Treating a company that is NOT a monopolist as if they were. There is no economic or legal theory that justifies this. The only monopoly Apple has is the monopoly on Apple branded products.
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opp
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
Individuals, of their own free will, choose to pay premium prices for iPhones knowing exactly the walled garden they are buying into because Apple's walled garden approach to apps is a main reason for choosing iPhone in fhe first place. Individuals who find this "paternalistic" have an entire world of Android from which to choose. Load whatever apps you want from whomever is peddling them. Have at it! While Android manufacturers sell their phones based on the latest buzzy features like foldables, Apple sells iPhone based on security, protection of consumer privacy, ease-of-use and high quality reliability. if you don't like it, don't buy it... it's as simple as that.
Treating a company that is NOT a monopolist as if they were. There is no economic or legal theory that justifies this. The only monopoly Apple has is the monopoly on Apple branded products.
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
Exactly right. General Motors recently made their own infotainment system the only option for consumers buying a GM car or truck. No more CarPlay or Android Auto support. Should the DOJ be pursuing GM to "open up" their infotainment system to other options? No. If consumers want CarPlay or Android Auto they have plenty of other car options from which to choose. I personally believe GM will reverse course on this, not because of the DOJ, but because of lost sales, which is exactly how the marketplace should work. When there is plenty of free choice in the marketplace, as there is with cars and mobile phones, let consumers decide which strategies survive and which do not.
Don't break what isn't broken. A good question is, what special interest group is pushing this BS and why? Generally, liberal politicians despise successful companies and that's why this Administration is attacking another great American company (leave that to the envious EU nations). Apple has created great products that literally has 100's of millions of consumers who love their products and services. We, the free-willed consumer, are not being exploited, Apple is a monopoly only on Apple products just like GM is a monopoly on GM products, etc. Apple has less than 100% market share so how is this a monopoly? Consumers have a choice to use Android and its app store along with all its lack of privacy, tracking, and selling your personal data or you can choose Apple which tries to protect the consumer not exploit them for additional profit.
It's time this Administration concentrates on actually doing its fundamental job of securing this country and stop attacking a great American company that literally and figuratively invented the smartphone market and created millions of jobs that have paid the feds hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue this country has enjoyed.
Treating a company that is NOT a monopolist as if they were. There is no economic or legal theory that justifies this. The only monopoly Apple has is the monopoly on Apple branded products.
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
Exactly right. General Motors recently made their own infotainment system the only option for consumers buying a GM car or truck. No more CarPlay or Android Auto support. Should the DOJ be pursuing GM to "open up" their infotainment system to other options? No. If consumers want CarPlay or Android Auto they have plenty of other car options from which to choose. I personally believe GM will reverse course on this, not because of the DOJ, but because of lost sales, which is exactly how the marketplace should work. When there is plenty of free choice in the marketplace, as there is with cars and mobile phones, let consumers decide which strategies survive and which do not.
That issue aside though, allowing me to download an app to my iPhone from some other store does not impact anyone else's iPhone. That's false assumption that many are making. Perhaps because they have fallen for Apple's propaganda.
You obviously have ZERO clue on how computers and the internet work. Once your system is compromised by crap software/malware/virus it can start sending out from your Message and email contacts that infectious sewage to everyone you have contact information. Now because of your erroneously flawed logic everyone else’s iPhone is forced to be “open” they are inevitably infected BECAUSE OF YOU! All from the misfortune of having known you.
I can’t begin to count the number of Windows systems I’ve had to work on and try salvaging data because of this exact scenario.
That issue aside though, allowing me to download an app to my iPhone from some other store does not impact anyone else's iPhone. That's false assumption that many are making. Perhaps because they have fallen for Apple's propaganda.
You obviously have ZERO clue on how computers and the internet work.
You're right. My 30+ years as a software engineer have taught me nothing.
Just admit that you have fallen for Apple's propaganda. But please stop the fear-mongering.
