I just paid for 12 months worth of Skype subscription which I have used for just 2 calls back in January.
I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.
Once I subscribed to New York times. The newspaper that was advertised to me for years in all Hollywood movies as a place where honesty and freedom are of highest priority. I had to spend an hour on a phone with their representatives to cancel it refusing to accept discount or a free subscription.
I don't trust many other companies. Especially if all my interactions with them are virtual and they are not specialized in information technology. At least big tech is quite rich to afford to think about users.
Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there: pay for utilities, for your phone etc. I want more progress here. I want to be able to see all my fees upfront in a clear format. I want to know my credit score. I want to be able to take this credit score to different organizations. etc. etc.
Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver. There are some successful ones, but I think finance is too regulated for them to have a shot at a serious scale. Apple and Google have a shot at that and they will create a road for smaller companies.
The situation in Belarus is bad. And believe me I know. I was concerned as well about my device security. But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem. Belarussian government must be replaced by Belarussian people and Apple has nothing to do with that. And on top of that - what choice do I have. Android devices in Russia are preinstalled with Russian software while Apple's aren't. That's more important sign for me.
> I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.
You do so only because you believe have no choice as you know that your democracy is so crippled that you don't expect them to protect your rights as a consumer any more!
Where as many Europeans and Asians, who also enjoy democratic rights, will tell you openly that we would prefer that our democratically elected government protect our consumer rights through regulations that bind all corporates to behave themselves.
> I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store
What about defining a standard subscription protocol that allows any company to offer subscription management, and allow consumers to change their subscription manager if they are not happy?
Putting all your eggs in one nest because you currently like it is a very risky gamble.
Banking has worked with standards for decades that allow interoperability and competition.
> But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem.
That's why the trust in one company should be very limited. As a non USA consumer, I will prefer some one else managing my data.
A similar thing happened to me years ago. I was a monthly contributor to This American Life. I switched credit cards and wanted to update my payment, but they had changed their website or something and there was, as far as I could tell, no way to change or cancel or any "account" page or "login" system. I couldn't even find support or a phone number. I think I sent email to a generic account and waited a week. After not hearing back I canceled the credit card.
I tried to stick to PayPal to manage subscriptions for a few years since it was centralized and I could change payments or cancel. Patreon seems to have taken over a lot of this--but it's even more niche.
> Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver.
I just can't imagine the ROI needed to satisfy VC funding...especially without it becoming shady or predatory itself. Or, like you said, the regulations involved for a self-funded startup. I think the other aspect is that big companies aren't motivated to play ball. Yodlee is probably the biggest player and has had spottier integration as companies have added 2fa and other security measures. Very few have gone as far as adding tokens to support 3rd parties like Yodlee.
> Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there
I suspect if something does happen (I'm not particularly confident) it will be a spinoff from a bank like how Allstate and Discover Card were spinoffs of Sears or Kingsford Charcoal from Ford Motor. Do companies do this anymore?
> I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.
This.
I just got screwed out of money by Couchsurfing when they started throwing a full-screen extortion prompt that prevents you from using the app or website at all so you can’t even delete your account until you cough up the dough.
They are using their own payment processing system. If they used the standard In-App Purchases, Apple could have given me a refund on the spot and hopefully booted them off the store for this bait and switch tactic.
Apple has always refunded me without question and I am willing to bet that most complaints about the App Store are from those entities that Apple protects users from.
The NYT experience is indeed the fastest way for a company to lose trust. It took me 3 tries to cancel. First rep said: yep cancelled all done. Except it wasnt: renewed at a discount. The 2nd rep: said sorry sorry and produced a chat transcript where I supposedly said thanks for the new discount, k thx bye (I didn’t). Said it was cancelled now. Surprise: it wasnt. Third rep got it done. For real this time. Still disappointed at how this played out.
Personally I don't want all my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay, I want a system that all banks supports where I can manage my recurring payments/subscriptions, in which I can generate virtual, revocable credit cards to which I can set custom limits and track my expenses.
I can do it for my emails, why not for my payment systems?
Indeed, I'm fed up with people criticising Apple because it refuses to instruct it's employees to criminalise themselves. Nobody expects any other companies to do this. It's bizzare to me how distorted a moral framework can be that people blame a company for obeying bad laws, as if breaking laws and criminalising employees was an acceptable and moral way to run a business.
Sure a company can fight governments in court, if that option is available, but if it isn't or if that approach runs out, that's the end of the line. At the end of the day it's the governments and laws that need to change.
Several banks and credit cards offer FICO score information. The information is likely there for you, but you may have to accept some data sharing terms and conditions in order to access it.
> Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there: pay for utilities, for your phone etc. I want more progress here. I want to be able to see all my fees upfront in a clear format. I want to know my credit score. I want to be able to take this credit score to different organizations. etc. etc.
Isn't there some sort of hack with subscriptions in the US where you can change your address to California and they have to offer you an electronic solution for cancelling?
>
Once I subscribed to New York times. The newspaper that was advertised to me for years in all Hollywood movies as a place where honesty and freedom are of highest priority. I had to spend an hour on a phone with their representatives to cancel it refusing to accept discount or a free subscription.
SAME. Somewhere deep in my comment history here, I tell the story of trying to cancel NYT, and needing to do it three times, because I kept getting charged. Ughhhhh.
This all comes down to the statement near the end: "I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments"
Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."
The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).
It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?
> Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."
That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.
And that choice has implications for the company in other countries, when they become dependent on the countries they do business in, which then start making demands of the company's behavior globally.
I know that if Apple did not offer products in some of the countries I live(d), many more citizens would be using spyware-loaded phones—because they don’t have the skills or dedication to use a PinePhone (or even to clear their Android devices of preinstalled malware and maintain them in that state), because it’s infeasible for them to purchase an Apple device overseas, or because they just don’t know better—which would lower the bar for propaganda and censorship, ensuring people with inconvenient opinions are fewer and farther between.
It seems highly unlikely that oppressive governments would be compelled to stop being such if Apple decided to withdraw from their countries’ markets. Yes, it is profitable to allow and tax Apple’s sales, but by my reckoning not nearly enough to pursue through a fundamental shift in political climate. (Yes, some citizens will wonder what happened, but considering Apple’s minor market share and domestic media’s capability to spin the story in favour of the leading party, public opinion would hardly be a factor either.)
To allude to an essay I read recently, a withdrawal in this context would be somewhat akin to Apple acting like Star Trek Federation (first do no harm, avoid mistakes at all costs), while remaining engaged, preserving the opportunity to enact a positive change laterally through non-obvious implications of attractive technology with superior security, would be them acting more like Culture.
Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.
Then, Apple isn't in the position to apply the censorship to begin with, and it can both allow for a way to install these apps, and follow local rules.
It's not some issue that everyone else has to contend with. You can buy a Pixel or an LG in China and install anything you want on it. It's only Apple that has this issue.
I have used Apple products for years and like them. I've tried competing products and they never worked as well as a complete package. Sure, they might have had a feature or two that was better by some metric, but overall Apple stuff works well for my use case. Does this mean I'm in love with Apple? I don't think so, but for now they work.
Love and hate are also pretty similar emotions. I find both the people who love Apple and hate Apple to be...odd. I really don't understand either. It's a company, either use their products or don't.
I always find it funny when people describe the beliefs of middle-ages as bigoted, believing God more than Galileo (or so the legend says) when clearly today, some masses clearly believe in states being the originator of public good, and some corporations being worth worshipping.
Civilizations have evolved, but humans still be humans ;)
Aren’t you just equivocating on the phrase “in love” though? In this context it just means a strong preference for products manufactured by a certain firm in a certain industry, which isn’t particularly abnormal.
The whole cultue of Apple is so weird, and kind of appalling. Just the fact that their press conferences are broadcast, and they're held in front of an audience that applaud everything the presenter says, and laughs at his jokes. People "live blog" it, like some bizarre court stenographer. And 1.000 threads are posted on HN about Apple keybords having been made even worse. Again.
Honestly, the arguments in this series of posts are not strong. I laughed out loud when I got to his complaints about Apple's headphone chips and the ease of pairing they allow -- and how it's somehow unfair that Apple, having developed this competitive advantage, is refusing to share it with other companies.
What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?
>What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?
Well in this case some of the reasons seem to be anticompetitive behaviour.
Tech geeks like to use their general purpose machines where they have a choice to pick their preferred tools and programs rather than feel like they're being pushed to get trapped in a walled garden of everything [company x] that comes to exist by said company exploiting monopsonies and leveraging it's platform control to slowly increase it's clout and push out competitors.
Yes the same can apply to Microsoft or the like in other/similar cases.
They're not the underdog anymore, they're very profitable, they make lukewarm claims for headlines that fall apart under scrutiny (the kind of scrutiny that tech geeks are all about), and in recent history have acted pretty badly towards developers.
All that said, after building a Linux machine for development and general client work, I consider Macs the best option out there. Everything from being able to copy 2FA codes from my phone and pasting on my computer, to colored tags and smart folders in Finder make my work easier. Also, Bluetooth is just a breeze under macOS.
