Maybe not insult other brands while making a fanboy esque article and even if you do at least state facts.
You can make several of your points because they are your opinion, but attacking the writer or the publisher for the content of the piece are against forum rules. Have a conversation and provide evidence for your claims, but don't go out of your way to call someone a fanboy or discredit the author's piece.
If you're going to claim something is a lie, we'd prefer you reach out via email with information supporting your claims so we can address the issue. All you're doing here is silencing discourse with incendiary comments.
I estimate that >99% of iPhone users do not care about getting apps outside of the App Store. I also estimate that the majority of those are also happy not to have to worry about apps stealing their data or having to deal with viruses etc. The rest probably don't even think about it and buy into the system because it is so easy. So the question is do we have give the <1% who want an open, whilst the rest of us have to deal with less security and easy of use.
No, I paid for the FULL iPhone, I want to use the FULL iPhone
Who the heck is Apple to tell me what I can and cannot do with a device I have paid for? They should refund my money, then they can have their device back to do whatever with
Don’t buy an iPhone then? Most electronics you buy you can’t install anything you want on it. You can’t install anything on a PlayStation or Xbox. TVs, cars, mp3 players, etc this is pretty typical.
For anyone interested (I can't reply to my own post above), I found the info on the Software Sells Systems poster, thanks to Dan crediting it in an earlier article. It was commissioned/produced in 1979 for John Couch (employee #54), vice president in charge of software at the time.
Here we go again, DED trying to use logic, facts, and evidence to expose the truth behind a subject that is near and dear to many of us.
Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.
Here we go again, DED trying to use logic, facts, and evidence to expose the truth behind a subject that is near and dear to many of us.
Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.
If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)?
I understand that as an Apple fan you view the tech world through that lens. However, in doing so you misalign facts and brand lies as truth.
You say everyone copies from Apple, but wasn't it Apple who copied the GUI from Xerox and what about the plethora of functions that Apple copied from Android, widgets, AOD etc. Are you oblivious to them or ignorant? or will you make up excuses to try to justify them while you blast others.
You say that other systems are full of malware, well that is exaggerated and even what percentage exists is the tradeoff for having an open system which provides freedom.
Apple products sell so well because more than the technology, Apple has marketed itself as a premium product for rich people. That is why we have gold Apple watches and $19 handkerchiefs. There have been instances where people have sold their kidneys for an iPhone, have no food yet bought an iPhone on finance. Do you think that they did it because they thought it was a better phone? Don't kid yourself.
Maybe not insult other brands while making a fanboy esque article and even if you do at least state facts.
"Lies as truth": You seem to be heavily invested in mythology and polemics.
Apple & Xerox: There was no copying from Xerox. Jef Raskin documented his graphical user interface in the 1960s, well before Xerox PARC even existed. Doug Engelbart invented the mouse before Xerox PARC existed, and Apple paid Stanford University $100,000 to license the mouse. No one else has ever paid the license fee for the use of the mouse--including Microsoft and Xerox. Both Raskin and Engelbart became Apple employees. In 1983 Apple paid Xerox $100,000 for a lifetime license to all Xerox PARC technology. In addition, in a separate agreement, Xerox paid Apple $150,000 for a block of non-voting Apple stock.
Malware: Per Silent Breach, Android users are 50% more likely to have malware than iPhone users, and 97% of malware is directed at Android. That's not an exaggeration. That's some "tradeoff".
Apple just for Rich People: Ahh, the second oldest trope next to the Xerox myth. Sure, because everyone looks at everyone else's phone to see what brand it is, or watches the laptops being used in college lecture halls to see which has an Apple logo. There was one--just one--instance where a demented person sold a kidney to get an iPhone, out of 2.3 Billion iPhones sold. Yeah, real trend there.
I understand that as an Apple fan you view the tech world through that lens. However, in doing so you misalign facts and brand lies as truth.
You say everyone copies from Apple, but wasn't it Apple who copied the GUI from Xerox and what about the plethora of functions that Apple copied from Android, widgets, AOD etc. Are you oblivious to them or ignorant? or will you make up excuses to try to justify them while you blast others.
You say that other systems are full of malware, well that is exaggerated and even what percentage exists is the tradeoff for having an open system which provides freedom.
