So basically wireguard, but you have to pay for it, and you have create an account through Google/Apple/Microsoft/whatever.
Wireguard is not that hard to set up manually. If you've added SSH keys to your Github account, it's pretty much the same thing. Find a youtube video or something, and you're good. You might not even need to install a wireguard server yourself, as some routers have that built in (like my Ubiquity EdgeRouter)
It's not really "basically wireguard" and you don't have to pay for it for personal use. Wireguard is indeed pretty easy to set up, but basic Wireguard doesn't get you the two most significant features of Tailscale, mesh connections and access controls.
Tailscale does use Wireguard, but it establishes connections between each of your devices, in many cases these will be direct connections even if the devices in question are behind NAT or firewalls. Not every use-case benefits from this over a more traditional hub and spoke VPN model, but for those that do, it would be much more complicated to roll your own version of this. The built-in access controls are also something you could roll your own version of on top of Wireguard, but certainly not as easily as Tailscale makes it.
There's also a third major "feature" that is really just an amalgamation of everything Tailscale builds in and how it's intended to be used, which is that your network works and looks the same even as devices move around if you fully set up your environment to be Tailscale based. Again not everyone needs this, but it can be useful for those that do, and it's not something you get from vanilla Wireguard without additional effort.
I guess I'm still not following. Is there an example thing that you can do with Tailscale that you can't do with Wireguard? "Establishes connections between each of your devices" is pretty vague. The Internet can already do that.
I install tailscale on my laptop. I then install tailscale on a desktop PC I have stashed in a closet at my parents. If they are both logged in to the same tailnet, I can access that desktop PC from my home without any addition network config (no port forwarding on my parents router, UPNP, etc. etc).
I like to think of it as a software defined LAN.
Wireguard is just the transport protocol but all the device management and clever firewall/NAT traversal stuff is the real special sauce.
You can run two nodes both behind restrictive full cone NATs and have them establish an encrypted connection between each other. You can configure your devices to act as exit nodes, allowing other devices on your "tailnet" to use them to reach the internet. You can set up ACLs and share access to specific devices and ports with other users. If you pay a bit more, you can also use any Mullvad VPN node as an exit point.
Tailscale is "just" managed Wireguard, with some very smart network people doing everything they can to make it go point-to-point even with bad NATs, and offering a free fallback trustless relay layer (called DERP) that will act as a transit provider of last resort.
Tailscale is free for pretty much everything you'd want to do as a home user.
It also doesn't constantly try and ram any paid offerings down your throat.
I was originally put off by how much Tailscale is evangelised here, but after trying it, I can see why it's so popular.
I have my Ubuntu server acting as a Tailscale exit node.
I can route any of my devices through it when I'm away from home (e.g. phone, tablet, laptop).
It works like a VPN in that regard.
Last year, I was on a plane and happened to sit next to an employee of Tailscale.
I told him that I thought his product was cool (and had used it throughout the flight to route my in-flight Wi-fi traffic back to the UK) but that I had no need to pay for it!
Valve has a weird obsession with maximizing their profit-per-employee ratio. There are stories from ex-employees out on the web about how this creates a hostile environment, and perverse incentives to sabotage those below you to protect your own job.
I don't remember all the details, but it doesn't seem like a great place to work, at least based on the horror stories I've read.
Valve does a lot of awesome things, but they also do a lot of shitty things, and I think their productivity is abysmal based on what you'd expect from a company with their market share. They have very successful products, but it's obvious that basically all of their income comes from rent-seeking from developers who want to (well, need to) publish on Steam.
More people need to be informed that Peter Thiel fancies himself a theologian. Or this is all just a sick joke to him, to pretend like he is the “solution” to the antichrist. It would be quite on brand for his personality - poor delivery with an overly complex premise.
Most of it went over my head, but there's so much knowledge and expertise on display here that it makes me proud that this person I've never met is out there proving that software development isn't entirely full of clowns.
Seb is incredibly passionate about games and graphics programming. You can find old posts of his on various forums, talking about tricks for programming the PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, etc etc. He regularly posts demos he's working on, progress clips of various engines, etc, on twitter, after staying in the same area for 3 decades.
It's rather: can you find a company that pays you for having and extending this arcane knowledge (and even writing about it)?
Even if your job involves such topics, a lot of jobs that require this knowledge are rather "political" like getting the company's wishes into official standards.
