Hong Kong protest safety app banned from iOS store | Hacker News Reader

Hong Kong protest safety app banned from iOS store

theregister.co.uk

841 pointsycombonator505 comments

> FTA: "Hong Kong citizens have highlighted a quirk of local laws that provide a strong counter-argument: under the law, the Hong Kong police are obliged to wave a blue flag at the spot in which they which to declare that an illegal gathering is taking place."

So HK police are required to wave a blue flag so that the general public is aware the police have declared a particular gathering at a particular location illegal. Thus, HK law literally wants the location of the gathering made known, publicly drawing attention to it and the location. I assume this is to inform those gathering about their status and to let others nearby know also, as a warning, perhaps. And also nearby officers. Okay.

So consider an app that shared only this publicly visible information on a map. i.e. "police have raised the blue flag on this gathering, right here", without commentary or calls to action.

Less functional and informative than the existing app, but it may still serve a useful purpose for HK residents and demonstrators and perhaps even police (according to HK law) and then Apple may plausibly allow the app because it doesn't get into choosing sides or facilitating illegal calls to action.

Choosing sides and facilitating illegal calls to action is exactly what a reasonable company does in this situation. The matter of how best to serve humanity is not the slightest bit unclear here.

That's the highest horse I've seen so far on this site.

It's pretty high. But far from the highest.

I don't understand why it's such a high expectation that, in a situation where one party is unambiguously oppressing the other, to refrain from censoring the victimized party.

Why is that so strange?

OK I got to ask. Who is oppressing whom? What have they done exactly?

Have you read the article?

How about the tweet from the developer: https://twitter.com/hkmaplive/status/1179108329240424448

I misunderstood your post. Sorry. I am actually for helping Hong Kongers.

He expects a company to support basic human rights. That's not a "high horse", it's what everyone should expect already.

We shouldn't be ridiculing people who demand companies support human rights. It's the apologists who should be marginalized.

Do you think it is reasonable for a company to instruct and require their employees to break the law?

It depends on the law. And on the state claiming its legitimacy.

This. We have placated China and their authoritarianism for too long.

They seem fine doing so when it makes them money. Granted, they find a 'technically not illegal' way to do so, such as setting metrics that can only be met by the majority of workers by breaking the law and then firing those who don't meet it, but without explicitly saying to break the law.

Yes, absolutely. Something being legal doesn't make it good.

Stuff like this is one of the main reasons I focused my efforts on web apps, not native ones.

https://hkmap.live/#

Looks like the devs were smart enough to make it a web app, so it can still be used.

To be fair, if your app submission is a glorified Web App (leveraging no native iOS features) Apple will reject for that reason alone [0].

"4.2 Minimum Functionality - Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website."

[0]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#min...

Are "website" and "web app" synonymous?

To me a website can be a static webpage, but a web app's more dynamic

Agreed, I would argue that web app implies function above a website.

Why is this comment being downvoted? It does contribute to the discussion.

HN has long since been devolving into Reddit in all but name. You will generally get insta-downvoted if you say something that goes against the current bandwagon or that someone doesn't like to hear/talk about.

Because it's completely irrelevant.

The point is that having a webapp allows them to continue to serve users if their actual app is removed from app stores. It has no bearing on how their native app functions, whether it is in native code or a web wrapper etc.

This only applies because Apple runs a walled garden that is anti-user. People running actual computers with non-user-hostile operating systems can install whatever software they like. This is entirely apple's fault.

Websites are not applications. The browser is not an OS.

They didn't remove it for that reason though.

not relevant here

just tell mobile users to bookmark the page, on iOS that can make an icon on your home screen

The government could just block this directly using their national firewall instead of having to get a company to do it, couldn’t they?

Hong Kong does not have a firewall. It seems most people on HN think Hong Kong is governed like the rest of China, but it is not.

... it is not yet [until 2047 at the latest].

(Please) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that... what this whole protest is about? HK staying under independent rule instead of (forcefully) adopting Chinese rule?

The protest is directly triggered by the new law that will send murders to China but people fears that it’ll be abused to send anyone to China. They made a whole bunch of extra requirements which is probably against Beijing’s long term vision of HK. I respect their motivation but I wish they could do it more incrementally and with less disruption of normal people’s life(at this point the protesters are almost school students)

Parent is being downvoted because most people on HN cannot fanthom how anyone can genuinely and legitimately not take the extreme opinion of "everything China does is evil", but the parent's opinion is more representative of many Hong Kong people' actual opinions, than HNers think.

That is: not saying China is evil, but also not denying that China is problematic, while focusing more on the practicality of the way the protesters do things.

You don't have to believe my word for it. Go look up Hong Kong related questions on https://Quora.com and read what Hong Kongers think. A whole new world will open for you.

The answers posted there are too detailed and too well-argumented to be simply propaganda by paid Beijing workers. Propagandists are paid by comment, so they are incentivized to write many short comments instead of long and elaborate ones.

> Propagandists are paid by comment

I am curious. How do you know that?

The quora answers I've seen regarding this were all poorly written, despite being lengthy screeds. This is an attempt at imitation:

WHYYYYYYYY do the protesters think violence is the answer?

Chinese government not perfect but you have to remember how things were like in the 1950s. Maybe young generation does not appreciate what they have? Maybe HK culture wants to be special and needs to learn that that they are not on a separate level from the rest of China?

^ if this is what you call 'fascinating' and 'a whole new world' opening perspective I would question whether you are not a propagandist yourself.

You might be surprised what you wrote look perfect reasonable and make tons of sense to a great portion of native Chinese. Be aware that critical thinking and non-STEM lessons is quite lacking in China’s schools today. In fact what common Chinese will just see the chaos and they will just refuse to have any deeper conversation with you because disorder is just BAD, no argument. In addition, language barrier is also a thing + people in China aren’t that used to western style debate. Are they all defacto propagandist by your definition? I think it just need cultural influence and somehow raises awareness

China is not doing anything new to take away freedom in Hong Kong.

To expand on whoevercares' comment, recently someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To close this loophole and prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the region, including Taiwan and mainland China.

The proposed law even explicitly stated that it's not applicably to crimes political in nature. But some HK people were nevertheless concerned that it might be abused by China to target political dissidents taking refuge in HK.

So they have taken to the streets to protest that law. As a result, the law was quickly suspended before it had a chance to pass, and a few weeks ago the HK Chief Executive officially announced the withdrawal of the law.

However, despite the concession from the HK government, the protesters pressed on, demanding four more concessions from the government, chief among them universal suffrage, or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates, then voted on by a committee.

It's not entirely clear that China even had anything to do with the proposal of the law which started this ordeal. But the protesters have shrewdly painted a picture, to great effect, of big bad China stomping on the poor helpless people of HK.

(EDIT: spelling, wording)

>or the direct election of the HK Chief Executive, who up to this point have been nominated from a narrow pool of Beijing-approved candidates

This is only true since the handover from the UK in 1997.

That's true.

Prior to the handover, the executive head of HK had been the governor, appointed by the British government.

Communist China issued invasion threats when the UK proposed introducing self-government in the late 50s and early 60s.

https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

Thank you! That's an interesting read.

Directly from the article:

> And when Mao founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949, he and Zhou Enlai decided not to seize Hong Kong—which the British at the time expected

The other side of the story is that China could've easily seized HK from the beginning, and the people of HK would've been under the direct rule of China, and never gotten any of the freedom and autonomy they enjoy today.

Countries without extradition treaties can still extradite criminals on a case by case basis. It was also very cheeky of them to use a criminal from Taiwan R.O.C - a democratic nation with a strong rule of law - as an excuse for an extradition treaty with the Mainland Area of China, a communist dictatorship where laws are at the whims of party members.

> Countries without extradition treaties can still extradite criminals on a case by case basis.

That doesn't seem to be true in this particular case, since said suspect is still enjoying his freedom in HK. An extradition treaty to cover the case seems like a reasonable initiative.

> Mainland Area of China, a communist dictatorship where laws are at the whims of party members.

I agree that's a valid concern, and that the proposed law didn't include adequate protection for HK citizens. And I support the initial peaceful protests against that law. What I cannot support however, are the ongoing and escalating violence from some of those protesters, before and especially after, the announcement of withdrawal of that law.

You think the HK extradition treaty will be abused by China.

China already has an extradition treaty with Taiwan, and has had it for years now. With Taiwan of all places. What does that tell us?

None exists between China and HK. And the murderer is still at large.

There is no extradition treaty between Taiwan and China.

https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=FD37619195CF6DA5&s=CED28...

You are probably thinking of this. It's not an extradition treaty. It's also now widely ignored.

That is indeed the interpretation propagated by the western media, and the one that the protesters present. But not all Hong Kongers believe that that is what the protests are truly about. Underneath, there are aspects related to economy, personal identity and historical context, which, combined, call into question whether the protests are truly good for Hong Kong.

There is nothing more I can say here without getting downvoted. Most people here will not believe me. I advice you to read things for yourself and draw your own conclusions: go to https://quora.com and search for Hong Kong questions. Many Hong Kongers reply there, as well as other groups that are closer to HK such as Singaporeans and even mainland Chinese. Their view on things will fascinate you.

The great firewall isn't present in HK as part of the one country two systems.

The government can just take the internet down for the protest area.

There is only that far technology can go.

The protesters are using bluetooth mesh apps like Bridgefy and firechat to share data even if internet is down.

It has to hit the wider internet somehow...

Oh, I now realise you're talking about their local communication

Surely the mesh can have edge nodes that are online?

When there is a great evil power in the world, it is impossible not to take a political stance, given the moral duties involved. Inaction, or failing to take a stand, constitutes tacit approval. In this case, Apple granting what I assume was a request from the Chinese government to remove the app is more than tacit.

The human rights abuses by the Chinese government are insanely bad: religious and ethnic persecution, forced abortions, murder of political dissidents, no habeas corpus for many, abuse of prisoners (torture, forced labor camps, harvesting and selling prisoners’ organs), to name a few.

Unfortunately, too many in the West, including Apple, have become heavily economically dependent on China. I think that dependence strongly clouds moral judgment when it comes to decisions like this. Furthermore, it requires far more moral courage to call out evil in the present than it does to identify evil in the past.

To Apple and everyone else: don’t become complicit! Take a stand. History will vindicate you.

It seems to a mostly-lay-person that we have super-military and super-propaganda these days, what can individuals do? Even in groups of 100,000 they're no match for modern methods of control it seems. Am I looking at this incorrectly?

It's all marketing. Apple is a company not a country.

If Apple ups the ante on China, then China comes down and bans the App Store or tariffs Apple devices a ton as retribution - resulting in Apple getting itself into a similar situation Huawei is in with the US. If (this is all hypothetical, btw) that were to happen with Apple, then I would wager Xiaomi or Huawei would only see more investment to become the "Apple of China" and further develop a replica in-house app store.

Apple put themselves in a position where they had the power to clamp down. Obviously they will then be forced to use this power. By western governments, by outrage mobs, by China.

By their own choices and strategy of centralizing power they decided to become a fascist enabler.

I honestly think you are vastly overestimating the power a foreign company is capable of having in China. Any provocation would probably quickly end up in iPhones simply not getting any service in the country anymore and being banned from sale with no legal recourse.

I think GP is saying the opposite, namely that they set themselves up to be an enabler of state control, with their centralised gatekeeping model.

The inevitable result of letting the manufacturer control what may run on the device.

Agreed. However, Android has removed Gab and other free speech apps from it's appstore, too. Although you can circumvent android easier than iOS. This is a tough call -- security versus freedom, and I don't know what the right trade off is. I'd still counsel my parents to use Apple.

100% freedom, all the time

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I'm not sure about iOS, but Android still allows installing unsigned APKs (F-Droid and similar platforms work because of this), and what has already been installed stays on the phone until the user removes it.

You kind of can compile and run anything you want, but by default free developer accounts can only run 3 apps for 7 days until they expire. Tools like Cydia Impactor exist for this purpose.

"I'm not sure about iOS, but Android still allows installing [unsigned APKs likely hacked with spyware integrated courtesy of the Chinese government]"

The kind of "freedom" you're talking about generally has a high cost. At times, that cost is, well, "freedom".

Frustrating actually. There is no platform out there that delivers on the promise of getting you security and freedom. Certainly none that get you privacy. Right now it's all marketing and fanboys, but where the rubber meets the road, there's just no grip.

An untrusted APK is just an APK that isn't signed by Google. They can still be signed by third parties and verified to be correct. It's a shame that more open source platforms haven't taken off, but I'm not too surprised.

I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence. Can you be more specific when you say freedom?

100% freedom is an absolutely banal phrase.

What does it even mean? I am pretty sure that you don't mean someone is 100% free to murder someone else. So you clearly believe in some restrictions.

I can already imagine the counter argument: "Well, 100% freedom unless your freedom infringes on someone else's freedom!"

Ok, but what does it mean to infringe on someone else's freedom? Murder is the easy case; what about polluting a river? I think we would all agree dumping enough chemicals to kill all life in a river would be infringing on other's freedoms, so lets prevent that... but where do you draw the line? It will take judgement, consensus, and compromise to find out where that line is.

So suddenly we are back to needing rules around curtailing freedoms that some people aren't going to like.

I agree that 100% freedom was pretty hyperbole. AnCap + the NAP is probably a better comparison (but still lacks some nuance).

In the case of user privacy, I'm against any backdoors or outlawing of encryption (pretty much any government intervention in the messaging space)

The corollary to this quote is that there are people who do not deserve Liberty. Or Safety.