And, on the converse side, why is there a class of tech geek that always strongly defends Apple in the comments? No matter how strong or weak the original criticism is, the top comment basically laughs it out of the room. It is never taken seriously. Could we not equally characterize the defenses as 'public and performative' as well, and if not, why not?
In either case, I agree with you people generally have strong feelings about Apple, relative to other companies. The existence of one side brings out the other more (compared to a baseline where more people have no opinion or are neutral).
Because of their behavior. A recent example is their actions around (not) allowing cloud gaming on their platform.
xCloud and Stadia have been trying to get iOS apps setup and Apple keeps stopping the apps. Apple does not have their own cloud gaming platform. They have been hypocritical about what apps and behavior they do or don't allow on their iOS platform.
Cloud gaming is just one recent example, is this behavior not worth of antitrust?
Personally, I don't generally choose Apple products for my own use because I tend to prioritize customization, flexibility, cost and a wider range of choices over simplicity, ubiquity, consistency and aesthetics. However, I concede that Apple makes some outstanding hardware and is generally an innovative, well-run company and the world is better for having the company in it. There are many users and use cases for which Apple's offerings are an excellent fit (including my own mother).
Most of my personal usage concerns are around the software and content areas where the user types and use cases Apple tends to prioritize aren't a good fit for my needs. For example, the focus in iOS on content consumption and app-snacking vs flexible content authoring and application depth (speaking-broadly here, as there are certainly notable counter-examples).
From a meta-perspective, as a long-time software-centric serial entrepreneur, I feel the long-term, net impacts on the market of Apple's app and content business models is, at-best, mixed for third-party developers. It can be excellent for very large developers with established brands and/or customer bases as well as the single-digit percentage of app developers that score a mega-hit. It can also be a good deal for small part-time devs that just want to get started quickly and don't necessarily need to count on consistent long-term revenue to make a house payment or employee payroll.
The app store model introduced a different set of trade-offs for developers because Apple retains certain significant value components for themselves such as the direct customer relationship, finely-grained control of distribution, some promotion avenues, margins and available business models. They also force certain requirements on developers. I agree that some of these requirements are also net benefits for users (eg privacy, compatibility, etc). However, they are also differentiators for Apple's offerings and enablers of Apple's extraordinary business model success.
Unlike some others, I don't believe Apple is guilty of being a monopoly (as defined by regulatory agencies) and don't see Apple's strategy as even especially predatory or deceptive. Sure, it's boldly aggressive and perhaps lopsided in Apple's favor, at least as compared to the Wintel proposition before it. But it's not fundamentally immoral, unethical or illegal. Certainly, the net effects and trade-offs of the app store value proposition to developers (and users) should be well-understood by now. If it's not a good fit, developers (or customers) should evaluate alternatives and respond appropriately depending on their preferences, context, requirements and priorities.
Finally, I think the difference between my viewpoint and that of Apple's biggest fans or harshest critics is more a matter of subjective value-judgements and perspective than objective right vs wrong. For example, I'm probably influenced by personally benefiting from valuation increases based on having durable customer relationships and diverse distribution channels.
Sadly many are very anti success here when it comes to corporations. It is all okay when you are the underdog but when you become top tier suddenly everyone piles on to nitpick
you can read stories throughout the history of HN and see where a company was being heralded for what they were doing only to be criticized later on for the same or similar.
We will never have a world where every company is equally successful and rarely does one company stay at the top for very long. Apple has been at the top of the "their" game for a relatively short amount of time considering how long they have been around. Same with other companies
I guess you haven't been around for the past 20-30 years? They're part of a culture war that they helped create surrounding Mac vs PC, iOS vs Android.
Steve Jobs even created these types of wars in-house. (e.g. the new Mac team vs everybody else - see The Pirates of Silicon Valley) Business is war.
People choose sides and they must defend their choice out of pride. It's like Ford vs Chevy.
Beyond that - Apple is very much against putting general computing freedom in the hands of users especially in iOS but also definitely in macOS. Lots of people hate a tyrant and don't want to work with them and will try to convince people who don't care about that to join them. And of course there are people who disagree.
So that's basically where you get all the anti/pro Apple argumentation.
Many good points in the article. And the starting point is brilliant:
> Extract more revenue from your existing customers
That is the only way forward for a company so used to growth. pressure on its current customers is only going up to buy new services and pay more for the old ones. Old strategies that new tools and a device that is with you 24/7 bring to new abusive levels.
Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.
My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court (to demonstrate damages or whatever). That's not quite the same as (covertly) breaching your contract hoping you get away without getting caught, which is the impression you're giving.
Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?
I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.
