It's a very good policy, I wish they'd follow it for their own systems.
To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information.
I'm forced to use the command line interface from Brew and mess around with network interfaces on my work laptop just because I refuse to give Apple my phone number and home address, even though Wireguard is free and no billing/payment information would be required for me to download it, and even though having an Apple account is completely unrelated to their sandboxing goals or the information that the app needs to run.
Bonus points for telling me I'm providing my phone number "for security purposes" but providing no option during signup to use a secure 2FA app instead of SMS.
Command line automation isn't the issue I'm having, the issue I'm having is being able to download without making an Apple account.
Sideloading would be helpful if Mac app store apps were made available as sideloaded apps anywhere. But I'm going to hazard a guess that Wireguard would not be permitted to provide those downloads -- I haven't been able to find a download link anywhere. And I'm seeing conflicting information online about whether or not sideloading even works for some apps unless the Apple IDs are shared between computers.
I suppose that I could try to compile the Wireguard app from source, but for all I know, running XCode will require an account as well.
All of these solutions are less work than manually managing the network interfaces myself. It's just kind of crappy that a privacy-oriented company is forcing me to do so. I shouldn't have to outsmart my Mac to get work done.
The interplay between iOS/macOS as “secure” operating systems and Wireguard implementations of “secure” networking on the aforementioned platforms really puts proof to the lie, as to what makes for better security outcomes and implementation stories and for whom.
Yeah if they practiced what they preached you could go to the apple store, pay cash for your laptop. Then once home if you wanted some paid apps you could open up appstore over your super high tech vpn (or even tor browser) path with digital currency and download your app without apple ever knowing who you are. That is the ideal, even better would be to let me order the old fashioned way with a money order with a fake name and address on it and buy the app that way with a randomly generated UUID than I put in with the money order.
I would love a way to anonymously purchase apps, but I'm not even asking for that much accomodation.
I would tolerate giving Apple billing information to purchase an app. I don't understand why I need billing information to download a free app that doesn't cost any money. There's no transaction for Apple to verify.
And I don't understand why I need to give Apple a phone number of any of this.
I'm not even asking for an ideal world, just a very slightly less crappy one; Apple objectively does not need my phone number to let me hit a download link. That serves no purpose, it's a completely unrelated step to the task I'm trying to perform.
Maybe, but this computer cost money, so even if that is their requirement Apple is still violating the spirit of their own rules.
I have to pay money for a piece of hardware and give a bunch of personal information to Apple, just to download a free app on the hardware that I paid for?
I do tend to agree with this idea. People constantly make such arguments talking about Android being free hence "you're the product". But people actually paid hundreds of dollars to get that Android phone, so it's not unreasonable at all to be irritated that your OS is trying to monetize you.
Yes, they do. On the Mac, at least for the longest time, they put a sticker on the shrink wrap for the device that said something to the effect of "By using this device, you agree to the terms of Software License Agreement found at apple.com/legal/sla". Of course, if you didn't agree with that you could return the device or install Windows/Linux, but on the iPhone (which won't activate without agreeing), you can't since the bootloader is locked.
Iirc, those shrink wrap licenses are of questionable enforceability. The Wikipedia entry on "shrink wrap contract" agrees, but I'm not well-versed on the topic.
IIUC (at least in US legal system), using software without an appropriate license from the copyright holder is considered a violation of civil copyright law.
Suppose that courts deemed shrink-wrap EULAs to be invalid. If the EULA is the agreement that grants end-users permission to use the copyrighted software, would the invalidation mean that users were in violation of copyright law? Or is there a right to use the software that's implicitly granted by the original purchase?
It reminds me of a US visa, which is far from free, and you pay for applying whether you is granted it or not. It allows you travel to a border control and ask to be let in. They can refuse you without explanation.
All visas work this way afaik, at least in the few places I’ve traveled where I’ve needed a visa; notably Africa.