See, that's a dilemma I grappling with right now. I am trying to decide between an iphone and an android phone. And while android does allow me to install any APKs I want which is great. It also seems to be supremely difficult not to share all of my contacts with google, not to share more information than I want with them and to not have my privacy completely invaded.

So, on one hand, android gives me freedom to install any app I want and to install a firewall like netguard, on the other hand, it destroys my privacy.

I'm really looking for a guide about how to properly secure and prevent data leaking an android phone beyond the basics that I've seen online but without that I'm leaning toward Apple despite finding it abhorrent that I cannot install what I want on my own device (I can obviously side load by using my dev certificate but that's still not something I'm happy with)

> not to share all of my contacts with google

You can do this even using the Google Contacts app. Just go into the account settings and turn off contacts sync. To be extra sure, just use a different contacts app.

> not have my privacy completely invaded.

Android has strictly less privacy invasion than iOS, even on Google phones. You can set an offline maps app to be your default. Getting your GPS location doesn't have to send it to Google, while doing the same thing on iOS always sends it to Apple, no matter which app asked. You can install your own apps usably without telling Google who you are.

The only feasible way to avoid sharing data with Google is using a custom ROM like LineageOS, a Google framework replacement like microG, and XPrivacyLua (module for XPosed). Ideally you'd avoid using any Google services at all, but at least these steps largely prevent Google from freely taking whatever data they want if you do use the Play Store or whatever.

Problem with that is that unlocking the bootloader voids the warranty where I live... I think I'll still try to go down that road if I can't find any other solution...

> security versus freedom

With the app store you're still vulnerable to state actors and zero day vulns. And on Android you're vulnerable to permissions scope creep. The app stores contain malware.

You're never truly safe.

You can't point to the old days of Windows in the 90s and early 2000s as a case for app stores, either. Installers and downloaded executables were great, but Windows had a broken, unsandboxed model that made it easy to break. History would have played out much better if Windows itself weren't so permissible and was more hermetic back then.

If we invested the same billions of research and development dollars that Apple and Google did into their walled garden platforms, an open web with truly cross platform native wasm apps would work just as well or better than anything on the app stores, and it'd be just as "secure". And cross platform. And couldn't be shut down by Apple, Google, or an angry government.

Imagine going to Netflix.com and getting the native app experience. On any mobile device. Windows Phone. Ubuntu Phone. That's how it should have worked.

Walled gardens must die.

I guess that is why everyone just uses Chrome nowadays. /s

Google searches used to present Chrome as an app you should download. Google leveraged its market dominance to get people to download their desktop browser.

And on Android it's the default you can't uninstall.

> Walled gardens must die.

No.

As a user, I am grateful for "walled gardens" like the App Store, Steam, etc.

Because I remember the chaos that was before them, with developers/publishers preying on users all the time, which they still try to do by working around App Store restrictions and so on. I'm grateful for curated marketplaces putting the foot down on them.

What are you referring to when you say “scummy developers preying on users”? Honestly asking.

If you check the news at any frequency it's hard to miss all the reports of this and that software overextending or abusing its privileges to intrude into the user's computer and privacy.

See all the recent news about Chrome, Dropbox, Zoom etc. installing malware on our systems. Steam wiping your disk on Linux when you uninstalled a game. Uber recording your screen.

And those are the big players, caught because they're under constant scrutiny (but still try to act as if they're above the "law").

Life before the "walled gardens" was rife with cases like that, from developers on all scales. There was no single authority for your platform to complain to. It was chaotic and miserable even for techie people.

This is actually what Apple capitalized on during the "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" days, and it gave them the credibility to carry on to the App Store. Now I see mostly developers complaining about the walled garden, which makes me wary of their true intentions.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You say it's better now that we have walled gardens but then you make a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway. This to me sounds like the worse of both worlds. Some people are still doing whatever they want and at the same time we're prevented to install software from different sources. I agree that at some level it prevents everyone to do it, meaning you have to have at least some basic knowledge to do that but that doesn't seem much from a freedom/security standpoint. For the most part and for most users, those walled gardens are nice but I still think users should have the option to install whatever they want. Put on seven disclaimers about it, but let me do it since, well, I paid for that device.

> a list of all the players that are circumnavigating these anyway.

Do note that almost all of those examples are of apps that are -NOT- delivered via the App Store.

> App Store

Now you're picking favorites. So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't?

I don't own Apple devices, so I lack familiarity, but I find it hard to believe that Apple is so good this doesn't happen.

Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us?

Apple and Google do not care if users are taken advantage of as long as they don't complain in volume. Both platforms allow play to win games that are designed around extorting "whales". They knowingly allow at-risk individuals to pour thousands of dollars into games, which is an outright travesty.

These companies have too much power and they're abusing it.

> So the App Store is okay, but Google Play and Steam aren't?

Apps downloaded via the App Store (and I assume Google Play) are sandboxed.

Chrome on the desktop, Steam, etc. are not sandboxed.

Most malicious activity is not possible from within a sandbox. For example Steam wouldn't have been able to delete the user's entire disk if it only had access to its own folder.

> Why do we put our faith in corporations to do right by us?

Why should we put our faith in random individual developers to do right by us?

I'd rather have to trust just one corporation instead of thousands of developers who may pack up and disappear overnight.

> These companies have too much power and they're abusing it.

See comments above. Much of the recent malware is in apps that are not distributed via the App Store.

Developers have always abused their power, and still do. "Walled gardens" check that abuse.

How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)?

Can't install anything they don't pre-approve, either from DMG or Brew or whatever, only from the Mac App Store.

I don't know if it's just me and the people i work with, but we think the Mac App Store is fucking useless, to the point we actively go out of our way to download Xcode through other means.

I for one would not be happy with only being able to install apps through the Mac App Store, and I don't see why iOS should be treated any differently.

> How would you feel if Apple brought the same philosophy of iOS to macOS (assuming you use mac)?

I wouldn't be OK with that, and I've said so in other comments here (like when they announced the additional security features in macOS during this year's WWDC - which I appreciate, with concerns), but the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices, and I'm fine with their restrictions. They make sense there.

I do prefer the Mac App Store to downloading from random websites or manual updates. How is it "fucking useless?"

Matters of convenience aside, see the Transmission BitTorrent client ransomware fiasco for a grave example.

If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs.

I feel like Apple users live in a ivory-tower.

> If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs.

How many protesters in Hong Kong have a Mac to compile source code and even know how to compile something? TestFlight has a user limit. Can people install an app through TestFlight as easily as they can through the normal app store?

I was talking about a general case (which is still rare), not the situation in Hong Kong.

> the iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices

I suppose I just don't understand why, they seem just like computers with a different form factor.

"Fucking useless" might have been a bit too passionate, but it's happened multiple times with me and the people I work with that Xcode installed through the App Store updates itself but gets stuck in the update forcing a full re-download.

First time it happens ok it's just a bug, by the 3rd time I'd just given up on the App Store altogether.

> If someone really really wants to circumvent the App Store on iOS, distribute it via TestFlight, or make the source code available and ask users to compile it on their own Macs.

Those aren't really feasible though, external testing on Testflight requires a review (plus it might need the $99 developer fee to put it on Testflight?). And the source code route is the same issue, either pay $99 or reinstall the app every 7 days.

I suppose I just don't see the downside other than "Some people need to be protected from themselves" which I don't agree with in this case.

> Xcode installed through the App Store updates itself but gets stuck in the update forcing a full re-download.

That's a frustration that I share, regarding large downloads/updates on unreliable connections, but that doesn't make the App Store useless. I have received thousands of successful app updates over years and maybe <50 failures.

> iPhone/iPad/etc. are different classes of devices

No, just no.

They're our computers.

This is why I really hoped for the Ubuntu and Firefox phones to happen.

>> As a user, I am grateful for "walled gardens" like the App Store, Steam, etc.

That's nice that you get to experience that. I think the protesters may have a different opinion than you.

You mention Steam, which is a steaming pile of poo, along with chaos and devs preying on users. Do have any semblance of the amount of shovelware & asset flips published on Steam daily?

Steam has user reviews, forums and a standard process for refunds. What would you do if you had to purchase all games from each developer's own website? Your only recourse would probably be to file a chargeback with your bank.

You don't have to circumvent anything and that's the crux of it.

Android lets you install applications without having to jailbreak your phone or do any other trickery. This should be a prerequisite for any OS (with all the necessary warnings).

There are at least two ways to install apps outside of the App Store: https://www.iotransfer.net/tips/how-to-download-apps-without... In addition you could use TestFlight or HockeyApp to distribute to limited beta testers. HN is a technical forum, proselytizing based on your software freedom beliefs by selectively using facts is very disingenuous. Android works for you, that is great - other people actually have “freedom” to ignore your definition of freedom and do what they want.

Your solution is to use an enterprise certificate from Anokiiwin Employment Solutions Inc or NANJING SCIYON SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. Both will certainly get revoked soon. HN is a technical forum, so we understand why your solution doesn't actually work.

That’s really funny, trusting my entire data, location, photos all to Google is certainly a big concern for me. I’d rather install that Chinese certificate than give my data to Google. Also, it’s entirely within Googles powers to make Android store closed like the App Store, so can we not speculate on future events? Edit: reworded my comment

Please don't use these types of irrelevant personal attacks on HN. /u/lern_to_spel has a very good point that your mentioned alternatives will likely be shut down by Apple and are not officially supported.

If you are going to argue, do it against the most generous interpretation of someone else's words.

TestFlight requires a review process and HockeyApp uses enterprise certificates, AFAIK. They’re both in the hands of Apple.

You forgot that the proposed use case for both TestFlight & HockeyApp is against the ToS of both those services and Apple, and will be immediately flagged if you use it for large scale distribution. Also TestFlight afaik only allows 1000 users, which is not that much.

> Android has removed Gab and other free speech apps from it's appstore, too

Gab was removed for hate speech, not free speech.

You say that as if a meaningful, non-political distinction can ever be made between "hate speech" and "free speech".

Do you consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be political?

If so: you are equipped with the necessary building blocks to define hate speech in a non-political way.

If not: your definition of “political” is so broad as to be meaningless.

>Do you consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be political?

Well yes tbh. The fact that a certain group of people in power at a certain point in history made a "universal declaration" about something says very little about whether I or anyone else should care about it or agree with it. In other words it is the epitome of political. I am happy to make up my own mind on the nature of "human rights".

It is clearly political, and not so universal either by the way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rig...

If the Cairo Declaration in and of itself gives us all the building blocks that allow us to define hate-speech in a non-political way, then what was the purpose of the Rabat Plan of Action, with all its rapporteurs and its workshops on four continents? Do you believe that process was not a political process?

Hate speech is protected under free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

The First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"

A company removing an app is not Congress making a law that abridges anyone's freedom of speech. This isn't a First Amendment issue.

And Apple is the one who choose to ban the application from the iOS store. The distinction between corporation and government is not clear cut in the modern era.

Android has multiple stores though and even if none of them carry the app you can still side load it.

Let's not whitewash Gab, which was created specifically to be a white supremacist social network under the veneer of free speech. We can argue whether or not Google should have removed it from the Play Store, but let's be honest about what it is.

I signed up for Gab about 1.5 years ago. It pegged itself as a "free speech platform", which I found pretty interesting.

The concept of a wild west free speech utopia sounds great (and I would still like to see that), but it's filled with repetitive white nationalist bullshit. That's the early adopter group.

Because of that early group, it's a horrible experience for anyone else.

It's not just their early adopter group; Gab has actively cultivated a white nationalist userbase. See for example https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384

I am skeptical of the "wild west free speech utopia" as a lot of people seem to conceive of it, because some forms of speech have chilling effects on others. For example, if I pass a group of angry people chanting "blood and soil", I'm certainly not going to say or do anything that makes me legible as Jewish.

Which is sad. Because if everyone tolerates abuse, whether from governments or corporations, we get creeping authoritarianism.

Also, I think you bith are exaggerating a bit about Gabhere is obviously a lot of alt right though.

Any early adopter of a technology promising freedom will be the groups who need it the most, which tends to be the groups who are most at odds with current social norms. Just look at who the early adopters are for tor or bitcoin.

It's no surprise that people banned from other platforms end up on a platform that accepts them. That doesn't mean Gab was specifically made to promote any specific group or viewpoint.

It's the other way around. Gab was created specifically as a safe haven for white supremacist speech, and so white supremacists flocked to it.

> "Gab welcomes everyone, but sees a unique opportunity to carve a niche in a massively underserved and unrepresented market. We estimate that there are over 50 million conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users from around the world who are seeking an alternative to the current social networking ecosystems. These users are also actively seeking out alternative media platforms like Breitbart.com, DrudgeReport.com, Infowars.com, and others," Gab stated in a company filing dated July 11, 2017.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/tech/gab-anti-semitic-speech-...

This is in addition to white supremacist statements made by the company's official social media accounts: https://twitter.com/ClenchedFisk/status/1027690034718224384

You seem to be confused about what white supremacy is. It's a small subset of nationalism. There are many other types.

And white supremacy is more authoritarian than libertarian. And it's not conservative in the current political sense and it's populist.

I'm not sure what to make of that Twitter link except that there's a whole bunch of folk so embedded in their own political bubbles that they're incapable of communicating with anyone beyond.

I'm not confused about what white supremacy is. The sites listed are instructive: Breitbart has explicit white supremacist and Nazi ties [1], whereas InfoWars is often a gateway into white supremacy [2]. The Twitter link is a bunch of examples of Gab's official Twitter account making anti-Semitic comments.

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h...

[2] https://www.revealnews.org/blog/the-hate-report-infowars-is-...

Buzzfeed and Reveal are every bit as ideology-laden as Breitbart and InfoWars. I happily disregard most of what they all have to say.