While there are many reasons to fall out of love with Apple, including those discussed in this blog post, many people will simply not do so.
Apple has always had an unusual and often unhealthy relationship with their customers, which has garnished Apple fans with labels such as "Cult of Mac members" - Ch.3 through 5 of this satirical book actually analyzes why that is: https://github.com/jasoneckert/CultOfMac
I never in my life bought that amount of software compared to the App Store, it’s convenient and mostly safe.
Apple paid revenue in the store is two times higher than Googles. I think this is directly correlated with convenience and safety.
"Censorship: Apple manages a global set of App Stores and cooperates with law enforcement in each jurisdiction in which it operates. ..."
Okay. We agree. What's the fix?
--
This censorship food fight is at least two problems.
#1 Which rule of law applies to international companies?
This is foreign policy. Just like trade agreements, treaties.
USA flagged corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook need a federal solution. Just like shipping, banking, and so forth. These corporations cannot act unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.
I have no idea what an international treaty covering speech and privacy would look like. Please share any and all ideas.
#2 Need for fair and impartial court system, legitimate enforcement.
FAANGs cannot be governments onto themselves. If my app gets rejected, there must be a separate fair and impartial court system to hear my appeal and adjudicate. If an impersonator takes my profile, I need legitimate enforcement to restore my property rights. If a FAANG closes my accounts, I must have the right to sue for damages.
--
Again: Enough complaining about unfair, arbitrary behavior. We get it.
You remove the master key nature that they have over their services and devices and let people manage their own master keys. I.e. let other app store happen, do not require apple to be the sole dispenser of keys, let side loading happen, etc.
That removes a lot of profit from their %30 cut although, so they are directly incentivized to prevent that from happening
The companies principally who are lobbying ... to have changes to your bills, are Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola [and] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. What are they trying to do? What changes do they want to make to your laws?
Well, I don't know, because they haven't come to me to try to make changes to my piece of legislation, but the word is that they're trying to water down some of the enforcement provisions while publicly proclaiming that they are very much against and condemning forced labour. They're going behind the scenes and trying to change the law.
If they're against it, if they say that this is not in their interest, then why would they want to change your bills?
Because it's going to impact their supply chains and make it harder for them to profit off of this forced labour.
Which means that they're using the forced labour?
If they're not using it, it wouldn't be a problem. But, you know, it appears that they are using it. And if they are auditing their supply chains the way they're supposed to, this legislation wouldn't be an issue.
> According to a document viewed by The New York Times, Apple’s suggested edits to the bill included extending some deadlines for compliance, releasing certain information about supply chains to congressional committees rather than to the public, and requiring Chinese entities to be “designated by the United States government” as helping to surveil or detain Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang.
It’s definitely suspicious that lobbying is being done in secret, but I can’t think of many cases where any lobbying is done in the open.
As a passionate Apple hater their new chips didn't make me go 180 but I'm certainly looking over my shoulder. I'm not going to lock myself into any prison but the idea it could be cosy enough to sign up is entirely new to me.
I'd estimate that the more one rationalises this the less likely to actually switch away from Apple.
It's actually quite simple: let things run their course. When the iPhone becomes too lousy, don't buy another iPhone. When the Apple Watch gets broken, don't buy another Apple Watch. When the laptop won't work, get something else.
Step by step you realise all the Apple gear you have is just broken or old stuff.
I am in that boat after some painful experiences with my 2018 Macbook Pro. Battery bloated and wrecked the keyboard and touchpad. That combined with the OS continued to go be "iOSified" I am out. Back to Linux for me. The phone... that is harder, Android phones just aren't as good as iPhones, and that is okay. The quality of both Macbooks and MacOS have been in decline for some time now and it is quite disappointing. Even simple things that used to just work like migration assistant required me to deal with errors in the process and it was not simple.
Silence. This is my comment. Waiting for legislative solution agains big tech in a financial depression is a pipe dream. So...I vote with my money. No more Apple tax for me.
> I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments – but this is an unlikely scenario, as they have extremely close ties and dependence to China, a current perpetrator of genocide against the Uyghurs.
I could imagine Apple eventually moving its supply chain out of China, but it seems unlikely that they would be willing to be blocked from China's marketplace as Google services are. I wonder where Pixel phones and Chromebooks are manufactured, and where their components are sourced?
I would also like to see Apple refuse to cooperate with authoritarian governments, but I don't see that happening sadly.
Nope they’re counting my dollar bills. They keep putting out amazing hardware: AirPods, iPhones, M1 Macs, etc., I’ll keep bending around their software (which I love 99% of the time) and their control of the experience which I think is what makes everything work so cohesively.
