Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?
    I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point. 

    But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous. 

    But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc. 
    I live in a house. 
    I own the house outright. 
    But there are rules that state what I’m allowed to do to my house.
    I cannot put up a fence around my front lawn (weird one). I cannot build a four storey extension in my back garden, even though I own the land. I cannot build a massive three hundred foot satellite dish in the roof. I cannot do anything that would make the house unsafe and then try and sell it. 

    Why? Because even though I own the house and the land, the rules are their to stop me from doing dumb stuff that affects everything me. 

    And you actually don’t own any piece of software. You only think you do. 

    You can actually do all those things you listed, but there likely will be consequences, and those consequences will be your responsibility, not whoever sold you the materials. Just like there would be for third party app stores. You can make your house unsafe and then sell it as long as you inform the buyer, if you didn't then there would be consequences. If you were to replace a floor in your house, whilst in the process of replacement it may be unsafe, and it would be your responsibility to ensure no harm comes to yourself or anyone else. So as you're advocating the banning of third party app stores for the negative consequences, are you advocating the banning of knife sales, hardware stores, auto parts, etc too? Because all those things are potentially dangerous. We should ban hardware stores for the general public, in case they do buy tools and materials that would potentially make their house unsafe. And here we're talking about apps, the worst that can really happen is fraud; it's not potentially deadly like someone doing their own DIY. 

    I could enable SSH, remove my password and open ports to the Internet, that would be my responsibility and my fault if I got hacked. No one goes running to Apple when someone gets Mac malware, so why is it apparently different with the phone? Apple wants control over the apps on the phone, obviously because they make a lot of money from the App Store. Anyone who thinks that's not the primary reason for the lock-in is just delusional. 
    edited May 15 darkvadermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 42 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    ...my view is Apple is in some ways restricting trade by disallowing the existence of other app stores. And the restriction of trade is why I believe it’s just a matter a time before the hammer drops, whether in the USA, or Europe or elsewhere. 
    There are scores of dictatorships in the world and I'm sure that one of them will bring down the hammer soon enough. And I'm looking forward to that because when some country, like Russia, demands something totally unreasonable, Apple will just shut down the App Store in that entire country. There will be no third party apps any more in that country until the hammer is lifted. Otherwise, if Russia requires an Epic App Store on iOS, and Apple permits it, then people in America will find a way to access the Russian Epic App Store, using VPNs. If Apple caves and allows app stores run by other companies, I will tell my friends to not bother buying Apple anymore because I won't support them. I'll switch to Android since it's cheaper.
    If you really think that, you're an idiot. You think Apple will just cut out the entirety of Europe, where they make roughly 25% of their revenue? What if the antitrust investigations in the US result in Apple being forced to allow third party stores, they're just going to shut down the App Store in the US, where roughly 40% of their revenue is made, rather than take a smaller hit to their bottom line instead? Don't be ridiculous.

     I will tell my friends to not bother buying Apple anymore because I won't support them. I'll switch to Android since it's cheaper.