Not propaganda at all. Real world experience for also 30+ years having dealt with exactly what you erroneously claim can’t affect anyone else.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
[It’s a gloomy, cloudy day as a handsome stranger, reposing with muscles, enters an unlit, dank room, the atmosphere smelling of unwashed Cheeto fingers, cheap cologne, and … smoke, for some reason, though there is no source to be found. But dang if it doesn’t add to the atmosphere. As it turns out, our hero has found his way to… the AI FORUMS! *cue suspenseful audio track*]
“Certainly not”. The handsome, unbelievably ripped stranger proclaims to a startled crowd, both in awe, and disbelief that such superheroe - looking - people aactually exist. “and But it’s the exact same concept. Either way, digital or physical, developers pay a platform fee for the privilege of accessing Nintendos reknow loyal customer base. This is true for digital sales as well as physical.
“Nintendo has hardware and software preventing unauthorized games/apps from playing. “
“But wait”, you question, seemingly momentarily perplexed … and then a wry smile crosses your face. “Haven't there been “home brew” workarounds, mods, hacks, etc. on Nintendo platforms, making it more open?”“
“why ceratainly,” the stranger retorts, keeping the same facial expression he’s had throughout the thread.
“However,” the stranger continues, a hint of emotion now subtlety creasing the eyeline, betraying a sense of an opportunity to educate further. “”Home brew for Nintendo systems is the same concept as “jail breaking” for iPhones, so it’s the exact same level of choice. A user can break the system if they really want to, but the associated fallout is on them, not apple or Nintendo. That way the customer can do what they want and it’s also fair to the company that built a secure, ethical system - so they aren’t on the hook for damage done by either the jailbreaking process, or subsequent unauthorized downloads created by malicious developers such as the evil, Skeletron, and Beastaloid.”
It’s at that moment an awkward silence ensues, the roof disappears, along with the smoke no one could source, and dark cloud of confusion begins to dissipate. A sense of relief and perhaps, even joy, pervade the room once again.
Handsome stranger looks around and sees one face, beaming with gratitude for a world of confusion that has been cleared. “You’re welcome, friend.” He says, as he tips his hat, alights his trusty steed, a massive tiger that somehow looks alien in origin (and appears out of nowhere to the amazement of onlookers) and rides off into the sunset.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
Life pro tip:
Mental gymnastics for the purpose of poking holes is a waste of life. Better if you just go by common sense.
So lots of blanket statements here but I scroll to this entire thread looking for functional descriptions of how or not allowing siding might affect my security and my experience with the iPhone that I pay money for and feel comfortable with. , How does it work kind of guy in the closest one to somebody saying how it worked was the jam and who talked about how he's been clearing crap out of Microsoft systems for years. If somebody siloing something on their iPhone is gonna leave me completely unaffected then I'm OK with that, but I have yet to hear an explanation how, or not this will or will not affect my security and privacy. I'm being conservative in the dictionary sense of the word I'm resisting change and hoping to slow it down and say hey let's think about this before we do it, My sentiments are against it . I like things just the way they are. I do strongly suspect that there are profiteering people who want to tap into the generally more lucrative wealthy demographic that Apple caters to. That's very much my conclusion concerning Sweeney and epic/fortnight.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
Life pro tip:
Mental gymnastics for the purpose of poking holes is a waste of life. Better if you just go by common sense.
I don't need any life tips from you. Save them for someone else. TYVM. My common sense read of the situation is just fine. That it differs from your sense of things make it no less viable. Apple is playing a game here, a greedy one, a selfish one, a cynical one. They know full well they don't need to limit apps to only their app store to keep the overall platform secure. That's a lie—propaganda really—intended to serve their own self interests with the illusion of serving the customer's interests. What's most amazing is how many people have fallen for this.
P.S. The "mental gymnastics" are coming from the side insisting that the "walled garden" is the only way to secure the platform.
LOL. Bruh.
I guess if you can’t see it, even the most basic common sense won’t help.