We just bought a new MacBook Air with the M1 and my wife will use it until it dies so if it’s anything like our other Apple laptops could be 7 years or so.
Money trumps everything. Everything done under the name of "we're are a privacy respecting company. We care about our users." is just a facade. Apple will sell you out in a heart beat if the law orders them to help them oppress their own citizens.
I wonder how do these people sleep at night knowing what they are supporting under the mask of company. What will their children think? "I'm so proud that my dad/mom contributed to a company which silently supported oppressive and genocidal government's and helped make the world a worse place to live for the people".
But let's go and buy iPhones and Macs and let them know we fully support their actions.
Sleeping at night is invariably achieved by dehumanizing the exploited. Chinese lives don't matter much, they are not Americans. Commies live on scraps. Such acts of othering make it easy to circumvent your conscience, this is the foundation of all war and crimes against humanity.
Then, of course, there are also the real bastards, those without conscience, who couldn't care less. They also don't care about American lives, or even their friends or family for that matter. The dumb ones end up in jail and the smart bastards end up running a company.
The rest of us just goes along with what everybody else does, we are too busy anyway to really reflect on our behavior. Need to buy more presents for the holidays!
Complaints about Apple’s censorship shouldn’t be limited to just foreign governments, which is a myopic and self-serving stance I often see in posts like this. It’s important to demand transparent free speech policies across the board for everyone. Like other big tech companies, Apple also censors content that doesn’t align with their progressive biases. They’ve banned numerous conservative apps from their App Store, and have threatened to ban others (example: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/tech-tyranny-apple-...). They’ve also engaged in the cultural wars more directly by doing things like replacing the gun emoji with the squirt gun emoji (https://blog.emojipedia.org/apple-and-the-gun-emoji/). At this rate I will be unsurprised when Apple decides to start blocking certain websites across their devices for wrongspeak.
If by conservative you mean antisemitism, white supremacy, far out conspiracy, racism and hate speech: then yes they banned 'conservative' platforms.
That's trying to make a cultural war of broadly accepted, democratic values. It got nothing to do with progressive politics.
If you want to go full libertarian and demand Apple to give freedom to all these medieval hate platforms, you'll have to allow IS and the Al Qaidas of this world their jihadism videos too.
john_minsk|5 years ago
I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.
Once I subscribed to New York times. The newspaper that was advertised to me for years in all Hollywood movies as a place where honesty and freedom are of highest priority. I had to spend an hour on a phone with their representatives to cancel it refusing to accept discount or a free subscription.
I don't trust many other companies. Especially if all my interactions with them are virtual and they are not specialized in information technology. At least big tech is quite rich to afford to think about users.
Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there: pay for utilities, for your phone etc. I want more progress here. I want to be able to see all my fees upfront in a clear format. I want to know my credit score. I want to be able to take this credit score to different organizations. etc. etc.
Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver. There are some successful ones, but I think finance is too regulated for them to have a shot at a serious scale. Apple and Google have a shot at that and they will create a road for smaller companies.
The situation in Belarus is bad. And believe me I know. I was concerned as well about my device security. But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem. Belarussian government must be replaced by Belarussian people and Apple has nothing to do with that. And on top of that - what choice do I have. Android devices in Russia are preinstalled with Russian software while Apple's aren't. That's more important sign for me.
webmobdev|5 years ago
You do so only because you believe have no choice as you know that your democracy is so crippled that you don't expect them to protect your rights as a consumer any more!
Where as many Europeans and Asians, who also enjoy democratic rights, will tell you openly that we would prefer that our democratically elected government protect our consumer rights through regulations that bind all corporates to behave themselves.
Hokusai|5 years ago
What about defining a standard subscription protocol that allows any company to offer subscription management, and allow consumers to change their subscription manager if they are not happy?
Putting all your eggs in one nest because you currently like it is a very risky gamble.
Banking has worked with standards for decades that allow interoperability and competition.
> But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem.
That's why the trust in one company should be very limited. As a non USA consumer, I will prefer some one else managing my data.
pfranz|5 years ago
I tried to stick to PayPal to manage subscriptions for a few years since it was centralized and I could change payments or cancel. Patreon seems to have taken over a lot of this--but it's even more niche.
> Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver.
I just can't imagine the ROI needed to satisfy VC funding...especially without it becoming shady or predatory itself. Or, like you said, the regulations involved for a self-funded startup. I think the other aspect is that big companies aren't motivated to play ball. Yodlee is probably the biggest player and has had spottier integration as companies have added 2fa and other security measures. Very few have gone as far as adding tokens to support 3rd parties like Yodlee.
> Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there
I suspect if something does happen (I'm not particularly confident) it will be a spinoff from a bank like how Allstate and Discover Card were spinoffs of Sears or Kingsford Charcoal from Ford Motor. Do companies do this anymore?
Razengan|5 years ago
This.
I just got screwed out of money by Couchsurfing when they started throwing a full-screen extortion prompt that prevents you from using the app or website at all so you can’t even delete your account until you cough up the dough.
They are using their own payment processing system. If they used the standard In-App Purchases, Apple could have given me a refund on the spot and hopefully booted them off the store for this bait and switch tactic.
Apple has always refunded me without question and I am willing to bet that most complaints about the App Store are from those entities that Apple protects users from.
qz2|5 years ago
__jf__|5 years ago
m-p-3|5 years ago
I can do it for my emails, why not for my payment systems?
simonh|5 years ago
Sure a company can fight governments in court, if that option is available, but if it isn't or if that approach runs out, that's the end of the line. At the end of the day it's the governments and laws that need to change.
totalZero|5 years ago
Several banks and credit cards offer FICO score information. The information is likely there for you, but you may have to accept some data sharing terms and conditions in order to access it.
https://www.chase.com/personal/credit-cards/chase-credit-jou...
https://www.americanexpress.com/us/credit-cards/features-ben...
https://www.wellsfargo.com/goals-credit/smarter-credit/credi...
https://www.bankofamerica.com/credit-cards/free-fico-credit-...
ignoramous|5 years ago
Brace for impact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2020/11/30/google-pl...
yoz-y|5 years ago
sjs382|5 years ago
SAME. Somewhere deep in my comment history here, I tell the story of trying to cancel NYT, and needing to do it three times, because I kept getting charged. Ughhhhh.
kochthesecond|5 years ago
Sadly, this is reality. It is very hard to prioritize in most places living on thin margins.
gigatexal|5 years ago
scrozart|5 years ago
fnordprefect|5 years ago
Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."
The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).
It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?
AnthonyMouse|5 years ago
That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.
And that choice has implications for the company in other countries, when they become dependent on the countries they do business in, which then start making demands of the company's behavior globally.
strogonoff|5 years ago
It seems highly unlikely that oppressive governments would be compelled to stop being such if Apple decided to withdraw from their countries’ markets. Yes, it is profitable to allow and tax Apple’s sales, but by my reckoning not nearly enough to pursue through a fundamental shift in political climate. (Yes, some citizens will wonder what happened, but considering Apple’s minor market share and domestic media’s capability to spin the story in favour of the leading party, public opinion would hardly be a factor either.)
To allude to an essay I read recently, a withdrawal in this context would be somewhat akin to Apple acting like Star Trek Federation (first do no harm, avoid mistakes at all costs), while remaining engaged, preserving the opportunity to enact a positive change laterally through non-obvious implications of attractive technology with superior security, would be them acting more like Culture.
grishka|5 years ago
sudosysgen|5 years ago
Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.
Then, Apple isn't in the position to apply the censorship to begin with, and it can both allow for a way to install these apps, and follow local rules.
It's not some issue that everyone else has to contend with. You can buy a Pixel or an LG in China and install anything you want on it. It's only Apple that has this issue.
Siira|5 years ago
rendall|5 years ago
AntiImperialist|5 years ago
mdoms|5 years ago
chadcmulligan|5 years ago
matwood|5 years ago
Love and hate are also pretty similar emotions. I find both the people who love Apple and hate Apple to be...odd. I really don't understand either. It's a company, either use their products or don't.
laurent92|5 years ago
Civilizations have evolved, but humans still be humans ;)
tshaddox|5 years ago
skc|5 years ago
tannhaeuser|5 years ago
encom|5 years ago
It's not healthy.
ubermonkey|5 years ago
What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to dislike them in such a public and performative way?
modo_mario|5 years ago
Well in this case some of the reasons seem to be anticompetitive behaviour.
Tech geeks like to use their general purpose machines where they have a choice to pick their preferred tools and programs rather than feel like they're being pushed to get trapped in a walled garden of everything [company x] that comes to exist by said company exploiting monopsonies and leveraging it's platform control to slowly increase it's clout and push out competitors.
Yes the same can apply to Microsoft or the like in other/similar cases.
duhi88|5 years ago
All that said, after building a Linux machine for development and general client work, I consider Macs the best option out there. Everything from being able to copy 2FA codes from my phone and pasting on my computer, to colored tags and smart folders in Finder make my work easier. Also, Bluetooth is just a breeze under macOS.
yepthatsreality|5 years ago
Ask yourself the reverse too while you're at it:
> What IS it about Apple that makes a certain class of tech geek feel like they have to like them in such a public and performative way?
