in Russia are preinstalled with Russian software while Apple's aren't. That's more important sign for me.
You do so only because you believe have no choice as you know that your democracy is so crippled that you don't expect them to protect your rights as a consumer any more!
Where as many Europeans and Asians, who also enjoy democratic rights, will tell you openly that we would prefer that our democratically elected government protect our consumer rights through regulations that bind all corporates to behave themselves.
Secondly, I might want to buy/subscribe to things that come from companies outside of EU.
The top 10 conglomerates from South Korea amount to more than half their GDP. This level of centralization alone should tell you how the regulations are enacted to protect the corporations, not the people.
If Germany (and more generally Brussels) was actually serious about environmental regulations, VW and all the German car makers would be exterminated after Dieselgate. Instead they got one or two scapegoats for VW (and no, the CEO being ousted and still receiving a generous retirement package does not count) and made it clear that the regulations are there just to give the people the illusion of control.
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" -- this is what your democratically elected government is giving you.
What about defining a standard subscription protocol that allows any company to offer subscription management, and allow consumers to change their subscription manager if they are not happy?
Putting all your eggs in one nest because you currently like it is a very risky gamble.
Banking has worked with standards for decades that allow interoperability and competition.
> But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem.
That's why the trust in one company should be very limited. As a non USA consumer, I will prefer some one else managing my data.
Unfortunately, people need something that works right now.
Someone could make a single app that would handle all that for you.
I tried to stick to PayPal to manage subscriptions for a few years since it was centralized and I could change payments or cancel. Patreon seems to have taken over a lot of this--but it's even more niche.
> Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver.
I just can't imagine the ROI needed to satisfy VC funding...especially without it becoming shady or predatory itself. Or, like you said, the regulations involved for a self-funded startup. I think the other aspect is that big companies aren't motivated to play ball. Yodlee is probably the biggest player and has had spottier integration as companies have added 2fa and other security measures. Very few have gone as far as adding tokens to support 3rd parties like Yodlee.
> Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there
I suspect if something does happen (I'm not particularly confident) it will be a spinoff from a bank like how Allstate and Discover Card were spinoffs of Sears or Kingsford Charcoal from Ford Motor. Do companies do this anymore?
This.
I just got screwed out of money by Couchsurfing when they started throwing a full-screen extortion prompt that prevents you from using the app or website at all so you can’t even delete your account until you cough up the dough.
They are using their own payment processing system. If they used the standard In-App Purchases, Apple could have given me a refund on the spot and hopefully booted them off the store for this bait and switch tactic.
Apple has always refunded me without question and I am willing to bet that most complaints about the App Store are from those entities that Apple protects users from.
I can do it for my emails, why not for my payment systems?
Only downside is that it's the banks that has to do the integration. I can't really figure out how they deal with the actual unsubscribing bit. The subscriptions people are most likely to want to cancel has to be those who with the worst unsubscribe process.
Sure a company can fight governments in court, if that option is available, but if it isn't or if that approach runs out, that's the end of the line. At the end of the day it's the governments and laws that need to change.
That's not what they criticize.
They criticize Apple because Apple positioned itself to be the sole actor capable of enforcing such a bad laws. That they do it, surprised nobody.
In this case, if they were not capable of destroying Telegram on iOS platform, their request would have no teeth and even the governments would not ask Apple to do it in the first place.
Several banks and credit cards offer FICO score information. The information is likely there for you, but you may have to accept some data sharing terms and conditions in order to access it.
https://www.chase.com/personal/credit-cards/chase-credit-jou...
https://www.americanexpress.com/us/credit-cards/features-ben...
https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/credi...
https://www.bankofamerica.com/credit-cards/free-fico-credit-...
Brace for impact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2020/11/30/google-pl...
SAME. Somewhere deep in my comment history here, I tell the story of trying to cancel NYT, and needing to do it three times, because I kept getting charged. Ughhhhh.
Sadly, this is reality. It is very hard to prioritize in most places living on thin margins.
Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."
The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).
It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?
That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.
And that choice has implications for the company in other countries, when they become dependent on the countries they do business in, which then start making demands of the company's behavior globally.
Same with South Africa and IBM during apartheid.
Because what Apple is doing is not immoral or unethical but completely standard business practice. Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them.
In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.
