We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. If people are worried about malware or whatever, have the apps be optionally notarised and big warning's if they aren't. I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own. This is clearly against the spirit of the DMA.
> We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices.
That's absolutely the opposite of how most of EU operates. See every single EU banking application. You can't run on rooted Android. Yes, EU absolutely should focus of their own tech first and foremost.
> I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own.
Device manufacturers that are also service providers want nothing more than to adopt the licensing business model. The public has mostly accepted that when you buy physical media that contains digital media, you buy a limited use license to the digital media, and the physical media just happens to be the delivery mechanism. In that same sense, it could be construed that buying a mobile device grants you a license to a digital service, without which the device is useless. You technically own the device, but you license the operating system.
So the argument is: feel free to do what you want on any other operating system, if you can manage to run it, but on our OS, you'll abide by our rules. Apple has been successful at this for years, Google is well on its way there with Android, and even desktop OSs have been trending in this direction.
The last bastion of OSs that give users actual freedom are Linux, BSDs, and other niche OSs. Everything else is becoming a walled garden.
I never understood why would people want that. Apple is very clear from the start they are limiting what can run on the devices they sell. Why on earth would you buy these if you need to run arbitrary code on it??
Also this is problematic for the people who actually look at what they are buying and actually want to have only limited software allowed on the device (e.g. me).
How would such a law work in practice. Should I be able to run MacOS software on Windows? What about Android apps on iOS? Windows 98 software on Windows 11?
Not relevant; a child consenting (or "consenting") to a parental lock on their (or "their") phone isn't the same as Apple locking down their OS. Ditto an employee using a company device.
You give your kid a smart phone when you trust them with one? The standard parental control, money. They can't afford the phone or the cellular plan on their own.
I guess it's just as good as any other of the vendors you mentioned. I don't see why we shouldn't start with Apple but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too.
At least I know I would like to run personalized software on my Switch without having to rooting it by other 'ways'.
>>All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.
The developer had his app distribution rights removed in mid-July.
i am the one who reached out to TorrentFreak; they were the first to respond. (The Verge /MacRumors/9to5Mac ignored me)
Two days, two app store news. Yesterday it was Google and there was a large discussion.
And today it is Apple, and I'm curious to see whether HN folks feel the similar passion. Historically, people pick up pitch forks for Google but give Apple a pass - so looking forward to the conversation here.
I think most people concerned with sovereignty over their own devices gave up on Apple long ago.
This is the kind of conduct I expect from Apple and the reason I have no interest in using one of their devices. I think it's bad for them to do this. I think it's bad for them to have the ability to do this. I don't think ranting about it on HN will accomplish anything. It has been this way for nearly 20 years and it will only change if governments make even stricter laws against it.
Google, on the other hand is trying to lock down a previously (somewhat) open platform. That's a rug pull for those who picked Android for its openness, and it's possible that sufficient outrage from the tech community will stop that plan.
>and it's possible that sufficient outrage from the tech community will stop that plan.
I highly doubt that. It would take the common non-tech person to be outraged. This is where google makes all their money. Not from a small minority of tech workers.
As one of the people objecting to Google's actions yesterday, I think I was pretty clear that I was objecting to them descending to Apple's level, not below.
This is the behaviour I, unfortunately, expect out of Apple.
Thanks for the reasonable response. If you are a company and you saw your competitor was "getting away" with something so egregious, which also turns out to be hugely profitable, wouldnt you also do it?
There seems to be a difference between Google announcing an official policy change and speculation about why this developer is having issues distributing their app.
As mentioned in TFA:
> While there may be a perfectly logical explanation for iTorrent’s revoked rights, Apple’s handling of the matter so far only fuels speculation. Some might even argue that the lack of transparency in revoking distribution rights violates the letter or the spirit of the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
If Apple is truly trying to block an app that has substantial legal uses that is being distributed outside of its own App Store, there is a problem.
Its interesting that you're giving the benefit of the doubt to Apple, when all signs from the past point to Apple kicking the developer out and protecting their app store control.
You're technically right that we havent seen Apple do the thing _in this instance_ but why do you still give the company the benefit of the doubt.
Mostly because the people who want sideloading are using Android. And on Android the situation is constantly getting worse, while on iOS it's largely just sticking to the status quo.
Nevertheless, this serves as an excellent demonstration of the problem with the changes Google are making, since they would allow Google to do exactly what Apple just did.
the article that caused such outrage yesterday was about Google making it more difficult for devs to deploy arbitrary software on Android mobile devices outside of the official store. This is something that Apple does not allow at all for devs on iOS devices (except in regions where forced to by law). I don't like Google's changes, but its still better than Apple's stance.
I don't feel similar passion but that's because I don't have an iphone and gave up on ios long ago. I use android because it gave me more freedom. The freedom to root my phone, the freedom to install whatever app I wanted to.