    We'll see.
    edited May 15 GeorgeBMacdarkvader
  • Reply 43 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    ppietra said:
    Aren’t people forbidden from lying in court? At the very least he is blatantly trying to deceive the judge...
    He says that review is not necessary because of iOS's built-in defences like sandboxing, and then goes on to say that the Mac is as secure as iOS.
     Guess what, SANDBOXING is not enforced on the Mac, like many other security features that he says are what makes iOS secure, are not enforced on the Mac. So clearly the Mac is not as secure as iOS using this supposed expert own criteria for security... Which makes his all argument that iOS could be like the Mac so false!!!!!
    Yes, it is by default. Unlike iOS however, the user can bypass it on a per-app basis.
    darkvader
  • Reply 44 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?
    Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the brakes on their Ford themselves? Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the engine on their Ford themselves? Or a bulb? Or change the windscreen wipers? No? Best get onto your senator to change the law then because it's 100% legal, and people do it all the time. When's the last time you heard of Ford getting blamed because of a botched brake replacement someone did at home? And that's a vehicle, something that could quite easily be deadly not only for the occupant but third parties if a component failed. You really think the risk of third party software on a phone is somehow in the same ballpark as DIY modifications to a vehicle? Get a grip.
    edited May 15 darkvadermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 77
    XedXed Posts: 981member
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?
    Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the brakes on their Ford themselves? Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the engine on their Ford themselves? Or a bulb? Or change the windscreen wipers? No? Best get onto your senator to change the law then because it's 100% legal, and people do it all the time. When's the last time you heard of Ford getting blamed because of a botched brake replacement someone did at home? And that's a vehicle, something that could quite easily be deadly not only for the occupant but third parties if a component failed. Software on a phone? Nah.
    Yes, just like replacing the battery or putting on a new screen protector is perfectly legal and doesn't void the warranty. Any more silly analogies that don't pertain to iOS and App Store security?
    baconstangGeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 77
    except that the reality is iOS is more secure than macOS
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    Xed said:
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?
    Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the brakes on their Ford themselves? Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the engine on their Ford themselves? Or a bulb? Or change the windscreen wipers? No? Best get onto your senator to change the law then because it's 100% legal, and people do it all the time. When's the last time you heard of Ford getting blamed because of a botched brake replacement someone did at home? And that's a vehicle, something that could quite easily be deadly not only for the occupant but third parties if a component failed. Software on a phone? Nah.
    Yes, just like replacing the battery or putting on a new screen protector is perfectly legal and doesn't void the warranty. Any more silly analogies that don't pertain to iOS and App Store security?
    I assume you're talking to 22july2013 since he brought up cars. Jailbreaking is legal too by the way, and also doesn't void the warranty, but can be reduce security. And replacing the Ford's software is also legal. As is running a third party app store on iOS, like Cydia. If you can't see how user modifications to iOS affecting its "security" is so inconsequential compared to user modifications to a car, you have little hope of understanding this case nor why Apple's arguments over its security responsibility to its users is a smokescreen.
    edited May 15 darkvader
  • Reply 48 of 77
    j2fusionj2fusion Posts: 117member
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Not quite right either. You are correct in that Best Buy has no control once the sale is complete. It is up to the consumer to find the manufacturer website, find updates, if any, learn how to install them and deal with the unenviable task of attempting to contact the manufacturer for help if things go wrong. Apple does this and more like security updates all for the developers. Should all that be free?  Don’t even get me started on how all this exists because of all the thought and hard work Apple put into the ecosystem from the beginning. Somehow Epic has the right to dictate to Apple how the should now run their business. Really!?

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 77
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,221member
    j2fusion said:
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Not quite right either. You are correct in that Best Buy has no control once the sale is complete. It is up to the consumer to find the manufacturer website, find updates, if any, learn how to install them and deal with the unenviable task of attempting to contact the manufacturer for help if things go wrong. Apple does this and more like security updates all for the developers. Should all that be free?  Don’t even get me started on how all this exists because of all the thought and hard work Apple put into the ecosystem from the beginning. Somehow Epic has the right to dictate to Apple how the should now run their business. Really!?

    Every TV I know of has built-in self-update, and the manufacturer makes no money post-sale for those updates. Finding & contacting the manufacturer is no different though than buying an iPhone from a third party reseller and contacting Apple for repairs. Security updates are no more "for" developers than anyone else, not sure what you mean there. Either way the updates are free for people on macOS, free for those on Android (even those not using google play), and free for those developers who only have free apps in the store.

    But I completely agree Epic should have no say in how Apple runs their business, as long as they not breaking competition law - however, Epic is claiming Apple is breaking competition law. Obviously this is all for Epic ultimately, but it would cause changes for all developers (and maybe users), not just Epic. As was Epic's intention this has spurned competition investigations worldwide, and in my opinion, there will be at least one jurisdiction where Apple is forced to allow third party App Stores, or at a minimum a change to the rules around IAPs and in-app advertisements.
    darkvadermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 50 of 77
    XedXed Posts: 981member
    elijahg said:
    j2fusion said:
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Not quite right either. You are correct in that Best Buy has no control once the sale is complete. It is up to the consumer to find the manufacturer website, find updates, if any, learn how to install them and deal with the unenviable task of attempting to contact the manufacturer for help if things go wrong. Apple does this and more like security updates all for the developers. Should all that be free?  Don’t even get me started on how all this exists because of all the thought and hard work Apple put into the ecosystem from the beginning. Somehow Epic has the right to dictate to Apple how the should now run their business. Really!?