It seems highly unlikely that oppressive governments would be compelled to stop being such if Apple decided to withdraw from their countries’ markets. Yes, it is profitable to allow and tax Apple’s sales, but by my reckoning not nearly enough to pursue through a fundamental shift in political climate. (Yes, some citizens will wonder what happened, but considering Apple’s minor market share and domestic media’s capability to spin the story in favour of the leading party, public opinion would hardly be a factor either.)
To allude to an essay I read recently, a withdrawal in this context would be somewhat akin to Apple acting like Star Trek Federation (first do no harm, avoid mistakes at all costs), while remaining engaged, preserving the opportunity to enact a positive change laterally through non-obvious implications of attractive technology with superior security, would be them acting more like Culture.
Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.
Then, Apple isn't in the position to apply the censorship to begin with, and it can both allow for a way to install these apps, and follow local rules.
It's not some issue that everyone else has to contend with. You can buy a Pixel or an LG in China and install anything you want on it. It's only Apple that has this issue.
There isn't a disclaimer in the world that would make this worth it. If someone bricks their phone with a dodgy app after "fully unlocking", they WILL be going after Apple, not the app developer.
I consider the locked nature of Apple devices a feature and an useful at that.
This has also been my experience. I know people with whom I just avoid talking about Apple. Personally I just accept that Apple is their religion (some of them have Apple bumper stickers) and that religion is something deeply personal.
Love and hate are also pretty similar emotions. I find both the people who love Apple and hate Apple to be...odd. I really don't understand either. It's a company, either use their products or don't.
This is where the hate comes from: It is frequently not a choice that one is able make, to not use their products. "You're at work, you must use $this." Is one of thousands of examples where your preference is made utterly irrelevant.
Also this is where the love comes from.
When forced to use something else and you hate it because your dislike of it is supercharged by that coercion, and you would much prefer to use this other product you might decide you love this other product and even evangelise it to increase your chance of being able to exercise your preference.
The idea that we use choose our use of, and knowledge of, operating systems by our own free will is a little fanciful. X billion smart phone users and 99+% of them freely choose 1 of 2. "It's your choice" doesn't make sense as soon as you look at it from that perspective. At best, exercising your preference comes with a non-trivial cost. At worst, you have no choice.
If it were easy to decide to use something else, something different whenever you felt like it the evangilism and ire would be more like it is for fast-food chains or clothing manufacturers. ie A little more fringe than we're seeing in computing.
Civilizations have evolved, but humans still be humans ;)
I don't see that it has much to do with religion though. It's only silly because of the specifics of what a corporation is - a somewhat amoral body of capital, very roughly speaking - but it's not always silly to be attached to an institution. There's nothing religious about supporting the Against Malaria Foundation, or the EFF, or (here in the UK) the National Health Service.
I'm sad about the latter because we apparently lost the word to simply express this profound emotion without context.
It's not healthy.
Samsung broadcast their phone events every year. As do Google. Microsoft and Sony are very happy to get on stage to tell you about their new consoles. Tesla have got a new car to tell you about too.
Surely you can see why some people might be interested?
That doesn't seem like a fair thing to expect from a consumer technology company.
What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?
Well in this case some of the reasons seem to be anticompetitive behaviour.
Tech geeks like to use their general purpose machines where they have a choice to pick their preferred tools and programs rather than feel like they're being pushed to get trapped in a walled garden of everything [company x] that comes to exist by said company exploiting monopsonies and leveraging it's platform control to slowly increase it's clout and push out competitors.
Yes the same can apply to Microsoft or the like in other/similar cases.
All that said, after building a Linux machine for development and general client work, I consider Macs the best option out there. Everything from being able to copy 2FA codes from my phone and pasting on my computer, to colored tags and smart folders in Finder make my work easier. Also, Bluetooth is just a breeze under macOS.
Ask yourself the reverse too while you're at it:
> What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to like them in such a public and performative way?
In either case, I agree with you people generally have strong feelings about Apple, relative to other companies. The existence of one side brings out the other more (compared to a baseline where more people have no opinion or are neutral).
xCloud and Stadia have been trying to get iOS apps setup and Apple keeps stopping the apps. Apple does not have their own cloud gaming platform. They have been hypocritical about what apps and behavior they do or don't allow on their iOS platform.
Cloud gaming is just one recent example, is this behavior not worth of antitrust?