>>However, Android has removed Gab and other free speech apps

Gab is not a "free speech app". In fact, the term "free speech app" is itself laughable.

> security versus freedom, and I don't know what the right trade off is

That is not a trade off at all, if you believe that you have already fallen for the propaganda. Security in and of itself has no value that you could trade off against freedom, only the freedom part of that pair is valuable. Security is a means to the end of freedom: You may need a certain kind and/or amount of security to gain and maintain freedom. But security is also a means to authoritarianism if you do it wrong. Which means: Security is only valuable in so far as it causes a net increase in freedom. If you are actually giving up freedom to make space for more security, that is, you are trading off freedom against security, you have failed.

Removing the app from the app store doesn't actually stop the app from running on the device?

"The poor can put whatever they want in their refrigerators - we don't control that. We just control the food they can buy in stores."

What prevents a website from offering the same service? Honest question.

Guessing: Got to have a system that is resistant to single points of failure and where the costs of knocking out a communication node is high relative to the benefits the government gets. A website is quite centralised.

At least on the iPhone websites can’t do peer to peer or notifications.

:point_up: That.

Ok... this is giving me pause for thought.

I programme .NET on Windows. Have done for years. Never owned an Apple device until I took my wife's old iPhone 6S at the start of the year.

I switched from Android to Apple for a few reasons:

1. Constant spying and data-gathering for profit by Android 2. Ethics 3. I only use a handful of apps so the platform wasn't that important

Apple's public stance is that they take privacy seriously. Like incredibly seriously. Above all things and stuff. And as another commenter pointed out, they told the FBI to go fish when they wanted access to a phone. That resonated with me. That told me they are a company that (appears to) genuinely believe in something other than just profit at all costs. That they may just have my interests fairly high up their agenda.

This latest episode has made me rethink that. From the ground up.

I understand they need to follow the law but so do the law enforcers: Have Apple been watching the footage from HK?

I thought that Apple, with all the power they have, could perhaps say to the Chinese gov... "No, the app stays!"

My faith in Apple has been shattered.

As an aside... Apart from Librem, there isn't really any choice now.

I feel like a dad here... I'm disappointed in Apple.

https://www.fairphone.com/en/

Vote with your wallet.

I hadn't heard of this before but it appears to still run Android :(

They support the use of alternative OSes. They may also bring back a version of their OS without the G-Apps.

> 2. Ethics

The ethic ends where the money-loss (or missing profit) begins. I don't understand why so many people are surprised when Apple (or whatever) pulls something like this.

I don't mean to be rude (I don't know you, where you're from, what's your age), but I though at this point in life people would be already aware that ethics doesn't fit very much into corporatism culture.

In simple words, they will (at very least) plainly lie to you in order to make you buy their products. Every one of them.

Or have you ever heard a company saying "Yes, our product is inferior to the competition", "Yes, we will sell your data", "Yes, if avoiding it gives us much problem, we will side with higher powers against you" or "Yes, we're burning forests to give you cheaper burgers"?

They'll picture them as nice and responsible, but at the end of the day what matter most is dollars. They'll never lose.

I'm from the UK in my 40s and I understand the concept of ethics and that mega-corporations are driven by money. At all costs.

That being said...

I suppose I let my guard down a bit and got slightly starry-eyed about Apple but I genuinely believed they saw profit in NOT being assholes like Google. That being different and taking a stand was going to make them vast sums of money.

Plus, Google does not align with my vision at all and there was an Apple phone going free so I made the leap.

Clearly it's all marketing and they are no different to any other mega-corp and if there is profit to be made in feeding people through a woodchipper then they'll do it... like the rest of them.

*takes rose-tinted glasses off

Well, I guess this is a chance you (all of us, actually) can profit from and learn that ethics is a convenience feature, just like the headphone jack.

   I genuinely believed they saw profit in NOT being assholes like Google

Even Google saw profit in "don't be evil", or at least the public perception that they were trying not to be. Unfortunately, history shows that as soon as the public has no viable alternatives, evil is the way to go.

>I thought that Apple, with all the power they have, could perhaps say to the Chinese gov... "No, the app stays!"

China and Apple and (with all the power), the power discrepancies are so far in China favor that - China would just block Apple entirely and not blink.

W/o China's blessing Apple won't produce a single phone...

About being disappointed - Apples holds one of the most abhorable practices when it comes to repair and maintainability. For instance I still don't understand how their laptops don't have conformal coating.

Apple is at fault here, not for moderating their store, but for disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices. This is completely unacceptable as a user and I do not understand how apple users put up with this.

I agree with you, but 'users put up with this' because >99% just couldn't care less, Facebook and Snapchat are in the App Store, why do I need to install a different way?

> disallowing people to install software of their own choice on their own devices.

Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software.

That said, I buy Android because I can side-load if I choose to.

> Yet allowing anything to be installed is the cesspit of Windows virus laden software.

Okay, I have seen this false choice enough times over several years and at this point it annoys me so much that I must speak up. No, Windows is (was? I have not used it for more than a decade) not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software. The choice is not between anything goes and a walled garden, there is the middle ground of providing a solid source of approved software (frankly, I think Google has largely failed with this given the state of their Play store) and still allow side loading for cases such as the one mentioned in this very article. Heck, this was one of the amazing things I experienced when moving to Linux in 2005. You had 98% of your software approved and receiving updates through your OS, and then a game or two, oddball VPN, etc. installed in your home directory – it was endlessly refreshing.

Even more, I blame non-existent sandboxing. Anything could practically be root for a long time.

With proper permission control and isolated storage for apps, installing anything does not equal cesspit of virus-laden software.

> No, Windows is not the mess it is because it allows you to install anything. It is the mess it is because it there was no sensible source of approved software.

I completely disagree.

In particular, if there is a paid version in a store, then users will seek a free version outside of the store, and then receive a free bouquet of viruses. Or they seek a free movie or VPN, and Google suggests an application that isn't in the store: more free flowers installed.

Android has an approved store, and yet I have read articles lambasting the security of Apps, where the underlying reason was that users had gone side-loading. Fear damaging the brand.

What's your proof? The more likely reason for more malware targeting Windows is simply that Windows is by far the most popular operating system for desktops and laptops. In terms of market share nothing even comes close. So if I was making malware, I'd target Windows to maximize my value. On macOS for example you can install whatever apps you want, it's the same as Windows.

In over 20 years of downloading stuff using Windows, I never ever have got a single virus. It's almost as if it had to do with how you use the tool and not how the tool is constructed.

I find it unacceptable for my own personal needs and use case, but it's not unacceptable as a business decision in that it's arguably been very successful (profit-wise and brand-loyalty-wise).

That's why there are options (mind you, very few in this case, but that's kinda beside the point).

I really don’t understand this complaint. Gaming consoles have long used the same model to great effect. Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter.

If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.

I am not sure how a comparison between gaming consoles is relevant here. If you are going to mention gaming consoles, I'll take the liberty of mentioning personal computing devices such as laptops or desktops. Imagine not being able to install the apps of your choice and being restricted to Apple approved apps.

Also, you haven't made clear how giving users the freedom to install apps of their choice contributes to a negative user experience.

Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious. Still, if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop. It’s not going to work, because you’re always limited to a subset of software on any platform PC or otherwise.

As to a negative user experience, console gaming won largely due to the lack of software issues. There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them.

There is a huge difference between a software company adding support to run on a device and a hardware company preventing supported software from running on a device.

In that case, run Factorio on a PS4. The CPU and GPU are compatible, so why can’t I run Factorio on my PS4?

Because Sony also runs a walled garden and artificially gates their hardware. The existence of an open pasture software marketplace doesn't magically make other walled gardens disappear.

For the same reason we are upset at apple, you should be upset at Sony.

> if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop.

See https://pcsx4.com/compatibility/

The fact that consoles don't allow side-loading apps is a relatively common criticism of consoles, and one that hackers regularly try to fix. I'm grateful for that. I rather like being able to run emulators on my 3DS, or being able to back up save files from the Switch.

Of course, people don't get as upset about locked down consoles, because consoles are a superfluous entertainment device -- consoles don't really matter for anything. Phones are a lot closer to a laptop in functionality than they are to a console, and the effects of restricting software on a phone are more directly equivalent to restricting software on a computer than on a pure entertainment device.

That’s a scam: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ocqJ6_Nqw

Very nice catch, thanks.

That being said, substitute out this program for something like Dolphin with the Wii, and I think the point still stands.

There are people working on circumventing cross-platform restrictions for just about every console out there, even in cases where the restrictions are technological and not just policy.

> Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious.

It's not obvious to me, please elaborate with reasoning.

> Still, if you’re talking about running arbitrary software then try loading “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” on your PC or laptop. It’s not going to work, because you’re always limited to a subset of software on any platform PC or otherwise.

This is due to Sony trying to push sales for PS4 by developing games exclusive to PS4. It's not the same thing at all. If Sony wanted to support Windows as a platform, they are free to do so.

> There are several reason for this, but inability to install random software really is one of them.

What are you basing this claim on?

> Elaborate reasoning

Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories.

> What are you basing this on?

Malware for one thing. But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC.

> It's not the same thing at all.

If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap.

But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it.

> Not likening the reasoning does not remove the limitation. But it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it.

This is a bogus argument for the case of the safety app. There is people who wrote a functioning program designed specifically for the iphone, that other people were already using on their phones. Then apple, a third party, removed the right of people to continue sharing a correctly functioning program on their own devices. The iphone is clearly designed to run arbitrary software and it already did in this case, before apple's callous interference.

I edited in Red Dead Redemption as a non exclusive (PC/XBox) example that’s not available for PC.

As to the safety app, that’s the kind of thing I would like to play with. You may or may not actually be able to emulate that stuff on PC hardware, but not all of it, more critically however your not getting the license for it.

PS: The removal of software is an argument about execution not the idea of a restrictive platform. The gatekeeper will prevent some software running on the platform that’s the basic idea, removing previously approved software is a separate question.

> Mass market internet capable consumer devices, with significant compute hardware used to run a wide range of software. That’s a rather narrow list of device categories.

I am not sure what you're trying to say. I asked you to elaborate on your claim:

> Consoles are a fairly direct comparison so the link is obvious.

Also

> But, also things like driver compatibility, it’s simpler to develop software for well defined ecosystems which consoles provide. Many non exclusive ports don’t happen because it’s surprisingly expensive to port triple A games the PC. If you want to nitpick that then fine, Red Dead Redemption is on PS4 and XBox box, but never made the PC jump. Porting AAA games to PC is surprisingly expensive, even if getting it to almost work is cheap. But, it’s vastly more widespread than that. Just try to load some of that realtime software running inside your car on a desktop it’s simply not designed for it.

Yes I agree that it can be expensive to port games to different platforms. Not sure how that goes to support your assertion that closed ecosystems are better. Platform makers want people to write stuff for their platform. It's the prerogative of the game/app makers to support the platforms based on their target demographic.

All I am saying is that:

> Limit what software can run and you vastly improve most people’s experience. Freedom is not just about letting people do anything, it’s also a question of what contracts they can enter.

This doesn't make sense, and nothing you have thus far stated helps to further your argument. Apple has incentives outside the user experience to have a tight hold on the iPhone ecosystem. Were they to do the same thing to the Mac, they'd face a strong backlash. No platform maker wants to deny people access to their platform willy nilly.

>> That’s a rather narrow list of device categories.

> I am not sure what you're trying to say.

Try listing out what fits that description. (Consoles, tablets, pc’s, and...). Then add a checkbox near the so called open platforms. My point is it’s a short list including PC’s, tablets/cellphones, consoles, and not much else. Smart TV’s are another possibility, though these tend to be even less open.

Anyway, it’s not that it costs money, it’s that it costs more money to make the port. Consoles take a significant cut of every sale and it’s often not worth it to port to windows due to the bugs associated with arbitrary code running on a users machine.

TLDR: Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.

> Windows open nature results in more bugs and thus a worse user experience. It’s an inherent issue with open platforms relating to increased surface area for bugs to occur.

I think you are making an unsupported, and likely wrong, logical leap that windows' open nature results in a poorer user experience. I think by far the most likely reason an app/game maker wouldn't decide to support windows is the associated cost of supporting another platform. But many triple A titles do support windows and absorb the cost because in the long run it opens up the use of their product to a wider range of people. And Sony for instance is incentivized to not support windows in the games they produce because they have a competing platform, the play station. By making games exclusive to ps4, they incentivize users to buy their platform. But most games and apps are supported in windows because not supporting windows would result in missing out on a huge chunk of people.

Also BTW Mac OS is also open, you can install stuff outside the app store. Why don't you mention that? Is osx also buggy and provides a bad user experience due to its open nature? I ultimately don't understand the argument at all because no one is forcing the user to install anything, they can pick and choose between apps that they want. There are bad actor apps out there, sure. But if the user only installs well known and reviewed apps the chances of malware are low. Also Windows defender also goes a long way in protecting the system from bad actor apps. Finally, the only reason why you might be more likely to encounter more bad actors in the windows ecosystem than osx for example is due to how popular and ubiquitous windows is. And so I just don't buy the argument that open ecosystems result in a poorer user experience. Even if you write off windows as buggy and terrible, osx is a great counterexample to this argument, imo.

And finally, I'd pick the possibility of accidentally installing a shitty app on my computer over only being able to install apple/Microsoft approved apps any day of the year. This is primarily the reason I use android. Locking down the platform simply drives off a lot of users.

Games consoles are for one thing only entertainment. A phone is much more personal, it more accurately fulfils the role personal computers claimed to as a digital extension of the user. As a personal communications device any limitations or controls placed on it are limitations and controls on the persons speech / access to knowledge.

