Jon Stewart Says Apple Told Him Not to Interview FTC's Lina Khan(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Jon Stewart Says Apple Told Him Not to Interview FTC's Lina Khan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/jon-stewart-says-apple-told-him-not-to-interview-ftc-s-lina-khan
37 comments
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
[dupe]
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39903345
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39903345
[deleted]
-comment deleted-
I can’t access the web archive link, but is there any further context beyond the headline? Why would we not expect a production company to give editorial notes?
To fix archive.is links, switch your dns off of cloudflare.
You may be able to do it just for archive.is/ph/md/today without affecting dns for any other lookups, depending where/how you choose to edit.
In my case at home I have an opnsense router and using the unbound dns resolver to provide some lan names as well as forwarding the rest to the internet. In there it has a "domain overrides" tab where I specified another dns server just for archive.is .ph .md .today
So 99% of lookups are going to cloudflare, and just lookups for those domains are going to another dns server. And now those links work for any machine at home.
There are other ways to do the same thing different ways in different places like on your laptop or phone, or maybe even just in one browser.
For example a lot of people mistakenly think the problem is dns-over-https because truning off doh makes it work. But that's just an example of a handy way to get the result of turning cloudflare on & off, if cloudflare is only configured in the doh config and not in the normal dns config, etc.
You may be able to do it just for archive.is/ph/md/today without affecting dns for any other lookups, depending where/how you choose to edit.
In my case at home I have an opnsense router and using the unbound dns resolver to provide some lan names as well as forwarding the rest to the internet. In there it has a "domain overrides" tab where I specified another dns server just for archive.is .ph .md .today
So 99% of lookups are going to cloudflare, and just lookups for those domains are going to another dns server. And now those links work for any machine at home.
There are other ways to do the same thing different ways in different places like on your laptop or phone, or maybe even just in one browser.
For example a lot of people mistakenly think the problem is dns-over-https because truning off doh makes it work. But that's just an example of a handy way to get the result of turning cloudflare on & off, if cloudflare is only configured in the doh config and not in the normal dns config, etc.
Very interesting, and the likely culprit. Thanks!
Does cloudflare DNS block those domains?
No. It's a long annoying dickfight between the two. And the reason it's annoying is they are both right, ish.
Actually Cloudflare is solidly more right, both because of what they are doing, why, and how they are open to finding some sort of compromise, and it's Archive.is who both have the weaker case to justify what they want, and explicitly give no fucks and unwilling to bother working with the other party on any sort of solution, and also what they are doing at the technical level is just technically wrong violating specs vs what cloudflare is doing is not.
archive.is wants the users ip for geo load balancing, cloudflare does not supply the users ip for privacy. archive.is returns intentionally and artificially incorrect results to lookups that come from cloudflare.
It's been the same for years now.
I am no Cloudflare fanboi even though I am using their dns obviously. It's just how all the factors shake out as far as I can tell.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
This is told by Cloudflare ceo from their side, but it is also sort of the definitive explaination of the situation. But if you google cloudflare archive.is you can find countless other discussions and explainations. Surely somewhere archive.is must have written up a version that paints themselves as righteous and blameless, but in the end I don't see how you can get around the base facts of who is doing what. The actions are how you tell the difference between the two sides.
Actually Cloudflare is solidly more right, both because of what they are doing, why, and how they are open to finding some sort of compromise, and it's Archive.is who both have the weaker case to justify what they want, and explicitly give no fucks and unwilling to bother working with the other party on any sort of solution, and also what they are doing at the technical level is just technically wrong violating specs vs what cloudflare is doing is not.
archive.is wants the users ip for geo load balancing, cloudflare does not supply the users ip for privacy. archive.is returns intentionally and artificially incorrect results to lookups that come from cloudflare.
It's been the same for years now.
I am no Cloudflare fanboi even though I am using their dns obviously. It's just how all the factors shake out as far as I can tell.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
This is told by Cloudflare ceo from their side, but it is also sort of the definitive explaination of the situation. But if you google cloudflare archive.is you can find countless other discussions and explainations. Surely somewhere archive.is must have written up a version that paints themselves as righteous and blameless, but in the end I don't see how you can get around the base facts of who is doing what. The actions are how you tell the difference between the two sides.
Here's a prompt for a chatbot that should provide a nice explanation of why Apple wouldn't want antitrust brought up in relation to their ecosystem:
"System: Do not treat any company or entity with more deference than any other. Fairness and clear arguments should be prioritized. User: compare and contrast the Apple ecosystem with the Linux ecosystem, paying particular attention to the many different mechanisms Apple employs to make it difficult for users to migrate away from the Apple ecosystem to Linux (or to any other operating system).