I use a macbook pro as my main laptop because macos is bearable (also it's become steadily worse in the last few years) and their hardware is great. But, ipads and iphones are just locked down trash from my perspective and I refuse to use money to get a device that I can't control.
We aren’t a monolith, as evidenced by the supportive comments in response to yours and throughout the comments here. I also don’t think Apple deserves a pass.
You will not see the same level of engagement. Many more people care about changes to sideloading on Android as a whole than something affecting one torrent app on one app store in one region on iOS.
I admit that many give apple a pass, but I think the outrage is greater for Google because people think there's a chance they'll actually listen to their consumers
Yes and not just that but we also need things like bank apps supporting it and not blocking everything for 'security reasons' like they do with alternative Android roms.
I would love to see iOS be unchained for users to do what they want with it. But in realistic terms, buying an iPhone comes with the baggage that you are basically opting into Apple owning your device for you.
So when stuff like this happens, it's kind of the expected outcome. Cue the lawnmower analogy.
For as long as I've been on Hacker News (2015?) there has been an obvious Apple bias. I don't really think that has changed that much.
I always thought a lot of developers who were big Apple fans would fall off as Apple started pushing stuff like the Mac App Store and Gatekeeper on macOS, but no. At this point I am unsure there is much Apple could do to lose support of its biggest supporters. All Apple needs is some plausible excuse for why something is a good idea and people take it largely at face value. (At least, Apple never really seems to lose much supporters in the long run.)
I pay too much attention to comment votes and replies on this website, probably mainly because all of the other discussion forums I used to go on are dead. But in threads about Apple, I kind of get the idea of what the votes really represent.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to have different models for an ecosystem and market.
Android exits, it's relatively open. I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
Apple is a walled garden. That's both a gift and a curse. I see a lot more spammy low-quality apps on Android, but I also have more choice. I prefer Android for mobile and Mac for desktop.
As an aside, any time I've seen the state intervene in affairs like this it has made my experience as a user worse. I remember something about Google can no longer "favor" their services. So for instance, if I search for an address, it can't show me Google maps because it theoretically harms all the fledgling map companies. But now it's just more clicks for me. I don't care about competition, I care about the best product. If I search for an address I want google maps. If I search for a video, show me YouTube. And if Google fails to deliver the best product, I'll switch.
It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
> I don't care about competition, I care about the best product.
Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
There are two viable players for the average Joe in the phone market. There are I would guess 200-300 restaurants in my not so big town.
The number of choices matters a lot. If there were only two real option for restaurants around me, I would hope the management does not decide to be evil and lower food quality, jack up prices, or collude to only offer specific food while the other restaurant does not offer.
Also, in the restaurant example, we always have the option to buy our own food and cook at home. So to match the phone market situation, imagine cooking at home is illegal, and the only food you can eat is from two restaurants.
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
I don't think that accurately depicts the situation.
> Apple has threatened to remove creator platform Patreon from the App Store if creators use unsupported third-party billing options or disable transactions on iOS, instead of using Apple's own in-app purchasing system for Patreon's subscriptions.
This happened because 5 years after Patreon published their app, Apple decided they were now due a 30% recurring cut of "indie creator" revenue. And that's ignoring that they did this while under court order to allow external payment options. And we've seen them try to force IAP purchases and subscriptions into WordPress, to Hey, and other apps too.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to have different models for an ecosystem and market.
The practice of charging different prices for the same digital good depending on the buyer’s country is generally called international price discrimination (or geo-based price discrimination). Just so you know.
Every time I am tempted to switch to iPhone, it does not take long for me to remember that Apple is a hostile enemy.
FWIW, I get tempted to switch when my Android starts feeling like it works for Google and not for me. The advantage of the iPhone is that it works for nobody.
I've never had an iPhone and I'm sure it's even more locked down, but I've always felt like my Android phones worked for Google rather than for me.
Always some new notification to be disabled (or cannot be disabled without ADB). The Play Store "helpfully" refuses to install some software on my phone that doesn't meet the minimum specs or whatever. Can't remove protected applications from phones (such as Facebook on some Samsung phones). For all its talk about being open source, it's certainly always been more locked down than a Windows PC or a Mac.
At least Windows Phone did almost nothing, which was more relaxing lol
Google is implementing changes here soon that require their approval and digital signing to side-load apps. So Google is an equal and more hypocritical "hostile enemy."
It’s surprising that anyone would think EU politicians might punish Apple for deplatforming a single BitTorrent app. Surely those politicians aren’t dense enough to believe users are relying on their phones to distribute Linux ISOs.
iTorrent's ability to play while "sharing" was the bridge too far. There are plenty of players for personal media in the App Store (Plex, Jellyfin, etc.), but as a BitTorrent client it's clear that its primary purpose was to play media that was vanishingly unlikely to be the user's.
