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.
From 16 years ago, when Apple barely had an App store, you got me, what a point you made, and you blamed Apple at that.
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...
Why do you keep arguing with trolls? You're just as hyper-argumentative as they are. It's okay to stop breathing life into them.
Comments
Did someone manage to convince you that you didn't have a vote, or that your vote didn't matter? They lied to you.
FWIW, every country in the EU gets to appoint one active EU commissioner (the UK actually got two prior to the reform in 2004).