> ... the appeals court now suggests that Apple should still be able to charge a “reasonable fee” based on its “actual costs to ensure user security and privacy.”
> Speaking to reporters Thursday night, though, Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney said he believes those should be “super super minor fees,” on the order of “tens or hundreds of dollars” every time an iOS app update goes through Apple for review.
Wow, one step forward, and one step back. Good job, Epic.
The outcome is obviously going to be that Apple's store will have the most apps, with the most up to date versions, and with the most free apps/games. I'm sure Fortnite will do just fine though.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, why would the court allow Apple to act as a gatekeeper for their competitors?
> why would the court allow Apple to act as a gatekeeper for their competitors
Yeah, this is the fundamental problem, and not something this court ruling does anything to fix. Apple has full control over what software its competitors are allowed to sell. The court's solution? Tell Apple to be more fair when dictating rules to its competitors. Yeah... I'm sure that'll work great.
Yep, on their platform. Just like Wal-Mart and Kroger have full control over what products their competitors are allowed to sell too (in-store versus name brands). Microsoft only makes and sells their games for example for the Windows platform and doesn't allow portability.
As a pattern there's nothing wrong with it.
The crux of the issue is that creation of a mobile operating system that people actually want, like in some other industries, as resulted in two dominant platforms that don't compete all that much with each other. That's a much more interesting and important "problem" to solve than Apple/Google create competing apps on their software distribution platforms.
My phone that I purchased is not "their" platform. Better analogy would be if Wal-Mart sold me a fridge and then somehow managed to make it so I can only store groceries purchased from Wal-Mart in that fridge. Now if anyone wants to sell me groceries they need to sell them to me through Walmart, otherwise I can't refrigerate them.
As long as you understood the limitations of the fridge you purchased, i.e. you weren't defrauded, what's the problem? Do you really need a nanny state to prevent you from making bad purchases??
There are many other computing devices that can run operating systems other than Android and iOS, including devices that can run completely unlocked versions of Android. You're just lying.
So your argument here is "Apple isn't a monopoly. The Fairphone is always ab option"?
I'll keep pounding it in people's heads that 30 years ago Microsoft was hit over a web browser. It's a shame these days people would instead revert that and say "just download Netscape". If that worked, sure. But we have decades of market lock in showing it doesn't
The flaw in the Microsoft comparison is that the web browser was installed in, what, 95% of actual computing devices? Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.
Today there are many phones to choose from. You can buy an iPhone, or a Pixel, or a Galaxy. You can even buy a more open-source style phone with open-source style stores just like any other generic product feature. There is a marketplace and there is competition, it's just that, unlike what so many people here seem to desire, locked-down stores are what the market prefers.
>Remember phones and all of this other cool technology we have didn't exist.
I don't think phones and PCs compete against each other, though. A phone can act like a general computer, but a PC can't act like a phone.
>Today there are many phones to choose from.
We had Linux, mac, BSD and a few other OS's back in the day as well. If we're saying Windows is 95% of PCs back then, I don't think it's controversial saying Apple and Android are 95% of phones. Especially in a day and age where phones are now needed to act as verification for work and school and chat communications are expected to be snappy (so it's not like I can just opt out and go back to dumb phones).
>locked-down stores are what the market prefers.
That's why anti-trust isn't left to "what the market prefers".
Yes, society will always waiver towards idyllic destruction if left ubchecked. People generally "like" monopolies. People yearn for that society on WALL-E where they do minimum work and get maximum dopamine. It's a quirk genes that benefitted us 1000 years ago that haven't adjusted to modern realities.
Governments and non-monopoly businesses alike hate it, though. Don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. Don't want to have a single businessman hold the country hostage later and shift to a plutocracy as they abuse your citizens who work.
That's why it's best to stop it much earlier and not when the company becomes a trillionaire. But now is the 2nd best time.
Seems like there are a relatively large number of competitors to Apple and Google. Eg. Samsung, Motorola, Lenovo, OnePlus, LG, HTC etc. Not to mention Asian brands.
Duopoly might apply if those companies were using their combined dominance to collude and push other competitors out but that isn't really happening as evidenced by the amount of competitors that are in the market.
The problem is that it obviously sucks. If you say "no it doesn't" - you're lying, you know it sucks. Obviously me only being able to refrigerate Walmart goods sucks.
