The evidence is already present as to what would happen. In the android side of things you can install different marketplaces. Study and reports unanimously show the outstanding amounts of male ware, instabilities, and numerous security loop holes consistently present. Why would a company open themselves up to that. "Hey I got this great product, now let's make it crap!"
More than anything it's the lawyers that take on these frivolous lawsuits in hopes of getting their 10% cut. When you are on top everyone wants a piece of your pie. Frivolous lawsuits should be fined harshly to prevent them from occurring. Yes there can be an argument made that it would deter people from coming forward in the first place then, similar to the reason why more rape victims remain silent, but the system as it is is broken right now.
It is about choice. If Apple provided a gatekeeper style solution no user would ever have to worry more than they currently do.
It is about control. Should Apple be vetting what is appropriate for me in Apps? Not from a malware perspective but from a feature perspective? Shouldn't those decisions be taken by the developer and the user?
It's apple's store and there are rules. You can choose to be locked in with Apple or go Wild West with Android.
The idea is that it's Apple's store and yes, their store rules but it shouldn't be the only store. Think about software on macOS. You can go through the Mac App Store with Apple's rules or get software from wherever you please.
California should secede and rid the technology world from backward laws
Sure. It would be less financial burden to the rest of the country. Check debt of California - you will understand. The problem tough would be legal because only Texas is allowed to secede based on agreement with the USA. I would assume that legality of such move should be known and not naively called by discussion participants every time something in California is found "superior".
California should secede and rid the technology world from backward laws
Sure. It would be less financial burden to the rest of the country. Check debt of California - you will understand. The problem tough would be legal because only Texas is allowed to secede based on agreement with the USA. I would assume that legality of such move should be known and not naively called by discussion participants every time something in California is found "superior".
California is 7th least dependent on federal revenue. It pays more than it receives. California seceding is a dumb idea though and you are right about the wall of debt. California law makers are playing tricks with the budget to make it look like they have a revenue surplus when in fact the debt is something like $400 billion. Even with the tax revenue they generate, California does not have the resources to become a separate country, at least not one that could provide the standard of living that they currently enjoy, nor the level of military defense, nor could they afford to establish 294 embassies. It would also never get approval by the citizens, just as the crazy idea of dividing California into six states was soundly rejected a few years ago. Besides seceding would not prevent California companies from being sued by other countries.
Crap developers who want to scrounge up as much data from your device as possible in exchange for a "service".
Nefarious developers who make keyloggers, mic/camera wire-taps and data kidnappers.
Grayware manufacturers/resellers
Botnet providers
People who don't want this change:
All consumers interested in having a functional device.
Wrong! It's simply lawyers in a money grab. It is total BS to think that consumers are racing to file this suit. There are already over 2 million apps to chose from in the iOS App Store, and 99.999% are extremely inexpensive or free. There is no case here.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
It's because you were being obtuse, deliberately so. How else could one who has been here so long ask the question in the manner you did? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't imply I can't call someone out when I see them trying to game the topic. You should know quite well Apple's product development and design isn't driven primarily by marketing decisions, but by a desire to create products that are the best they can be given the technology and environment. Is it not completely obvious to a long time member here that Apple feels, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot provide a device with the best security and stability by opening it up to apps that they don't use their own considerable in-house expertise to vett? You can argue whether Apple's efforts represent the best way to vett apps, but it's being obtuse to suggest that they are making these decisions in the marketing department.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
It's because you were being obtuse, deliberately so. How else could one who has been here so long ask the question in the manner you did? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't imply I can't call someone out when I see them trying to game the topic. You should know quite well Apple's product development and design isn't driven primarily by marketing decisions, but by a desire to create products that are the best they can be given the technology and environment. Is it not completely obvious to a long time member here that Apple feels, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot provide a device with the best security and stability by opening it up to apps that they don't use their own considerable in-house expertise to vett? You can argue whether Apple's efforts represent the best way to vett apps, but it's being obtuse to suggest that they are making these decisions in the marketing department.
