And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
For a fact, most iPhone users are very happy with their choice, don't have any issues of note, and frankly, don't fucking care about what you care about. Certainly, the EU is less concerned about security, than Apple is.
Still, thanks for another round of "EU 'splaining". Does anyone here have difficulty understanding why the EU is always on the "back foot" when it comes to competitive technology? Could it be that the EU is a shitty business and investment environment, more concerned about balance between EU states than actual competitiveness?
The question isn't about happiness.
The question is about knowledge of business practices.
If those happy users knew even the basics of Apple's control, most would be quite, ehem, unhappy. That's how I see it and I have yet to come across any iOS who is aware of the facts.
Really?
"most would be, quite, ehem, unhappy"
Do you have any evidence to support that, or is this just another projection of your personal bias?
Are you being serious?
Most of this thread contains opinions!
Did you even bother to read what I said at the outset? About a survey and everything?
Why do you think I wrote that? Could evidence actually have something to do with it?
How about you put some evidence on the table to support your 'bias'?
My "bias" will be easily proven when, after all of this, "most" Apple iPhone users continue as is. The only question is what Apple's actual revenue numbers show.
So, if a survey is actually generated, and it shows that "most" Apple iPhone users are happy with the status quo, will you then bow out, or will you keep arguing that these users need to be "reeducated"?
Was a consumer survey ever done by the EU, or was this always about developers and financial institutions?
So it's clear you didn't even read what I said previously.
Your bias will not be 'proven' by any stretch of the imagination if users 'continue as is'.
Read what I said.
The EU process includes consultation with industry (yes, Apple participated too) and surveys with the general public and people are also free to contribute there opinions but the surveys were not on what we are talking about here: the assumption that people buy iPhones knowing full well the limitations and accepting them in exchange for 'security and privacy'.
Why do you think I said a specific survey should be carried out?
So, the EU really doesn't have an understanding about the consumer, nor did they attempt to gain that understanding, which makes sense, because the GMA legislation isn't really about the consumer anyway.
Not at all, and the EU really does understand consumer needs. Is there any other bloc on the planet that is more 'pro consumer' than the EU?
The DMA/DSA are there to level the playing field in the digital age. Please take a brief look at the opening paragraphs of the supporting text to the legislation.
If the EU is actually consumer centric, then I can see where they would be resistant to investment in technology and industry that we in the U.S. take for granted.
It's obvious that the EU can't compete in technology, certainly not for the investment necessary, though the Baltic countries do pretty well, but sure, credit for looking after their "consumers", it that is in fact what they are doing.
I am not convinced that the EU is actually doing that.
Nothing to do with the question at hand.
Well, it certainly determines that the same U.S. tech companies will continue to be "gatekeepers" simply due to the fact that the EU is not capable of creating any competitors. I don't consider Spotify a competitor to tech companies in the sense that it is really just a poster child for the EU, a favored champion, that barely creates revenue.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
My point doesn't change one iota. This is a general issue, not a user specific case.
Or do you think that if the EU were to look into a survey they would require iPhone users to carry it out?
That's nonsense.
As is this:
"Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers."
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
My point doesn't change one iota. This is a general issue, not a user specific case.
Or do you think that if the EU were to look into a survey they would require iPhone users to carry it out?
That's nonsense.
As is this:
"Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers."
See my initial post!
You seem to be advocating a specific case, in a patronizing and authoritarian manner.
So, you would be fine with the EU conducting a survey, and then what?
If the result is that iOS users were happy with the status quo, would there need to be reeducation camps? Would you be unable to accept that the market has spoken?
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
EU is taking away your freedom by forcing you to install a 3rd party app store? Wow!
Actually, the EU is forcing its iOS users to go thru a long and granular process, that Apple was forced to create, to disallow 3rd party app stores, among other things, where there could be a single yes/no question at the top, to leave iOS as is.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
If Apple's approach impinged negatively upon user experience, users in appreciable numbers would be vocal. It's that simple. Ask the CEO of Sonos that is getting drubbed because of the horrible new version of their app recently launched that broke or removed features the Sonos community used regularly.
You have no logic in your thinking here. Apple customers are extremely pleased with their devices and the ecosystem. You want to rely on governments to tell/force you what you want??? Let the market decide.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
My point doesn't change one iota. This is a general issue, not a user specific case.
Or do you think that if the EU were to look into a survey they would require iPhone users to carry it out?
That's nonsense.
As is this:
"Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers."
See my initial post!
You seem to be advocating a specific case, in a patronizing and authoritarian manner.
So, you would be fine with the EU conducting a survey, and then what?
If the result is that iOS users were happy with the status quo, would there need to be reeducation camps? Would you be unable to accept that the market has spoken?
Nope! Read the post I was replying to (and your own!).
I wouldn't care who carried out the survey as long as it meets minimum standards and is independent.
Patronizing and authoritarian is as far away as you can get with me. That is laughable.
And from the same person that said this?
"Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone."
Nothing at all to do with the point.
The point is simple, but you obviously refuse to see it.
FWIW, and I've repeatedly asked you to do this in the past and you have never offered up your results, just ask anyone about the points I raised (friends, family, workmates...) see if they are aware of the limitations.