> Do you really need a nanny state
This is a false dichotomy. The reason you're doing this is because you know the current situation sucks major donkey dick and nobody, including you, likes it. So to defend it you have to appeal to something even more sucky. It's the death rattle of a poorly constructed argument.
You don't need a nanny state, quite the opposite! You need a freer market.
When Walmart sells the evil fridge, which I can only assume has been hexed by a swamp witch, what they are actually doing is subverting the free market. They're cheating.
Instead of competing by selling the best groceries or the best fridge, they're competing by artificially limiting their competition. They see the market, say "fuck that market, your market is only our stuff", and force your hand. They've created a soft monopoly.
The misconception about free markets is that, if you just let them be, then they're good. Ha. Every free market player is actively devising every single plan imaginable to make the market less free.
If Walmart could run behind you and lock the doors so that you have to buy their groceries, lest you starve to death, they would. Luckily, the "nanny state" stepped in, and we have a freer market because of it.
So the problem with your fridge example is that if the product was as bad as you say, nobody would buy it and thus there is no risk of a monopoly. If the product is so good that everyone wants it, there goes the rest of your pro-consumer argument.
This whole argument is a neat trick, as you smuggle bad outcomes into a situation where there aren't any by pretending that everyone wants to buy the horrible product.
If you want to make a case that monopolies that arise from consumers overwhelmingly choosing a preferential product are bad, go ahead, but don't construct an impossible scenario where everyone loses their minds and buys a product that provides purely negative value to them just cuz.
Look, you're describing how it should work, and I agree. But how it actually works is far, far different.
No, first the product is introduced with no ads. You sign a EULA that might contain language around ads, but guess what - the EULA is 100 pages long and nobody is reading that shit because we have jobs and families.
The product gets glowing reviews, probably because it's cheap and subsidized by the mega-corp (aka sell product at a loss for market capture). Then, the product enshittifies from under your feet.
There's nothing you can do at that point, because you already bought it. Your "market", so to speak, is 1. You were deceived. You thought you were buying a fridge, but really you were just licensing access to a fridge.
But say you didn't buy it. Even then, you're fucked. There's no trustworthy online reviews, well, anywhere basically. And it's just not reasonable to expect consumers to do hours of research prior to buying anything. No, I should be able to go to the store and ascertain the quality and nature of the product. But I can't, so I get tricked and hoodwinked.
This is all very purposeful. Companies know if they're honest about their products that consumers might look at the competition. So everyone just scams and lies. Even multi-billion dollar multi-nationals are basically running scams at this point. And guess what? All their competition is doing it, too. Because if your competitor is scamming, you have no choice but to be a con artist yourself, lest you become irrelevant.
I think it's not quite as bad as you're making it out to be. If Apple's abuse of their position became truly intolerable GP is correct: people would stop buying their products. Apple knows this, and that limits how aggressive they can be with their anti-consumer nonsense and forces them to keep innovating.
So market forces do still work on Apple, just not as efficiently as they otherwise would in the absence of these artificial barriers to competition.
Software is somewhat unique in its ability to act against the interests of the person who owns it. Trying to design a fridge to not refrigerate your competitor's food would be impractical and probably easy for consumers to bypass. But designing an operating system which won't run your competitor's software? Trivial, and very hard to bypass. Because of this, companies that write software include anti-consumer features like that all the time to the point where it's almost expected now.
You've been repeating this flawed comparison for years. It's getting really stale.
The App Store is markedly unlike Wal-Mart or Kroger, in that a user cannot buy one thing from one store and another thing from the other. This would be like buying a Kroger-branded car and then being forbidden from entering the Wal-Mart parking lot. The problem with the App Store is not Apple's control over it and the Apple-branded experience - it is the exclusion of alternative and competing schemes that could naturally drive down their own prices.
If Wal-Mart or Kroger did this, they would be in the same hot water as Apple. Probably quite a bit worse, since people understand the commoditization of groceries better than software.
> That's a much more interesting and important "problem" to solve
No it's not. The industry has no interest in overturning it, if there was commercial demand for an innovative third platform then we'd see one. The crux of this issue is Apple becoming a services company and then denying competing services from competing on equal grounds. It cannot get any clearer than that.
> You've been repeating this flawed comparison for years. It's getting really stale.
Well I've been repeating it because it's still true.