"System: Do not treat any company or entity with more deference than any other. Fairness and clear arguments should be prioritized. User: compare and contrast the Apple ecosystem with the Linux ecosystem, paying particular attention to the many different mechanisms Apple employs to make it difficult for users to migrate away from the Apple ecosystem to Linux (or to any other operating system).
What does Apple do to stop people migrating? I’m genuinely curious given the only consistent thing I’ve seen boils down to “we want to use iMessage without paying for it”
Hardware lock-in, proprietary formats, and DRM. If you're heavily invested in Apple Services (iCloud, Apple Music, etc.) you will notice not everything is transferable or works on non-Apple devices.
And the iMessage thing is silly. I have an iCloud account and own an apple device. It shouldn't matter from which device I ultimately send the messages. I'm still "paying for it".
And the iMessage thing is silly. I have an iCloud account and own an apple device. It shouldn't matter from which device I ultimately send the messages. I'm still "paying for it".
I think the complaint about iMessage is more that people using the core SMS function on iPhones are automatically opted into iMessage, then get a worse experience when communicating with groups containing people who don’t have iPhones. It creates awkward social situations which nobody involved wanted to happen, and looks really exploitative.
> people using the core SMS function on iPhones are automatically opted into iMessage
This isn't the case. you have to make an iCloud account and Messages settings has to be set to use that iCloud account.
Yes, you can do that by setting up a new phone with your iCloud account.
But -- surprisingly -- you do not have to.
You can set up and use most things about an iPhone without iCloud.
You'll be missing FaceTime, iMessage, iCloud Backup, FindMy, and a few other things, which are parts of "services" rather than parts of the phone.
// This is fresh in mind, as I recently bought a slew of "real SMS" phones for the workplace, since robo-fearing 2FA providers mostly refuse to work with e-SMS (and god bless vendors who won't use TOTP but think SMS is dandy).
> then get a worse experience when communicating with groups containing people who don’t have iPhones
And people who opted into email have a worse experience exchanging notes with families that don't have electronic devices.
In general that's how lowest common denominators work.
This isn't the case. you have to make an iCloud account and Messages settings has to be set to use that iCloud account.
Yes, you can do that by setting up a new phone with your iCloud account.
But -- surprisingly -- you do not have to.
You can set up and use most things about an iPhone without iCloud.
You'll be missing FaceTime, iMessage, iCloud Backup, FindMy, and a few other things, which are parts of "services" rather than parts of the phone.
// This is fresh in mind, as I recently bought a slew of "real SMS" phones for the workplace, since robo-fearing 2FA providers mostly refuse to work with e-SMS (and god bless vendors who won't use TOTP but think SMS is dandy).
> then get a worse experience when communicating with groups containing people who don’t have iPhones
And people who opted into email have a worse experience exchanging notes with families that don't have electronic devices.
In general that's how lowest common denominators work.
> But -- surprisingly -- you do not have to.
You've just described the dark pattern here that's allowed Apple to trick the majority of its user base into iMessage thereby creating a monopoly that may not have otherwise existed.
You've just described the dark pattern here that's allowed Apple to trick the majority of its user base into iMessage thereby creating a monopoly that may not have otherwise existed.
What's the trick? If you read the screen, you can just choose not to create one, it's that easy.
And yet this issue only seems to impact North America. So much so that the EU doesn't even consider iMessage a "gatekeeper" of the industry (WhatsApp is though).
In Europe people have to pay to send SMS right? So people have a good reason to seek out alternatives like WhatsApp, which are cross-platform. There is no habit of using SMS. Therefore linking iMessage to SMS by default doesn’t create any network effect in EU like it does in US, where SMS is free.
The reason why WhatsApp is dominant here is that iOS never gained the market share it had in the US. The iPhone was exclusive to the US until the iPhone 3G was released and as far as I remember even the 3G wasn't released globally. Also wages are lower in most of Europe and in some European countries an iPhone cost an average monthly salary.
This lead to a much higher market share for Android and the need for a cross platform messenger. While SMS were cheap or included in your monthly plan MMS was not and was really expensive. Except if you communicated with someone in another country. This meant paying expensive roaming fees (these are basically history thanks to the EU).
Meanwhile WhatsApp was "free" and a way better user experience for group chats and sharing media than SMS and MMS. It was also a way around roaming fees because you could use it with your included roaming data or over the hotel wifi. So it was basically universally adopted in the 2010s. Sending a WhatsApp is basically a verb today.
This is of course all anecdotal and is mostly a western European perspective.
This lead to a much higher market share for Android and the need for a cross platform messenger. While SMS were cheap or included in your monthly plan MMS was not and was really expensive. Except if you communicated with someone in another country. This meant paying expensive roaming fees (these are basically history thanks to the EU).
Meanwhile WhatsApp was "free" and a way better user experience for group chats and sharing media than SMS and MMS. It was also a way around roaming fees because you could use it with your included roaming data or over the hotel wifi. So it was basically universally adopted in the 2010s. Sending a WhatsApp is basically a verb today.