    Every TV I know of has built-in self-update, and the manufacturer makes no money post-sale for those updates. Finding & contacting the manufacturer is no different though than buying an iPhone from a third party reseller and contacting Apple for repairs. Security updates are no more "for" developers than anyone else, not sure what you mean there. Either way the updates are free for people on macOS, free for those on Android (even those not using google play), and free for those developers who only have free apps in the store.

    But I completely agree Epic should have no say in how Apple runs their business, as long as they not breaking competition law - however, Epic is claiming Apple is breaking competition law. Obviously this is all for Epic ultimately, but it would cause changes for all developers (and maybe users), not just Epic. As was Epic's intention this has spurned competition investigations worldwide, and in my opinion, there will be at least one jurisdiction where Apple is forced to allow third party App Stores, or at a minimum a change to the rules around IAPs and in-app advertisements.
    You really don’t think that smart TV vendors aren’t making money “post sale”, as you put it?

    There are some reasons for vendors to maintain a certain level of quality “post sale”, but it’s mostly about helping to better their profit center within the SW when you use the device. Not only that, but periodic updates are a strategy to help get you to start connected to the internet so their data mining efforts can be even kore profitable. Not exactly a secret or difficult concept here. Even the Roku CEO has been blatantly clear where their profits come from.

    Are you also against Apple’s long over due ATT efforts to protect users or too you is that a “post sale” where they can’t possibly be making money on you?

    edited May 15 baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 51 of 77
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 641member
    genovelle said:
    He’s right. macOS is much more open in terms of how users can install apps, and yet the Mac isn’t crawling with malware, unlike windows. Also, if iOS is opened to allow third party app stores, nothing would require users to download apps from those other stores if they didn’t want to. I’ve had an iPhone since 2007, but I recently started toying with android, and I’ve never used any other App Store besides the google play store even though others exist. 

    I think Apple is exerting too much control. For example, why is it that Netflix or any other app can’t tell me where and how to sign up for a subscription (if those apps don’t use IAP)? 

    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates. 