It also didn’t help that AltStore PAL regularly spotlighted these apps, basically taunting corpos and eurocrats alike. On the bright side, qBitControl won’t be affected, since it isn’t a BitTorrent client itself but merely a remote for qBittorrent.
The fact that they retain the technical capability to deplatform apps outside their app store is a violation of the DMA.
It would be surprising if the EU they didn't hit Apple with billions in fines for the most obvious form of malicious non-compliance after going through all that effort of passing the regulations.
> The fact that they retain the technical capability to deplatform apps outside their app store is a violation of the DMA.
Not in general, and courts would have to decide whether it's a violation in this specific case. The DMA doesn't force Apple to platform apps used primarily for piracy, it just requires that they be able to justify restrictions and keep them as narrow as possible. De-platforming a specific app is about as narrow as it gets.
Also, it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app. The DMA is a competition law, and allowing an app whose primary purpose is distribution of infringing content undermines fair competition among legitimate content providers.
i use it to share pictures from my NAS to my phone. And play video from it.
Also, in Belgium, it's completely legal to rip and share ( within family circle ) copyrighted content.
This is an unusual (and risky) choice for most people, since BitTorrent is designed for swarm distribution, and ISPs generally don't look kindly on subscribers seeding torrents on their networks. I think it's safe to say that 99.99% of people use options like DLNA/UPnP, Plex, Jellyfin, or simple SMB/NFS shares for personal media sharing.
It highlights the fact that regulators are scamming the tax payers. They take money to protect us from such predatory behaviour and then sit on their hands and maybe do a token "fine" from time to time.
To be honest, I am tired of seeing people complaining and yet using, buying Apple's goods.
So why are even complaining for??
We all know that the current Apple will go until the last consequence before reverting anything.
If you continue using their devices, you are agreeing with their practices.
Apple business model is no longer based on the sales of hardware as it tanked, but 30% cut from the Apple Store.
Thanks to Epic, that income has been severely affected making it very easy to hit Apple where it hurts: Their pocket.
Apple will never listen while folks keep using their services, buying new iPhone that is just the same crappy year after year.
I play video games through emulation and using vision LLM's and OCR to tell me what's going on in a particular moment. Only Google employees get to use Astra right now. But I can't play anything passed PS1 and PSP with the most accessible mobile OS, iOS, because Apple needs Safari to win so no JIT for other apps. But at least on Android I can play PS2 and get TalkBack to describe the screen.
> This app using Firebase Analytics and so it collects next information from your device:
I wonder how the data compares to the data Apple could send and do they respect when user's have opted to NOT send app developers data?
I know when you first sign on to the App Store it prompts you about 2 things, sending Apple data, and sending app developers data.
*EDIT* I know it's not fair and doesn't mean they're all bad but given the current circumstances in the world, I am going to be quite skeptical of developers with .ru in their email or anything else.
This is exactly why alternative app stores matter. Apple's control over iOS app distribution has always been too centralized.
The EU's Digital Markets Act is forcing some competition, but Apple is clearly going to make alternative distribution as difficult as possible within the legal boundaries.
Developers need options. A single company shouldn't control access to billions of users' devices.
Update August 28: A day after publication, Apple informed us that the distribution rights (notarization) were revoked due to sanctions-related rules.
“Notarization for this app was removed in order to comply with government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions. We have communicated this to the developer,” Apple told us.
No further context was provided, but the developer purportedly had a Russian developer account, despite living in Malta.
I mean it has already been shown that needing a license to sell apps in an alternate store is in violation. I feel we need to be moving to non-punative fines for every day Apple violate.
The EU already told Apple in April 25 that the preliminary findings regarding the conditions they impose on alt stores and developers distributing through alt stores are in violation of the DMA.
Apple fully knows they are looking forward to a huge fine. I guess they are banning a torrent app here to be able to tell: look the EU is sponsoring piracy. They are also trying to get Trump to intervene on their behalf obviously. Given how spineless the current European Commission is, that might even work.
To my fellow European, my advice remains the same: boycott American companies, stop voting for parties affiliated with the EPP.
You are of course correct, but you misunderstand the PR machine. Apple can easily claim they are combatting piracy, and 99.5% of all people will accept that as doctrine. The truth doesn't matter.
> The EU already told Apple in April 25 that the preliminary findings regarding the conditions they impose on alt stores and developers distributing through alt stores are in violation of the DMA.
Preliminary findings from the European Commission are legally meaningless. The EU court of justice has annulled fines against tech companies before, ruling that the EC has not done enough of an investigation. For example, here is a ruling that confirms that the one billion Euro fine against Intel should have been annulled because the EC did not do a satisfactory investigation:
It’s not meaningless at all. It means a fine is likely to come unless Apple has a very good answer.
I understand your confusion but the EU is still a liberal democracy. Obviously we have appeal courts and some judgements are overturned. One being overturned concerning Intel has absolutely no bearing on what will happen in the Apple case.