I met a Italian man at immigration control in Ethiopia, at the Addis Ababa airport, he had been traveling Africa and this was his third attempt to enter Ethiopia. The first two attempts were via land borders with Kenya and he had been turned around both times, despite having a visa, because border control felt it would be too dangerous for a white man to travel through southern Ethiopia at the time. So he had to travel to Nairobi and get a flight; he was admitted this time, but he had to pay for another visa at the airport. Unclear why? He wasn’t best pleased about the whole thing.
Oh, let's not with my country. We're also the only nation in the world that requires its abroad citizens to pay the same tax rates domestic citizens pay, and only offers a credit-basis for exempting income that you paid taxes on to the country you reside in.
It's the reason nearly all US citizens who move overseas eventually give up their citizenship. My great aunt left for Poland 30 years ago, and renounced her citizenship within 3 years because she was paying taxes on everything she earned twice, one under Polish law and again under US law.
The US doesn't care about your other nationalities. If you have citizenship or permanent residency in the US you need to file taxes (though despite what the other poster is saying, you may not actually need to pay any taxes).
If the nations have a tax treaty, you are usually not double taxed on income below some threshold. Last I checked, it was around the first $100k or so worldwide income, for US taxes anyway. After that, you are taxed at some rate, but I’m not sure if it is reduced at all or how different forms of income may affect this.
I believe the threshold, which is basically a big deduction, always applies if you meet the criterion (living outside the US). Tax treaties come into effect regarding whatever income you have beyond your deductions.
Good points. I should note that my foreign income was taxed and paid in the jurisdiction in which I earned it, so if you are not liable to pay foreign taxes on foreign income, you may not get the deduction advantages of a tax treaty to offset your US tax liability on worldwide income, as the intent is to not double tax. If you weren’t taxed on that income yet, the US may hold a tax liability on any and all income not already taxed, and it may be taxed a second time if said income exceeds limits.
That’s how I understand it, anyway. I hope to be corrected if I’m inaccurate as this is not my area of expertise.
I think this skips a step. You don't need a copyright license to use software. Copyright only protects making copies, making derivative works, and public performance. This is why shrinkwrap EULAs are a thing. You don't actually need a license, but they claim you agree to one just by opening the shrinkwrap. When you buy a CD or download software, the (presumably) authorized manufacturer or server made the copy that you receive.
The idea that you may not be receiving a copy at all and you merely have access through a license is a legal construction that's not well tested in court and to me seems pretty dubious. How can giving someone a transcription of the bits of the software not be a copy of the software? Anyway this court opinion (final appeal in Step-Saver vs Wyse Tech) deals with the issue and you can read what a court thinks: https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/contract/cases/s...
I particularly like this paragraph where they discuss some of the context of the issue even though they decide not to specifically rule on this part.
> When these form licenses were first developed for software, it was, in large part, to avoid the federal copyright law first sale doctrine. Under the first sale doctrine, once the copyright holder has sold a copy of the copyrighted work, the owner of the copy could "sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" without the copyright holder's consent. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350, 28 S.Ct. 722, 726, 52 L.Ed. 1086 (1908); 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(a) (West 1977). Under this doctrine, one could purchase a copy of a computer program, and then lease it or lend it to another without infringing the copyright on the program. Because of the ease of copying software, software producers were justifiably concerned that companies would spring up that would purchase copies of various programs and then lease those to consumers. Typically, the companies, like a videotape rental store, would purchase a number of copies of each program, and then make them available for over-night rental to consumers. Consumers, instead of purchasing their own copy of the program, would simply rent a copy of the program, and duplicate it. This copying by the individual consumers would presumably infringe the copyright, but usually it would be far too expensive for the copyright holder to identify and sue each individual copier. Thus, software producers wanted to sue the companies that were renting the copies of the program to individual consumers, rather than the individual consumers. The first sale doctrine, though, stood as a substantial barrier to successful suit against these software rental companies, even under a theory of contributory infringement. By characterizing the original transaction between the software producer and the software rental company as a license, rather than a sale, and by making the license personal and non- transferable, software producers hoped to avoid the reach of the first sale doctrine and to establish a basis in state contract law for suing the software rental companies directly. Questions remained, however, as to whether the use of state contract law to avoid the first sale doctrine would be preempted either by the federal copyright statute (statutory preemption) or by the exclusive constitutional grant of authority over copyright issues to the federal government (constitutional preemption). See generally Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 109 S.Ct. 971, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964). Congress recognized the problem, and, in 1990, amended the first sale doctrine as it applies to computer programs and phonorecords. See Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5134 (codified at 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b) (West Supp.1991)). As amended, the first sale doctrines permits only non-profit libraries and educational institutions to lend or lease copies of software and phonorecords. See 17 U.S.C.A. з 109(b)(1)(A) (West Supp.1991). (Under the amended statute, a purchaser of a copy of a copyrighted computer program may still sell his copy to another without the consent of the copyright holder.) This amendment renders the need to characterize the original transaction as a license largely anachronistic. While these transactions took place in 1986-87, before the Computer Software Rental Amendments were enacted, there was no need to characterize the transactions between Step-Saver and TSL as a license to avoid the first sale doctrine because both Step-Saver and TSL agree that Step-Saver had the right to resell the copies of the Multilink Advanced program.