JMTQp8lwXL|5 years ago
In either case, I agree with you people generally have strong feelings about Apple, relative to other companies. The existence of one side brings out the other more (compared to a baseline where more people have no opinion or are neutral).
ok_coo|5 years ago
xCloud and Stadia have been trying to get iOS apps setup and Apple keeps stopping the apps. Apple does not have their own cloud gaming platform. They have been hypocritical about what apps and behavior they do or don't allow on their iOS platform.
Cloud gaming is just one recent example, is this behavior not worth of antitrust?
mrandish|5 years ago
Most of my personal usage concerns are around the software and content areas where the user types and use cases Apple tends to prioritize aren't a good fit for my needs. For example, the focus in iOS on content consumption and app-snacking vs flexible content authoring and application depth (speaking-broadly here, as there are certainly notable counter-examples).
From a meta-perspective, as a long-time software-centric serial entrepreneur, I feel the long-term, net impacts on the market of Apple's app and content business models is, at-best, mixed for third-party developers. It can be excellent for very large developers with established brands and/or customer bases as well as the single-digit percentage of app developers that score a mega-hit. It can also be a good deal for small part-time devs that just want to get started quickly and don't necessarily need to count on consistent long-term revenue to make a house payment or employee payroll.
The app store model introduced a different set of trade-offs for developers because Apple retains certain significant value components for themselves such as the direct customer relationship, finely-grained control of distribution, some promotion avenues, margins and available business models. They also force certain requirements on developers. I agree that some of these requirements are also net benefits for users (eg privacy, compatibility, etc). However, they are also differentiators for Apple's offerings and enablers of Apple's extraordinary business model success.
Unlike some others, I don't believe Apple is guilty of being a monopoly (as defined by regulatory agencies) and don't see Apple's strategy as even especially predatory or deceptive. Sure, it's boldly aggressive and perhaps lopsided in Apple's favor, at least as compared to the Wintel proposition before it. But it's not fundamentally immoral, unethical or illegal. Certainly, the net effects and trade-offs of the app store value proposition to developers (and users) should be well-understood by now. If it's not a good fit, developers (or customers) should evaluate alternatives and respond appropriately depending on their preferences, context, requirements and priorities.
Finally, I think the difference between my viewpoint and that of Apple's biggest fans or harshest critics is more a matter of subjective value-judgements and perspective than objective right vs wrong. For example, I'm probably influenced by personally benefiting from valuation increases based on having durable customer relationships and diverse distribution channels.
Shivetya|5 years ago
you can read stories throughout the history of HN and see where a company was being heralded for what they were doing only to be criticized later on for the same or similar.
We will never have a world where every company is equally successful and rarely does one company stay at the top for very long. Apple has been at the top of the "their" game for a relatively short amount of time considering how long they have been around. Same with other companies
wayneftw|5 years ago
I guess you haven't been around for the past 20-30 years? They're part of a culture war that they helped create surrounding Mac vs PC, iOS vs Android.
Steve Jobs even created these types of wars in-house. (e.g. the new Mac team vs everybody else - see The Pirates of Silicon Valley) Business is war.
People choose sides and they must defend their choice out of pride. It's like Ford vs Chevy.
Beyond that - Apple is very much against putting general computing freedom in the hands of users especially in iOS but also definitely in macOS. Lots of people hate a tyrant and don't want to work with them and will try to convince people who don't care about that to join them. And of course there are people who disagree.
So that's basically where you get all the anti/pro Apple argumentation.
Hokusai|5 years ago
That is the only way forward for a company so used to growth. pressure on its current customers is only going up to buy new services and pay more for the old ones. Old strategies that new tools and a device that is with you 24/7 bring to new abusive levels.
jolux|5 years ago
mehrdadn|5 years ago
Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?
smnrchrds|5 years ago
webwielder2|5 years ago
bluescrn|5 years ago
An attractive enough person or product can get away with things that others couldn’t...
fnord77|5 years ago
jasoneckert|5 years ago
Apple has always had an unusual and often unhealthy relationship with their customers, which has garnished Apple fans with labels such as "Cult of Mac members" - Ch.3 through 5 of this satirical book actually analyzes why that is: https://github.com/jasoneckert/CultOfMac
dependsontheq|5 years ago
yuriko_boyko|5 years ago
sneak|5 years ago
The convenience comes at a cost.
swiley|5 years ago
specialist|5 years ago
"Censorship: Apple manages a global set of App Stores and cooperates with law enforcement in each jurisdiction in which it operates. ..."
