Euclid distinguishes the unit (VII, Def.1) and number -- a multitude composed of units -- (VII, Def.2). His definition of prime and composite numbers (VII, Def.11 and Def.13) clearly exclude one from the group of numbers, otherwise every number would be composite.
I think this is good to argue that my assertion is likely too strong. I fear this is close to arguing that early programmers were not familiar with map/flatMap. They did not discuss it as a first class thing, sure. Was it completely alien to all practitioners? I find that harder to swallow and it is likely that we are debating methods versus functions completely removed from the context in which the words were largely used.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm does a nice job of outlining how hilariously overmatched the IJN was in terms of naval production. In addition to that, the IJN didn't have an effective pilot training pipeline, so by mid war they were struggling to outfit their air groups for their carriers, and after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, their naval air arm was absolutely broken.
While that might (or might not) mitigate one perverse incentive, there are lots more. It's important for policy proposals to take unintended consequences into account. What others can you foresee and how would you mitigate them?
> A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization? How would this new certificate authority measure learning better than universities are currently measuring learning? Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now? Do they also have cheating problems?
> It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization?
While that might seem redundant, keep in mind that most of the cheating happens because responsibility for both teaching and testing falls on the professor of the subject, and there is not much incentive to prevent cheating when the school must print X diplomas a year or disappear. I assume that an organization whose sole purpose is to certificate knowledge can be much more specialized for testing and spend most of their time trying to combat cheating.
> Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now?
Samuel Eliot Morison wrote a definitive history of the naval war in the Pacific, so your memory is good! Ian Toll's new series is shorter, but also top notch and benefits from more access to Japanese sources.
It's unclear what you're asking for here? The Raspberry Pi Pico and Raspberry Pi Zero are existing and very well documented ARM based single board computers.
Fair enough. I suppose what I'm asking is whether it's possible to purchase a more modern CPU independently of a SOC and design my own single board computer built around that. Can you buy a naked Cortex M0 in a PDIP package? Are there data sheets for it?
A search of the interned didn't turn up what I was looking for, but I'm very new at hardware work. Perhaps newer chips have such tight timing requirements that you can't work with them without using a SOC?
Nearly everything is going to be a SOC because that's what commercial applications need to minimize part count and cost; there's negligible demand for a standalone processor.
If you're just looking to breadboard up a computer but don't want to go back to 8-bit processors, the Motorola MC68000 / MC68008 used in the original Apple Macintosh is a 32-bit processor in a DIP package running at a manageably low frequency and can be found on eBay inexpensively.
I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores and obey the policies of a particular store for users who obtain the app through that store.
Why is that? If an App Store is cruel to the app developers, either through terms or actions, why should developers be forced to support them?
This is particularly important for stores like Amazon which dictate things you're allowed to do with your app outside of the Amazon store. (i.e., you can't charge a lower fee outside of Amazon regardless of what Amazon is charging you.)
Because the App Store acts as the user's agent. I have no ability to force Facebook not to track me, but Apple can. In the GP's comment, think of the App Stores as a jurisdiction and set of rules that the app maker and user agree on. Maybe Facebook doesn't want to follow Apple's rules, but I don't want to use Facebook on Android's terms.
That's why the grandparent comment said "I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores".
Without that clause, your approach wouldn't work, because what incentive would Facebook even have to release it on the Apple App Store and follow Apple's tighter privacy/anti-tracking rules, when they can just release it on the Facebook App Store for iOS (or whatever else they decide to call it or, alternatively, another third-party app store)?
Sure, having third-party app stores helps smaller devs. But it also unchains all the anti-tracking and privacy shackles from the tech giants like FB who don't care which app store they are on (as long as they can set their own rules), because FB/Instagram/etc. users will follow to whatever app store their app is on (no matter how much or how little privacy protection that specific app store is willing to enforce on FB).
Facebook might not be the best example of course, but I shudder when thinking about apps I truly need… WhatsApp in Europe is 90% of friend communication. Banking apps and other 2fa apps are required to do any banking.
Why ought a developer be forced to accept all terms on offer?
If I released an app store that forced you to offer the app for the lowest price it's available elsewhere while charging the dev 1/2 of the profit and inspired users to use it by giving them a rebate equal to 30% of the cost I presume I could get some takers.