Who ever owns the phone owns the person and their speech, this is why the complaint over who actually owns the phone and what that means is so important.

> Or just buy a different phone.

The complaint goes beyond Apple and iPhone, Android does a better job of pretending you own the phone but all that really means is Google owns you instead of Apple. The problem is political not technological, all the common person can do is bitch and moan about it.

I agree with your whole comment except for the last sentence. The people will be owned by their phones until they align their desires with their capabilities such that they have control over that technology. That's not a political problem, it's a technical one.

Mobile phones are like 3D printers: the technology isn't new, but within the last decade the price of 3D printer components dropped, and the availability of open source software to drive them rose, and an equilibrium was found where they entered the domain of non-professional tinker types, at which point we saw an explosion of creativity in that space. The only difference is that that equilibrium hasn't happened for mobile phones yet.

But people are working on it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2103809433/wiphone-a-ph...

It's gonna take a while, but once the DIY approach is a viable alternative, even for just the tech savviest 1% of the population, Apple and Google will have something else to be compared against, and that will effect their choices in a nice way. Or at least I hope so.

>The complaint goes beyond Apple and iPhone, Android does a better job of pretending you own the phone but all that really means is Google owns you instead of Apple. The problem is political not technological, all the common person can do is bitch and moan about it.

Isn't the answer to that just buy an easily rootable phone and flash an OS without spyware? There's a few manufacturers out there with official unlock tools and presumably supporting that practice would only lead to more adoption. (although, admittedly, this does require the hardware to not have spyware or backdoors built into it)

> I really don’t understand this complaint.

Well, for starters, I hear it's preventing Hong Kong residents from avoiding dangerous protest hotspots...

Tim Sweeney would disagree with you. Though I'm usually critical of his views, but this is one I'm in support of. You use gaming consoles to do fairly specific things: mostly play games and possibly watch movies. And you can view consoles as having a subset of features of a general computing device such as PC or Mac. Developers who can distribute apps on consoles are generally only going to deploy games.

Now, modern smart phones are considered as general-purpose computing devices. And because they are placed in this category (and rightly so for their capability in both hardware and OS), a lot of people are going to expect freeform app distribution.

> If you have some burning desire to hack the hardware, get a dev account and you can lode arbitrary code. Or just buy a different phone.

You see, sometimes it's not just about the end-users. Developers cannot distribute apps to the general public on iOS without going through the App Store. Yes App Store adds friction to the app distribution process and that can prevent some malicious apps, but that's about it. Does it really lead to higher quality apps? Well no, just look at all the garbage apps on there. Quality of the store is always a balancing act; it has nothing to do with being a monolithic walled garden.

And all this comes with severe limitations. Localized developers are forced to conform to a suite of rules and guidelines placed by Apple for a global audience. Developers are forced to use monetization models (and has no say in the revenue split) provided by Apple. If devs can distribute apps freely or choose another app store just like they can on Android devices, I can't say for sure whether the end-user experience or security will be higher or lower, but developers will certainly have more freedom and enjoy it more.

One uses consoles for gaming and movies because those capabilities are the least likely to disappear in the future, as evidenced by the PS3 Linux / supercomputer mess

Just out of curiosity are iPhones sold at a loss? From recollection they aren't. In most consoles the console itself is a loss leader for software sales so it wouldn't be a good direct comparison.

We had this discussion already decades ago with why free software is important but free games less so.

Banning a "safety app" has entirely different consequences than not being able to play Halo. I don't understand why you think these are the same.

Apple helps Chinese government, not the first time. Jailbrake or android, no another way for HK people.

About Android - don't be crazy to buy Huawei/Xiaomi/etc.

> I do not understand how apple users put up with this.

The argument I typically see goes something like:

"I don't want to have to worry about whether I should trust an app or not, so I prefer everything be vetted by Apple. If we allow users to install their own software, then bypassing the app store will become commonplace."

I personally disagree with this notion. In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store".

I think the fears of everybody sideloading malware apps are a little overblown. Many Android phones can have apps sideloaded (and are even rootable), but how many people actually do it?

How did we go from Microsoft getting sued over internet explorer to the situation we're currently in?

What Microsoft got in huge trouble for absolutely pales in comparison to what current tech companies get away with. I'm not sure why that is. A combination of oversight getting extremely weak and consumer apathy are my guesses.

As to Apple, there’s no way monopoly laws apply, so new laws would have to be made. Making new laws takes time, as it might be challenging to phrase a law in such a way that it can’t be circumvented and doesn’t have unintended consequences.

Also, government mills mill slowly. In the anti-trust case against Microsoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...), where laws and jurisprudence existed, it already took 6 years from (first FTC investigation started in 1992, anti-trust lawsuit started in 1998)

I don’t think it is a matter of oversight getting weak; it just takes time. Certainly, the EU is willing to take action.

> In fact, I wouldn't mind a law that says "if a device has an app store, then it must be able to load applications outside of the store".

this is a great example of a superfluous law we don't need. if you want sideloading, get an Android phone. having no option to get a feature you care about is a problem. not being able to have your dream set of features on a particular phone is not.

Fair enough - a law is overkill.

The issue I have is that phones and tablets are slowly replacing general purpose computers for the majority of people (at least for day to day use), and there's a fundamental difference in how they operate when it comes to software freedom.

Apple can't be considered a monopoly because there's still a choice of Android, but what happens in the future if the ability to sideload applications on Android phones is removed?

We end up in a scenario where every application must be funneled through an app store where the hardware manufacturer can take a cut of the sales, and I'm not okay with that.

"If you don't like being abused, go find someone who will not abuse you."

this is an excessively dramatic take on the situation. apple isn't doing anything sneaky here. their whole brand essentially boils down to a line of locked-down, tightly integrated products that do what they are intended to do (by apple) very well. I don't think anyone is confused/misled about this. if you don't trust apple to do the right thing for you most of the time, or if you don't like the idea of a company deciding what the right thing to do is, this is not the brand for you.

I used to have this exact argument with my dad all the time in the early 2010s; he liked apple and I liked android. I couldn't understand it at the time, but my dad liked how locked-down all his devices were. it removed a major source of anxiety he had using technology. years later, I realized it was pretty cool that we could both have phone OSes the way we wanted them.

Because their target audience is not always power users. They need to protect those who don’t understand the difference between app and virus. There is a peace in knowing that anything comes from the app store will be safe and free of malice.

That's actually another approach some have on the meaning of the word "free" in the computer world:

free of malicious software, without virus/malware/Trojan/bot/worm/etc., free of endless searching for the right app to do the job, free of complicated procedures and user interfaces, etc.

And if these mean that the company (Apple in this case) must impose certain limitations on their software (and hardware), then so be it. People are always free to choose which product they want to purchase and for the majority of Apple's users, it seems Apple's definition of freedom has been more appealing than that of the others. It's not like people are not aware that buying an iPhone brings with it some "quirks" (remember you couldn't send/receive files by Bluetooth on iPhone, or in the beginning, third-party apps were not even allowed on iOS, ...).

Disclaimer: I'm not defending Apple here. Just saying that I understand their reasons.

Installing your own software is not a power user thing, it's how computers have worked since they were invented.

Hence why

mobile computing market size >> desktop computing market size

That's not true, or at least not a major component. A workable phone is about the same as a low-end desktop or laptop, but being mobile and internet-connected by default is a huge functionality win. If you can only afford one device and one ISP, the smartphone is the superior option.

There are 3G+ enabled laptops.

Certainly there are many apples to oranges differences, but I don't think it's fair to discount the "managed" nature of mobile devices as a component of their success.

The uptake in Chromebooks would be semi-supporting as well.

Chrome books are also very cheap, bust still no where near as popular as phones.

Also, laptops with wwan cards are a thing, but they also coat more, aren't a default, and can't just be bought at a conveniently located store. It also doesn't fit in my pocket or last nearly all day on a charge.

Also this is a Company, they can decide whatever policy for their market. If you don't like it don't be on it. This is why Android has overtaken apple in market share but its stupid to expect them to be god almighty savior in every public situation. Their policy works perfectly for their user base, it is crazy to expect them to change for your opinions. Apple is one of the few companies who is taking privacy related mater seriously. I enjoy their ecosystem for this reason and I will take other things that come with it.

I really don't consider this a big problem. apple doesn't have a majority share of the smartphone market and people who care about sideloading can choose from hundreds of Android phones. of the iPhone users who even know what sideloading is, most consider the fact that it isn't allowed to be a feature.

>I really don't consider this a big problem

In the drive to close up security holes, Apple created a new one that can't be conceivably fixed by the user.

The user is ostensibly prevented from installing apps outside of the Apple Store to protect the data from malicious access, theft or destruction. The thorough app vetting process gives high assurances of that.

However there's a 4th aspect of security: security against service denial. Apple, by being the sole guardian and steward of the iPhone app ecosystem, made all their users vulnerable to service denial (in form of app removal). If there were alternative mechanisms available - ex competing iPhone app stores - the vulnerability would be negligible.

However presently the vulnerability is glaring: all it takes is single legal action - or even just enough of pressure from government on a key market - and the users are denied use of certain apps.

Disallowing people to drive while using their phone, in a car that they own using roads that they pay for, is completely unacceptable as a driver. I do not understand how citizens put up with this.

"I do not understand how apple users put up with this"

You do not understand because lots of apple users clearly have different usage requirements for their phones.

I tinker with stuff 8+ hours per day for a paycheck; when I'm using my phone, I don't want to tinker with it, I want it to just work, and my iPhone does exactly that. Someone has made a bunch of intelligent design decisions about the way things work— much better than with android phones— and I agree with them often enough that I don't care that I can't change them. My brain is busy; the fact that I don't have to think about changing them is great. It's an appliance to me. I don't try to reprogram any of my electronic kitchen appliances either, and I'm a software developer that used to be a chef. I'd much rather spend my time concentrating on the output than the tools. I get that it's not everybody's workflow— you do you.

I also really don't care if I can't install apps that aren't available through the app store. I use a teeny, tiny fraction of what is available through the app store... the chance of app store availability being a limiting factor in my phone usage is pretty much non-existent. I use a computer for everything I can't use my phone for, and it's usually better for those tasks, anyway.

You're an obedient citizen that sees no need to go outside the box. China would have no problem with you.

The fact that you think you can intuit that based solely on a brief description of how I interact with my phone indicates that a) phones probably play a much more significant role in your life than mine, and b) your ability to extrapolate people's behavior based on limited information isn't quite as impressive as you think it is.

The whole point is that phones are playing "a much more significant role" in the protesters lives than yours. You live in a place where you don't have to worry about that, but what does that have to do with the article??

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. We've warned you about this multiple times before. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ok. I shouldn't have made it personal. I won't do it again.

All my Android phones 'have just worked'.

All of mine just didn't. I had to install alternate mail clients, alternate messaging clients, alternate web browsers, etc. etc. etc. The defaults looked terrible and were absolutely non-intuitive. With Apple I get a consistent, well designed interface consistently across any of their devices I purchase. Replace the phone? Don't have to think about it. Just sign in.

Same thing applies to me and my google branded phones (first nexus, now pixel). Just sign in after changing the phone and works like a charm.

+1 for having no issues with android phones thus far. I've switched back and forth between android and ios/apple phones and while my apple phones would start great it would take them a year or so before they were almost useless. Plus my headhpones just work in my android phones.

Admittedly, the headphone jack thing on iPhones is f'ing BS. I hate it. Just give me the damned headphone jack, Apple.

I have Airpods and a set of Sony bluetooth noise-cancelling cans and I do not miss a corded headphone whatsoever, I don’t get what the big deal is here

Try taking a packed subway where everyone else is also wearing Bluetooth headphones.

Alright then. I have a little lightning adapter that goes to a headphone jack.

"just works" is different than works in ideal conditions or special proprietary adaptors.

https://www.amazon.com/Apple-Lightning-Headphone-Jack-Adapte...

You're right, $8.79 is a RIDICULOUS price to expect apple users to pay for the former ability to use wired headphones!

Mine haven't. Samsung's flagship Galaxy Note 3 got so laggy I couldn't even pick up a phone call before it went to voice mail, as one of many examples. My stack of iPhones have had their occasional problems, too. But waving our phone penises at each other isn't the point of the article, eh?

Except when you want to upgrade to the latest Android OS. Then, unless you have a phone made by Google, you have to deal with the sluggishness of Samsung or your cell provider... if you ever get an OS update at all!!

Unlike literally 100% of iPhone owners, who can upgrade the second a new OS is available (if they’ve had a phone made in the last 5 years or so)

This is especially ridiculous considering the adverse security environment we currently inhabit.

> [W]hen I'm using my phone, I don't want to tinker with it, I want it to just work, and my iPhone does exactly that. Someone has made a bunch of intelligent design decisions about the way things work— much better than with android phones—

So you consider an iPhone works so much better and its design is so much better than Android phones that you allow Apple to choose what you can install? I hope you never end in a situation like in Hong Kong where freedom matters more than design.

If you think the fact that your phone runs Android is going to save you if and when the government crackdown comes, I have some bad news for you.

you realize android has custom ROMs, right? IOS doesn't.

> So you consider an iPhone works so much better and its design is so much better than Android phones that you allow Apple to choose what you can install?

Yeah. Lots of people do. Giving up control means a lot, I get it. However I give up control with loads of devices, appliances and services every day. In exchange I expect my iPhone, my gmail account and my Samsung TV to make my life easier. They (hopefully) can’t read my mind, so my choices will always lie on a spectrum between: Taking all control, but having to do all the work myself vs. giving up control (and risk being betrayed) but not having to do the work.

