kempathonnodge

ova said: By the way, is the current UK prime minister elected by the people?  Did not think so. 

Your message was so unnecessarily condescending, I felt compelled to reply. In the UK we elect a government, we don’t elect a leader. Hence ‘prime minister’ not ‘president’. 

CheeseFreeze said:

It’s a tough balance. Apple here is doing this for consumer privacy reasons, however on a corporate level it’s also a strategy to weaken competition or at least influence them heavily out of self-interest. It’s a slippery slope.
 
And it’s also one more example of how they are using their market dominance to decide what is acceptable and not (hence anti-trust cases).
Lastly, Apple has proven to be hypocrites themselves when dealing with China and Russia where they gladly bend their own rules and values to sell more products and services. They want to have it both ways.

So although I like what they do out of personal interest (consumer privacy), on a corporate level I am concerned about this behavior, because there is more to it than we consumers realize.

I'm wary of this ideas that 'there is more to it than we consumers realise'. Apple have a proven track record of making decisions that benefit users, sometimes these don't benefit them (Siri being not so great), and sometimes the benefit isn't clear to the lay user - giving up floppy disks, CD, firewire, moving to usb-c, keeping Lighting connectors... . I hear a lot the argument that there must be something going on, but in 45 years this just hasn't been shown to be true. This simply isn't the case for other big tech firms.

The China/Russia argument is not as simple as that. You can't make change unless you are in the game, to simply not work with the Chinese or Russians would not benefit anyone. Apple also has to abide by US law, which not everyone agrees with either!

It shouldn't be their place to push the privacy drive, but in the absence of governments that understand the issue, let alone that are willing to challenge 'big tech', this is really the only option. Watch how many states will be lobbied to fight on the behalf of other big tech companies to challenge these 'pro-consumer laws', instead of embracing and regulating effectively in line with what we know is a better way.  

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said: Users will benefit from having more choice and that choice obviously includes choosing not to use third party stores. It is a win win. 

It's the other way around. Users benefited from iOS and the App Store having a different approach from desktop operating systems. Software prices got significantly cheaper. Security was improved. Smaller app developers getting the same contract terms as the titans of legacy desktop software made for better competition. 

The EU is going to find all this out the hard way, unfortunately. Forcing iOS to become a Windows/macOS clone won't help consumers at all. 

Absolutely right. EU is acting in the best interest of the big companies who are pushing this change, not small developers and not consumers.

I think this has become very polarised. Do we ‘do what we are told’ or ‘do what the F we like’? Well, bad stuff happens in both scenarios, and sometimes some agreement and compliance is a good thing. Hence agreed laws not to kill each other, countries banning CFC’s, environmental protections to stop irreparable harm to our shared planet, banning slave/child labour etc. The idea that governments shouldn’t legislate ‘private companies’ at all is as ludicrous as saying governments should be allowed to dictate everything we say or do. Sadly we live in an increasingly polarised world where we fight for one side or the other… to be right or to be wrong. 

foregoneconclusion said:

gatorguy said:

There is an antitrust investigation already underway because while Apple requires third-party apps to ask permission for ad-tracking, the company doesn't have the same restriction on its own apps.

Also of note:  Apple app developers get paid less for in-app ads when users opt out of Ad Tracking Transparency. Seriously?

Like another AI article says, Apple isn't (now?) against targeted ads, they're just against anyone but themselves doing so. 

This is the permission message: "Allow (name of app) to track your activity across other companies apps and web sites?"

Apple doesn't display that message for their own apps because they're not doing that type of tracking. That isn't an antitrust violation. 

Agreed… so frustrating at the narrative, again, is that Apple is being Machiavellian. They are, in fact, practicing what they are preaching in terms of privacy. 

On the flip side, I don’t want apple to do advertising in apps at all. As Tim said, we pay for the Apple product without ads and I don’t think it improves the experience of the user or helps small developers who can’t afford to advertise. I fear it might start to impact on product and UI design.

I’m interested in people’s thoughts as I’d love a single, powerful, compact multiport charger that I can take anywhere. My concern is that Li-ion batteries prefer a slow charge, in order to keep the temperature down and extend battery life.
It seems to me that these high powered chargers will force batteries to charge at the highest speed possible, which will surely degrade the batteries faster. I would love to see a charger that allows me to choose the charging rate, or maybe a choice in iOS to select a charging speed (because sometimes fast charging is super useful!). I guess this is also true for Apple Watch, iPad and Mac. 

I currently use the lowest powered apple charging plug possible (the oldest usb-a iPhone charger I own) to charge my iPhone every night via MagSafe to encourage as slow a charge as possible in order to extend its life as much as possible.