Macs can sideload apps and they haven't turned into a malware infested dump. Don't see your logic.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;;;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
It's because you were being obtuse, deliberately so. How else could one who has been here so long ask the question in the manner you did? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't imply I can't call someone out when I see them trying to game the topic. You should know quite well Apple's product development and design isn't driven primarily by marketing decisions, but by a desire to create products that are the best they can be given the technology and environment. Is it not completely obvious to a long time member here that Apple feels, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot provide a device with the best security and stability by opening it up to apps that they don't use their own considerable in-house expertise to vett? You can argue whether Apple's efforts represent the best way to vett apps, but it's being obtuse to suggest that they are making these decisions in the marketing department.
Macs can sideload apps and they haven't turned into a malware infested dump. Don't see your logic.
That's a good point. Thanks.
What Radar did was (purposely?) misread the post. What reasons OTHER than marketing, which I would have assumed was clear as it was a followup question to another in the same post.
Certainly not encouraging that @radarthekat instead of apologizing goes on to explain why he's in the right and thinks it's proper to insult other members from the moderator bully pulpit. I think personal insults are something that he's supposed to discourage and not promote himself, but not my issue to deal with so I'll not continue about it.
So to ask again would iOS the operating system need substantial changes if access to third-party apps was made possible by Apple. Currently Apple makes no allowance whatsoever for it, doing all they can to block any and all jailbreaking. How integrated is the current restriction, could a simple settings change enable it? To be perfectly clear I am not saying they should, but what are the exact roadblocks not related to marketing if any? Totally honest questions.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;;;;;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
It's because you were being obtuse, deliberately so. How else could one who has been here so long ask the question in the manner you did? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't imply I can't call someone out when I see them trying to game the topic. You should know quite well Apple's product development and design isn't driven primarily by marketing decisions, but by a desire to create products that are the best they can be given the technology and environment. Is it not completely obvious to a long time member here that Apple feels, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot provide a device with the best security and stability by opening it up to apps that they don't use their own considerable in-house expertise to vett? You can argue whether Apple's efforts represent the best way to vett apps, but it's being obtuse to suggest that they are making these decisions in the marketing department.
Macs can sideload apps and they haven't turned into a malware infested dump. Don't see your logic.
That's a good point. Thanks.
What Radar did was (purposely?) misread the post. What reasons OTHER than marketing, which I would have assumed was clear as it was a followup question to another in the same post.
Certainly not encouraging that @radarthekat instead of apologizing goes on to explain why he's in the right and thinks it's proper to insult other members from the moderator bully pulpit. I think personal insults are something that he's supposed to discourage and not promote himself, but not my issue to deal with so I'll not continue about it.
So to ask again would iOS the operating system need substantial changes if access to third-party apps was made possible by Apple. Currently Apple makes no allowance whatsoever for it, doing all they can to block any and all jailbreaking. How integrated is the current restriction, could a simple settings change enable it? To be perfectly clear I am not saying they should, but what are the exact roadblocks not related to marketing if any? Totally honest questions.
I apologize. I must have read it wrong. The same question, put the same way by another would clearly have represented, even to you, an attempt at being obtuse. I guess context, and the character of the poster, is critical. And I believe you to be a person of good character and so the only logical conclusion is that I read it wrong and reacted poorly.
Can we also sue movie theaters for not allowing us to bring our own food? And restaurants, for that matter. I really like the atmosphere at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, but their prices are too high for my taste. Why shouldn't I be able to bring my own steak and eat it there? And I want to be able to buy competing products from individual vendors while at Macy's, flea market style. Why aren't those vendors allowed to hang out in Macy's? Maybe setup a booth there?