> The App Store is markedly unlike Wal-Mart or Kroger, in that a user cannot buy one thing from one store and another thing from the other.
You're just shifting around a definition of store to fit your argument. If you want to be consistent, it's more like you can't go in to Kroger and demand to buy products sold at Wal-Mart for Wal-Mart prices. You're in a different store.
> No it's not. The industry has no interest in overturning it, if there was commercial demand for an innovative third platform then we'd see one.
So the market is clearly saying "this works and we like it". It's just that the lawyers and accountants want to shift which giant corporation gets to keep more of whatever fee percentage.
> The crux of this issue is Apple becoming a services company and then denying competing services from competing on equal grounds. It cannot get any clearer than that.
Equality will never exist on these platforms, nor is equality necessarily something that's desired. Every company on earth that operates any sort of marketplace or store sets rules and boundaries that restrict competition. You're just mad about Apple/Google doing it because some algorithm decided it was an important issue for you. Do you know why that's true? Because you're sitting here arguing about Apple/Google doing it and not every other company doing it.
Even worse is that these changes that you champion have resulted in no price reductions, no "innovation", and have degraded features that I personally like and enjoy.
> it's more like you can't go in to Kroger and demand to buy products sold at Wal-Mart for Wal-Mart prices.
You don't have to. Kroger and Wal-Mart are completely commoditized options providing the same service. There is fundamentally no difference from buying at one store vs the other; you can do both. If someone goes into Kroger demanding to buy Wal-Mart products at Wal-Mart prices, they're in luck; Wal-Mart exists. There is no lock-in to either store or the options they provide. You're describing a boogeyman that doesn't exist because the greater grocery market is functional and competitive.
The same opportunity does not exist for customers of the App Store. Apps themselves are entirely commoditized; it's only the App Store that is a deliberate monopoly. That has been consistent since the launch of the iPhone and packaging of iOS applications as infinitely reproducible .IPA files.
> So the market is clearly saying "this works and we like it".
That's how most monopolies work, yes. Unfortunately, "the market" won't be asked to testify to whether or not they like or enjoy a monopoly, but whether it causes anti-competitive damages.
> You're just mad about Apple/Google doing it because some algorithm decided it was an important issue for you.
I cannot parse what you're even trying to accuse me of in this sentence. This is the Y Combinator forum. We discuss monopolies like AdSense and the App Store because they harm the economy, not because Instagram Reels showed me a Louis Rossman short.
Because Epic hitched their real desire, we want to do digital distribution independent of Apple, to wanting alternative App Stores and alternative payment methods. And Apple responded with a scheme that does the latter without the former.
Sure you can use your own payment processor, we're still charging 27% though. Sure you can have your own App Store, you still have to go through the same review process though. It seems some of the cracks in this malicious compliance are starting to show.
There’s a Best Buy a few miles from my house. Why aren't I allowed to put my own products on their shelves, or set up a little folding table next to the phone accessories to sell my own cases?
It is not fair to me as a merchant that everyone who wants to buy a phone case goes to Best Buy. That's where all the foot traffic is. It's clearly anti-competitive that they expect me to pay for shelf space I benefit from.
And now they want to charge me to verify that the USB-C cables I'm selling actually work? How is that remotely reasonable? Just because most of my cables are faulty and customers will inevitably go complain to their customer service desk, why should I bear that cost?
Consumers deserve the right to choose accessories from multiple independent merchants inside Best Buy. Suggesting otherwise is anti-consumer, anti-choice, and proof that you hate open and accessible ecosystems.
For this analogy to be comparable, you would first have to consider that Best Buy, together with Walmart, owns 99.9999% of all store real estate in the world. You would also have to consider that the "shelf space" in this case is free and comes at zero cost to Best Buy; in fact, giving you virtual shelf space increases the amount of traffic that comes into their stores, resulting in a benefit to themselves.
Your analogy as presented was so lacking in merit you might as well have been talking about cats and leprechauns for how completely nonsensical it was to bring it up in the context of Apple.
Simon and GGP combined do own an overwhelming percentage of all retail square footage in the US, but lets at least consider the rest of the argument here.
Apple's "shelf space" is not free. There are constant R&D expenses involved in introducing new sensors and screens that make the underlying apps better. They take on the support load of on-boarding users, managing the relationship, and dealing with any problems. Advertising, carrier validation, third party hardware ecosystem, etc.