Apple products sell so well because more than the technology, Apple has marketed itself as a premium product for rich people. That is why we have gold Apple watches and $19 handkerchiefs. There have been instances where people have sold their kidneys for an iPhone, have no food yet bought an iPhone on finance. Do you think that they did it because they thought it was a better phone? Don't kid yourself.
Maybe not insult other brands while making a fanboy esque article and even if you do at least state facts.
"Lies as truth": You seem to be heavily invested in mythology and polemics.
Apple & Xerox: There was no copying from Xerox. Jef Raskin documented his graphical user interface in the 1960s, well before Xerox PARC even existed. Doug Engelbart invented the mouse before Xerox PARC existed, and Apple paid Stanford University $100,000 to license the mouse. No one else has ever paid the license fee for the use of the mouse--including Microsoft and Xerox. Both Raskin and Engelbart became Apple employees. In 1983 Apple paid Xerox $100,000 for a lifetime license to all Xerox PARC technology. In addition, in a separate agreement, Xerox paid Apple $150,000 for a block of non-voting Apple stock.
Malware: Per Silent Breach, Android users are 50% more likely to have malware than iPhone users, and 97% of malware is directed at Android. That's not an exaggeration. That's some "tradeoff".
Apple just for Rich People: Ahh, the second oldest trope next to the Xerox myth. Sure, because everyone looks at everyone else's phone to see what brand it is, or watches the laptops being used in college lecture halls to see which has an Apple logo. There was one--just one--instance where a demented person sold a kidney to get an iPhone, out of 2.3 Billion iPhones sold. Yeah, real trend there.
Steve Jobs himself talking about his famed visit to Xerox... it's clear that Apple copied the basic idea for the GUI from Xerox (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!)... whole video is interesting but the main part about Steve's visit starts at 6:20...
If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)?
They essentially already do. You can buy the 365 licenses from just about anywhere. You download on your phone, tablet, Mac or PC and log in. In this instance Apple gets $0 while still providing the service to get the software on iPhone, iPad and Mac. Thus 30% for the first year and 15% after is really a steal and far cheaper than printing keycards, shipping them to retailers and then still only getting a portion of the sale price.
Plus that small amount of in app purchases comps for all the data use for thousands of devices pulling the downloads. Office gets installed automatically on all our companies phones and tablets (iOS or Android) and neither Apple or Google get a dime for these while providing the heavy lifting to get the app installed.
If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)?
They essentially already do. You can buy the 365 licenses from just about anywhere. You download on your phone, tablet, Mac or PC and log in. In this instance Apple gets $0 while still providing the service to get the software on iPhone, iPad and Mac. Thus 30% for the first year and 15% after is really a steal and far cheaper than printing keycards, shipping them to retailers and then still only getting a portion of the sale price.
Plus that small amount of in app purchases comps for all the data use for thousands of devices pulling the downloads. Office gets installed automatically on all our companies phones and tablets (iOS or Android) and neither Apple or Google get a dime for these while providing the heavy lifting to get the app installed.
I've been using Office 365 for a long time, for the first years I paid my subscription through Apple, so they were getting a lot more than $0 for at least 5 years until I switched to doing it directly through Microsoft. And the small amount for the thousands of devices pulling the downloads wouldn't exist if Microsoft were hosting the software.
Here we go again, DED trying to use logic, facts, and evidence to expose the truth behind a subject that is near and dear to many of us.
Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.
If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)?
I don't see the connection to Apple in your question. If Microsoft invested in their own App Store and all of the requisite infrastructure and payment systems they should receive the full price (100%) of what they sold through their own store since they own the store and they are also the developer. Apple's not even in the picture in this scenario. If Microsoft sells products through Apple's App Store then Apple should be entitled to whatever percentage defined by the terms and conditions that Microsoft agreed to when they signed up with Apple to sell their products through Apple's sales channel. That's basically the same model that all store owners employ. Product vendors pay a commission to sell products through the store. They can also sell direct.
The issue of entitlement comes up when someone who has voluntarily signed up for participation in someone else's system, under the stated terms and conditions defined for partners, like Epic, one that was built at great expense in resources and time, like Apple's App Store, then tries to exert pressure on the system/store owner to give the participating partner a larger share of the earnings or tell the store owner how to run their store.