So lots of blanket statements here but I scroll to this entire thread looking for functional descriptions of how or not allowing siding might affect my security and my experience with the iPhone that I pay money for and feel comfortable with. , How does it work kind of guy in the closest one to somebody saying how it worked was the jam and who talked about how he's been clearing crap out of Microsoft systems for years. If somebody siloing something on their iPhone is gonna leave me completely unaffected then I'm OK with that, but I have yet to hear an explanation how, or not this will or will not affect my security and privacy. I'm being conservative in the dictionary sense of the word I'm resisting change and hoping to slow it down and say hey let's think about this before we do it, My sentiments are against it . I like things just the way they are. I do strongly suspect that there are profiteering people who want to tap into the generally more lucrative wealthy demographic that Apple caters to. That's very much my conclusion concerning Sweeney and epic/fortnight.
So lots of blanket statements here but I scroll to this entire thread looking for functional descriptions of how or not allowing siding might affect my security and my experience with the iPhone that I pay money for and feel comfortable with. , How does it work kind of guy in the closest one to somebody saying how it worked was the jam and who talked about how he's been clearing crap out of Microsoft systems for years. If somebody siloing something on their iPhone is gonna leave me completely unaffected then I'm OK with that, but I have yet to hear an explanation how, or not this will or will not affect my security and privacy. I'm being conservative in the dictionary sense of the word I'm resisting change and hoping to slow it down and say hey let's think about this before we do it, My sentiments are against it . I like things just the way they are. I do strongly suspect that there are profiteering people who want to tap into the generally more lucrative wealthy demographic that Apple caters to. That's very much my conclusion concerning Sweeney and epic/fortnight.
That’s probably because everyone has been up to speed for, o, the last decade plus.
Other concepts we won’t be discussing due to pervasive knowledge:
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
There is choice. That’s the market.
Some folks just enjoy breaking a nice, working system. No real logic. Just to see it broken.
There is too much at work for everyone to have everything due to the fact that the world isn’t perfect snd has actual bad actors in it.
If apple were to open the iPhone up to everything under the sun, piracy increase, hurting their rep, consumers with malicious downloads, and developers. Who remembers the warez sites that were so problematic in the Wild West days of the internet. Phones are an even better target since they’re so rich with personal data.
Next thing, apple is on the wrong end of multiple lawsuits (even from the same DOJ AND EU) related to bad things happening to customers phones, identity theft, IP theft, etc.
if Apple were to open it wide open, it would be bad for everyone. Can buskers lose security protections, apple loses the trust of its customers, developers lose their profits, and the bad guys win. Again. Better to learn from history than repeat it.
What apple has done is provide a solution. In this way, piracy gets crushed, developers get paid, customers get protected, and even the few who want the Wild West again can jailbreak their phones - which also frees apple from being on the hook from the damage done by the malicious code people download. It’s already the best case scenario.
What is really at play here is an attempt to take apple down by sabotaging their incredible business structure. As Jobs solved the online music piracy (and associated malware anites) issue with iTunes, Apple has also solved app piracy (and associated malware sources) with the App Store.
It’s been fine for over a decade. Then all of a sudden some greedy slimes see a way to poke holes with those grungy fingers and they go for it. Better to break their fingers than let them make the holes bigger.
Apple has built a desireable product that is tied to a desireable service that most people want and pay good money ON PURPOSE to have.
There is literally nothing wrong. Everything is just right. The idiots trying to “fix” what’s not broken are either totally incompetent, have not done their diligence in understanding things like liability, or just plain corrupt and on the take.
These folks shouldn’t be trying to turn utopia into a ghetto. They should be thanking Apple for doing exactly the opposite.
There's so much in your post that's hilarious—and wrong—I wouldn't know where to begin. But the irony of calling others greedy in the face of Apple's conduct is perhaps the best part. That's pure comedy gold.
Oh well, eventually Apple will be forced to open at least a little and allow individuals to, of their own free will, download something to the phone they've paid for from someone other than paternalistic Apple. It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how and when. Apple can cooperate or be assholes about it. So far they are taking the asshole path (while trying to pretend to be noble and righteous.)