After all if it's 10 bucks on the apple store it's 7 on mine.
3rd party stores aren't a check on unreasonable terms if developers are legally forced to do business on the oems terms no matter how unreasonable.
> Do not want to respect it but still be on the platform? Please gtfo…
You don't have to install those apps, lol. You can feel free to tell Facebook to GTFO off of the phone that you own, by merely not installing it.
But why should one think, that they should control someone 'elses' phone? If someone else wants to install facebook, on that other app store, let them do it.
> You don't have to install those apps, lol. You can feel free to tell Facebook to GTFO off of the phone that you own, by merely not installing it.
You are correct, I can simply not install those apps that I believe violate privacy rules of the platform. However, in this case, I will not be able to sleep worry-free after handing my barely technologically literate parents an iPhone anymore, because they will immediately install all the random crap without any second thoughts about privacy. Switching my mother away from android to an iPhone (and subsequently, from Windows to macOS) has reduced my "home IT troubleshooting" workload to pretty much nil. I don't want to go back to how it was before. That's pretty much why I got my mom an iPhone, so that her device can be fairly secure without tons of guidance and troubleshooting on my end.
The wild west of "I am a responsible person, so I can decide what's good to install and what isn't, because I can evaluate this on my own" isn't the kind of a situation I want to put my parents in. I want them to not worry about it and be able to install whatever apps they can without any major worries about malware or privacy or breaking their device, and that's why I switched them to iOS.
If we are even the least bit creative, there are easy solutions to your problem.
Just provide users with a way of "locking down" their phone to only allow the app store that they choose, with some difficult undo process, if the user chooses that.
So that way, people who want parental/child controls on their phone can have them, and those who disagree, and want to remove those protections, can choose to do so.
As long as the locking down, is a choice that the user can make, and it is not forced on everyone, then we all can get what we want. Well, except Apple I guess.
Problem is that it is incompatible to "get what we want".
For people who bought into managed garden the minute it is dismantled you lose "all apps need to stick to do not track me request" you get mish-mash of everything.
This is cost to give others freedom to side load. There is no way to put genie into the bottle if it is out.
Only way I see it would be possible is that Apple could offer fully locked iPhones and multi-store iPhones. Then market could decide what works better.
Developers, especially on HN, cannot accept there is group of customers that just doesn't want to interact them directly.
Correct. When this bipartisan bill passes, everyone will be able to install whatever app store that they want on their iPhone, and Apple won't be able to do anything to stop it.
The future is going to be pretty awesome, when the law forces Apple to make it extremely easy for people to use other app stores.
Ok, and when the bill passes it will be their for smartphones as well, and people will be able to install whatever app store on their android or iPhone.
> it sucks
Then don't install the app stores that you don't like, lol. Problem solved. Only use Apple's, if that is what you prefer.
You can simply only install the Apple App store... There is nothing stopping you from having a phone that has exactly as many app stores as you want on it.
You can have your phone that only uses the apple app store.
The App Store is an important part of the platform - what 3rd party dev can and can't do, and how I as a user interact with them. My experience as a user it better because of the rules Apple forces app developers to follow.
Yeah, but that’s just laziness on Apple’s part. They could easily move those restrictions to the OS itself, rather than the App Store. Then, it would be consistently applied, since it wouldn’t be done by human review.
because most pc steam competitors are 1 step removed from malware and yet I am virtually required to install them. Or take the moral high ground, but that sucks.
I agree with you up to a point, namely that developers should be prevented from making their apps exclusive to any specific app store, but they shouldn't have to spend any resources making their app acceptable to any other app store.
So if Epic Games want to create their own app store, they can, but Apple should be allowed to list their games on its own app store too (and pay Epic whatever the relevant price is for each download of a game, out of the amount that Apple bills the user for it).
Why should Epic be made to do business with Apple if you can't get a game via the app store of your choosing and it's that important play something else.
The point or the justification for this sort of legislation is that monopolies and bundling are bad for consumers, so enabling companies to force users to use their app stores in order to download their games doesn't seem like a very consistent approach.