It’s the General Court which cancelled the Intel fine by the way. The Court of Justice is the next in line jurisdiction and confirmed the court decision after the Commission appealed.
As an American I would advise people to, when practical, boycott these companies, regardless of their country of origin, when they do things anti-consumer/anti-ownership. But more importantly we should demand our communities/governments to break these companies up and take more measures to reduce their power to do these things.
You do realize this is for a torrent app, right? Do you think the EU will slap a 38B fine on Apple because it's not allowing users to access movies illegally or download malware?
Between this and Google announcing their move to a similar system for controlling third-party Android developers, I feel like FAANG is declaring itself above the law.
Apple's prior approach to DMA compliance was to loudly grumble about it, but do the absolute bare minimum to kinda sorta comply if you squint at it. The whole idea with iOS notarization was that Apple was ceding control over iOS apps for editorial but not technical reasons; i.e. that they'd only ever refuse to sign an app because it broke iOS, used private APIs, or was literal malware. Not because they didn't like it. This scheme is already kind of dubious, if OAMA had passed it would definitely be illegal in the US, but I'm told EU regulators enforce the law differently than in the US[0].
Now Google wants to adopt the same system Apple has just proven doesn't work. I hope the EU regulators are not only listening, but willing to actually fight this. The related debacle of digital services taxes would indicate that the EU is spineless enough that Apple thinks the DMA is already unenforceable enough to start killing apps they don't like.
[0] US regulation is something like "if we say jump, each foot must leave the ground for at least 0.8 seconds and clear at least 20cm off the ground", and then people figure out you can just lift one foot at a time and still comply. EU regulation is more like "if we say jump, you must jump", and then the regulators decide whether or not you made a good-faith attempt at jumping. So no stupid loopholes like lifting one foot at a time, but the regulators can be very subjective as to if you jumped high enough or not.
> This allows for easier access to software that's typically prohibited by Apple, including the popular iTorrent BitTorrent client.
Just as the regulators planned, I'm sure. I really doubt anyone will have luck getting apple to approve an app which is so often used to distribute copyright content and malware, and I doubt the EU is going to fight for people to be allowed to download movies illegally
We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. If people are worried about malware or whatever, have the apps be optionally notarised and big warning's if they aren't. I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own. This is clearly against the spirit of the DMA.
> We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices.
That's absolutely the opposite of how most of EU operates. See every single EU banking application. You can't run on rooted Android. Yes, EU absolutely should focus of their own tech first and foremost.
is that because of a regulation?
coz where I live there is no such regulation, but banks still checks for root because of the support load concern
3 replies →
Banking isn't the same as everything else.
1 reply →
What is a device, exactly? A smartwatch? A gaming console? A washing machine? A smart home controller?
If you say a general-computing device, I’d agree. It’s a slippery slope, though.
Anything what can execute software is a computer. From a tamagochi to a mainframe.
1 reply →
> I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own.
Device manufacturers that are also service providers want nothing more than to adopt the licensing business model. The public has mostly accepted that when you buy physical media that contains digital media, you buy a limited use license to the digital media, and the physical media just happens to be the delivery mechanism. In that same sense, it could be construed that buying a mobile device grants you a license to a digital service, without which the device is useless. You technically own the device, but you license the operating system.
So the argument is: feel free to do what you want on any other operating system, if you can manage to run it, but on our OS, you'll abide by our rules. Apple has been successful at this for years, Google is well on its way there with Android, and even desktop OSs have been trending in this direction.
The last bastion of OSs that give users actual freedom are Linux, BSDs, and other niche OSs. Everything else is becoming a walled garden.
I never understood why would people want that. Apple is very clear from the start they are limiting what can run on the devices they sell. Why on earth would you buy these if you need to run arbitrary code on it??
Also this is problematic for the people who actually look at what they are buying and actually want to have only limited software allowed on the device (e.g. me).
We need a DMA 2.0, with unlocked bootloaders, freedom to install another OS, precise documentation on how to drive the hardware.
How would such a law work in practice. Should I be able to run MacOS software on Windows? What about Android apps on iOS? Windows 98 software on Windows 11?
You can try to run it, if it works it works. The point being vendors can't actively try to stop you from doing it / but silly barriers.
Im sure there are legal nuances, but thats what lawyers are for.
1 reply →
Ok: your kid which has parental control can now do everything he wants with the phone. What's next?
Not relevant; a child consenting (or "consenting") to a parental lock on their (or "their") phone isn't the same as Apple locking down their OS. Ditto an employee using a company device.
17 replies →
Parents get to override their kids' ownership rights in other contexts, so it would reasonably be the same in this one.
4 replies →
Why would a kid be able to bypass parental control?
4 replies →
You presumably own the device, not your kid
You give your kid a smart phone when you trust them with one? The standard parental control, money. They can't afford the phone or the cellular plan on their own.
sure, if they buy their own phone.
2 replies →
As long as they don't start with Apple.
