Hacker News Reader

I think you can say that if privacy is important to you, then you are probably more aligned with Apple's business plan. The article says as much. It's not like Apple are being more magnanimous, it's just that they don't profit off of user tracking so they use it as marketing ammo against Google users.

As a developer, it constantly burns my biscuits that Apple software only runs on Apple hardware. The fact that I have no choice but to buy expensive Apple devices to develop for their platform is irritating.

To some degree, a company that makes money of devices rather than ads will always charge more for the devices since they can’t really sell the device at or below cost and then make the profit from showing ads to their users.

I think Apple's primary source of revenue is selling dongles to fix all their hardware incompatibility issues.

The fact that I have no choice but to buy expensive Apple devices to develop for their platform is irritating.

I've never understood this line of thinking.

Maybe it's because I've been selling programs commercially since the 1980's. Back then, if you wanted to develop a program for a Commodore 64, you bought a Commodore 64. If you wanted to port it to a TRS-80, you bought a TRS-80. If you needed an Atari version, you bought Atari gear.

In the mid-80's it was just ordinary business that if you were developing a program, you released it on Commodore, Apple, Texas Instruments, IBM, and a few others. And to achieve that, you bought at least one machine from each of those companies.

The concept of "I want to build an iPhone app on a Windows box" is a strange new phenomenon to me.

>The concept of "I want to build an iPhone app on a Windows box" is a strange new phenomenon to me.

To be fair, I can build an android app on a Windows or Mac.

Also you're talking about buying a computer to build on that computer. I think the argument was about needing a particular brand laptop to develop apps for a different device.

You have a very 80s way of thinking good sir. There is no longer a need to have these limitations in place anymore.

Yeah like paying for our tools like other professionals do. /s

Apple already charges to publish to the app store, just raise the price for people that aren't using a Mac and let people develop on the platform they feel comfortable in. Everyone wins.

Fighting the customer doesn't usually go well in the long run.

Customers are Apple developers that care about Apple platforms.

But you don't have to buy an iPhone, or any iOS-based device to build an app for them. You have to by a Mac desktop/laptop which runs osx/macos.

So it really is on a different platform already, but one within the walls of the brand.

8 bit development was exactly like that.

Sure most bought C64, Spectrum and so forth.

However if you actually wanted to be productive, you would be buying a bigger computer running CP/M, VMS or UNIX variant, cross compile Assembly code and use a transfer cable.

And yet now days, cross plat development for any other imaginable combination is possible.

Apple is the lone hold out here.

But they also have no reason to change.

Really? Is there a practical way to do windows development on Linux?

depends on what you're developing right? If the libraries are there, and you have a cross compiler, then it'd be fine.

Use a VM as a start.

You can run VMs. On any desktop OS or cloud provider.

Xamarin, QT, Electron, a few variants of React Native. For games, pick you favorite cross plat engine.

Follow the steps at https://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/oldgrub for a free Windows VM development license.

For Apple, it is an entire hardware platform.

Partially, those frameworks don't expose OS specific features.

> Back then, if you wanted to develop a program for a Commodore 64, you bought a Commodore 64.

For testing, yes. To protect their sanity, developers of big projects developed their code using rented CPU minutes on a mainframe.

Maybe apple should provide pay-by-the-minute xcode-as-a-service for the real 1980s feeling?

Could you provide such a service?

There certainly seem to be enough developers who complain about this. I wonder if there'd be a market for a virtual-iphone-dev-box-thing.

I would imagine that's like 95% of MacStadium's[1] business. Macs-as-a-Service.

[1] https://www.macstadium.com

> Back then, if you wanted to develop a program for a Commodore 64, you bought a Commodore 64.

I don't think anyone would object of all it took to develop for iOS was the device bring targeted, or even an iOS device. The fact that you have to buy a different piece of Apple hardware is this the issue.

You can build Android apps on an Android device. Optionally, you can use Linux, MacOS, or Windows, instead.

> The concept of "I want to build an iPhone app on a Windows box" is a strange new phenomenon to me.

The iOS situation isn't like “you must buy a PC to build PC software”, but more like “you must buy an IBM mainframe to build PC software”.

It is not 1980 anymore. We moved on. And that is one of the reasons that the ibm pc was so successful. One platform to develop for, as opposed to TRS, Commodore 64/128/Amiga, Acorn etc.

Are you are pointing to Apples lack of success with the iPhone as a reason they should change to be more like the IBM PC?