It has been possible to run OSX on PCs for quite a few years now courtesy of the Clover and OpenCore apps. There have been countless Github projects, websites, forums etc dedicated to providing material assistance in using them.
At no point has Apple ever gone after the websites or individuals despite it being fairly trivial to do so e.g. DCMA or cease and desist letter.
In fact Craig Federighi has gone on the record stating that they fully support people hacking the Mac, OSX etc and believe it to be an important part of the ecosystem.
IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled and configured Hackintosh boxes. (Does anyone remember what the name of the company was? It was like 2007-9 or something)
IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'.
This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.
Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS.
I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market.
(It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.)
If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
It doesn't sound like you actually understand the relevant aspects of the case. Psystar made multiple counterclaims, including a claim of tying between "Mac OS" and "Mac OS-capable computers". A tying claim requires establishing the existence of two separate product markets, which is why the court analyzed both the "Mac OS" market and the "Mac OS-capable computers" market separately. Ultimately both markets were found to be invalid. The "Mac OS-capable computers" market is a wholly derivative aftermarket of the "Mac OS" market and the reasoning for why it was ruled invalid is also relevant.
Are you serious? At this point I can't tell if you are trolling. This is a direct quote from the case I linked:
Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims.
These are all antitrust claims!!!
Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well.
> Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!
I suspect the reason Apple went after the more recent "hackintosh" brigade is because they were seeing a repetition of a bad experience they had before when Apple officially permitted OEM manufacturing of compatible "clone" computers back in the 90s.
The official 90s clones ended badly because the OEMs were cutting corners as part of a race to the bottom on pricing. This led to shit hardware which led to a shit customer experience. Which meant Apple took back control and killed off the official clone industry.
There are videos on YouTube of Steve Jobs talking (during informal interviews, not corporate statements) about the importance to both him personally and Apple of the entire customer experience (hardware and software). Its not from a perspective of monopoly. Its from a perspective of quality of the overall experience. That's what all the dumb Apple bashers fail to understand.
All of Apple's EULAs are published on their website. You can download the PDFs and read through them before you decide to purchase software that Apple creates and sells.
EULA's are basically unenforceable in Europe, so why bother. For a contract to be valid it has to be understood by both parties, be reasonable etc., and in many countries forcing arbitration on consumer matters is invalid (don't know if Apple has those terms, but many do). Forcing a consumer to read 20+ pages of legalese for each purchase, each app they download etc. is just not feasible.
There's a difference between policies that we agree with, and policies that should be policy.
I think in this context, the real policy should be regulatory, and it shouldn't allow Apple to even have such a policy or forbid anything.
Apple should be allowed to discriminate in their own garden, and/or to rate or group apps based on various factors.
So an app that 'requires social sharing and to make a review' receive a negative quality score ranking etc. - but otherwise - 'informed users' can make their own choices.
This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?