They can first force Sony to let us run anything on the PS5, then go for Nintendo and Switch, after that Microsoft and the Xbox.
All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
> As long as they don't start with Apple.
I guess it's just as good as any other of the vendors you mentioned. I don't see why we shouldn't start with Apple but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too.
At least I know I would like to run personalized software on my Switch without having to rooting it by other 'ways'.
1 reply →
>>All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.
5 replies →
[flagged]
1 reply →
Consider donating to the developer ( he is a solo dev )
https://github.com/XITRIX/iTorrent#donate-for-donuts
The developer had his app distribution rights removed in mid-July. i am the one who reached out to TorrentFreak; they were the first to respond. (The Verge /MacRumors/9to5Mac ignored me)
(i had no input in the article.)
Two days, two app store news. Yesterday it was Google and there was a large discussion.
And today it is Apple, and I'm curious to see whether HN folks feel the similar passion. Historically, people pick up pitch forks for Google but give Apple a pass - so looking forward to the conversation here.
I think most people concerned with sovereignty over their own devices gave up on Apple long ago.
This is the kind of conduct I expect from Apple and the reason I have no interest in using one of their devices. I think it's bad for them to do this. I think it's bad for them to have the ability to do this. I don't think ranting about it on HN will accomplish anything. It has been this way for nearly 20 years and it will only change if governments make even stricter laws against it.
Google, on the other hand is trying to lock down a previously (somewhat) open platform. That's a rug pull for those who picked Android for its openness, and it's possible that sufficient outrage from the tech community will stop that plan.
>and it's possible that sufficient outrage from the tech community will stop that plan.
I highly doubt that. It would take the common non-tech person to be outraged. This is where google makes all their money. Not from a small minority of tech workers.
Oh yeah for me personally iPhone was never a consideration because I despise being treated like a toddler and dislike "ecosystems".
And Apple being a middleman parasite for every app wasn't something that I had much sympathy for.
1 reply →
As one of the people objecting to Google's actions yesterday, I think I was pretty clear that I was objecting to them descending to Apple's level, not below.
This is the behaviour I, unfortunately, expect out of Apple.
Thanks for the reasonable response. If you are a company and you saw your competitor was "getting away" with something so egregious, which also turns out to be hugely profitable, wouldnt you also do it?
3 replies →
There seems to be a difference between Google announcing an official policy change and speculation about why this developer is having issues distributing their app.
As mentioned in TFA:
> While there may be a perfectly logical explanation for iTorrent’s revoked rights, Apple’s handling of the matter so far only fuels speculation. Some might even argue that the lack of transparency in revoking distribution rights violates the letter or the spirit of the EU’s Digital Markets Act.
If Apple is truly trying to block an app that has substantial legal uses that is being distributed outside of its own App Store, there is a problem.
Its interesting that you're giving the benefit of the doubt to Apple, when all signs from the past point to Apple kicking the developer out and protecting their app store control.
You're technically right that we havent seen Apple do the thing _in this instance_ but why do you still give the company the benefit of the doubt.
17 replies →
Mostly because the people who want sideloading are using Android. And on Android the situation is constantly getting worse, while on iOS it's largely just sticking to the status quo.
Nevertheless, this serves as an excellent demonstration of the problem with the changes Google are making, since they would allow Google to do exactly what Apple just did.
the article that caused such outrage yesterday was about Google making it more difficult for devs to deploy arbitrary software on Android mobile devices outside of the official store. This is something that Apple does not allow at all for devs on iOS devices (except in regions where forced to by law). I don't like Google's changes, but its still better than Apple's stance.
I don't feel similar passion but that's because I don't have an iphone and gave up on ios long ago. I use android because it gave me more freedom. The freedom to root my phone, the freedom to install whatever app I wanted to.
I use a macbook pro as my main laptop because macos is bearable (also it's become steadily worse in the last few years) and their hardware is great. But, ipads and iphones are just locked down trash from my perspective and I refuse to use money to get a device that I can't control.
the developer had his app distribution rights removed in mid-July.
TorrentFreak are the first to respond to our emails, Getting the news out is hard.
(i am the one who alerted Ernesto, but i had no input in the article.)
We aren’t a monolith, as evidenced by the supportive comments in response to yours and throughout the comments here. I also don’t think Apple deserves a pass.
You're right, but hard to ignore the fact that the other article had 2000 (!!) comments, and this thread has 120 comments.
They are not at the same level.
1 reply →
You will not see the same level of engagement. Many more people care about changes to sideloading on Android as a whole than something affecting one torrent app on one app store in one region on iOS.
I admit that many give apple a pass, but I think the outrage is greater for Google because people think there's a chance they'll actually listen to their consumers
HN folks won't feel a similar passion. Apple has a way better PR department than Google and the reality distortion field is still strong.
Google did away with the “do no evil” slogan. That irked a lot of people. Apple never pretended they were anything else.
