strongy

9secondkox2 said:

Password sharing is stealing. 

Can’t run a business giving stuff away unless you’ve got endless marketing nvwators or run  on ads. 

A family plan where everyone gets a code to authenticate would be fine. Or just get moms code when Netflix texts hee that you’re logging in 

lam92103 said:

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 bought a device knowing full well what’s the limits were you could have bought an android phone instead 

TimApple said:

h2p said:

I’m a long time iPhone user that just got an Android for app testing. Sorry Android is inferior. That’s not breaking any ground here. But hey, this is my actual 1st experience owning an iPhone knockoff. 

Inferior? Please remind me how iPhones get their apps updated.. oh right you have to wait for an ENTIRE OS update.

CheeseFreeze said:

Fine, but it's time they up the storage limits in the highest tiers. 

I'm getting close to 2 TB with my family. When I back it up to Synology NAS or something else, all the meta-data will be lost in the process. Apple does not provide an API so I can back it up externally. They are locking me in.

Also, this makes iCloud £1 more than Google's way more advanced Google Drive offering with 2TB. iCloud via the browser doesn't even have a keyword Search! Trying to find documents is a nightmare and requires you to know which folder and subfolders it is in. Apple's cloud strategy is behind competitors.

cropr said:

The title is misleading:  Apple must not pay the amount to the EU, but to the Irish government.     The court has decided that the reduced tax rate  must be considered as illegal government aid to a private company.  This illegal aid must be reimbursed to Ireland.    

avon b7 said:

I found a heavily redacted file of the case,(. pdf):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Apple-iPhone-motion-for-class-cert.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi007HX44-EAxVQgP0HHT_kB2A4FBAWegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0XWOmus6tWTw53K-NTONpN

And this was part of that:

"First, Prof. McFadden investigated what app store commission rates Apple would have charged in a competitive but-for world (“BFW”). But for Apple’s anticompetitive conduct, there

would have been non-Apple iOS app stores, against which Apple’s App Store would have had to compete to sell apps and IAP to iOS device consumers; as a result, Apple would have charged lower, competitive commission rates. Prof. McFadden has determined that the BFW commission rate would have ranged from 10% to 12%. Prof. McFadden based this range on various benchmark

analyses he performed as well as his analysis of Apple’s App Store profit margin. Byrd Decl., Ex.

K, ¶ 136."

I wonder what he thinks about Apple’s EU proposals?

It is going to be interesting to eventually see what Apple is not revealing here.

Curiously, while searching for that I saw some sites saying his testimony had been rejected. 

avon b7 said:

shywizard said:

I’ve asked this before, but nobody seems to answer.  I need someone to tell me why Apple legally (or doesn’t legally) has to host everyone on Apple’s App Store.   Can’t Apple decide it doesn’t want to host an app like Fortnite.  It’s Apple App Store after all.  So can Apple decode it doesn’t want to offer Fortnite ?

Sure if they host someone, they must provide external links for purchases to be made per the court order.    But I’m talking about the ability to decide which App are even on its store.  

Apple is on the hook for anti-competitive App Store practices around the world.

Singling out a company by not allowing it on the store (while simultaneously not allowing any other store to exist on iDevices) would really put Apple in hot water.