Life pro tip:
Mental gymnastics for the purpose of poking holes is a waste of life. Better if you just go by common sense.
I don't need any life tips from you. Save them for someone else. TYVM. My common sense read of the situation is just fine. That it differs from your sense of things make it no less viable. Apple is playing a game here, a greedy one, a selfish one, a cynical one. They know full well they don't need to limit apps to only their app store to keep the overall platform secure. That's a lie—propaganda really—intended to serve their own self interests with the illusion of serving the customer's interests. What's most amazing is how many people have fallen for this.
P.S. The "mental gymnastics" are coming from the side insisting that the "walled garden" is the only way to secure the platform.
LOL. Bruh.
I guess if you can’t see it, even the most basic common sense won’t help.
Bruh, simply declaring your view as the "common sense" one don't make it so. Feel free to get down from your high horse. This idea (alternative app loading) isn't unreasonable at all—even if Apple has convinced you otherwise. LOL
Except that’s not what happened in the real world.
You were taught the similarities of Apple’s and Nintendo’s positions. Numerous examples were given and common sense fair play revealed.
You can’t force an OEM to let everyone - including precious customers - run roughshod over their business and then still keep them on the hook for related damages. That’s not how it works.
You can already jailbreak. So yes you can do that. But Apple isn’t on the hook in that case - as it should be.
You’re free to do whatever you want with your device, but that doesn’t mean the manufacturer has to pay to fix it - or even have their tech support lines gummed up by irrelevant cases.
Choices have consequences. Some good. Some bad. It really is that simple. Apple isn’t your daddy, coming to fix your phone every time you hack it to instal malware. And they shouldn’t be forced by government overreach to do so.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
Nintendo (and Sony and MS) still gets the same cut whether it is digital sale or a cartridge sale. The retailer may decide to sell their retail units at a lower price, but Nintendo already got its cut, and the retailer, and subsequently the game publisher, is eating the loss or losing the margin. The retailer, if big enough, may be able to return unsold inventory at the price they bought it. Not a great comparison as the game console model is the same as App Store model to developers.
Apple App Store customers are already getting the lowest possible price. It's the nature of the App Store where publishers and developers have to compete against each other as they are just a click away. Prices only increase if the app or service is better. Prices also can rise by introducing scarcity. 3rd party app stores can increase prices by introducing scarcity. They also can decrease software sales if they make it harder to buy.
If a gov't wants to regulate, they will have tread very very carefully. It typically very frustrating as gov't never seem to promote standards, rather they promote companies.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".
On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history. And yet there are 1.5B Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.
And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data
that consumers have on their mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices
should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy
standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.
Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.
Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.
BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.
Treating a company that is NOT a monopolist as if they were. There is no economic or legal theory that justifies this. The only monopoly Apple has is the monopoly on Apple branded products.
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
Exactly right. General Motors recently made their own infotainment system the only option for consumers buying a GM car or truck. No more CarPlay or Android Auto support. Should the DOJ be pursuing GM to "open up" their infotainment system to other options? No. If consumers want CarPlay or Android Auto they have plenty of other car options from which to choose. I personally believe GM will reverse course on this, not because of the DOJ, but because of lost sales, which is exactly how the marketplace should work. When there is plenty of free choice in the marketplace, as there is with cars and mobile phones, let consumers decide which strategies survive and which do not.
Is any carmaker a gatekeeper?
Here in the US, we are not yet suffering from the EU mentality that one has to be a "gatekeeper", in order to exhibit anti-competitive behavior.
Or that every competitive advantage that so call "gatekeepers" have, must have been obtained with anti-competitive behaviors and are now anti-competitive advantages to their competitors.
And why should the US even give a damn who the EU designate as "gatekeepers", using the EU Commission BS criteria? The EU DMA is not the law of every country in the World.
I don't think the US have any anti-trust laws that designate any corporation as a "gatekeeper". So does that mean that the US shouldn't go after Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta, if they were to exhibit anti-competitive behavior? After all, like GM and all the other carmakers, they are not "gatekeepers", under US laws.