    Others might disagree, but my view is Apple is in some ways restricting trade by disallowing the existence of other app stores. And the restriction of trade is why I believe it’s just a matter a time before the hammer drops, whether in the USA, or Europe or elsewhere. 
    Is he and anyone else willing to put their home and financial future on the line to prove it? Android is the example and it is a horrible idea. 
    MacOS is the example and it is a fantastic idea. Did you put your home and financial future on the line when you bought your Mac? 
    elijahg
  • Reply 52 of 77
    ppietrappietra Posts: 254member
    elijahg said:
    ppietra said:
    Aren’t people forbidden from lying in court? At the very least he is blatantly trying to deceive the judge...
    He says that review is not necessary because of iOS's built-in defences like sandboxing, and then goes on to say that the Mac is as secure as iOS.
     Guess what, SANDBOXING is not enforced on the Mac, like many other security features that he says are what makes iOS secure, are not enforced on the Mac. So clearly the Mac is not as secure as iOS using this supposed expert own criteria for security... Which makes his all argument that iOS could be like the Mac so false!!!!!
    Yes, it is by default. Unlike iOS however, the user can bypass it on a per-app basis.
    No it isn’t. Only applications acquired through the Mac AppStore are required to be sandboxed. Applications from outside the AppStore are not required and a lot of people install apps on Macs from outside the AppStore, which is the all argument that the Epic is trying to make.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 77
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 461member
    People can do what they want with the hardware device they own. Bend it, flush it down the toilet or jailbreak it.
    The software of course is only licensed and Apple should not have to facilitate anyone being able to do anything.
    Hence, if Epic want a 3rd party app-store they can use Cydia.
    Xedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 77
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,409member
    elijahg said:
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?
    Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the brakes on their Ford themselves? Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the engine on their Ford themselves? Or a bulb? Or change the windscreen wipers? No? Best get onto your senator to change the law then because it's 100% legal, and people do it all the time. When's the last time you heard of Ford getting blamed because of a botched brake replacement someone did at home? And that's a vehicle, something that could quite easily be deadly not only for the occupant but third parties if a component failed. You really think the risk of third party software on a phone is somehow in the same ballpark as DIY modifications to a vehicle? Get a grip.
    Interesting how you completely evaded my question. I was talking about the vehicle's software, and you switched gears and talked about windshield wipers. Either you don't know how to comprehend what you read or you are evading the question because you cannot answer it. I think you are smart enough that it's the latter.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 77
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,409member
    elijahg said:
    ...my view is Apple is in some ways restricting trade by disallowing the existence of other app stores. And the restriction of trade is why I believe it’s just a matter a time before the hammer drops, whether in the USA, or Europe or elsewhere. 
    There are scores of dictatorships in the world and I'm sure that one of them will bring down the hammer soon enough. And I'm looking forward to that because when some country, like Russia, demands something totally unreasonable, Apple will just shut down the App Store in that entire country. There will be no third party apps any more in that country until the hammer is lifted. Otherwise, if Russia requires an Epic App Store on iOS, and Apple permits it, then people in America will find a way to access the Russian Epic App Store, using VPNs. If Apple caves and allows app stores run by other companies, I will tell my friends to not bother buying Apple anymore because I won't support them. I'll switch to Android since it's cheaper.
    If you really think that, you're an idiot. You think Apple will just cut out the entirety of Europe, where they make roughly 25% of their revenue? What if the antitrust investigations in the US result in Apple being forced to allow third party stores, they're just going to shut down the App Store in the US, where roughly 40% of their revenue is made, rather than take a smaller hit to their bottom line instead? Don't be ridiculous.
    Once again, you completely misconstrue my point. Read again... I said Apple should "remove the App Store in that country," and you interpreted my words as "pulling out of Europe". Is it only me that you constantly misconstrue or do you miscontrue everyone? To quote Homer Simpson, "Ladies and gentlemen, I give you my idiot."
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 77
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,287member
    elijahg said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

    Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.
    That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?
    That's because Best Buy do not own the TV or its software, after you have bought it. But Apple still own iOS, after you have bought an iPhone. This is also true for Microsoft and Sony. They still own the OS running on their game consoles, after you have bought it from Best Buy. They still have control on what downloaded games you can play on their consoles and where you can download them from. 

    Ever try to play a PlayStation or Nintendo game on an X-Box? Ever try to buy a PlayStation version of the  X-Box exclusive game, "Halo"? Can you download an X-Box game from the Microsoft Store and have it play on a PlayStation? Can you use your Sony game console account to pay for games on an X-Box? Change the software on an X-Box and Microsoft will ban you from playing online games, as that could lead to an unfair advantage during online game play. Know of any X-Box games that can be downloaded and installed by using the browser on an X-Box and thus bypassing Microsoft control? How much commission do Microsoft (and other makers of game consoles) collect on V-Bucks sale in their stores? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 57 of 77
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,396member
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?
    I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point. 

    But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous. 

    But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc. 
    No, your analogy is bunk. With regards to Netflix and it not being able the advertise that you can buy a subscription cheaper on their site, the user has *not yet made the purchase*. So it is exactly like a Sony TV telling you to buy it from another retailer, as it’s before the purchase. 
    edited May 15 watto_cobra
  • Reply 58 of 77
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,396member
    elijahg said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Xed said:
    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.
    So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?
    I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point. 

    But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous. 

    But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc. 
    I live in a house. 
    I own the house outright. 
    But there are rules that state what I’m allowed to do to my house.
    I cannot put up a fence around my front lawn (weird one). I cannot build a four storey extension in my back garden, even though I own the land. I cannot build a massive three hundred foot satellite dish in the roof. I cannot do anything that would make the house unsafe and then try and sell it. 