2 replies →
> Historically, people pick up pitch forks for Google but give Apple a pass
This hasn't really been the case for the past year or two. People are pretty fed up with Apple's BS, even here in their historic stronghold.
What I'm seeing is that we need a true open source phone and os. Looks like there's been some work on those fronts, but we need to do more.
Yes and not just that but we also need things like bank apps supporting it and not blocking everything for 'security reasons' like they do with alternative Android roms.
What was the other app store news?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
[flagged]
I would love to see iOS be unchained for users to do what they want with it. But in realistic terms, buying an iPhone comes with the baggage that you are basically opting into Apple owning your device for you.
So when stuff like this happens, it's kind of the expected outcome. Cue the lawnmower analogy.
For as long as I've been on Hacker News (2015?) there has been an obvious Apple bias. I don't really think that has changed that much.
I always thought a lot of developers who were big Apple fans would fall off as Apple started pushing stuff like the Mac App Store and Gatekeeper on macOS, but no. At this point I am unsure there is much Apple could do to lose support of its biggest supporters. All Apple needs is some plausible excuse for why something is a good idea and people take it largely at face value. (At least, Apple never really seems to lose much supporters in the long run.)
I pay too much attention to comment votes and replies on this website, probably mainly because all of the other discussion forums I used to go on are dead. But in threads about Apple, I kind of get the idea of what the votes really represent.
Exactly as predicted [0] and ahead of schedule. I didn't think they would be so bold while the EU investigations are still pending.
Can we now revisit the arguments that people were making in those threads to defend this?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39137090
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to have different models for an ecosystem and market.
Android exits, it's relatively open. I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
Apple is a walled garden. That's both a gift and a curse. I see a lot more spammy low-quality apps on Android, but I also have more choice. I prefer Android for mobile and Mac for desktop.
As an aside, any time I've seen the state intervene in affairs like this it has made my experience as a user worse. I remember something about Google can no longer "favor" their services. So for instance, if I search for an address, it can't show me Google maps because it theoretically harms all the fledgling map companies. But now it's just more clicks for me. I don't care about competition, I care about the best product. If I search for an address I want google maps. If I search for a video, show me YouTube. And if Google fails to deliver the best product, I'll switch.
It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
> I don't care about competition, I care about the best product.
Competition is how you get to the best product. Lack of competition leads to malaise of product improvements as the market dominators are owning the space and happily exert their power over people.
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
There are two viable players for the average Joe in the phone market. There are I would guess 200-300 restaurants in my not so big town.
The number of choices matters a lot. If there were only two real option for restaurants around me, I would hope the management does not decide to be evil and lower food quality, jack up prices, or collude to only offer specific food while the other restaurant does not offer.
Also, in the restaurant example, we always have the option to buy our own food and cook at home. So to match the phone market situation, imagine cooking at home is illegal, and the only food you can eat is from two restaurants.
8 replies →
> It's no different than going to a restaurant and them serving only Pepsi products.
I don't think that accurately depicts the situation.
> Apple has threatened to remove creator platform Patreon from the App Store if creators use unsupported third-party billing options or disable transactions on iOS, instead of using Apple's own in-app purchasing system for Patreon's subscriptions.
This happened because 5 years after Patreon published their app, Apple decided they were now due a 30% recurring cut of "indie creator" revenue. And that's ignoring that they did this while under court order to allow external payment options. And we've seen them try to force IAP purchases and subscriptions into WordPress, to Hey, and other apps too.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-says-patreon-must-switc...
4 replies →
> I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
It changed with Google's announcement yesterday.
> I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
> I don't care about competition, I care about the best product.
You can’t have the best product if there’s no competition.
> And if Google fails to deliver the best product, I'll switch.
You won’t if there’s nothing to switch to because due to monopolistic practices no other service was able to survive.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems entirely reasonable to me to have different models for an ecosystem and market.
The practice of charging different prices for the same digital good depending on the buyer’s country is generally called international price discrimination (or geo-based price discrimination). Just so you know.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...
> Android exits, it's relatively open. I can download an APK and easily install it on my device (unless this changed since I last did this).
It didn't yet but it will change next year. All APKs will have to be signed by Google then.
They aren't going to listen unless execs start going to jail.
Who precisely should go to jail in this particular case?
6 replies →
Every time I am tempted to switch to iPhone, it does not take long for me to remember that Apple is a hostile enemy.
FWIW, I get tempted to switch when my Android starts feeling like it works for Google and not for me. The advantage of the iPhone is that it works for nobody.
I've never had an iPhone and I'm sure it's even more locked down, but I've always felt like my Android phones worked for Google rather than for me.
Always some new notification to be disabled (or cannot be disabled without ADB). The Play Store "helpfully" refuses to install some software on my phone that doesn't meet the minimum specs or whatever. Can't remove protected applications from phones (such as Facebook on some Samsung phones). For all its talk about being open source, it's certainly always been more locked down than a Windows PC or a Mac.