The IBM PC was successful because IBM did a couple of mistakes, which have been fixed in the world of laptops, 2-1 convertibles, mobile, tablets without expansion slots, with UEFI and blocked boot loaders.

To quote Purism (who are in the process of making a competing phone), Apple is right about privacy, but wrong about freedom; real privacy depends on freedom.

As a user, I’m really happy that it’s harder for you to ship software without testing it on the actual hardware first.

> I also tend to agree with the OP that the iPhone SE is a reasonable size, unlike every Android phone on the market.

This the single biggest reason I abandoned android for iPhone: A premium phone in a reasonable form factor.

I like the form factor of my Xperia Compact, sadly with this year model they removed the headphone jack...

By the way, Jolla should be installable on it, if I'm not wrong.

I also like a lot about this phone's hardware (too sad they decided to not continue it), but the stock software on it is quite annoying (glitches, insane loading delays, ads).

You can get Sailfish OS on it for 50€: https://forum.xda-developers.com/x-compact/how-to/sailfish-x...

I currently use an Omni ROM weekly build (Oreo, waiting for Pie). It's so much smoother and less terrible than the stock software.

Sure, this is not "It just works" (and I do like a lot about Apple's design), but I'm also glad it's not "fuck you, we decided this for you, take it".

Omni ROM isn't LineageOS but a binary built from the Sony AOSP right?

Considering I disabled all Sony applications because I have no use for them, with the exception of the keyboard because can't be disabled, Omni ROMs are another option that I hadn't considered. I already dumped the TA partition with the DRM keys many moons ago (I only need to find where I stored it), but I suppose they only work with Android.

I'm tempted by Jolla, but I need a banking OTP generator that only exists on Android and iOS (so Android emulator or another phone)...

I'm not sure if Omni builds on Lineage, but they don't use any closed source Sony stuff, I think.

The open camera drivers bring a great performance increase in shutter response, but a pretty bad decrease in low-light performance.

The build I'm using has some annoying issues like a barely working fingerprint scanner and Bluetooth audio, but even with that it is less irritating than Sony's to me. I assume both are fixable fairly easy (I'm waiting for Pie builds).

The official Sailfish OS builds come with an Android app runtime (Alien Dalvik), I think, but it may be missing some security features.

I'm not sure if it uses the official Sony camera drivers, information about this seems to be conflicting. Maybe both are available, if Sailfish utilizes Android drivers.

Thanks for your experience, I need a quiet weekend to try it then. ^__^;

About Sony official camera drivers, I checked briefly and it looks like they are available only on Android.

I grabbed the SE before it went out of Apple stock recently and because I also loved the form factor. I ended up upgrading to the XS because the SE would drop calls consistently in my downstairs home office. The XS has to-date never dropped a call for me. Just thought I’d mention it for anyone else who frequents lower signal areas.

I am not surprised.

http://vbn.aau.dk/files/240065248/Mobile_Phone_Antenna_Perfo...

I find it surprising because iPhone SE SAR levels are higher than those of iPhone 6. Actually, at the time of the release, it was the model with the highest SAR levels ever released by Apple.

This quote made it more clear:

> This dramatic difference in head SAR levels is mainly because the transmitter is located at the bottom of Samsung phones rather than at the top, also they incorporate an innovative antenna that transmits the highest intensities of microwave radiation from the lower back of their smartphones.

http://weeksmd.com/2016/01/the-new-smart-phones-are-6x-more-...

Was using wi-fi calling an option?

I did the same ~4 years ago, but it's not really a reason anymore. Apple no longer makes reasonably sized phones, they stopped doing that since the 5s. The SE was a nice surprise at the time (I still use it) but it was always considered a budget phone.

Have you considered a Blackberry? I’m using an android BB from maybe the first run, few years old, and it’s got all the privacy I need up front.

Also recommend this.

I actually had a Blackberry Priv before the phone I have now. I could never really gel with it - the physical keyboard was awesome though. Still have it in the drawer actually.

> Apple has a clear business model that involves selling high-end phones and other hardware and taking a percentage of app sales, not selling me to advertisers.

I would just be a little cautious about this. Apple is currently sticking it to Google by making it easy to block ads and by offering appealing privacy features.

But we don't know what Apple will do if everyone switches away from Android. I would guess that the profit stream from selling everyone's data to advertisers when most users are locked into their ecosystem will be very appealing.

Similarly to how Google and Facebook both eschewed ads while drawing people away from other services that were swamped with ads.