There is no monopoly if there is competition between the stores. Users are not forced to download anything if there is competition. If this practice is as bad as you think, it will be driven out by competition (spoiler alert: it's not bad at all and will remain in vogue).
You could equally say that Apple don't have a monopoly on phones, which is true, but they do have monopoly-like control over the apps which iOS users can install, which this legislation is trying to remedy.
Similarly, if the Epic Store is the only place you can download Fortnite, and you really like Fortnite, but hate the advertising and data harvesting and battery use of the Epic Store, then you are being denied the ability to participate freely in the market for app stores.
Saying "just play a different game" is as unhelpful as saying "just buy a different phone", and doesn't address the underlying complaint that product tying is an anti-competitive practice that consumers should be protected against:
There is no precedent for choosing the distribution of your product in an open market as being "anti-competitive". Direct-to-consumer is in no way anti-competitive and is in fact the opposite. Simply put, if businesses opt to distribute their product via their own channels (or others) instead of yours that means your offering is not good enough, full stop. You will need to improve your product if you want to survive in the market. This is the definition of competition.
Let's be frank here: people here are afraid because they know Apple's App Store and its policies are in no way actually compelling in the open market and, if they are subjected to real competition, they will fail just like most other 1st party stores that are subjected to competition.
Instead of allowing Apple to be the governing body of what is acceptable software policy simply because they are a for-profit company that makes a lot of money, maybe you should focus this attention on actual legislation from your elected governing body that would give you such protections.
Sidenote: Fortnite doesn't have a monopoly on gamers and most gamers do not play Fornite. People need to stop using Fornite as if it is the new Standard Oil of gaming. There is no such thing in gaming and it makes for silly arguments.
> Saying "just play a different game" is as unhelpful as saying "just buy a different phone"
No. This is a false comparision.
The smartphone market is a duopoly that is worth trillions of dollars.
Battle royale videos games are not that.
If fortnite eventually is worth trillions of dollars, and literally almost every single person in the world has to use it, on the same level that they use freaking smart phones, `then` we can use anti-trust law, or pro-competition laws on this now vital service.
Any particular game is merely a singular and temporary amusement no matter how temporarily pervasive the smartphone is the single most pervasive platform for communication, culture, work, and computation in the world. There can be no comparison.
There is no universe where you have a right to purchase a particular product via a particular market. For example if Fred Meyers doesn't carry every product that Walmart does you cannot say that the merchant infringed your rights by not offering it for sale in the market you would prefer.
Apple is using its position to insert itself between vendor and customer while the customer sits snug in their own home whereas your position would require positive action on the part of someone who has no particular obligation nor relationship to you. You have not hired them and they aren't obligated to work for you.
There is a universe where consumers have a right to purchase products without the market interference of exclusivity agreements, and that universe contains the EU:
> (151) In an exclusive distribution agreement the supplier agrees to sell his products only to one distributor for resale in a particular territory.
The rules are complicated and depend on the supplier's and buyer's market share, but you can read the details on page 46 of their "Guidelines on Vertical Restraints".[0]
I'm not suggesting that a company should be required to take a positive action to fulfil Apple's requirements, but if a company is producing a file which can be installed via an app store, they should not try using copyright or contract law to prevent other app stores from also selling/distributing their app.
(Admittedly there would have to be some amount of paperwork for allowing the various app stores to pay money into the app developer's account, but that could be done on Apple's side so that the developer continues to get a payment each month, with some stats on a dashboard somewhere showing which app stores the app was sold through).
Exclusivity is something the market maker buys from the vendor. Making such a transaction illegal does not in any fashion require the vendor to actually sell their goods on multiple markets it just requires them not to exchange money for exclusivity.
In particular I don't think it says anything at all about a situation where the vendor and market are not engaged in a relationship but rather are literally the same company. Nothing forbids a donut shop from actually baking AND selling the donuts.
I don't think a 3rd party Epic store is an example of tying either. It's not something you are being asked to purchase in order to realize the other purchase it is rather a means to actually receive the product you have purchased. You might as well say that <insert app> is tied to the purchase of an executable or disk.
Not only that but if Apple allowed sideloading they would arguably be able to trivially able to avoid even a misguided accusation of tying by providing a manually installable package file with the app store merely providing a free means to receive updates.