Do people even understand that they don't 'own' iOS? That they have only a license to use it? It's not their OS. They own the hardware they purchase from Apple, and so, as another commenter indicates, they are free to jailbreak and install their own apps on the hardware. But I can't see that Apple has any obligation to allow outside apps runnng under iOS. IOS is the analog to the retail space owned by a Macy's or the lobby of a movie theater.
The movie theater example was one I was about to post, thanks for saving me the time. Another poster's car example is not necessarily a good example, as it mainly involves hardware and not software. You don't hear of customers or any other 3rd parties being allowed to sue car manufacturers so that they can re-write the manufacturer's code to change the design/layout of what's on all their dash/console displays, or to change the "brake assist" parameters. Why? Because it is a safety issue. That's the argument Apple needs to make: their app store is an integral part of the safety and security of iPhone, iPad, and tvOS.
Courts also need to stop treating Apple like its a monopoly. Walled garden does not equal monopoly. Customers still have a choice to go to another garden that isn't walled!
Honest question: Would the iOS operating system need to be substantially changed in order to permit sideloading of apps? What exactly is the roadblock, something other than a marketing choice?
Yes, it's something other than marketing. But thanks for being obtuse.
@radarthekat ;;;;;That's hardly an answer, but I've no idea why an AI moderator would think it's proper to instead try to personally insult another long-time member. It sometimes happens with regular members but entirely inappropriate for a moderator tasked with keeping threads on topic and respectful to all posters to do so IMO.
It's because you were being obtuse, deliberately so. How else could one who has been here so long ask the question in the manner you did? Just because I'm a moderator doesn't imply I can't call someone out when I see them trying to game the topic. You should know quite well Apple's product development and design isn't driven primarily by marketing decisions, but by a desire to create products that are the best they can be given the technology and environment. Is it not completely obvious to a long time member here that Apple feels, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot provide a device with the best security and stability by opening it up to apps that they don't use their own considerable in-house expertise to vett? You can argue whether Apple's efforts represent the best way to vett apps, but it's being obtuse to suggest that they are making these decisions in the marketing department.
Macs can sideload apps and they haven't turned into a malware infested dump. Don't see your logic.
That's a good point. Thanks.
What Radar did was (purposely?) misread the post. What reasons OTHER than marketing, which I would have assumed was clear as it was a followup question to another in the same post.
Certainly not encouraging that @radarthekat instead of apologizing goes on to explain why he's in the right and thinks it's proper to insult other members from the moderator bully pulpit. I think personal insults are something that he's supposed to discourage and not promote himself, but not my issue to deal with so I'll not continue about it.
So to ask again would iOS the operating system need substantial changes if access to third-party apps was made possible by Apple. Currently Apple makes no allowance whatsoever for it, doing all they can to block any and all jailbreaking. How integrated is the current restriction, could a simple settings change enable it? To be perfectly clear I am not saying they should, but what are the exact roadblocks not related to marketing if any? Totally honest questions.
I apologize. I must have read it wrong. The same question, put the same way by another would clearly have represented, even to you, an attempt at being obtuse. I guess context, and the character of the poster, is critical. And I believe you to be a person of good character and so the only logical conclusion is that I read it wrong and reacted poorly.
Comments
Macs can sideload apps and they haven't turned into a malware infested dump. Don't see your logic.
What Radar did was (purposely?) misread the post. What reasons OTHER than marketing, which I would have assumed was clear as it was a followup question to another in the same post.
Certainly not encouraging that @radarthekat instead of apologizing goes on to explain why he's in the right and thinks it's proper to insult other members from the moderator bully pulpit. I think personal insults are something that he's supposed to discourage and not promote himself, but not my issue to deal with so I'll not continue about it.
So to ask again would iOS the operating system need substantial changes if access to third-party apps was made possible by Apple. Currently Apple makes no allowance whatsoever for it, doing all they can to block any and all jailbreaking. How integrated is the current restriction, could a simple settings change enable it? To be perfectly clear I am not saying they should, but what are the exact roadblocks not related to marketing if any? Totally honest questions.