The pic of them shaking hands is really bad. The artifacts are obvious and not of high quality. It even looks photoshopped. I cannot believe she posted that crap.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Pixel ain't no iPhone. It's barely known anywhere. iPhones are, - and have been for years now, - very popular around the world, including in places where Apple have no official presence. If anything, a ban would add to the whole 'exclusivity' hype. Besides, who wouldn't want to give them bureaucrats the finger?
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
No the EU is not America nor is it Japan which is an even bigger market for Apple than the EU, also note so is China. The EU is Android country for the rank and file.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Pixel ain't no iPhone. It's barely known anywhere. iPhones are, - and have been for years now, - very popular around the world, including in places where Apple have no official presence. If anything, a ban would add to the whole 'exclusivity' hype. Besides, who wouldn't want to give them bureaucrats the finger?
Exclusivity has always been Apple's selling point but they have never operated that philosophy in a closed market. When the government bans a product, it harms a consumer's trust in it. Many Americans used Kaspersky before it was banned, nobody will use it now even if it is given for free, whether they know anything about cybersecurity or not.
Also, people like to show off their iPhones, however, people can be hesitant in showing off a product after it is banned in their country. Apple services such as App store may also be blocked so what they are left with is a shiny block of steel that has an Apple logo.
The EU is not America. A ban on iPhones and people would flock to Pixels and Samsung Galaxy S series phones.
A whole bunch of countries didn't have 'official' access to iPhones and Apple's services until recently (some still don't, I guess). I don't think it ever really stopped the people there from getting American Apple IDs, and buying from third-party resellers. Unless European carrier discounts were substantial, the impact would be minimal, as the 'official' prices would be high enough already.
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
100,000 official sells or 1000 sells through indirect methods, which do you think Apple prefers.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Pixel ain't no iPhone. It's barely known anywhere. iPhones are, - and have been for years now, - very popular around the world, including in places where Apple have no official presence. If anything, a ban would add to the whole 'exclusivity' hype. Besides, who wouldn't want to give them bureaucrats the finger?
Exclusivity has always been Apple's selling point but they have never operated that philosophy in a closed market. When the government bans a product, it harms a consumer's trust in it. Many Americans used Kaspersky before it was banned, nobody will use it now even if it is given for free, whether they know anything about cybersecurity or not.
Also, people like to show off their iPhones, however, people can be hesitant in showing off a product after it is banned in their country. Apple services such as App store may also be blocked so what they are left with is a shiny block of steel that has an Apple logo.
American Apple IDs are kind of easy to get.
P.S. Sad people actually buy political BS. So much for ‘the misfits’ and ‘the rebels’.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
a) it's not "foreign" where I'm sitting. The internet is a global thing. So is Apple, by the way.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
The reason the damage is limited is because downloaded software has no hooks into the system, and cannot do anything outside its default sandbox without explicitly asking for access from the user.
This will not change with support for multiple app stores.
I DO share your concern, and I actually agree with you that this may be an overall net negative for the platform, when Pops taps on something interesting, which prompts him to install a shady store app to get the app, which actually does something completely different than advertised.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
a) it's not "foreign" where I'm sitting. The internet is a global thing. So is Apple, by the way.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
The reason the damage is limited is because downloaded software has no hooks into the system, and cannot do anything outside its default sandbox without explicitly asking for access from the user.
This will not change with support for multiple app stores.
I DO share your concern, and I actually agree with you that this may be an overall net negative for the platform, when Pops taps on something interesting, which prompts him to install a shady store app to get the app, which actually does something completely different than advertised.
I worry about this, too.
Good points. What I'm worried about isn't some occasional rogue download, though. Android has a switch to restrict app installs to Play Market, and it works as intended. Rather, what bothers me is that some developers may intentionally pull out of Apple's app store, thus forcing their customers to use theirs.
Other than that, I don't really care. If they give me the option to keep downloading everything I need from Apple, they can do whatever they want. Otherwise, it would be 'un-damaging' someone else while possibly damaging me.
Software simply not being available AT ALL because developers cannot or will not with Apple's terms of service, or cannot or will not accommodate for Apple's sales commission, constitutes "damage to consumers", because the consumers have fewer options available to them than they would otherwise.
Consumers not even knowing that they might be deprived of options is "damaging" them.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
Crapware / hidden malware can do much more damage.
If we the people don’t matter to a law, then doesn’t that law suck, and shouldn’t it be resisted until repealed, not justified by sophistry? Especially if it’s foreign.
a) it's not "foreign" where I'm sitting. The internet is a global thing. So is Apple, by the way.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
The reason the damage is limited is because downloaded software has no hooks into the system, and cannot do anything outside its default sandbox without explicitly asking for access from the user.
This will not change with support for multiple app stores.
I DO share your concern, and I actually agree with you that this may be an overall net negative for the platform, when Pops taps on something interesting, which prompts him to install a shady store app to get the app, which actually does something completely different than advertised.
I worry about this, too.
Good points. What I'm worried about isn't some occasional rogue download, though. Android has a switch to restrict app installs to Play Market, and it works as intended. Rather, what bothers me is that some developers may intentionally pull out of Apple's app store, thus forcing their customers to use theirs.
Of course they will. OTOH, we will get apps that we haven't had until now because offering them through the App Store wasn't feasible.
I've mentioned elsewhere that this absolutely needs to happen on iPad, if Apple are going to establish it as a "serious" production platform. Just offering Logic and Final Cut is a good start, but I don't think we're going to see the major-player plugins unless they can port their own store and distribution frameworks.
Comments
They could, in theory, play China, and outlaw those resellers completely, or even mandate a carrier black-list for any iPhone. If that's democracy, however, - then I'm Donald freakin' Trump.
The Pixel 6 wasn't launched in India yet people still bought it through various means, doesn't mean that overall populace cares about them much. Only phone nerds are the ones who buy through such methods.
Also, people like to show off their iPhones, however, people can be hesitant in showing off a product after it is banned in their country. Apple services such as App store may also be blocked so what they are left with is a shiny block of steel that has an Apple logo.
It doesn't matter to the law whether you personally agree.
b) there has been, and still is, plenty of data-sucking borderline malware and crapware on the iOS App Store. Apple even had to add a "this app is requesting to paste data" warning in iOS 17, because apps were reading the contents of the clipboard and sending them off to their motherships.
Other than that, I don't really care. If they give me the option to keep downloading everything I need from Apple, they can do whatever they want. Otherwise, it would be 'un-damaging' someone else while possibly damaging me.
I've mentioned elsewhere that this absolutely needs to happen on iPad, if Apple are going to establish it as a "serious" production platform. Just offering Logic and Final Cut is a good start, but I don't think we're going to see the major-player plugins unless they can port their own store and distribution frameworks.