What makes you think that US DOJ should be applying the EU DMA, when enforcing anti-trust behavior in the US?
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the operating system. You merely license it. And the operating system includes ALL the many software libraries used to develop apps. So if you want to develop a totally separate OS that will run on iPhones, then I suppose there’s nothing Apple could do about that. But it’s going to have to talk directly to the hardware, because every bit of kernel code on an iPhone right now belongs to Apple.
That issue aside though, allowing me to download an app to my iPhone from some other store does not impact anyone else's iPhone. That's false assumption that many are making. Perhaps because they have fallen for Apple's propaganda.
You obviously have ZERO clue on how computers and the internet work.
You're right. My 30+ years as a software engineer have taught me nothing.
Just admit that you have fallen for Apple's propaganda. But please stop the fear-mongering.
Have they taught you about the value of a business’ reputation? When that app infects your phone and corrupts or steals your data, and this happens on an iPhone it’s Apple who will take a reputational hit as not being a secure platform. And that can affect Apple’s profits and distract its talent base, thereby its ability to invest in future R&D, which will have an effect on the quality of the future iPhone I buy.
Treating a company that is NOT a monopolist as if they were. There is no economic or legal theory that justifies this. The only monopoly Apple has is the monopoly on Apple branded products.
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
Exactly right. General Motors recently made their own infotainment system the only option for consumers buying a GM car or truck. No more CarPlay or Android Auto support. Should the DOJ be pursuing GM to "open up" their infotainment system to other options? No. If consumers want CarPlay or Android Auto they have plenty of other car options from which to choose. I personally believe GM will reverse course on this, not because of the DOJ, but because of lost sales, which is exactly how the marketplace should work. When there is plenty of free choice in the marketplace, as there is with cars and mobile phones, let consumers decide which strategies survive and which do not.
Is any carmaker a gatekeeper?
Here in the US, we are not yet suffering from the EU mentality that one has to be a "gatekeeper", in order to exhibit anti-competitive behavior.
Or that every competitive advantage that so call "gatekeepers" have, must have been obtained with anti-competitive behaviors and are now anti-competitive advantages to their competitors.
And why should the US even give a damn who the EU designate as "gatekeepers", using the EU Commission BS criteria? The EU DMA is not the law of every country in the World.
I don't think the US have any anti-trust laws that designate any corporation as a "gatekeeper". So does that mean that the US shouldn't go after Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta, if they were to exhibit anti-competitive behavior? After all, like GM and all the other carmakers, they are not "gatekeepers", under US laws.
What makes you think that US DOJ should be applying the EU DMA, when enforcing anti-trust behavior in the US?
I never said the DoJ should apply EU DMA.
And you are right with your adding 'yet'.
We are waiting to see what happens but you may well find the word 'gatekeeper' (or the logic behind it) appearing in US terminology.
That's because times have changed and that in itself is why we are seeing these practices put under the microscope worldwide.
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:
How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.
(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)
Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
Totally Apple's prerogative.
Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
Might be sketchy of Apple too.
Not sure about this one.
Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.
Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.
Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.
Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.
(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)
Either way, Apple best be careful here.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.
And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.
Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.
Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.
And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android.
Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo. They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers.
Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?
But it’s the exact same concept. Either way, digital or physical, developers pay a platform fee for the privilege of accessing Nintendos reknow loyal customer base. This is true for digital sales as well as physical.
It's not the exact same concept. As a customer, you are not forced to purchase digital games in their store. You can go to many retailers and purchase games in physical media. Apple force every customer to purchase apps only in digital form from their app store. That's the difference I pointed out.
“Nintendo has hardware and software preventing unauthorized games/apps from playing. “
Every console has a mechanism to prevent unauthorized games. I don't see any issues with that.
Comments
If they go after Apple for this, they should go after the game console manufacturers as well: No more exclusive game franchises for them, no more exclusive payment system.