> I hope you never end in a situation like in Hong Kong where freedom matters more than design.

Absolutely, but I wouldn’t trust most alternatives out there either. I honestly don’t know what I’d do in that case.

Actually, it's a trade off. How much freedom vs how much control. A prime example is government regulators, they are there to 'protect ' consumers vs pure freedom of capital ventures. Pure unadulterated freedom never exists because one persons freedom can trample on another persons, e.g the freedom to be racist

There is no tinkering with android phones, not sure if you have ever used one.

Can you elaborate on that? Many Android phones can have their bootloader unlocked, allow installing alternate operating systems, have alternate app stores, and allow sideloading of applications.

Can being the keyword. None of that is even close to required. You have the option to tinker, you aren't required to.

100% of that is optional and entirely unused by most people, excepting maybe a single side-loaded app if they actually care about certain things.

This is of course scoped to here in the US, where most of the time Android phones have their OS entirely locked down apart from sideloading apps, ie no running different ROMs, upgrading out of what you're allowed by the network, rooting, running super user apps, etc

what planet are you living on? you can install custom launchers,dialers,sms, third-party app stores, & pretty much whatever else even without root or flashing a ROM. Not to mention the ability to sideload apps. The sky is the limit with root. There's widgets too, something completely foreign to isheep. There is plenty of tinkering available on android.

I meant in the sense of setting it up initially.

I worry about the legacy we're leaving gen Z, and all of the people just coming online in developed countries, for whom mobile is their native computing environment. We can put our phones away and retreat to our "real computers" to scratch our tinkering itch, but that's not accessible or appealing to everyone. When I was a kid, just clicking all the things opened up new vistas of topics to explore, like clicking "view source" in Netscape Navigator leading to getting a book to learn about HTML. There's no "view source" option in Chrome or Safari for mobile.

The app developer should release the code ASAP- instructions could be written so that users could install the app by building it themselves, even if it can only persist for 7 days at a time.

this could literally just be a web app and there would be no loss in functionality...

I was going to say this. This looks like a job for an https web app that is difficult to block...

or perhaps just make a massive group text in an existing tool like discord or whatsapp?

One advantage of not allowing any user to install any software of their choice on their iOS devices is that iPhones do not end up participating in botnets, get crypto-locked with a bitcoin bounty, or otherwise get compromised.

This is a massive advantage which arguably outweighs the disadvantage.

Not for the people of Hong Kong.

Not getting crypto-locked should be a consequence of a proper sandboxing system, not a consequence of some dictator stating what is allowed and what is forbidden.

The ‘1984’ ad should be re-edited so that the protestor running down the aisle with their hammer stops running when they realise that Apple disabled their hammer.

they put up with it because apple products are overpriced - ALL of them — & they incorrectly equate price with quality, the more expensive it is the better quality it must be in their eyes.

Really hard to believe that Apple is the "privacy oriented company we can trust", that the company constantly touts in their advertising as a reason to buy their products mind you, when at the same time, you have news like this constantly coming out.

If you really wanted me to believe that you were serious about this Apple, you would do what Google has done and completely remove yourself from China until issues of blatant censorship and oppression like these improve. Of course, this will never happen, because too much money comes from the revenue stream that Chinese citizens represent.

I'm not sure about "constantly." The last big disappointment I can remember was the China/iCloud thing.

The problem is that Tim Cook is a bean counter, not a technologist. He talks a good game in scripted keynotes, but he's really in it for the money, like most other CEOs.

That said, Apple is the least of all available evils. When something better comes along, I'll leave. If that thing already exists, please let me know so I can begin the process.

> The problem is that Tim Cook is a bean counter, not a technologist. He talks a good game in scripted keynotes, but he's really in it for the money, like most other CEOs.

When has the Apple CEO not done that? Apple is the king of marketing spin.

Accessibility comes to mind. Apple's investment in accessibility cannot be explained through bean counting.

Can't it?[1]

3.2 million people visually impaired in 2015, 8.2 with vision problems, in the US alone, trend hard upwards.

[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/visual-impairm...

I don't like Apple much but their accessibility is outstanding, putting windows, android and desktop Linux to shame.

I am not saying they aren't doing a great job in that area, just that that great job is not necessarily motivated entirely by altruism ;)

Good point, I may have read too much into your message.

I disagree. With a family member living with ALS, we had to wean them off of Apple products so that we could switch to a supported eye-tracking platform on windows. Apple had no os-level support for this and windows does.

Would this have helped?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqoXFCCTfm4

Unfortunately, no - My family member has lost the ability to speak as this is one of the progressions of ALS - there comes a point where you have to use specialized input equipment, all of which work with USB and none of which work with iOS or MacOS

Interesting, I'll admit I know nothing about eye tracking, I'm more familiar with blind accessibility, zooming, that kind of thing. I'll keep this in mind in future.

I have a completely blind friend. The main reason he uses a Mac and an iPhone is because of their awesome accessibility. He's got a Linux and Windows computer too, Windows because some software he uses is only available on Windows and Linux for when he codes in his free time (you can do basically everything in the terminal anyway).

If Android ever becomes as good at accessibility he told me he'd switch in a heart beat. But, the fact that Apple is so good gives him a lot of brand loyalty and he invests in the newest iPhone on release.

Big isn't enough to emphasize it. There's a consistency to Apple's actions, and it shows them to be fundamentally hypocritical.

> That said, Apple is the least of all available evils. When something better comes along, I'll leave. If that thing already exists, please let me know so I can begin the process.

This is chicken and egg problem. Companies that develop privacy-oriented devices have to sell very experimental devices for premium price because they neither have production batches large enough to bring price down nor they have enough money to invest into UX. So they can never appeal to mass market.

There is already a company selling desktop hardware that is closest to being backdoor-free [1], there is a phone with isolated baseband [2] and even some experiments with ARM-based laptops [3]. And actually many more examples can be found around internet, but they not going to magically release Apple-grade product.

[1] Talos: https://raptorcs.com/

[2] Librem 5: https://news.ycombinator.com/

[3] Pine64: https://pine64.org/

Don't forget https://lineageos.org

https://Puri.sm seems relevant as well.

Thank you. I think it's obvious second list should've been it, but I was half sleeping so...

Thanks for sharing this!

>> That said, Apple is the least of all available evils. When something better comes along, I'll leave. If that thing already exists, please let me know so I can begin the process.

What do you mean by "better?" More privacy-oriented? You cannot sideload applications and you don't control the iPhone in the least.

Better, meaning not beholden to China.

> That said, Apple is the least of all available evils. When something better comes along, I'll leave. If that thing already exists, please let me know so I can begin the process.

https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

Yeah -- I think Tim Cook has better instincts than most but that doesn't mean I expect him to always do the right thing.

Google operates in China: https://careers.google.com/locations/shanghai/

Google isn't available in China. If you attempt to go to the Chinese .cn domain site, it redirects you to the .hk one instead.

The decision to leave mainland China occurred in 2010 after Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China

Yes, this is pretty well known.

What's not well known is that Google still operates in China and makes billions [0] off advertising there. So Google has hardly 'pulled out of China' despite not running a search engine. At this point, they wouldn't succeed even if they tried - so it's more an excuse than anything else that they don't _want_ to operate Google the search engine there.

[0] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/googles-ad-sales-fro...

I can't tell if you're trying to purposefully obfuscate / be antagonistic right now, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The Information article you cite, explicitly says itself that this increased revenue comes from "a wave of Chinese tech companies buying ads outside China to promote products like the TikTok video app and the Alipay mobile wallet".

Are you trying to imply that the actions of any Chinese company should be assumed to be an extension of the central government's? I mean, I suppose you could argue that. But otherwise, all this represents is a company with an international presence buying ads to advertise their product/service.

I didn't imply anything about the central government. I was responding to your assertion that "you would do what Google has done and completely remove yourself from China." I don't think Google is the saint you make them out to be if they're making billions of dollars from Chinese sources.

Google has always been a B2B company - their revenue comes from businesses. Even if Google the search engine were running in China, where would the revenue be coming from? Still Chinese businesses. I don't think it's relevant whether the spending is domestic or international in nature.

Okay, but what you're still doing here is conflating Chinese businesses and the Chinese government together into a singular source.

Again, it's totally fine if you want to argue that as I agree there's some merit to the idea, but from your first sentence, it seems like that isn't what you're trying to say.

They are all the same thing, remove my business presence in any fashion because Chinese government has human right issue ABC == not doing business with Chinese people. This approach has also great potential to grow into racism or nationalisms war ground (“sorry you are Chinese not doing business with you because you government did ABC). It’s not a conflation but the fact is they are intertwined under the unified culture of China. You might think China should be pretty divided as US does, no it’s not, its majority mainland population are quite unionized at scale. Its overseas presence were more critical before but Honestly what Western media is doing is pushing them back into supporting the government

Google still operates in China. They help Chinese military develop AI to round up Uighers for future organ harvesting. https://youtu.be/wqWVH38jtQo5

Having an office in China (they actually have several) is different from having a market in China. They pulled out the market.

They're a B2B company, and they're still selling to their primary market - Chinese businesses - via advertising.

It’ll be interesting to start a discussion if that should also be cutoff(much like a Huawei ban, but this time entire nation)

...and then started working on rejoining it, before terminating the project in July this year.

Fun anecdote: In 2010, it was Sergey Brin (now a president of Alphabet) who drove Google's withdrawal from China. In 2018, in what I'm sure is just a coincidence, the public found out that Google's project shares the name with Brin's yacht: Dragonfly.

Apple will fight for the user. In USA, where not only it doesn't really cost them much, but gets them huge PR boost and makes more money.

It's harder to have principles when it could cost you a lot of money, like in China.

I use iPhone, but never for a second believed in Apple PR BS how they're better than other companies. Never believe salesman who works on a commission.

Apple is fighting only for the one thing - the money.

If that means they need to sacrifice some people (especially outside US) - they will do it.

"Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"

Specifically, Apple only fights for user security because since 2013 or so they've had a giant pile of liquid money and have been determined to get into the banking, payments, and rent seeking business. To make their phones useful payment terminals they have to be relatively secure. It's not about the user. It's about seeking rent from the user.

Apple will don't for the user when it's good for their bottom line. When doing so can hurt them, as in defying the wishes of an authoritarian government that just so happens to run the country where the bulk of their manufacturing happens, they aren't quite so altruistic anymore.

Which I don't really have a problem with, except that they market themselves as doing everything for the user, and have cultivated a cult-like image supporting that.

This isn't about Apple.

This is the true face of the techno-feudalism future we've built. Throw your lot in with one of the tech giants, and you'll have fashionable and functional technology - but at the cost of freedom. When push comes to shove - when it matters the most - your rights can and will be revoked.

Don't be a serf. Reject techno-feudalism. Use free software.

I mean, hard to disagree even if I wanted to.

Seems to me that free software community is lacking UI/UX Designers and so looks and feels considerably less "cool" than commercial counterparts. What do you think?

I think free software has caught up on the prettiness score. KDE Plasma 5 looks pretty slick. Graphic designers might niggle at aspects of it, but the layperson won't care.

However, human factors is undervalued. There's a cultural issue in free software wherein good UI is rejected as being for sissies and not worth the effort. Hacking is a social activity, and hackers naturally like to make stuff for other hackers. Hackers tend to be the kind of person who has a lot of patience for tedious bullshit, or they would have thrown up their hands in despair long before becoming a hacker. And so you often hear people defend poor UI with talk of "investing in tools" and "if <UI annoyance> is enough to stop you, you don't have the patience for <activity> anyway". Which is possibly true! But it's a gatekeeping self-fulfilling prophecy.

The trouble is, by the time you're expert enough to write software, you've long since forgotten what good UI even looks like:

"I liken starting one's computing career with Unix, say as a undergraduate, to being born in East Africa. It is intolerably hot, your body is covered with lice and flies, you are malnourished and you suffer from numerous curable diseases. But, as far as young East Africans can tell, this is simply the natural condition and they live within it. By the time they find out differently, it is too late. They already think that the writing of shell scripts is a natural act." — Ken Pier, Xerox PARC

Haha nice, enjoyed reading that. I'm a UI/UX Designer myself and was just thinking it comes down to designers contributing to these projects.

Especially new people starting out and needing a portfolio, seems like a win - win for everyone involved.

Part of the problem is likely that it's often difficult for non-programmers to contribute to open source projects directly.

If I as a software engineer have a new feature I'd like to add to an open source project, I can usually just write that feature myself and submit a PR that the project maintainer can review and merge with minimal effort. But what if a UI/UX designer wants to contribute an improved UI for a particular feature? They could probably create a mockup and submit it to the repository as an issue, but then who's going to actually go and implement those changes?

FOSS projects absolutely have big accessibility problems. Many projects are still centered around mailing lists, IRC channels, and diff patches and some don’t even use what’s comes to be the “standard” version tracker (git). This is massively unwelcoming to even newer software engineers, let alone UI/UX people.

>I think free software has caught up on the prettiness score.

Free software surpassed proprietary software the day that Microsoft released Windows 8.

I think you are spot on with your analysis.

And while Plasma 5 looks good for OSS, it is far from consumer-ready. Look at the KDE Plasma 5 press release [0] versus the macOS Catalina press release [1]. KDE's looks like it was made in Wordpress.

Look at this screenshot of Plasma shutting down [2].

The 'shutdown' text is so poorly aligned that it would give a proper UX designer heart palpitations. Compare to the iOS 'scandal' when calendar dates were mis-aligned by several pixels [3].

Overall, consumers do care about this - much more than you think. It's a non-negligable reason why Apple has the premium status that it does, particularly amongst creative industries (film, music, design).