Apple did indeed do that before they had guidelines that could accommodate this new streaming app distribution model. But now they do.[1]
These companies can choose other platforms if the iOS platform experience doesn't meet their needs, OR choose to support an iOS-compatible web distribution experience.[2]
[1] "Apple’s new App Store guidelines carve out loopholes for xCloud, Stadia, and other apps that Apple had blocked": https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/11/21432695/apple-new-app-st...
[2] "Microsoft is bringing xCloud to iOS via the web": https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21508706/microsoft-xcloud...
Most of my personal usage concerns are around the software and content areas where the user types and use cases Apple tends to prioritize aren't a good fit for my needs. For example, the focus in iOS on content consumption and app-snacking vs flexible content authoring and application depth (speaking-broadly here, as there are certainly notable counter-examples).
From a meta-perspective, as a long-time software-centric serial entrepreneur, I feel the long-term, net impacts on the market of Apple's app and content business models is, at-best, mixed for third-party developers. It can be excellent for very large developers with established brands and/or customer bases as well as the single-digit percentage of app developers that score a mega-hit. It can also be a good deal for small part-time devs that just want to get started quickly and don't necessarily need to count on consistent long-term revenue to make a house payment or employee payroll.
The app store model introduced a different set of trade-offs for developers because Apple retains certain significant value components for themselves such as the direct customer relationship, finely-grained control of distribution, some promotion avenues, margins and available business models. They also force certain requirements on developers. I agree that some of these requirements are also net benefits for users (eg privacy, compatibility, etc). However, they are also differentiators for Apple's offerings and enablers of Apple's extraordinary business model success.
Unlike some others, I don't believe Apple is guilty of being a monopoly (as defined by regulatory agencies) and don't see Apple's strategy as even especially predatory or deceptive. Sure, it's boldly aggressive and perhaps lopsided in Apple's favor, at least as compared to the Wintel proposition before it. But it's not fundamentally immoral, unethical or illegal. Certainly, the net effects and trade-offs of the app store value proposition to developers (and users) should be well-understood by now. If it's not a good fit, developers (or customers) should evaluate alternatives and respond appropriately depending on their preferences, context, requirements and priorities.
Finally, I think the difference between my viewpoint and that of Apple's biggest fans or harshest critics is more a matter of subjective value-judgements and perspective than objective right vs wrong. For example, I'm probably influenced by personally benefiting from valuation increases based on having durable customer relationships and diverse distribution channels.
you can read stories throughout the history of HN and see where a company was being heralded for what they were doing only to be criticized later on for the same or similar.
We will never have a world where every company is equally successful and rarely does one company stay at the top for very long. Apple has been at the top of the "their" game for a relatively short amount of time considering how long they have been around. Same with other companies
I guess you haven't been around for the past 20-30 years? They're part of a culture war that they helped create surrounding Mac vs PC, iOS vs Android.
Steve Jobs even created these types of wars in-house. (e.g. the new Mac team vs everybody else - see The Pirates of Silicon Valley) Business is war.
People choose sides and they must defend their choice out of pride. It's like Ford vs Chevy.
Beyond that - Apple is very much against putting general computing freedom in the hands of users especially in iOS but also definitely in macOS. Lots of people hate a tyrant and don't want to work with them and will try to convince people who don't care about that to join them. And of course there are people who disagree.
So that's basically where you get all the anti/pro Apple argumentation.
That is the only way forward for a company so used to growth. pressure on its current customers is only going up to buy new services and pay more for the old ones. Old strategies that new tools and a device that is with you 24/7 bring to new abusive levels.
Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?
This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...
During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically.
Of course, I think Epic would be happy if they won a special exemption for their own marketplace but with the status quo remaining for everyone else.
Apple has always had an unusual and often unhealthy relationship with their customers, which has garnished Apple fans with labels such as "Cult of Mac members" - Ch.3 through 5 of this satirical book actually analyzes why that is: https://github.com/jasoneckert/CultOfMac
The convenience comes at a cost.
But you continue to repeat this outright lie about Apple receiving your travel history.
There is no evidence for it, and this has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
We know if you opt in to certain services they send an anonymized location.
That’s all we know. The part about your travel history being sent is 100% made up by you.
"Censorship: Apple manages a global set of App Stores and cooperates with law enforcement in each jurisdiction in which it operates. ..."
Okay. We agree. What's the fix?
--
This censorship food fight is at least two problems.