    Why? Because even though I own the house and the land, the rules are their to stop me from doing dumb stuff that affects everything me. 

    And you actually don’t own any piece of software. You only think you do. 

    You can actually do all those things you listed, but there likely will be consequences, and those consequences will be your responsibility, not whoever sold you the materials. Just like there would be for third party app stores. You can make your house unsafe and then sell it as long as you inform the buyer, if you didn't then there would be consequences. If you were to replace a floor in your house, whilst in the process of replacement it may be unsafe, and it would be your responsibility to ensure no harm comes to yourself or anyone else. So as you're advocating the banning of third party app stores for the negative consequences, are you advocating the banning of knife sales, hardware stores, auto parts, etc too? Because all those things are potentially dangerous. We should ban hardware stores for the general public, in case they do buy tools and materials that would potentially make their house unsafe. And here we're talking about apps, the worst that can really happen is fraud; it's not potentially deadly like someone doing their own DIY. 

    I could enable SSH, remove my password and open ports to the Internet, that would be my responsibility and my fault if I got hacked. No one goes running to Apple when someone gets Mac malware, so why is it apparently different with the phone? Apple wants control over the apps on the phone, obviously because they make a lot of money from the App Store. Anyone who thinks that's not the primary reason for the lock-in is just delusional. 
    Sounds like you don’t own a house. No, you cannot do those things which are against local ordinance or code, despite owning the property. Nor can you open a liquor store in your house. You simply cannot do whatever you want. 
    qwerty52roundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 77
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,661member
    He’s right. macOS is much more open in terms of how users can install apps, and yet the Mac isn’t crawling with malware, unlike windows. Also, if iOS is opened to allow third party app stores, nothing would require users to download apps from those other stores if they didn’t want to. I’ve had an iPhone since 2007, but I recently started toying with android, and I’ve never used any other App Store besides the google play store even though others exist. 

    I think Apple is exerting too much control. For example, why is it that Netflix or any other app can’t tell me where and how to sign up for a subscription (if those apps don’t use IAP)? 

    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates. 

    Others might disagree, but my view is Apple is in some ways restricting trade by disallowing the existence of other app stores. And the restriction of trade is why I believe it’s just a matter a time before the hammer drops, whether in the USA, or Europe or elsewhere. 
    Lots of ignorance in this thread.

    You need to look no further than Android to see what a mess an "open" system is.  Security is so bad - to nonexistent - that no one even bothers to raise a stink about it.  It's a given.  You're advocating a similar path with iOS, and users - not companies - will flatly say "NO".
    baconstangwatto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 77
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,874member
    sflocal said:
    He’s right. macOS is much more open in terms of how users can install apps, and yet the Mac isn’t crawling with malware, unlike windows. Also, if iOS is opened to allow third party app stores, nothing would require users to download apps from those other stores if they didn’t want to. I’ve had an iPhone since 2007, but I recently started toying with android, and I’ve never used any other App Store besides the google play store even though others exist. 

    I think Apple is exerting too much control. For example, why is it that Netflix or any other app can’t tell me where and how to sign up for a subscription (if those apps don’t use IAP)? 

    When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates. 

    Others might disagree, but my view is Apple is in some ways restricting trade by disallowing the existence of other app stores. And the restriction of trade is why I believe it’s just a matter a time before the hammer drops, whether in the USA, or Europe or elsewhere. 
    Lots of ignorance in this thread.

    You need to look no further than Android to see what a mess an "open" system is.  Security is so bad - to nonexistent - that no one even bothers to raise a stink about it.  It's a given.  You're advocating a similar path with iOS, and users - not companies - will flatly say "NO".

    It's not so much about right or wrong, good or bad.   It's just a different approach. 

    Yes, open systems like Android and Windows are, in your words, "messes" and security is deficient.
    But, at the same time Apple's closed systems are, some would say, "too limited and too restricted.   Why can't I...."

    I think comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.   They each have advantages and disadvantages.

    The danger comes when outside pressure forces them to be something that they are not -- for a closed system to open up or vice-versa.


Sign In or Register to comment.