At least Windows Phone did almost nothing, which was more relaxing lol
Google is implementing changes here soon that require their approval and digital signing to side-load apps. So Google is an equal and more hypocritical "hostile enemy."
You can always install a de-googled version of Android, such as GrapheneOS.
And then you won't be able run your bank app.
4 replies →
...on a VERY specific model of phone
1 reply →
It’s surprising that anyone would think EU politicians might punish Apple for deplatforming a single BitTorrent app. Surely those politicians aren’t dense enough to believe users are relying on their phones to distribute Linux ISOs.
iTorrent's ability to play while "sharing" was the bridge too far. There are plenty of players for personal media in the App Store (Plex, Jellyfin, etc.), but as a BitTorrent client it's clear that its primary purpose was to play media that was vanishingly unlikely to be the user's.
It also didn’t help that AltStore PAL regularly spotlighted these apps, basically taunting corpos and eurocrats alike. On the bright side, qBitControl won’t be affected, since it isn’t a BitTorrent client itself but merely a remote for qBittorrent.
The fact that they retain the technical capability to deplatform apps outside their app store is a violation of the DMA.
It would be surprising if the EU they didn't hit Apple with billions in fines for the most obvious form of malicious non-compliance after going through all that effort of passing the regulations.
> The fact that they retain the technical capability to deplatform apps outside their app store is a violation of the DMA.
Not in general, and courts would have to decide whether it's a violation in this specific case. The DMA doesn't force Apple to platform apps used primarily for piracy, it just requires that they be able to justify restrictions and keep them as narrow as possible. De-platforming a specific app is about as narrow as it gets.
Also, it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app. The DMA is a competition law, and allowing an app whose primary purpose is distribution of infringing content undermines fair competition among legitimate content providers.
5 replies →
i use it to share pictures from my NAS to my phone. And play video from it. Also, in Belgium, it's completely legal to rip and share ( within family circle ) copyrighted content.
This is an unusual (and risky) choice for most people, since BitTorrent is designed for swarm distribution, and ISPs generally don't look kindly on subscribers seeding torrents on their networks. I think it's safe to say that 99.99% of people use options like DLNA/UPnP, Plex, Jellyfin, or simple SMB/NFS shares for personal media sharing.
I have been collecting stories like these at https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections and will probably add this one, too.
However, this is beyond Apple’s own App Store, which is sort of interesting. I think it still highlights the dangers of App stores, though.
The dream would be Apple letting https://github.com/ImranR98/Obtainium (a decentralized app store 4 Android) on IOS
It highlights the fact that regulators are scamming the tax payers. They take money to protect us from such predatory behaviour and then sit on their hands and maybe do a token "fine" from time to time.
Appaling.
To be honest, I am tired of seeing people complaining and yet using, buying Apple's goods.
So why are even complaining for??
We all know that the current Apple will go until the last consequence before reverting anything. If you continue using their devices, you are agreeing with their practices.
Apple business model is no longer based on the sales of hardware as it tanked, but 30% cut from the Apple Store. Thanks to Epic, that income has been severely affected making it very easy to hit Apple where it hurts: Their pocket.
Apple will never listen while folks keep using their services, buying new iPhone that is just the same crappy year after year.
I play video games through emulation and using vision LLM's and OCR to tell me what's going on in a particular moment. Only Google employees get to use Astra right now. But I can't play anything passed PS1 and PSP with the most accessible mobile OS, iOS, because Apple needs Safari to win so no JIT for other apps. But at least on Android I can play PS2 and get TalkBack to describe the screen.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/QPJmj2HmRTy7Zv3L8
> This app using Firebase Analytics and so it collects next information from your device:
I wonder how the data compares to the data Apple could send and do they respect when user's have opted to NOT send app developers data?
I know when you first sign on to the App Store it prompts you about 2 things, sending Apple data, and sending app developers data.
*EDIT* I know it's not fair and doesn't mean they're all bad but given the current circumstances in the world, I am going to be quite skeptical of developers with .ru in their email or anything else.
This is exactly why alternative app stores matter. Apple's control over iOS app distribution has always been too centralized. The EU's Digital Markets Act is forcing some competition, but Apple is clearly going to make alternative distribution as difficult as possible within the legal boundaries. Developers need options. A single company shouldn't control access to billions of users' devices.
UPDATE
Update August 28: A day after publication, Apple informed us that the distribution rights (notarization) were revoked due to sanctions-related rules.
“Notarization for this app was removed in order to comply with government sanctions-related rules in various jurisdictions. We have communicated this to the developer,” Apple told us.
No further context was provided, but the developer purportedly had a Russian developer account, despite living in Malta.
Pitiful response with no specifics, as usual.
Next on the bucket list: ban all LLM apps for violating copyrights, including respective iOS functionality.