Those who signed up as partners/participants should not be entitled to dictate the terms of their involvement or tell the store owner how to run their business. They are certainly entitled to renegotiate the terms and conditions of their participation and try to obtain a larger slice of the earnings, just as they are entitled to quit and go away, but to imply that they can impose new terms either directly or through state-sponsored regulations on the store owner is ludicrous - in my opinion. I know a lot of entitled folks get riled up when anyones says it ... but if they don't like dealing with Apple on Apple's terms, they can build their own App Store or sell directly through their own sales channels. Don't like dealing with Apple? Then go away and do your own thing. Nobody is stopping you - other than yourself.
The other issue of entitlement is when a company is hugely successful and dominant through their own investments, risk taking, innovations, and market leadership to the point that they and their property is deemed a public utility to be controlled by a government. Yet it happens, not only in the EU but in virtually every other country. If your company is a failure nobody gives a crap. But if your company is highly successful then everyone feels they are entitled to a piece of the action, whether or not they took any risks, invested zero, or contributed anything to build and maintain the vehicle that brings the store owner success. Unfortunately, that's the way of the world and human nature. Life is not fair and there is an army of bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians to ensure that it stays that way.
Here we go again, DED trying to use logic, facts, and evidence to expose the truth behind a subject that is near and dear to many of us.
Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.
If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)?
I don't see the connection to Apple in your question. If Microsoft invested in their own App Store and all of the requisite infrastructure and payment systems they should receive the full price (100%) of what they sold through their own store since they own the store and they are also the developer. Apple's not even in the picture in this scenario. If Microsoft sells products through Apple's App Store then Apple should be entitled to whatever percentage defined by the terms and conditions that Microsoft agreed to when they signed up with Apple to sell their products through Apple's sales channel. That's basically the same model that all store owners employ. Product vendors pay a commission to sell products through the store. They can also sell direct.
Agreed, I think this is why the Core Technology Fee will likely not be allowed by the EU. Also completely agree that Microsoft (or Spotify etc.) should pay the percentage agreed with Apple if their products are sold through the Apple App Store, perfectly reasonable.
"Lies as truth": You seem to be heavily invested in mythology and polemics.
Apple & Xerox: There was no copying from Xerox. Jef Raskin documented his graphical user interface in the 1960s, well before Xerox PARC even existed. Doug Engelbart invented the mouse before Xerox PARC existed, and Apple paid Stanford University $100,000 to license the mouse. No one else has ever paid the license fee for the use of the mouse--including Microsoft and Xerox. Both Raskin and Engelbart became Apple employees. In 1983 Apple paid Xerox $100,000 for a lifetime license to all Xerox PARC technology. In addition, in a separate agreement, Xerox paid Apple $150,000 for a block of non-voting Apple stock.
Malware: Per Silent Breach, Android users are 50% more likely to have malware than iPhone users, and 97% of malware is directed at Android. That's not an exaggeration. That's some "tradeoff".
Apple just for Rich People: Ahh, the second oldest trope next to the Xerox myth. Sure, because everyone looks at everyone else's phone to see what brand it is, or watches the laptops being used in college lecture halls to see which has an Apple logo. There was one--just one--instance where a demented person sold a kidney to get an iPhone, out of 2.3 Billion iPhones sold. Yeah, real trend there.
Very true. But to clarify, looks like Android accounts for over 50% of mobile malware. AND Android is exposed to about 50 TIMES more malware than iPhone.
No, I paid for the FULL iPhone, I want to use the FULL iPhone
Who the heck is Apple to tell me what I can and cannot do with a device I have paid for? They should refund my money, then they can have their device back to do whatever with
You have a simple solution move on and buy a Android smartphone, what Daniel said went right over your head Android is but a facsimile OS, Apple took the time over the years to build the software/hardware undercarriage from the ground up, and Google did not which is why Android smartphones, tablets, and Chromebooks mimic Apples built in functionally. You can also see this with Meta's Quests headsets very graphically when you compare it to the Apple Vision software/hardware implementation it just isn't there Meta is in way over their head and the Microsoft Surface is also in that category.
After all this time 12 years I have come to the conclusion that Android tablets, and Chromebooks lack of performance is due simply not have the undercarriage fundamentals built in from the ground up in short they are the tech equivalent to a Potemkin Village.