Epic wants to sidestep all of the costs of building a platform, and offload support costs onto Apple.
> Simon and GGP combined do own an overwhelming percentage of all retail square footage in the US
This is factually incorrect, and not only incorrect, but so wildly far from being correct that one wonders if this statement was made in bad faith. They only have around 300 million sqft out of an estimated 12 billion sqft, around 2.5%. That is not an overwhelming percentage, nor is it "99.9999% of all retail square footage in the world", which was not a hyperbolic statement. Competitors in retail can obtain their own shelf space. You cannot obtain your own shelf space for mobile software. The network effects of hardware+OS centralization are too strong, so there are and never will be any viable competitors to iOS and Android.
> Apple's "shelf space" is not free. There are constant R&D expenses involved in introducing new sensors and screens that make the underlying apps better.
The R&D expenses do not change regardless of whether there are 1 million or 10 million apps available for iOS. Allowing people to distribute their own software comes at no cost to Apple.
> They take on the support load of on-boarding users, managing the relationship, and dealing with any problems.
Apple absolutely does not do any of this as it pertains to individual apps.
> Epic wants to sidestep all of the costs of building a platform, and offload support costs onto Apple
Nobody is asking for Apple's support; really, what the world needs is less of Apple's involvement in the hardware the people own, not more. Epic is clearly willing to spend money on building platforms, since it has a documented $600 million in losses in its effort to build a competitor to Steam. This, however, is not a case where it is possible to build a platform.
You absolutely can sell your product as a merchant! Best buy doesnt force you to pay them a fee, if you are selling electronics. You are perfectly within your right to ship the electronics to the merchant yourself and best buy doesnt take a dime!
The same is not true for Apple. For Apple, a customer can want to make a direct agreement with an app store developer, without the involvement of Apple in any way, on the phone that they completely own, and Apple wasn't allowing this to happen.
It would be like if it was illegal to setup competing stores that are located next to best buy that dont involve best buy in any way. That would be absurd.
Apple pays 100% of the tax on the service road to the stores and pays for the parking lot, though. They deserve some fee and that's what the courts said, right?
You call it a tax, most others would call it the cost of doing business.
But yes, that's built into the product's price. Devs are paying for a license to work with IOS and need to own hardware only Apple sells to work on IOS. So I think those costs are covered.
We'll see what the "reasonable" price is. If nothing else, we know 27% was too much even for appeals.
Not if the only way to get to the store was through that road. In that case, there are public access laws and it is literally illegal for people who "own" a road to charge people money, if there is an easement.
Thats probably a simplification, but they are called "easement by necessity." rights. So even in your example of the roadway, thats also wrong. They get zero dollars.
My point is in the real world sharing an area with it would mean the other store also contributes tax wise. It's not equivalent to bring up real life if the real life paying part isn't also adhered to; the lack of symmetry is notable. I don't think they deserve to set their price, though (30% is way too high).
> would mean the other store also contributes tax wise.
No, land parcel A does not pay land parcel B any amount of dollars at all.
The fact that the government gets tax revenue says nothing about the fact that land parcel B receives nothing, even if they are require to open their street to the public for easement.
> Saves 15 million" on license costs, but how much will be wasted on the contractors...
Approximately 9 million, according to the article:
> In contrast, there would be one-time investments of nine million euros in 2026, explained the Ministry of Digitalization to the Kieler Nachrichten. These would have to be made for the conversion of workplaces and the further development of solutions with free software in the next 12 months. Given the annual savings, this sum will pay for itself in less than a year.
Yeah. Notice how they emphasize how the "one-time" spend on contractors will save them money. Never includes the cost of the lack of institutional knowledge, or the impact on quality, maintainability, etc. Money brain.
For a transition to open-source to be successful and permanent, manage it well. Not like this.
IMO they should also emphasize that this money can go into German (or at least European) consultants, rather than dumping 15 million on licensing costs that will go straight to Redmond, Seattle.
Of course no guarantee that it will be the case for 100% but still better. Even if there were no savings it would be better spent money.
Wireguard is not that hard to set up manually. If you've added SSH keys to your Github account, it's pretty much the same thing. Find a youtube video or something, and you're good. You might not even need to install a wireguard server yourself, as some routers have that built in (like my Ubiquity EdgeRouter)
reply