Good OSS UI/UX <<<<<< good commercial UI/UX. That's the state of the union (with the exception of few products like Firefox) and I wish it would change.

[0]: https://kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/

[1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/06/apple-previews-macos-...

[2]: https://kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/shutdown...

[3]: https://gizmodo.com/victory-apple-has-fixed-the-number-1-in-...

Just choose - we have to accept this. Nice UX or freedom - the big corporates will always win the battle of UX. Free software will always be less cool. Choose.

"you'll have fashionable and functional technology - but at the cost of freedom"

We have to accept that if users only choose something "that just works" or it works better than the Free alternative then they are not choosing Freedom.

Of course reading the above doesn't in any way mean that Free software shouldn't try to have good design, UI and UX, just that Free software will always lose if that's the main criteria to choose from. And there's a danger of knowing that this war could never be won that it might not be worth fighting. This also needs to be accepted and acknowledged - we have to fight the war but change the terms.

Simply look at any HN thread about Free software or alternative services and you will find the majority of users right here basically saying "well I support Freedom in theory but this non free thing is simply nicer to use".

You're right, that's just how people work.

I do think there is an opportunity nowadays, because commercial software has gone down a highly disliked path of anti privacy, clickbait, optimize for addiction.

Now seems to be the time for alternatives to pop up that: - Look and feel good enough - Open source - Respecting privacy - Immune to (most) criticism because of blockchain or similar

I don't accept that this is binary choice. The free software movement has failed to attract designers and UX minded people. As dTal said in a sibling comment:

"There's a cultural issue in free software wherein good UI is rejected as being for sissies and not worth the effort"

So there's the answer. Once the movement (whatever that is) becomes more open to accept that good software doesn't stop at being free then it might have a change to take on the world.

The problem there is, what happens when you get more than one chef in the kitchen?

If you want to see what I mean, checkout the Desktop Environment scene. There's so many different views on what is good UX, that if you have 1000 different designers trying to make a UI to the same program, you end up with 1000 different interpretations of what this program should "look like".

Free Software doesn't end up looking the way it does because anyone wants it to look bad; it's the way it is because that's all anyone in particular needs it to be.

I don't need a GUI for diff and patch. Some people prefer one, and that's fine. Those people can go ahead and get any of the many implementations of a visual diff/patch program. That is their choice, just as it is mine to just use the command line utility as an example.

UI/UX as it is taught in the industry comes hand-in-hand with curation, which implies a level of control over the end-user's choices in user experience, dependency graph, etc. Software freedom accepts that the ugly choice is still a choice. And maintenance-wise, that choice (the uglier, low dependency one) is a heck of a sensible default from the distribution maintainer's point of view. Same functional capability, and a heck of a lot less cruft to work with.

Besides which, in my experience, most UX folks I meet are cripplingly dependent on a single technology stack I personally have no desire to see everything reimplemented in, which is JavaScript/HTML/CSS.

I'd suffer through learning something like TCL/TK before resorting to adopting that nightmare of a toolchain. I'm what you might call a curmudgeonly old man in taste however, so that comes with the territory.

There is also the resource intensive vs. pretty trade-off to be made as well. Do I want that sexy Aero/Peek, pseudo 3D, everything has an animation look sucking up my potentially valuable and short supply CPU cycles? Or is minimalist X with a minimal window manager without widgets or gadgets or whatever they call all those extra doodads these days good enough?

Software tradeoffs are unfortunately an issue of always on engineering all the time. Something a lot of people don't necessarily find compatible with their tastes. It's certainly a good thing more people are talking about it though. Will have to keep my eye out for new distro's if the more UX savvy take a bite into making something.

The way I see it is that free software is not designed to have these kinds of processes that makes commercial grade software good and widespread.

Of course, UI/UX is hard problem so does writing hardware drivers or optimise kernel code. Even if you use a command line tool, like GIT it has a good UX to it.

    git: 'deff' is not a git command. See 'git --help'.

    The most similar command is
 diff

I really like this and it shows that free software developers care about UX as long as it's in their domain and expertise they can execute.

> I don't need a GUI for diff and patch. Some people prefer one, and that's fine.

You have a good attitude toward this, but then there's people like RMS who flat out wants to ban JavaScript in the browser because "proprietary software". That's not how you succeed with a mission like this. (but I also don't think the state of open source software is too bad either)

> most UX folks I meet are cripplingly dependent on a single technology stack

Then don't ask them to implement the UI part. It's also fine to ask for a prototype in JS/CSS that you can reimplement with the best tools you see fit.

> minimalist X with a minimal window manager without widgets or gadgets or whatever they call all those extra doodads these days good enough?

A good minimalist design is really hard to pull off, so it's good enough, but as hard as making something really shiny.

Tradeoffs are really there so aligning them with your goals is essential.

I'm also a big fan of Git's UX in that regard. Solid point.

W.R.T. Stallman, I sort of agree with him. JavaScript as a portal for code getting on my machine that is ruthlessly obfuscated so I cannot efficiently determine what it is doing is a danger that I personally have significant qualms with wanting to support. I don't mind dynamic webpages, and the functionality it enables, but I absolutely abhor some use cases it enables; namely browser fingerprinting, runtime code encryption/decryption of payloads within the code, and other deceptive practices like running a cryptocoin miner or exfiltrating information I'm not okay with a la exploits like Spectre and Meltdown.

If people were decent and considerate with their JavaScript I'd be more amenable to it. However, the blatant abuse of the technology I've seen perpetrated by the industry just turns me off of it altogether.

>Then don't ask them to implement the UI part. It's also fine to ask for a prototype in JS/CSS that you can reimplement with the best tools you see fit.

Fair.

>A good minimalist design is really hard to pull off, so it's good enough, but as hard as making something really shiny.

Also fair. Do you happen to be a UX person? You sound like a blast to work with.

It's all valid points, but I personally don't care, I rarely see a page that obnoxious because of its JS use. Most sites I find repulsive is their use of ads. Now if there were no JS in browsers, these site would still plant heaps of ads only with CSS, it's not the code execution to blame. If the publisher controls the layout then it's game over for freedom :)

> Do you happen to be a UX person?

Not a label I'd put in my title, but I like UX, it's an integral part of building good products so I spent fair bit of time exercising it. I'm a full stack developer and who likes to build experiences users love.

The point is that no one will outside of an inconsequentially small group will adopt user-facing free software if it isn't easy to use and if it doesn't have a slick and intuitive UI.

Programmers perhaps do not care for this. But everyone else does. A good, competitive UI is non-optional.

> [Free Software looks bad] because that's all anyone in particular needs it to be.

This is the fundamental disconnect! It's all programmers need it to be. Regular, normal people? They also need it to be fluid, pretty, and intuitive.

Yeah, that's a need, not a want, as much as we might wish it otherwise. We might wish that people had the strength of will/whatever to stick with comparatively worse UIs in exchange for freedom, but we know that's not true, and that won't happen.

> UI/UX as it is taught in the industry comes hand-in-hand with curation [...] Software freedom accepts that the ugly choice is still a choice.

These are not mutually exclusive. UI/UX in free software can come by default as a highly refined and curated experience, with an option to switch things out if you want.

---

I agree that there is a fundamental tradeoff in time and resources between implementing "real features" and UI/UX. Even big corporations with billions of dollars to burn struggle with this. But what we need to realize is that UI/UX is a real feature.

If our priority is getting more people to adopt OSS, then it needs to be done. If our priority is getting shit done in the short term, well - I guess you can hold off on it.

> Nice UX or freedom - the big corporates will always win the battle of UX. Free software will always be less cool.

The big corporations will probably always win the battle of new and shiny. But free software can win the battle of UX, if we stop chasing the tail of the fashion de jour of UI design from big corporations.

Image how much more free software could do for users it we didn't waste all our efforts trying to match the looks of the big corp. software.

For me, software that do more, is more cool.

True, but I also have to say that latest GNOME 3 and newest GTK apps look actually really really nice. I did not like the looks of GNOME 3 when it came out, but now it's on par/even nicer than macOS. The issue is that not every application is on latest GTK and thus while working, do not have the unified look.

Yea they do look nice, but something seems to be missing or just feels off to me.

Theres defiantly a lot of free software that suffers from engineer UI but I find the UI of Apple and Google shockingly poor. Their UI focus is on encouraging the user to do what Google / Apple want not what the end user wants.

Free software gives people freedom to have what they want but figuring out what you want and setting it up takes effort. Many people are like dogs they don't think freedom is worth the effort if they can be kept by a master that feeds them regularly.

Agreed, people ultimately don't want freedom, they want 0% chance of messing things up. I'm including myself btw.

Often times achieving your desired result with free software is onerous, even if you know what you want know what you’re doing. This is a problem I’ve encountered several times just trying to achieve a desktop setup that works for me; I always eventually arrive at living with countless tiny issues or writing what I want from scratch.

>Seems to me that free software community is lacking UI/UX Designers and so looks and feels considerably less "cool" than commercial counterparts.

I keep reading this argument here. Does no one here use Windows 10? What kind of drugs would you have to be smoking to believe that Windows 8 or 10 looks "cool"? Sure, MacOSX looks "cool", I'll give it that (it doesn't work that great though), but Windows is far and away more widely-used than MacOSX, and is basically the standard-bearer for "commercial software" when we're talking about UI/UX, and it's really ugly.

A better word is probably "polished". I agree that Windows is not the prettiest thing to look at, but it's definitely polished.

Is having two different control center applications part of that "polish"? The last thing I'd call Windows is "polished"; instead, it looks like a great example of software built by strict evolution.

A lot of commercial software focuses on building cool GUIs because selling the software is the whole point. The point of community maintained software is to solve some problem some people have and so that’s what gets focused on.

I don’t think tacking “cool stuff” onto free software is the answer, I would argue education is.

Much like how we educate kids on the dangers of false advertising we should educate them on the dangers of non-free software.

I agree with you, but what I mean is people will be more inclined to use software that looks good - more broadly good UI/UX and I don't mean gimmicks. That's just how it is.

The UX is not terrible though. And lack of dark patterns arguably makes it more pleassant at least in some aspects.

It's a little bit about Apple. It's the story of what happens when you trust closed software.

I kinda agree and kinda don't. Free as in "you're free to install any software you choose on windows and android" is sufficient in this case.

You are - for now. But, unless you've gone very far out of your way, Microsoft and Google (respectively) have root on those systems. You could open your laptop tomorrow and find that your activist software has been uninstalled and the police informed of your location.

Don't be fooled - those systems do not recognize you as ultimate master.

Why could this also not happen with free software? Unless you read the code in every patch of every piece of software you use and software your software uses, what prevents this from happening?

Revert to backup, fix the problem or delete the application altogether.

How is this different than closed source?

The app is free based upon openstreetmap which is free too.

The only part in all this which is a problem is Apple.

So it is about Apple.

The exhortation refers to the OS, not the app. Yes, Apple is the problem in this instance, but in the general case it's not a problem that can be fixed by avoiding Apple alone.

"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos!" --Homer Simpson

I'm more free than you- I use whatever the hell that I want. No social movement required.

At least on Android, apps can be side-loaded. This is about Apple to some extent.

Think Different*

*but not so differently that it challenges an authoritarian government who is scared by ideas

Companies are going to have to decide how important the Chinese market is or risk eroding the trust and good will for all of their other customers. You can’t stand on the boat of democracy and the boat of a dictatorship t the same time.

Sure you can. I think you're going to find that most people will go "oh those poor people in HK", then promptly go back to ignoring them in their purchase decisions. I have exceedingly little faith in consumers to inconvenience themselves to benefit others.

This sentiment is absurd. I’m not going to let HK protests affect my spending. What, exactly, do you want me to do?

That was a response to the OP where:

>Companies are going to have to decide how important the Chinese market is or risk eroding the trust and good will for all of their other customers. You can’t stand on the boat of democracy and the boat of a dictatorship at the same time.

Emphasis on customers. Clearly, the customers have spoken on this, as well as any other atrocity that has happened in the past.

If only we had an entity that could direct cultural change....

You may recall that Google dramatically pulled out of the mainland Chinese market about 10 years ago on the basis of exactly these principles (at least ostensibly).

That didn’t exactly last. And China is a much more important market now than it was then. I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for a bunch of gazillion dollar companies to decide to favor principles over revenue anytime soon.

I think Netflix purposefully chose to not enter the Chinese market. I wonder how these companies that enter China would feel once they send communist party members to sit at management meetings. That’s known to happen during Mao era and I am certain some form of this will surface as the economy slows down.

I don't think this would come as a surprise to any executive planning to grow their business in China. Large companies are already obliged to create an internal party unit[0]. It's factored in as part of the cost of doing business here.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies-...

Google merely closed their office in China and (passively) stopped offering their search and mail services. The money making part of Google (AdSense, Android) has been making a killing in China over the past decade. Despite the posturing on both sides, the relationship between Google and the Chinese regime is much cosier than people often assume.

I don't think Chinese Regime and Google are any close to each other, your other remarks are also inaccurate.

Which part of my post was inaccurate?

Google still has access to the google.cn domain as well as several valid ICP licenses; a number of services (fonts, firebase and chrome/SDK downloads to name a few) are accessible from China hosted on a Google affiliated server in Beijing. AdWords have been thriving in China for a number of years and even the localised version of Google maps (ditu.google.cn) is still being maintained despite a nonexistent user base.

None of this would have been possible if the government is actually hostile to Google in the way you believe.

Source? It seems accurate, but someone is silently downvoating without clarifying, I feel in bad faith.

> You can’t stand on the boat of democracy and the boat of a dictatorship t the same time.