I've done it for years and not a single person has been aware of them. Not one iPhone user.
That's my reality. What's yours?
A survey! Is it such a big deal?
Happy users are irrelevant here. There are plenty of happy users of plenty of products. Then something pops up from below the surface, the general public get wind of it and everything changes.
Look at those happy Lidl Chicken munchers who now have the willies because of accusations that some of its products packed full of nasty bacteria.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
My point doesn't change one iota. This is a general issue, not a user specific case.
Or do you think that if the EU were to look into a survey they would require iPhone users to carry it out?
That's nonsense.
As is this:
"Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers."
See my initial post!
You seem to be advocating a specific case, in a patronizing and authoritarian manner.
So, you would be fine with the EU conducting a survey, and then what?
If the result is that iOS users were happy with the status quo, would there need to be reeducation camps? Would you be unable to accept that the market has spoken?
You could just ignore the Android shill, hyperargumentative is what he is all about, don't follow in his footsteps. Set him on ignore.
For a fact, most iPhone users are very happy with their choice, don't have any issues of note, and frankly, don't fucking care about what you care about. Certainly, the EU is less concerned about security, than Apple is.
Thank you Avon. Very insulting of tmay to suggest we can't possible be 'aware' and happy with the status quo.
It’s hard to see how consumers benefit from allowing banks to set up their own wallets. It is, however, easy to see how banks benefit.
It will be interesting to look at Curve’s wallet. Can I put concert tickets, ID cards, boarding passes and other non-financial items into their wallet? If so, will they properly safeguard my information? If not, do I need to use multiple wallets and how do I choose between them?
For all of this extra headache, I get ???? benefits? Still waiting to hear on that.
I have gone through the experience of having way too many apps to control smart devices. Apple Home did not solve this but Home Assistant did. Similarly I will stay with Apple Wallet for convenience and security. I really can't see how I can be persuaded to use multiple apps for NFC access.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
But sure, EU rules are well thought out and righteous, so no comparison with Apple. /s
Pray tell, when will the EU be competitive in technology with the U.S., if the best that the GMA can do is just shift revenue from tech giants to Spotify specifically, and financial institutions and developers generally? It's difficult to imagine how risk adverse the EU is to technology investment, but there you have it.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time? YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
YES.
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time? YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
YES.
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.
You're making a great case for why tech innovation is happening other than the EU; you're all so happy living off the margins that you claw back from Big Tech, that you fail to invest in competitive technology.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time? YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
YES.
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.
Tethering was not illegal.
The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany.
The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know. But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible.
edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time? YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
YES.
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.
Tethering was not illegal.
The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany.
The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know. But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible.
edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly.
And them make a detailed video campaign about how the EU is taking away users freedom to choose a platform that is closed and secure.
I really wish someone would survey this and plunk the truth on the table.
I'll set out my stalk.
IMO, virtually no iOS user is remotely aware of the limitations Apple imposes on them.
They are unaware of the wallet/NFC limitations.
Unaware of the Web Kit restrictions.
Unaware of the App Store restrictions. Both in terms of content and actual stores.
Unaware of the commissions.
Unaware of the harm that is being caused to them.
That is what 'closed and secure' means, does it not?
Now. Why not be up front on all this? Why not explain these impositions, simply and clearly, and ask consumers to sign off on them prior to purchase?
I think you will see a massive change of heart from these people and of course that's why Apple would never ever be up front about it and would rather comply with the EU stance. Even if signing off on the restrictions might conceivably get them off many an anti-trust hook.
What do you smoke? If you own an iPhone or iPad (for example), and have so for years, you know EXACTLY what you can and cannot do. Your position is not comprehensible.
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
My whole point is that iPhone users do not know 'EXACTLY' what they can or cannot do.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Everyone here knows that you do not regularly use an iPhone, sure, your wife does, so it isn't hard to imagine that you are invested in a personal crusade against the iPhone. Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
I have been using iPhones exclusively for 15 years.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
Apple killed the app almost immediately and blocked it from their Store, forcing users to pay top dime for USB cellular access points and the associated extortionate data contracts.
Yeah, because that instance of "harm" to the consumers absolutely violated the App policies of Apple. That's a potential security threat as well, but sure, 2008, and you wanted to avoid paying Telekom. Apple didn't force anyone to do anything other than to have to play by the App store rules. I mean, wtf is that an example of other than an attempt to circumvent Apple's rules?
The toggle switch in itself was NOT "a potential security threat".
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time? YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
YES.
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
Oh FFS. Apple would have potential liability if an App was used in an illegal manner, so of course, Apple has to remove apps in that case.
Tethering was not illegal.
The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany.
The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know. But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible.
edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly.
Seriously? It's 2024, let it go…
What? There a bunch of knuckleheads in a discussion claiming "no consumer harm", despite there really being no way to assert that in absence of something happening.
And I bring up one concrete, explicit example where very real consumer harm WAS done, your reaction is "FFS" and something about "illegality".