> if everyone switches away from Android

Very little risk of that. Our owners also want phones, and for the moment do not mind sharing the brand/models with the 10 or 20% who can afford, and know enough to choose, it.

It's also not going to happen. Normal people don't pay for high-end phones, and way outnumber the people who do in most of the world (those parts that are not California). Even the "cheap" iPhone models are outside the price range the average consumer pays.

I dunno what average consumer means. Here in Australia almost everybody on train have an iPhone not older that 1 gen back. Some minority has flagship Samsung’s. Some of the geeky people have top notch(no pun intended) pixels or one plus, all flagships, but this is really a minority from my anecdotal experience. Most of the regular people that I see use some version of an iPhone. Apple Stores are being packed compared to the Samsung store across the street. The price is not a problem I think. People just buy it on two year contracts or loans and being just fine with it.

Yes, and look at how much $ Apple made from Google by having Google as the default search engine on Apple devices (most people don't ever switch the search provider). I'm wondering how much longer Google will be willing to pay that much while Apple continues to limit the ways the data gets shared back to Google via the browser, basically stabbing Alphabet in the back. That can't last forever from Googles perspective.

I keep wondering why Apple doesn't just build their own search engine and provide unfettered results based entirely on popularity/rank (and other "real" metrics) like how google "used" to be in the beginning. Yes, I know search is hard, but it's not as hard as all of the extra steps Google has been doing the last 15 or so years to manipulate their results higher so they get more $ out of it. Certainly it's not as complicated as building a new mapping system from scratch. That would go a great deal further to "increase Apple users privacy" than anything else I can think of. It would also cause a lot of financial harm to Alphabet if all of the sudden all Apple device owners world-wide suddenly didn't have their data going through Google. And, it would provide top-notch results, which Apple consumers would presumably love. What is the downside to this that I'm (obviously) missing?

Actually Android is open source: The full name, AOSP, stands for "Android Open Source Project", and you can download the source here: https://source.android.com/setup/build/requirements

Anyone is free to modify, build, and distribute their own versions of Android. How else would OEMs ship their own skins? This also means you can audit Android source for vulnerabilities, backdoors, etc.

Very Disingenuous , AOSP standalone is rarely sold over the counter in a consumer droid phone, you could run it if you are interested, projects use it as a base but AOSP standalone is not the version most consumers run.

Every major version ports more functionality from AOSP over to GSF - which is closed source.

I cannot audit GSF and I cannot check for backdoors,, GSF phones home as it legitimate functionality, it is next to possible to verify back-doors don't exist. Location APIs could just be for your location, or google/ three letter agencies could be tracking you .

All the major OEMs include AOSP + GSF and then their custom layers. The only popular OEM using without GSF I know is Amazon with the kindle platform. To get Google certified OEM / use droid trademarks / use GSF you need to jump through hoops and give Google all kinds of access, not remotely same as open source.

For XMPP on iOS I recommend Monal. https://monal.im/

I've tried Monal and wasn't impressed. Admittedly, it's been a while and I don't really remember why, so maybe I should give it another shot.

It's interesting that aiming high and taking profit from app makers kinda push the goal to make high value apps. While on Android, ad money and free apps doesn't really create the right context

Something like 20% of Apple's revenue is payments from Google for sending them search traffic from Safari and Siri.

edit: This is wrong, I can't find the source for that now but probably it was referring to 20% of services revenue. Its only like 5% of total revenue: http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...

edit2: This was the source[1], they quoted 24% of services revenue:

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-02/apple-...

20% is a huge overestimation. Apple's revenue in 2017 was $239B [2]; Google paid them somewhere between $1B and $9B [1]; 0.5% to 3%.

[1] http://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-eng...

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/revenue

Interesting is though how the number's been growing over the years, even though the amount of sold devices's been rather stagnant. Google pays a lot per customer, while Apple allows to use DuckDuckGo and others. I wonder how long will Google feel it's that valuable for them (and what a percentage of users'd swich to Google even though other search engine would be default instead)

Apple really has google over a barrel here. You’d have to imagine that google wouldn’t even toy with the thought of not paying the ransom and testing how many people would switch their search engine from the default to google. Also, let’s say DuckDuckGo was the default and users actually liked it and switched their desktop browser search away from google, they’d be really sorry.

Totally agree (happy DuckDuckGo user here). My point is - is there a point from which Google wouldn’t pay “the randsom”? As it’s spiked and is prone to rise again.