Sure you can, any company that doesn't have dictatorial control of what software runs on devices they manufacture would not be in this situation in the first place.

This argument doesn't really work. I think the clearest example of this is Mars, Hershey, Nestle.

These companies are, at the minimum, complicit in literal child slavery in the production of their chocolate. [1] This gets a piece run in the mainstream news once every couple of years or so. People express shock and awe, vow to boycott the companies, come up with some neat slogans or hashtags and all that. A few days after the next outrageous news piece comes up, it's a distant memory. And that's over something that's like comic book villain black and white bad, or in other words that there is going to be nothing but quite strong derision for that situation.

Hershey and Nestle are showing record breaking stock prices. Mars is private, but it's safe to assume the same.

The same is true of most topics now a days. The vast majority of activism is not driven by individual initiative, but by media attention. That means when the media spotlight fades, so does interest in the topic. In this particular case, the revelation of PRISM [2] (of which Apple, Google, and all major US tech providers are a part of) reshaped my entire perspective of the world and of these companies. Ask yourself why these companies would participate in such a program. For many, it's now just a distant memory - and you even have people now arguing that PRISM couldn't have been that bad. After all, the media isn't even talking about it anymore.

[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%...

To understand why people didn't care about PRISM, you have to first understand what PRISM is. https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/how-to-talk-about-prism-and-...

Just to give some clarification:

The app is banned from being on the Apple App Store but it never actually made it to the App Store and so was not actually removed from users. Users couldn't have used it before.

Their application has been rejected (a few times it appears?). The latest rejection carried that notice

https://twitter.com/hkmaplive/status/1179618848644812800

Wow, can't believe this essential piece of information is so far down. How does one get in contact with the HN moderators to get bad titles fixed?

>“Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement,"

Wait...doesn't Waze do this too?

Technically, so can iMessage, so they should ban that too.

That was my first thought. It is an app with a killer feature of giving drivers notifications about law enforcement presence.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, since Apple is well known for being authoritarian with its platforms. It just so happens that most of the time its values align with those of the users, which is why it's so popular.

This should underscore the importance of a free and open web.

That's coming to an end too, the web will be google's "app/play store" someday.

Google AMP project is a pretty big step by Google towards trying to control the entire web.

Does anyone know how much of Apple’s hardware is actually manufactured in China? I realize this is a complicated question, as some is assuredly assembled outside of China. But as a total percentage of the supply chain at a component level ... how much is Chinese?

I’m going to wait for judgement on Apple’s actions here until I have more information.

What difference would it make? Apple and other companies follow the laws of countries they operate in, regardless of whether they produce there or not.

It makes a tremendous difference. If Apple can leverage some other aspect of their supply chain so that they can ignore any or some “requests” from the Chinese government ... that is a significant data point. If they can’t, well, that is also a significant data point about who has leverage over Apple.

That's what you get when you use walled garden system. One huge single point of failure. Which always can be efficiently attacked by a resourceful adversary. I get the use case where you need apps "just work" and don't step one step out of the walled garden. HK use case is obviously not that - they should not be using any Apple mobile technology, it's all one huge single point of failure.

I think people/Apple defenders are creating a false dichotomy between "regulated app store" and allowing people to install their own software.

Apple could still have a regulated app store to protect the masses (who will never venture outside of the app store), but still allow users to install their own software if they really need it.

At least no one can deny that the inability to prevent users from loading their own software causes a lack of freedom. If someone wants to accept authoritarianism in the name of making it harder for clueless people to install malware then that's a trade-off they can make, but they shouldn't pretend to be pro-freedom/pro-user/pro-privacy.

Business strategy question. It seems like there will always be a conflict between the US view of censorship (bad!) and the reality of trying to operate in China's huge market (comply or be booted, basically)....

Is that good cause to create a separate brand or subsidiary so the reputation damage of having to comply with this stuff (you know they got nudged) doesn't hit home on the US brand?

Just seems like you're going to have a rough time if you're attempting to service both markets under the same brand...

I wish American companies would focus on finding ways to bypass China's censorship rather than complying with it.

When Google first acquiesced to China they made a mistake and set a bad precedent. They should have rather focused their China business on building search engine and tools that would work around China's firewall. I don't think there is an obligated to adhere to laws when those laws conflict with human rights.

Morally, I agree with you.

From a practical perspective, however, that would cede what little voice the American companies have in the process to the Chinese government who would replace them with local lapdogs controlled by political allies.

The result would be software where censorship wasn't a bug, it is a feature...

This already happened.

Next startup: Build an ML model and let it feed on Chinese anti-insurrection laws and Apple app review guidelines. Then, let the ML model generate apps that comply. Should be an instant smash hit.

Wondering if Steve Jobs would have pulled the plug.

He totally would have. In the early days of iPhone, he had a strong contempt for the idea of an app store since it would allow anyone to publish any app and he didn't want anyone other than Apple doing that.

Making it a walled garden was his idea.

Fair point. It's just sad that reality doesn't live up to the marketing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I

You must be sad.. a lot

Think Different, Think like China I guess?

At least their 1984 commercial was cool, too bad they don't grasp what it meant anymore.

This article, and all the response here on HN, is really quite baffling to me. Apple complies with local laws. If the local government says the app violates their laws, Apple doesn't have a whole lot of choice here; either pull the app, or be in violation of the law. AFAIK all the app stores do the same thing.

Maybe soon a local law in China will say everyone needs to report where all homosexuals live because they need to be executed, and then Apple will send that exact info to the police (e.g. anyone with grindr installed) and then you will say "Oh what? they are just folling the law". Yeah we know they are just following the law, still doesn't mean we shouldn't give them bad press and opinions about it.

Slippery slope is not a valid fallacy.

Is not a slippery slope (because I'm not saying it will happen, I'm just amplifying the core of your opinion), is just an example with a different law; that btw exists in other countries such as Nigeria, just be honest and say you agree more with this one law than the one in the example.

You're trying to compare Apple taking down an app that violates local laws (which, again, everybody does) with... I don't even know how to characterize your new law proposal except it's ridiculous.

Apple not publishing illegal content is a far cry from what you're proposing and it does not make sense to compare the two at all.

The core of your argument was "They are just following the law", it clearly wasn't "They are following a sensible law"; if you believe the law to be within the ethical bounds of laws that should be followed for the sake of keeping business there just say so but just saying "they are just following the law" is dishonest at best.

They are following the exact same law literally everyone follows and always has followed, which is to take down apps that violate the local laws. I don't understand why you're taking a particular issue with this. "Apple, in its capacity as an app store owner, shall not publish apps that violate local laws" is not even a remotely problematic stance. If you have an issue with this particular app being taken down, you should be directing your ire at the law that makes it illegal, not at Apple for complying with the law, because taking the app down does no more harm to anybody than the alternative, which is for Apple to take the whole store down and stop doing business in the country.

> because taking the app down does no more harm to anybody than the alternative, which is for Apple to take the whole store down and stop doing business in the country.

Only the future will tell if that's true

Plot twist: As of 2018, Grindr is literally owned by a Chinese holding company, Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd.

It looks like they were asked by US regulators to sell it off due to privacy concerns: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-grindr-m-a-beijingkunlun/...

Then maybe they should not portray themselves as the white knight of privacy. I am absolutely disgusted by their hypocrisy.

What Hong Kong law does this app violate?

From the article, the stated reason for removing the app, given by Apple is "Your app contains content - or facilitates, enables, and encourages an activity - that is not legal ... specifically, the app allowed users to evade law enforcement"

You're not answering my question (which is moot, since the app got reinstated)

Perhaps, I just answered giving what info I had.

The issue is that Apple doesn’t allow you to side load apps that aren’t in the App store and Google does. The ability to load what software you want on your own hardware seems like a pretty fundamental right to me and this is the reason I’ve always considered the Apple App Store a devil’s bargain.

This type of stuff is why Warren wants to break up tech.

It should NOT be up to apple to decide stuff like this.

Who should decide?

The owner of the phone. Lack of side loading is the problem.

this.

side-loading ... the term itself is ridiculous. You cannot just load an app on your phone unless Apple approves it.

It's actually a historical term - it came about from loading apps on the Nokia Ngage ("side-talking")

It sure didn't.

Sideloading came about as content was generally downloaded elsewhere and then pushed onto a device over a local connection -- i.e. sideways.

It's a lot older than the N-Gage.

No one should get to decide is the point.

You may be a bit young to remember this but it was once possible to install any software on hardware you owned without permission from the manufacturer.

And that’s how the common person ends up with devices riddled with viruses, malware, and spyware. I don’t disagree with you, but the walled garden approach is certainly a safer option for the vast majority of end users.

No. Linux Desktop suffer much fewer virus attacks and they are certainly NOT walled garden.

That's function of its obscurity, not its design.

not entirely, more a function of it's multi user mode as default and repos. Those two things would have gone a long ways for early windows as well.

It's also worth noting that there are a lot of linux servers in the wild that are hacked serving shitty wordpress malware and spam email servers. Sure the desktop is fine, it's a very small piece of the pie, but the overall linux install ends up running bad software and poor configurations just like any OS.

If Linux Desktop is a safer environment it has just as much to do with its obscurity as it does with it’s improved security mode.

Add a few hundred million gullible users and you’ll see more malware in Linux Desktop.

So first, having a multi user system was a good idea, running as a non privileged user is a good idea, and installing software through repos is a good idea. Linux isn't immune, it's just attacked differently and doesn't have the kind of surface area that would make attacks worth the effort. (not that there aren't thousands of linux boxes out there that are borked, they just aren't making the browser slow so people don't complain about it in the same way.

What would work really nicely here, is if apple had the app store as well as repo packages. So installing fdroid-for-iPhone from the play store shows all fdroid apps next time I look for apps. like adding a ppr to a deb box.

I don't know if they could still get leaned on to remove the access to that in the same way, but I would venture to guess that a secondary market for repos could be built in a way that is mildly vetted and also not tied to shareholder interests.

but the type of user who uses Linux was not the same type of user who were most vulnerable to getting viruses back before walled gardens. linux users would be less prone to malware regardless of whether there's a walled garden because they are more likely to have the tech literacy.

Pick your poison I suppose. I'd rather have control and have to pay for antivirus software, but I can see how many non-tech folks would like to offload this to a walled garden.

Centralized planning can end up in disaster though if the wrong decisions are made.

Presumably, app stores that do filter out apps with viruses, malware and spyware would still exist. But you'd have a choice in which app store you use, much like how if you're running Windows on a desktop you are able to install other search engines on the computer, and not fear them being suddenly removed for not being Internet Explorer

Presumably, there existed "app stores" or curated lists before that filtered out apps with viruses, malware, and spyware. Unless people strictly stuck to those curated lists (see: walled gardens), they'd be just as at risk for that malware that existed elsewhere.

How's that different from a suggestion to open up more ways to install software that doesn't have that no-virus/malware/spyware filtering? Is the onus just back on the user to determine which app stores are "safe"?

At some level, yeah the onus is on the user to determine which stores are safe.

Still going with the browser analogy, you can install Firefox on your desktop, or you can install BobsBrowser v0.17. Obviously BobsBrowser won't have the security or support that Firefox would, but that's why Firefox has a reputation.

The walled garden approach is like if Microsoft forced all users to only have Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer was unable to access websites that had not been approved by Internet Explorer (websites that would need to pay Microsoft substantial fees just to exist).

The spyware migrated to the product ecosystem, adware and os.

I had to download malwarebytes for my wife's mac the other week because the search bar kept involuntarily changing.

I swore I was back in the 90s with spybot search and destroy...

Quick recommendation: change your DNS servers since this type of thing (and others) could be caused by your ISP.

[1] https://erichelgeson.github.io/blog/2013/12/31/i-fought-my-i... [2] https://www.pcmag.com/review/364418/how-and-why-to-change-yo...

Sandboxing doesn't require an app store

Exactly.

Everyone keeps bringing up this legendary "app store featuring safe curated content" keeping the "ordinary user" safe but the reality is both Google & Apple's stores are riddled with deceptive apps, scam subscriptions and spyware!

The real story with iOS (and to a lesser extent Android) security has been the switch to restricting the damage any particular app can do through process and resource isolation.

The App Store allows for apps to be forced to sandbox themselves. Very few macOS apps outside the App Store are sandboxed, for example.

let people install software on a phone like we do on a computer maybe, you know, app store optional.

How exactly would a smaller company stop China from forcing them to remove content easier than Apple?

A smaller company would have less to lose when China threatens to block access to their market.

Or more, depending on what fraction of their production or revenue it made up?

A smaller company would have fewer resources to fight the decision and/or get fined/sued into bankruptcy unless they just completely left Chinese markets.

Notice countless small US companies do precisely that- they simply don't operate in China.

Elizabeth's plan isn't to make smaller companies. It's to make public markets. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/break-up-big-tech

And apparently she is not very interested in Apple according to the link as I cannot find a single instance of "Apple" in the plan. Not sure if Warren's plan will help this case.

You're taking a centralized app store as a given.

I'm not convinced smaller companies would make different decisions.

Her plan isnt to make smaller companies...

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/break-up-big-tech

Warren has no authority to affect how computers operate outside of the US. The non-us market is large enough that controlled marketplaces would exist if they couldn’t exist in the US.

If the company is US based, the US government has full authority to demand how they behave elsewhere.

Oh excellent, more reasons for offshoring.

Reading that I'm not sure how that solves the issue mentioned.

Breaking Apple up into service, app store and hardware might be a (coincidentally) working solution as it will allow third party app store without a censorship but I guess you didn't mean exactly this.

You have a choice, you can buy an Android phone, use fdroid, etc. Let's not get the government involved, it never really works out well.