Okay. We agree. What's the fix?
--
This censorship food fight is at least two problems.
#1 Which rule of law applies to international companies?
This is foreign policy. Just like trade agreements, treaties.
USA flagged corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook need a federal solution. Just like shipping, banking, and so forth. These corporations cannot act unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.
I have no idea what an international treaty covering speech and privacy would look like. Please share any and all ideas.
#2 Need for fair and impartial court system, legitimate enforcement.
FAANGs cannot be governments onto themselves. If my app gets rejected, there must be a separate fair and impartial court system to hear my appeal and adjudicate. If an impersonator takes my profile, I need legitimate enforcement to restore my property rights. If a FAANG closes my accounts, I must have the right to sue for damages.
--
Again: Enough complaining about unfair, arbitrary behavior. We get it.
Start proposing solutions.
novok|5 years ago
That removes a lot of profit from their %30 cut although, so they are directly incentivized to prevent that from happening
raylad|5 years ago
U.S. congresswoman calls out Nike, Apple and Coca-Cola for lobbying against Uighur labour bills
Jennifer Wexton says companies are publicly condemning forced labour and privately trying to water down bills
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...
The companies principally who are lobbying ... to have changes to your bills, are Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola [and] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. What are they trying to do? What changes do they want to make to your laws?
Well, I don't know, because they haven't come to me to try to make changes to my piece of legislation, but the word is that they're trying to water down some of the enforcement provisions while publicly proclaiming that they are very much against and condemning forced labour. They're going behind the scenes and trying to change the law.
If they're against it, if they say that this is not in their interest, then why would they want to change your bills?
Because it's going to impact their supply chains and make it harder for them to profit off of this forced labour.
Which means that they're using the forced labour?
If they're not using it, it wouldn't be a problem. But, you know, it appears that they are using it. And if they are auditing their supply chains the way they're supposed to, this legislation wouldn't be an issue.
ascagnel_|5 years ago
> According to a document viewed by The New York Times, Apple’s suggested edits to the bill included extending some deadlines for compliance, releasing certain information about supply chains to congressional committees rather than to the public, and requiring Chinese entities to be “designated by the United States government” as helping to surveil or detain Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang.
It’s definitely suspicious that lobbying is being done in secret, but I can’t think of many cases where any lobbying is done in the open.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/29/business/economy/nike-coc...
d1amonds|5 years ago
fierarul|5 years ago
It's actually quite simple: let things run their course. When the iPhone becomes too lousy, don't buy another iPhone. When the Apple Watch gets broken, don't buy another Apple Watch. When the laptop won't work, get something else.
Step by step you realise all the Apple gear you have is just broken or old stuff.
bitexploder|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
tommilukkarinen|5 years ago
donkeyd|5 years ago
nbzso|5 years ago
zherbert|5 years ago
Part 1: Software and Services https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
Part 1.5: macOS Privacy Scandal and App Store Policy https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
Part 2: Hardware and Accessories https://hardware.substack.com/p/falling-out-of-love-with-app...
musicale|5 years ago
I could imagine Apple eventually moving its supply chain out of China, but it seems unlikely that they would be willing to be blocked from China's marketplace as Google services are. I wonder where Pixel phones and Chromebooks are manufactured, and where their components are sourced?
I would also like to see Apple refuse to cooperate with authoritarian governments, but I don't see that happening sadly.
vfclists|5 years ago
intellix|5 years ago
gigatexal|5 years ago
We just bought a new MacBook Air with the M1 and my wife will use it until it dies so if it’s anything like our other Apple laptops could be 7 years or so.
bumblebritches5|5 years ago
[deleted]
infinityplus1|5 years ago
I wonder how do these people sleep at night knowing what they are supporting under the mask of company. What will their children think? "I'm so proud that my dad/mom contributed to a company which silently supported oppressive and genocidal government's and helped make the world a worse place to live for the people".
But let's go and buy iPhones and Macs and let them know we fully support their actions.
Lutger|5 years ago
Then, of course, there are also the real bastards, those without conscience, who couldn't care less. They also don't care about American lives, or even their friends or family for that matter. The dumb ones end up in jail and the smart bastards end up running a company.
The rest of us just goes along with what everybody else does, we are too busy anyway to really reflect on our behavior. Need to buy more presents for the holidays!
throwawaysea|5 years ago
Lutger|5 years ago
That's trying to make a cultural war of broadly accepted, democratic values. It got nothing to do with progressive politics.
If you want to go full libertarian and demand Apple to give freedom to all these medieval hate platforms, you'll have to allow IS and the Al Qaidas of this world their jihadism videos too.