Coming to an Android phone near you next year. Yay!
This seems to be another case of malicious compliance. What’s the point of an alternative app store when Apple can block every single app?
Wait, there are no torrent applications available for iOS? That's crazy. I use LibreTorrent on Android all the time.
I mean it has already been shown that needing a license to sell apps in an alternate store is in violation. I feel we need to be moving to non-punative fines for every day Apple violate.
This would be a perfect example to show to an EU politician.
Sadly not - the lobbyists of the media industry would very much support Apple in this case. That carries a lot of weight for EU politicians.
4 replies →
The EU already told Apple in April 25 that the preliminary findings regarding the conditions they impose on alt stores and developers distributing through alt stores are in violation of the DMA.
Apple fully knows they are looking forward to a huge fine. I guess they are banning a torrent app here to be able to tell: look the EU is sponsoring piracy. They are also trying to get Trump to intervene on their behalf obviously. Given how spineless the current European Commission is, that might even work.
To my fellow European, my advice remains the same: boycott American companies, stop voting for parties affiliated with the EPP.
This is not a piracy app; it's a torrent client app.
It's just used to share files. I use it to share my videos & photos of my cat.
it would be nice if someone had a backbone and fought Apple like Epic's Tim Sweeney.
You are of course correct, but you misunderstand the PR machine. Apple can easily claim they are combatting piracy, and 99.5% of all people will accept that as doctrine. The truth doesn't matter.
4 replies →
Everyone and their dog knows that torrents are exclusively used for piracy.
It's not true, of course, but everyone and their dog still knows it.
Surely we all know that when we post or upvote comments like this that we are being incredibly disingenuous.
Tim Sweeney's backbone is in whatever shape makes him the most money. He's an opportunist (and probably a narcissist), not a freedom fighter.
7 replies →
> The EU already told Apple in April 25 that the preliminary findings regarding the conditions they impose on alt stores and developers distributing through alt stores are in violation of the DMA.
Preliminary findings from the European Commission are legally meaningless. The EU court of justice has annulled fines against tech companies before, ruling that the EC has not done enough of an investigation. For example, here is a ruling that confirms that the one billion Euro fine against Intel should have been annulled because the EC did not do a satisfactory investigation:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
It’s not meaningless at all. It means a fine is likely to come unless Apple has a very good answer.
I understand your confusion but the EU is still a liberal democracy. Obviously we have appeal courts and some judgements are overturned. One being overturned concerning Intel has absolutely no bearing on what will happen in the Apple case.
It’s the General Court which cancelled the Intel fine by the way. The Court of Justice is the next in line jurisdiction and confirmed the court decision after the Commission appealed.
As an American I would advise people to, when practical, boycott these companies, regardless of their country of origin, when they do things anti-consumer/anti-ownership. But more importantly we should demand our communities/governments to break these companies up and take more measures to reduce their power to do these things.
This fuckery needs to stop. Apply the 10 percent revenue penalty and slap a 38B fine.
You do realize this is for a torrent app, right? Do you think the EU will slap a 38B fine on Apple because it's not allowing users to access movies illegally or download malware?
Then they came for torrent apps, and I was silent, because I don't use torrent apps.
Torrents are used legally all the time; it’s not always piracy.
12 replies →
Between this and Google announcing their move to a similar system for controlling third-party Android developers, I feel like FAANG is declaring itself above the law.
Apple's prior approach to DMA compliance was to loudly grumble about it, but do the absolute bare minimum to kinda sorta comply if you squint at it. The whole idea with iOS notarization was that Apple was ceding control over iOS apps for editorial but not technical reasons; i.e. that they'd only ever refuse to sign an app because it broke iOS, used private APIs, or was literal malware. Not because they didn't like it. This scheme is already kind of dubious, if OAMA had passed it would definitely be illegal in the US, but I'm told EU regulators enforce the law differently than in the US[0].
Now Google wants to adopt the same system Apple has just proven doesn't work. I hope the EU regulators are not only listening, but willing to actually fight this. The related debacle of digital services taxes would indicate that the EU is spineless enough that Apple thinks the DMA is already unenforceable enough to start killing apps they don't like.
[0] US regulation is something like "if we say jump, each foot must leave the ground for at least 0.8 seconds and clear at least 20cm off the ground", and then people figure out you can just lift one foot at a time and still comply. EU regulation is more like "if we say jump, you must jump", and then the regulators decide whether or not you made a good-faith attempt at jumping. So no stupid loopholes like lifting one foot at a time, but the regulators can be very subjective as to if you jumped high enough or not.
> This allows for easier access to software that's typically prohibited by Apple, including the popular iTorrent BitTorrent client.
Just as the regulators planned, I'm sure. I really doubt anyone will have luck getting apple to approve an app which is so often used to distribute copyright content and malware, and I doubt the EU is going to fight for people to be allowed to download movies illegally