I think that isn’t it, because it would be easy to say something like “we can’t verify the claim that it is privacy respecting so we should assume otherwise.” Which is a totally reasonable position to take.
I think it is important to be specific, clear, and to have evidence if one wants to call somebody a liar, though.
Or maybe it is something else, it could be interesting if they have some other definition of “privacy respecting” that precludes closed source apps, for example. That is, to “respect privacy” could be understood to actually be to provide users with verifiable evidence that their private info isn’t compromised. I think this isn’t the conventional definition definition of privacy respecting but I’m definitely ready to be pulled on-side if anybody starts pushing it.
Not really, not anymore. Many apps are now using certificate pinning to make it impossible for the user to to modify the trust store. This means that unless it is open source, it is very difficult for people to verify, even when they know very well what they are doing.
Yes you could, although the bar is still a lot higher than if it's open source. You will have to fully re-test all possible paths in the app every time a new release is made if it's closed source. If it's open, you just need to look at the git log.
Plus if there is one legitimate network call, then this strategy is out since you can't know what that request contains. OP using in-app purchases, so I'm willing to be there's at least one network call in there.
If there is no network access permission at all, then I think we agree, that's a reasonable guarantee.
These websites still exist and are enjoyed by many! GameFAQs for example, hosts a large number of saves. Most recently I downloaded a complete save file for Micro Machines V3 for the PS2, so we didn't have to grind to unlock all cars for multiplayer :)
I've had great success with using Joplin for this, with Syncthing as a sync backend. Works well across OSes; I use it on Linux, macOS, Windows and Android.
Yeah but why are we doing "the trial" (of Kafka) already? Where is it written that they will take away their license if one app doesn't pass?
I see a lot of negativity. Some of it is justified, some it's not.
I see only good things: finally after this, other countries will move ASAP to do something similar.
EU gave Apple a vague and open legislation. Apple's response was "okayish" and acceptable up to a certain point. Let's see what happens in the next 5 years.
> iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
That says 'from' the alternative app store. The alternative app store itself needs to be installed via Apple's app store, and the wording for that made it sound like you have to pay .50EUR for each first-annual install of it.
In my view, they are making alternative app stores way more attractive to FLOSS apps, because they will incur no fees from Apple, and the creators won't have to set up an NPO.
Edit: Seems I misunderstood, I just re-read the relevant section:
>iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.
The fact that they are charging money for apps installed from non-App Store sources is ludicrous to me, if they aren't running the store, then they don't get to collect fees on it, imo.
As a hobby project: cool. But as a solution to a problem, how about not supporting companies that make ridiculously overpriced products with hugely deficient functional designs? Apple consistently makes products that work worse than their competitors', for quadruple the price, but, hey, I guess they "look nice".
...which is subjective, personally I think Apple products look absolutely atrocious, with half of screen real estate of their software attributed to padding, and all their product's surfaces the blandest possible solid colors imaginable. So when a product not only functions worse, is several times the price, but also looks bad, what's left?
> Apple consistently makes products that work worse than their competitors’, for quadruple the price
This is also subjective. Personally, I find Apple products to work far better than the competition. I have to use Windows every day at work and I find the experience miserable, and I’ve had 3 different Android phones and always find myself returning to the iPhone.
As for the price, Apple products do cost a bit more, but quadruple is quite the exaggeration. Comparable ultrabooks to the MacBook Pro (Dell XPS line, ThinkPad X1) aren’t massively far off, and they’re made of plastic, not aluminum, which makes a difference in durability in my experience. As for mobile, the iPhone is priced in line with other high-end smartphones like the Galaxy and Pixel lines.
> how about not supporting companies that make ridiculously overpriced products with hugely deficient functional designs?
You made a very good point.
This whole post reminds me the whole iPhone Jailbreak thing: people devoting an huge amount of time and effort to "fix" something Apple doesn't want to be fixed.
And they're even proud of it! I find it to be utterly pathetic.
Over and over again Apple forces their manipulative decisions over their costumers and the majority just follows along.
And the funniest thing is the standard reaction on HN, a place for Apple fanboys. When Microsoft does the same this place erupts with anger, e.g: all the complaints about adds and telemetry on Windows. If Apple does it they invent excuses and over-complicated workarounds for it.
Session [0] is an up and coming, open source E2EE messenger that doesn't rely on phone numbers (and doesn't require them). It also routes messages through Tor. It's fast and reliable, and I always get notifications on time.
It has some disadvantages though, depending on how you use it. Your ID is a 66 character long hexadecimal hash instead of a classic username. Another disadvantage I've found is the paltry 10 MB attachment limit - trying to share a short video clip I made on my phone required several re-encodes to dip below the limit. Even some still photos will hit that limit, depending on complexity. So not very good for sharing media, but great for texting, in my experience.
https://xdpirate.github.io/ghost-translator/ghost-translator...