#1 Which rule of law applies to international companies?
This is foreign policy. Just like trade agreements, treaties.
USA flagged corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook need a federal solution. Just like shipping, banking, and so forth. These corporations cannot act unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.
I have no idea what an international treaty covering speech and privacy would look like. Please share any and all ideas.
#2 Need for fair and impartial court system, legitimate enforcement.
FAANGs cannot be governments onto themselves. If my app gets rejected, there must be a separate fair and impartial court system to hear my appeal and adjudicate. If an impersonator takes my profile, I need legitimate enforcement to restore my property rights. If a FAANG closes my accounts, I must have the right to sue for damages.
--
Again: Enough complaining about unfair, arbitrary behavior. We get it.
Start proposing solutions.
That removes a lot of profit from their %30 cut although, so they are directly incentivized to prevent that from happening
U.S. congresswoman calls out Nike, Apple and Coca-Cola for lobbying against Uighur labour bills
Jennifer Wexton says companies are publicly condemning forced labour and privately trying to water down bills
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...
The companies principally who are lobbying ... to have changes to your bills, are Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola [and] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. What are they trying to do? What changes do they want to make to your laws?
Well, I don't know, because they haven't come to me to try to make changes to my piece of legislation, but the word is that they're trying to water down some of the enforcement provisions while publicly proclaiming that they are very much against and condemning forced labour. They're going behind the scenes and trying to change the law.
If they're against it, if they say that this is not in their interest, then why would they want to change your bills?
Because it's going to impact their supply chains and make it harder for them to profit off of this forced labour.
Which means that they're using the forced labour?
If they're not using it, it wouldn't be a problem. But, you know, it appears that they are using it. And if they are auditing their supply chains the way they're supposed to, this legislation wouldn't be an issue.
> According to a document viewed by The New York Times, Apple’s suggested edits to the bill included extending some deadlines for compliance, releasing certain information about supply chains to congressional committees rather than to the public, and requiring Chinese entities to be “designated by the United States government” as helping to surveil or detain Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang.
It’s definitely suspicious that lobbying is being done in secret, but I can’t think of many cases where any lobbying is done in the open.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/29/business/economy/nike-coc...
It's actually quite simple: let things run their course. When the iPhone becomes too lousy, don't buy another iPhone. When the Apple Watch gets broken, don't buy another Apple Watch. When the laptop won't work, get something else.
Step by step you realise all the Apple gear you have is just broken or old stuff.
My Xiaomi phone is nowhere near the iPhone but it does provide 95% at 20% prices. The smart band is no Apple Watch but it was $20.
The Lenovo is no head turner but it is 16 threads at 30% the price and the display is decent.
Just as Apple evolved so did the rest of the world.
Part 1: Software and Services https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
Part 1.5: macOS Privacy Scandal and App Store Policy https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
Part 2: Hardware and Accessories https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
I could imagine Apple eventually moving its supply chain out of China, but it seems unlikely that they would be willing to be blocked from China's marketplace as Google services are. I wonder where Pixel phones and Chromebooks are manufactured, and where their components are sourced?
I would also like to see Apple refuse to cooperate with authoritarian governments, but I don't see that happening sadly.
We just bought a new MacBook Air with the M1 and my wife will use it until it dies so if it’s anything like our other Apple laptops could be 7 years or so.
My keyboard is pristine on the 2013 and after only 6 months of my 2019 they're already wearing away. I think it's to make it feel old and worn so I'll buy another.
I wonder how do these people sleep at night knowing what they are supporting under the mask of company. What will their children think? "I'm so proud that my dad/mom contributed to a company which silently supported oppressive and genocidal government's and helped make the world a worse place to live for the people".
But let's go and buy iPhones and Macs and let them know we fully support their actions.
Then, of course, there are also the real bastards, those without conscience, who couldn't care less. They also don't care about American lives, or even their friends or family for that matter. The dumb ones end up in jail and the smart bastards end up running a company.
The rest of us just goes along with what everybody else does, we are too busy anyway to really reflect on our behavior. Need to buy more presents for the holidays!
That's trying to make a cultural war of broadly accepted, democratic values. It got nothing to do with progressive politics.
If you want to go full libertarian and demand Apple to give freedom to all these medieval hate platforms, you'll have to allow IS and the Al Qaidas of this world their jihadism videos too.