>Let's not get the government involved, it never really works out well.

I for one like my fire department and police.

Sure, the government fucks up a lot of times, but at least in a democratic society I get to vote while in a "small government" society the power which would be wielded by government (and thus by the people, at least in theory) will be wielded completely by unelected powerful entities not accountable to the people, aka corporations and a few of the rich.

Hello. I have downvoted your post as your position on fire departments is poorly related to GP's concerns about government involvement in the context of app censorship.

Except that's not what the OP said. It was "government sucks, it would suck here too". So thanks for your explanation on why you deny me useless internet points.

I like roads, but not ones with roadblocks every mile. Lets be sensible.

> I for one like my fire department and police.

Well, we do have government mandated standards for emergency numbers, and emergency alerts. I’m not sure we want more government involvement than that.

Remind me of the original Napster - which is only providing the channel for users to share music but not providing the music by itself.

Think Different.

https://youtu.be/RSyy2-Z2m-U

Yeah, that was the last straw. No more Apple products for me.

I hope they will enjoy all their rich Chinese customers.

For what it's worth, so far Umbrella app hasn't had any problems in HK.

Because nobody cares about Umbrella app.

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1169323269297717248

Thanks. Have you used it? You seem to have lots of comments about it based on here-say but I'm curious have you used it yourself?

Is any part of what Zeynep said here inaccurate?

Yes, there is in various parts.

I'm curious, have you actually used Umbrella?

Could you be more specific? Zeynep Tufekci has actually been out in Hong Kong talking with and reporting on the protesters and their tactics, which your organization --- in her telling --- got comically wrong. Where is she mistaken?

There are many points which I have spoken about in multiple places. On the things she legitimately pointed out that I got wrong I put my hands up (like the flag things), admitted were incorrect and quickly changed.

A number of other things she said were partly/entirely incorrect, did not apply to us or could not be refuted in a public forum without admitting to previous experiences or potentially endangering people we work with in HK or elsewhere.

If you want more detail my email is in my bio and I am always happy to speak with people who are doing their best to help people at risk. Hence I am not being cynical, I actually am curious about whether you have used Umbrella? You talk as if you have so I am curious to know what we could do better...

Any word if this app is available on the playstore/fdroid in Android form?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=live.hkmap.app

It's not on F-Droid, but it has a perfectly usable webapp. https://hkmap.live/

This is yet another reason proprietary app stores should be supplemented, if not replaced altogether, by the open web and progressive web apps.

Having a central authority that dictates what software you can and can't use is bad for user freedom.

It's worth noting that anyone can side-load apps on their iPhone or appletv using a free apple developer account and Xcode. It's annoying to have to re-do it every 7 days, but it is an option.

i am glad i have never used any products from apple,and will keep using unix and android for the future

Careful Apple. Those faceless rioters will come to break your Apple store glass. Maybe time to upgrade them to bullet proof glass?

Apple should allow app sideloading.

Nice form Apple.

Imagine this happening under Jobs, probably never. I truly miss Steve's leadership at Apple. The one guy who would've showed his middle finger to the communist regime.

Are you kidding?

Use Waze.

Bad apple.

Apple can only stand up to the US government when it comes to privacy and security. They will refuse to unlock a terrorist's iphone when FBI requests it. They can do this because of the fundamental liberty everybody is granted in the US to everybody. The real test of character is how a company reacts to an authoritarian regime like China. That's what reveals the true nature.

And Apple has completely shit the bed in this regard. Google has handled it so much more beautifully.

Is Google helping the Hong Kong protests? Honest question.

No direct help...besides banning Huawei user, removal of fake news bots and pro-china propaganda on its platform

If Apple says no then there’s no iPhone 12. iPhone 13 is ideally manufactured in the us.

> Tim Cook Buckled Under Chinese Pressure

Mods: title is misleading. The article explicitly says that they don't know if there was Chinese pressure to remove the app.

Edit: title is now fixed.

If Apple banned it _without_ Chinese pressure it would be even worse!

Who says Tim Cook knee of it before it hit the news?

I remember reading a while back that when an app gets taken down, those decisions are made by people very higher up at Apple and not low level employees/reviewers. I really doubt Tim Cook doesn't know about such a huge deal.

Maybe for some category of apps. I can't believe that's the general case - there are too many to bother the higher-ups with.

The app was not taken down. It never made it through the initial review process to get to the store in the first place.

The idea that the relevant PRC officials don't have at least a daily check in with Apple to sync on issues the CCP thinks "need more attention" is endearingly naive.

> The idea that the relevant PRC officials don't have at least a daily check in with Apple to sync on issues the CCP thinks "need more attention" is endearingly naive.

Your comment would be far more useful to the discussion if you would provide some evidence to back this or at least evidence to support the claim that the CCP does this generally to tech companies or foreign companies.

You're free to believe so, but that doesn't change the fact that the post's original title was heavily editorialised. Nobody wins by having HN posts' original articles misrepresented.

There is clearly indirect pressure, at the least. Sorry but this headline is vague enough that it could be used anytime Apple decides to appease China.

Of course Apple bitched out, what else have they ever done?

Acting like a revolutionary, counter culture company is one thing. Actually sticking it's neck out and doing something important is something completely different.

Part of the reason I can't stand apple. At least Microsoft acts like a lame computer company without sloughing on layers of pretentious BS.

This is what you can expect when a cooperation declares privacy their main concern.

I mean they did stick the figurative middle finger up to the FBI when asked to provide a backdoor into a terrorist's iPhone. Which I would say is one of the main stories that sticks out to my somewhat bias perspective of tech giants standing up for their opinions.

This may be more a reflection on the what flex the residing government provides for a company in a given country rather than the companies appetite to stand up for their opinion though.

One has to wonder though. Apple refused to provide the FBI a backdoor, which people speculated would be due to setting a precedent for Apple to make these backdoors standard

How likely is it that everything Apple sells in China is backdoored as mandated by the CCP?

It's clearly 100%.

What about the infamous browser attack publicized by Google’s project zero that seemed to be perpetrated by the Chinese government in order to target the Uighur Muslims? If true that would seem to imply the CCP did not in fact have backdoors already right?

It was targeting the Diaspora, which was using non-China models.

Ah, interesting, "Diaspora" meaning Uighurs outside of China? In that case though, what evidence is there that it was geographically targeted? My understanding was that the attack apparently focused on websites likely to be visited by Uighurs, so how would we know what the geographical target was?

The targeted websites are blocked in China. They are only accessible outside of China.

Thanks for clarifying, I didn’t realize that!

Very likely:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208351

They allow a Chinese company to manage iCloud data.

The FBI doesn't have the ability to prevent Apple from selling phones in the USA. There is no law I know of that would allow the FBI to do that. China does have the ability to prevent Apple from selling phones in China.

The FBI doesn't have the direct ability, but they do have the ear of multiple powerful people who can move policy & trade law around to apple's disadvantage. They did just lose multiple requested tariff exemptions in the trade war.

Are you suggesting a Federal law enforcement organization, that maintains files on certain private individuals, would collectively come together to approach politicians to do blacklist a company?

Because that would be illegal on about 97 levels. Right out of the gate it would be seen as potential blackmail.

Under strict government regime, I too would've done the same thing.

so what would you have expected them to do, break the law? when they said no to the FBI they did it while respecting the law. should they just have quit the entire chinese market?

Yes.

I would expect them to allow users to sideload applications easily so they can continue their protests in a form of mild malicious compliance. That's the least they owe their users.

The best test of any company's espoused "principles" is when it is forced to make inconvenient choices.

Correct! Apple isn't surprised by the actions China took to get to this point. They've had their chances to stop, complain, and fight.

In that case, apple shouldn't say that they care about user privacy. They should say they care about user privacy as much as the government where they happen to be operating does.

I should be able to install any app I want from a download link, that's what I expect. Apple has no business to make a decision about user choices.

no smartphone works like this tho, literally none. that's what activist à la Stallman always pointed out. and they were right , ofc.

Oh yeah, Android is also completely broken by design, I'm not advocating for the way it works there either.

No, it's not. It's not perfect, nor is it trivially easy, but it is possible to side-load apps on an Android phone.

It should be something the common user can do, right now you need to go to enable some obscure and scary sounding settings to enable that, that's unreasonable.

It doesn't matter if it's "unreasonable". The key is that it's possible. It's not possible at all on Apple devices, so Android is superior in this regard.

Every android phone I've owned can install apks just by opening them in the file manager. Not all Android phones allow this, but many do.

On top of that many brands (asus, oneplus, even some Chinese brands) let you unlock the bootloader with official tools. Using this you can take full control.

So it's far from 'none'. I recently bought a zenfone 6 because it satisfies this criterion. Asus is even sending devices to alternative os developers to help them out. So we can choose to not support walled gardens, and it's not even hard. It's a question of getting people to value software freedom higher.

Apple is a publically listed business operating a service (the app store). Their board and directors have a legal responsibility to comply with requests like this.

Then maybe they should not operate the app store at all if it's incompatible with user choices. Or at least, leave the user a choice to just download an app elsewhere if they want to.

Clicking on a link and installing an app like you would do on windows seems the right thing to do.

How is that even relevant? The parent was specifically saying that you should be able to sideload apps so that even if an app was removed from the official store, you could still install it.

That's never been the case with iPhone apps. It's the app store or the highway. That's practically advertised by Apple as a feature of their ecosystem.

You missed the "I should be able to" part of the sentence.

Which law, exactly?

Yeah, breaking the Law can be totally justified. Unless you want to behave like a slave company.

That's stupid. Braking the law is never justified. Companies have to take care of the money that the stockholders invested into them.

> should they just have quit the entire chinese market?

yes?

It's not just consumer sales. The manufacturing pipeline is dependent on China. It would end Apple.

You may as well ask, if Apple got an NSL, should they quit the entire US market? Or should they comply.

"Because it's the right thing to do."

- Tim Cooke

Apple needs to bow out of politics. Let anyone post an app as long as it's secure and not threatening to the OS or device itself. It's the politics (like with other companies) that will destroy it. If some terrorist wants to make an app, let it happen. It would be much easier to flag and track people that download said app, than to ban such apps completely from the walled garden, and force them underground.

I'm sure that's what Apple wants to do, and that almost works with American laws, but that will get you banned from China.

Apple's walled garden system matches nicely with Chinese Communism.

Nobody wants to loose china market. Especially apple so they obey china what to delete.

Free people now know that its time to leave apple

And go where exactly? Self compiled Android without Google services? Welcome to the world. It's a messy place of conflicting values.

Self-compiled Android without Google services is not a bad place to start.

That said, these single-vendor proprietary mobile platforms are all dumpster fires so it may be time to start developing a free software alternative.

We need free hardware before we can build free software.

No one produces an LTE modem with open source firmware.

You absolutely do not need free hardware to build free software.

It was decades before the PC's we used to build FreeBSD, GNU, Linux etc. had even a free software BIOS available.

Historically, free hardware availability has followed in the wake of free software.

The world isn't the way it is inexorably, nor do we (especially highly technical people in a technical discussion venue) lack the power to change it.

Whats genuinely harmful is shoulder shrugging "not my problem" attitudes.

No need to self compile. Use a normal Android phone, even one from Google. If you don't want to use Google services, don't log into a Google account.

I don't think that just refraining from logging in could be even remotely sufficient to prevent your data from being sent to Google.

It is for privacy purposes. Obviously, there are other services that communicate with Google without an account, like AGPS and (on Google phones) OS update checks, but unlike on iOS, those can be disabled — no recompile necessary.

Why do you think that refraining from logging in protects your privacy? Does Google only track users who have logged in to a Google account?

They don't track you any more than they track you on iOS, which is the point. Sure, if you use Google Maps, your location will be sent to Google even if you aren't logged in, but on Android, it is possible to use an offline maps app and set that as the default (and never use Google Maps), which is not even possible on iOS. Even if you are an iOS user who is fine using an offline maps app that isn't the default, every time you get your GPS location to show where you are on the map, that GPS location is sent to Apple. On Android (even Google devices) there is a checkbox to disable sending it to Google shown during the setup process.

What are you off about? The claim is that "refraining from logging in could be even remotely sufficient to prevent your data from being sent to Google."

google.com has 90% marketshare. Google Analytics is on 55.9% of websites (according to Google!) They track every user on more than half of websites on the entire Internet.

Why are you rambling about the default settings for the built-in maps app?

Because the erroneous claim is that Google tracks users more on Android than on iOS and that you need to compile your own Android to stop it. Why are you rambling about websites? Compiling your own Android won't help you with that.

Being able to install whatever one wants on their phone is a notable starting point. Any Android phone allows that out of the factory; no need for self compiling. Google services don't even get in the way.

disappointing, but this was obviously going to happen. there was also precedent as i believe chinese gov has hooks into iMessage, so anyone thinking they were going to do the "right" think was not thinking rationally.

> there was also precedent as i believe chinese gov has hooks into iMessage

iMessage is end-to-end encrypted.

sure, but the encryption keys live in china, so it's naive to think that the chinese government doesn't have access to them. that means they can read the data on any chinese user's account.

Isn't this only if you have iCloud backup enabled for iMessage? I remember I had to explicitly enable that.

Otherwise the keys are stored in the enclave on your phone. Makes it a bit harder for the government - they have to use a zero-day to get your messages at that point.

Was the advice qualitatively "good"? People are depending on the info in there to save their lives, and if bad advice lead to someone getting hurt, we would all surely put Apple on the hook.

> and if bad advice lead to someone getting hurt, we would all surely put Apple on the hook

No, you'd put the app dev on the hook. Validating the truth of all statements in every app is not Apple's job and never was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com