Comments
So the question is do we have give the <1% who want an open, whilst the rest of us have to deal with less security and easy of use.
https://roughlydrafted.de/home/2020/1/28/wsj-reported-apple-was-headed-for-a-slump-before-one-of-the-biggest-rallies-ever
Stanford appears to have a copy of it, but it has a pretty minimal online footprint.
Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.
Apple & Xerox: There was no copying from Xerox. Jef Raskin documented his graphical user interface in the 1960s, well before Xerox PARC even existed. Doug Engelbart invented the mouse before Xerox PARC existed, and Apple paid Stanford University $100,000 to license the mouse. No one else has ever paid the license fee for the use of the mouse--including Microsoft and Xerox. Both Raskin and Engelbart became Apple employees. In 1983 Apple paid Xerox $100,000 for a lifetime license to all Xerox PARC technology. In addition, in a separate agreement, Xerox paid Apple $150,000 for a block of non-voting Apple stock.
Malware: Per Silent Breach, Android users are 50% more likely to have malware than iPhone users, and 97% of malware is directed at Android. That's not an exaggeration. That's some "tradeoff".
Apple just for Rich People: Ahh, the second oldest trope next to the Xerox myth. Sure, because everyone looks at everyone else's phone to see what brand it is, or watches the laptops being used in college lecture halls to see which has an Apple logo. There was one--just one--instance where a demented person sold a kidney to get an iPhone, out of 2.3 Billion iPhones sold. Yeah, real trend there.
Steve Jobs himself talking about his famed visit to Xerox... it's clear that Apple copied the basic idea for the GUI from Xerox (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!)... whole video is interesting but the main part about Steve's visit starts at 6:20...
I've been using Office 365 for a long time, for the first years I paid my subscription through Apple, so they were getting a lot more than $0 for at least 5 years until I switched to doing it directly through Microsoft. And the small amount for the thousands of devices pulling the downloads wouldn't exist if Microsoft were hosting the software.
The issue of entitlement comes up when someone who has voluntarily signed up for participation in someone else's system, under the stated terms and conditions defined for partners, like Epic, one that was built at great expense in resources and time, like Apple's App Store, then tries to exert pressure on the system/store owner to give the participating partner a larger share of the earnings or tell the store owner how to run their store.
Those who signed up as partners/participants should not be entitled to dictate the terms of their involvement or tell the store owner how to run their business. They are certainly entitled to renegotiate the terms and conditions of their participation and try to obtain a larger slice of the earnings, just as they are entitled to quit and go away, but to imply that they can impose new terms either directly or through state-sponsored regulations on the store owner is ludicrous - in my opinion. I know a lot of entitled folks get riled up when anyones says it ... but if they don't like dealing with Apple on Apple's terms, they can build their own App Store or sell directly through their own sales channels. Don't like dealing with Apple? Then go away and do your own thing. Nobody is stopping you - other than yourself.
The other issue of entitlement is when a company is hugely successful and dominant through their own investments, risk taking, innovations, and market leadership to the point that they and their property is deemed a public utility to be controlled by a government. Yet it happens, not only in the EU but in virtually every other country. If your company is a failure nobody gives a crap. But if your company is highly successful then everyone feels they are entitled to a piece of the action, whether or not they took any risks, invested zero, or contributed anything to build and maintain the vehicle that brings the store owner success. Unfortunately, that's the way of the world and human nature. Life is not fair and there is an army of bureaucrats, regulators, and politicians to ensure that it stays that way.
You have a simple solution move on and buy a Android smartphone, what Daniel said went right over your head Android is but a facsimile OS, Apple took the time over the years to build the software/hardware undercarriage from the ground up, and Google did not which is why Android smartphones, tablets, and Chromebooks mimic Apples built in functionally. You can also see this with Meta's Quests headsets very graphically when you compare it to the Apple Vision software/hardware implementation it just isn't there Meta is in way over their head and the Microsoft Surface is also in that category.
After all this time 12 years I have come to the conclusion that Android tablets, and Chromebooks lack of performance is due simply not have the undercarriage fundamentals built in from the ground up in short they are the tech equivalent to a Potemkin Village.