Exactly right. General Motors recently made their own infotainment system the only option for consumers buying a GM car or truck. No more CarPlay or Android Auto support. Should the DOJ be pursuing GM to "open up" their infotainment system to other options? No. If consumers want CarPlay or Android Auto they have plenty of other car options from which to choose. I personally believe GM will reverse course on this, not because of the DOJ, but because of lost sales, which is exactly how the marketplace should work. When there is plenty of free choice in the marketplace, as there is with cars and mobile phones, let consumers decide which strategies survive and which do not.
It's time this Administration concentrates on actually doing its fundamental job of securing this country and stop attacking a great American company that literally and figuratively invented the smartphone market and created millions of jobs that have paid the feds hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue this country has enjoyed.
I can’t begin to count the number of Windows systems I’ve had to work on and try salvaging data because of this exact scenario.
“Certainly not”. The handsome, unbelievably ripped stranger proclaims to a startled crowd, both in awe, and disbelief that such superheroe - looking - people aactually exist. “and But it’s the exact same concept. Either way, digital or physical, developers pay a platform fee for the privilege of accessing Nintendos reknow loyal customer base. This is true for digital sales as well as physical. “Nintendo has hardware and software preventing unauthorized games/apps from playing. “
“But wait”, you question, seemingly momentarily perplexed … and then a wry smile crosses your face. “Haven't there been “home brew” workarounds, mods, hacks, etc. on Nintendo platforms, making it more open?”“
“why ceratainly,” the stranger retorts, keeping the same facial expression he’s had throughout the thread. “However,” the stranger continues, a hint of emotion now subtlety creasing the eyeline, betraying a sense of an opportunity to educate further. “”Home brew for Nintendo systems is the same concept as “jail breaking” for iPhones, so it’s the exact same level of choice. A user can break the system if they really want to, but the associated fallout is on them, not apple or Nintendo. That way the customer can do what they want and it’s also fair to the company that built a secure, ethical system - so they aren’t on the hook for damage done by either the jailbreaking process, or subsequent unauthorized downloads created by malicious developers such as the evil, Skeletron, and Beastaloid.”
, How does it work kind of guy in the closest one to somebody saying how it worked was the jam and who talked about how he's been clearing crap out of Microsoft systems for years.
If somebody siloing something on their iPhone is gonna leave me completely unaffected then I'm OK with that, but I have yet to hear an explanation how, or not this will or will not affect my security and privacy. I'm being conservative in the dictionary sense of the word I'm resisting change and hoping to slow it down and say hey let's think about this before we do it, My sentiments are against it . I like things just the way they are. I do strongly suspect that there are profiteering people who want to tap into the generally more lucrative wealthy demographic that Apple caters to. That's very much my conclusion concerning Sweeney and epic/fortnight.
I guess if you can’t see it, even the most basic common sense won’t help.
That’s probably because everyone has been up to speed for, o, the last decade plus.
the benefits of the round wheel.
Apple App Store customers are already getting the lowest possible price. It's the nature of the App Store where publishers and developers have to compete against each other as they are just a click away. Prices only increase if the app or service is better. Prices also can rise by introducing scarcity. 3rd party app stores can increase prices by introducing scarcity. They also can decrease software sales if they make it harder to buy.
If a gov't wants to regulate, they will have tread very very carefully. It typically very frustrating as gov't never seem to promote standards, rather they promote companies.
license it. And the operating system includes ALL the many software libraries used to develop apps. So if you want to develop a totally separate OS that will run on iPhones, then I suppose there’s nothing Apple could do about that. But it’s going to have to talk directly to the hardware, because every bit of kernel code on an iPhone right now belongs to Apple.
And you are right with your adding 'yet'.
We are waiting to see what happens but you may well find the word 'gatekeeper' (or the logic behind it) appearing in US terminology.
That's because times have changed and that in itself is why we are seeing these practices put under the microscope worldwide.
Maybe the EU is simply ahead of the pack.
Every console has a mechanism to prevent unauthorized games. I don't see any issues with that.