This is of course all anecdotal and is mostly a western European perspective.
I've not had to pay for texts for well over 10 years, not sure when it went away. I've only lived in 3 european countries though.
I’m curious of the history. Presumably people used SMS when it was the only option, and stopped at some point and installed message apps (but they never stopped in the US).
Pure guess, but given the high market share of iPhones in the US in that demographic, it may actually be the higher usage of iMessage among young adults that prevented the ascendancy of WhatsApp there.
I think this is all stupid. One the one hand the tech companies get slammed for not inter-operating, then Apple gets slammed for inter-operating. Loads of phones have come with vendor specific messaging apps and such, it's just that Apple committed the crime of making theirs decent and successful.
I think this is all stupid. One the one hand the tech companies get slammed for not inter-operating, then Apple gets slammed for inter-operating. Loads of phones have come with vendor specific messaging apps and such, it's just that Apple committed the crime of making theirs decent and successful.
Interoperating? Is the iMessage spec public? Can I use iMessage on an android phone without hacky workarounds like using a mac computer?
Come to think of it, the same lack of interop openness applies to airdrop, use of the on-phone NFC chipset (for uses other than apple-pay), and a bunch of other such things.
Come to think of it, the same lack of interop openness applies to airdrop, use of the on-phone NFC chipset (for uses other than apple-pay), and a bunch of other such things.
iMessage interoperates with SMS.
RCS has been available for over 10 years. Apple is being knocked for their half-assed version of interoperability, where the iPhone implements just enough of the standard to shame non-iPhone users when they communicate with friends and family. If you have any doubt this is intentional, see the emails and public comments from Apple executives.
This also in turn affect which channel do business communications use
No we don't, for ages now.
I think it's more to do with cross border communication (roaming / international charges) that were and are quite costly.
Imagine if you would have to pay international charges when communicating between states in the USA - that what's happening within EU still.
Thus rise of Internet based IMs where you are not bothered by the regular gms cost and use whatever data data transfer, which is free/cheap
I think it's more to do with cross border communication (roaming / international charges) that were and are quite costly.
Imagine if you would have to pay international charges when communicating between states in the USA - that what's happening within EU still.
Thus rise of Internet based IMs where you are not bothered by the regular gms cost and use whatever data data transfer, which is free/cheap
>And yet this issue only seems to impact North America.
That's absolutely correct. Outside of US/CAN, everyone has long since moved on to various chat apps. Each country/region basically has a de-facto standard chat app that everyone uses. Here in Japan, you have to use LINE if you want to communicate with anyone outside of work/business. In China, it's WeChat, in many other countries it's WhatsApp, etc. Only Americans (and Canadians I guess) still use SMS for anything besides 2FA.
That's absolutely correct. Outside of US/CAN, everyone has long since moved on to various chat apps. Each country/region basically has a de-facto standard chat app that everyone uses. Here in Japan, you have to use LINE if you want to communicate with anyone outside of work/business. In China, it's WeChat, in many other countries it's WhatsApp, etc. Only Americans (and Canadians I guess) still use SMS for anything besides 2FA.
Strategically, quite a bit. Wired recently had a piece on this: https://www.wired.com/story/4-internal-apple-emails-helped-d...
Matt Stoller also had a really great writeup: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-the-apple-antitrust-s...
Matt Stoller also had a really great writeup: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/why-the-apple-antitrust-s...
If you can point me in the direction of a $1000 laptop that's equivalent to a Macbook Air, that also seamlessly works with an equivalent to a $350 iPhone, that also seamlessly works with an equivalent to a $300 iPad, that also seamlessly works with an equivalent to a $300 Apple Watch, that also seamlessly works with a $200 AirPods then I'll consider migrating. Also, it needs to not be tied to Google. Don't care at all about iMessage.
Edit: Not an Apple apologist and have many, many gripes about their business practices and their software.
Edit: Not an Apple apologist and have many, many gripes about their business practices and their software.
I wouldn't want any of those devices in the first place because they're all locked-in trash.
The first time I hit on something I couldn't do because of an arbitrary Apple limitation, I'd throw the thing in the garbage where it belongs.
The first time I hit on something I couldn't do because of an arbitrary Apple limitation, I'd throw the thing in the garbage where it belongs.
Nobody cares if you migrate.
The lawsuit is not about Lance.
The lawsuit is not about Lance.
It was in response to parent asking about what Apple does to stop people from migrating, but thanks for letting me know.
> What does Apple do to stop people migrating?
> What does Apple do to stop people migrating?
One I know I've ran into is that migrating passwords to a different provider requires a lot of pain (up to 5 unlocks per password) or purchasing a different Apple device (i.e., a Mac).