macuserosu

CNYMacUser said:

jcc said:

This article paints a too rosy picture of the transition. The fact of the matter is that moving away from x86 will end Mac’s “best of both worlds” status. That means no more running Windows software.

In over 20 years and Thousands of both Mac & Windows Users I have serviced, I have yet to meet ONE person who wants or needs to run Windows on a Mac. It's two separate Worlds plain and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is FUBAR.

thrang said:

And yet people actively voice they want to open iOS to third party app stores that who content is developed, delivered, and transacts data without Apple's security and privacy layers. And don't say "well don't use a third party app store if it's a concern".... Given how we currently share information between family and friends in a secure iOS, environment, it doesn't take much to see how someone else using a nefarious third party app may unwittingly expose some identifiable information about me even if I steadfastly avoid third party apps.

So if people will go to the extent of this cable hack, imagine what that might do if that had executable code on your phone that has not been vetted nor is monitored?

If you sandbox third party apps to prevent data leakage, then you would lose access to everything else that makes an iPhone great - I doubt Apple would allow such external apps connectivity to Messages, Mail, Contacts, Files, Game Center, Photos, password manager, Wallet, Face or Touch ID, Continuity, Safari, Calendar, etc, etc, etc.....

Frankly, I'm not very worried about this cable hack. But a third party app story would be extraordinarily detrimental and potentially dangerous.

dewme said:

I believe, like others here, that Apple needs an Apple Watch that’s inexpensive enough to buy for all your children.

dope_ahmine said:

anome said:

I'm a bit worried about the talk of SD and HDMI, as I personally think going all USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 was an improvement. I think, though, if they do go with a new MagSafe power connection, there may be potential to put these ports, plus Ethernet and some other stuff, on the power brick, as currently done for Ethernet on the new iMacs. Of course, I'm sure this will be very unpopular, but I'd rather see them do that than put more large, and structurally compromising holes in the side of the MBP's chassis.

Hell, they could put all ports on the brick, and just have the MagSafe on the MBP itself. I mean, that would be going a bit far, but it does improve the structural integrity of the unit.

I don’t agree with you at all. Putting essential parts in the brick makes sense for a stationary computer like the iMac, but would be terrible for a portable one like the MBP. It would principally require you to carry that specific brick with you all the time.

tehabe said:

macuserosu said:

tehabe said:

mark fearing said:

No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies.  Again - what you are saying is  I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.

If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you.  Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.

And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.

I think you need to do some more research into your arguments before you type them.  

Apple offers two things here.  

First it offers a device that you elected to buy knowing it was a walled garden.  As part of that purchase you could use the device as Apple originally sold it to you with only Apples apps.  In that scenario clearly not a monopoly because that arm of Apple sold you a product.

Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase.  You are not required to use this service.  They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.  

For the general thought, I purchase a membership at Costco.  Costco provides me a card, a tangible object with terms and conditions.  That tangible object it mine to use and enjoy.  I could just put it in my wallet to say I have one or I could take selfies with it at the beach.  My $60 bought me a piece of plastic and the ability to access their walled garden.  Within that walled garden I can only access the products and services that Costco feels are appropriate and receives some revenue from.  My $60 plastic card does not allow we to ask them to carry anything, does not allow we to buy at Sam’s club, or allows me to take their product and pay for  it on the manufacturer’s website.  For my $60, I got the privilege of being able to walk into the walled garden.

While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly.  They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.

By the way this is the current legislative benchmark in the US:

“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890

Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.

Here is thing, a phone is not a membership card. It device you use daily and it is something you only have one of. Sometimes you also have a work phone. But that it. I have a card in front of me, that gives me 25% off tickets with the Deutsche Bahn, I can't use it with Flixtrain or Flixbus or any other rail transport, but it doesn't prevent me from using those. Unlike a phone, if I wanted to use an app from the Play Store i have to switch to an Android device, and back, when want to use an app from the App Store. To believe that is realistic behaviour you don't know anything.

Also you migth be right, Walmart is probably the only (grocery) store for a lot of people within reasonable travelling distance even with a car.

But with one thing you are wrong, the App Store has become so succesful that it became an important market place for people's livelyhood. That means that private company has control over the livelyhood of other private companies and people to tell what they can and cannot do, without the possibilty of checks and balances. That is different with the state, and a reason why I prefer regulation by the state instead of a private company. Rule of law means that rules are decided in a parliament with the public present, rules can be challenged and decisions made because of those rules can be challenged too.

Essentially, because Apple created an exclusive and succesful App Store it created a platform which needs regulation. If it were an unsuccessful platform nobody would care. But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation. You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.