I counter with historical context, explain in detail what the consumer harm was, and your reply is "let it go", like I was lamenting some unfair treatment?
I WAS ARGUING A POINT. FOLLOW THE FUCKING ARGUMENT OR GET OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.
Comments
NO USERS (as a meaningful percentage of installed base) are complaining at all about Apple's approach. I would suspect most desire and appreciate the semi-walled garden approach. I find it reprehensible that governments would force businesses to change its model (short of legitimate antitrust, which I've yet to see Apple commit).
I personally DO NOT WANT Apple to open critical systems to third parties at all. I deeply appreciate the clear hard divisions the platforms provide.
If you or others don't, you should choose to leave Apple and use Android. That's a free market choice.
If enough people felt like you, the free market forces would compel Apple to make changes. Which is precisely how it should be - NOT government entities making private firms bend. That is horrific if you pause to think about the precedence these intrusions set. Be careful what you wish for.
I even went further and said if they did know, things would be very different.
Lack of complaining does not mean, in any shape or fashion, that users are aware of the limitations.
Your personal want (or mine) is irrelevant here.
Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers.
Or do you think that if the EU were to look into a survey they would require iPhone users to carry it out?
That's nonsense.
As is this:
"Funny how most Apple iPhone users just want to be left alone to enjoy their "walled garden", without you interlopers."
See my initial post!
So, you would be fine with the EU conducting a survey, and then what?
If the result is that iOS users were happy with the status quo, would there need to be reeducation camps? Would you be unable to accept that the market has spoken?
If Apple's approach impinged negatively upon user experience, users in appreciable numbers would be vocal. It's that simple. Ask the CEO of Sonos that is getting drubbed because of the horrible new version of their app recently launched that broke or removed features the Sonos community used regularly.
You have no logic in your thinking here. Apple customers are extremely pleased with their devices and the ecosystem. You want to rely on governments to tell/force you what you want??? Let the market decide.
I wouldn't care who carried out the survey as long as it meets minimum standards and is independent.
Patronizing and authoritarian is as far away as you can get with me. That is laughable.
And from the same person that said this?
"Everyone here knows that you are as well an ardent Huawei advocate, so maybe you need, to chill the fuck out about the iPhone."
Nothing at all to do with the point.
The point is simple, but you obviously refuse to see it.
FWIW, and I've repeatedly asked you to do this in the past and you have never offered up your results, just ask anyone about the points I raised (friends, family, workmates...) see if they are aware of the limitations.
I've done it for years and not a single person has been aware of them. Not one iPhone user.
That's my reality. What's yours?
A survey! Is it such a big deal?
Happy users are irrelevant here. There are plenty of happy users of plenty of products. Then something pops up from below the surface, the general public get wind of it and everything changes.
Look at those happy Lidl Chicken munchers who now have the willies because of accusations that some of its products packed full of nasty bacteria.
We'll see how that plays out.
I have gone through the experience of having way too many apps to control smart devices. Apple Home did not solve this but Home Assistant did. Similarly I will stay with Apple Wallet for convenience and security. I really can't see how I can be persuaded to use multiple apps for NFC access.
I agree completely with what avon B7 is writing.
I even agree with him that your, his, or my personal position on what we might prefer is IRRELEVANT.
Your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem by attacking his surmised preference of technology platform rather than the merits of his argument is NOTED.
Incidentally, I remember one specific instance of direct harm to consumers, back in 2008: Telekom contracts in Germany did not allow for tethering. An iPhone app hit the App Store that ostensibly did something else (flashlight?), but a hidden screen would allow users to switch on a tethering preference and access the iPhone's internet connection from a tethered laptop.
But sure, EU rules are well thought out and righteous, so no comparison with Apple. /s
Pray tell, when will the EU be competitive in technology with the U.S., if the best that the GMA can do is just shift revenue from tech giants to Spotify specifically, and financial institutions and developers generally? It's difficult to imagine how risk adverse the EU is to technology investment, but there you have it.
Would this app have continued to exist had we had additional App Stores with different rules at the time?
YES.
Would the existence of this app have allowed tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to circumvent the price-gouging of providers at the time?
WTF is being forced into a technically unnecessary expensive data plan if not "harm to consumers"???
You're making a great case for why tech innovation is happening other than the EU; you're all so happy living off the margins that you claw back from Big Tech, that you fail to invest in competitive technology.
The point you're trying to make is that Apple was obligated to disable tethering while under exclusive distribution contract with T-Mobile in Germany.
The point I'm making is that the price-gouging by Telekom might not even have been possible, had multiple app stores existed at the time. We won't know.
But what we DO know is that Apple DID, at the time, leverage their App Store monopoly on iPhone to block this app and make tethering impossible.
edit: I just checked, and Tethering actually was not possible AT ALL on iPhones in Germany until 2010 — except with this app, briefly.
And I bring up one concrete, explicit example where very real consumer harm WAS done, your reaction is "FFS" and something about "illegality".
I counter with historical context, explain in detail what the consumer harm was, and your reply is "let it go", like I was lamenting some unfair treatment?
I WAS ARGUING A POINT. FOLLOW THE FUCKING ARGUMENT OR GET OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.