y2an

I don’t think this is right. Apple correctly pushed antivirus software out of kernel space into user space. Microsoft has not done that. If there was a reason that Microsoft did not do this because it would put third-party antivirus providers at a competitive disadvantage compared with Microsoft, it’s because their own antivirus still runs in kernel space.

As with a lot of things Brexit, this is a crock. Apple will build to the EU requirement and UK customers will get that, for better or worse. Smoke and mirrors by a UK government in distress to explain any actual benefits from Brexit. 

cropr said:

I do understand the EU.  

I am an app developer.   From an app developer perspective, I can choose my payment system provider I want if my app is running on Windows, on Mac, on Linux and even on Android (although Google does not like the latter), but I cannot choose my payment system provider on iOS.

This has nothing to do with security as a lot of you claim, because my preferred  payment service provider is Ingenico (https://www.ingenico.com), a well established company with a proven security record.   

The fact that for iOS I have to use Apple, has also a serious impact on my accounting system and my customer support.    For Ingenico, all transactions are booked between the end customer and me, while Ingenico just lowers the transaction amount with its commission (<3%).    For Apple, the transaction happens between the end user and Apple and Apple reimburses 70 or 85% of the amount to me.   

In case of my customer contacts my customer support team for any question, the customer support team can immediately identify the all the payments the customer made, across all the apps on all devices the customer is using .  With the Apple payment system such thing is possible. 

This last point is fro me the main reason why I will never choose Apple as payment service provider, if I have the choice.  If Apple would allow competition in the iOS payment service, the service towards the app developer could increase significantly.

The consequence of the current situation is that I am only investing in apps where I can avoid any payment on iOS.  

It’s the same for a third party seller on Amazon. Amazon handles the payment transaction. This eliminates the risk of non-payment of fees by the seller as they receive the proceeds net of fees. Overall this reduces operating costs since there is no chasing of delinquent sellers.

I think there is a mythical belief that alternative payment systems would eliminate fees to Apple (or Google for the Android store) but this is false. The stores have operating costs for hosting, distributing and providing upgrades to app developers, and for services like push notifications. Developers would most likely still owe fees, but the fees payment process would be more complex and costly. I see this as pressure from other payment processors to deliver business to them which is really just self-serving lobbying, not a real benefit to consumers. 

Sorry but this goes back to the PA Semi acquisition in 2008. A clear move to become wholly market leading in chip design. 

It’s probably not quite right to say that most users will be locked out from the benefits of AI. I speculate that a subset of the on-device features will come to models prior to the iPhone 15, limited to non-generative technologies which require more processing power. I guess we will learn more closer to release as Apple tests individual features on different phone models to determine what can run successfully.

This is chalk and cheese. Facebook and Google both have social media platforms hosting user content for consumption by others. Apple does not. Where is the recognition of that rather significant difference in the “findings“?

The MacBook Air came out around the time of netbooks and I remember being in Best Buy at the time comparing the two and wondering why anyone seeing them side by side would not stump up the extra for the Air. It was vastly better, starting with the screen. 

AppleInsider it’s a little too quick to defend Apple. Yes, the man brought his personal problems on himself, but under UK law there may well be grounds for legal action. The terms and conditions may be ruled unreasobable and unenforceable under UK trading laws. The apparent flaw may make the device “unfit for purpose” making the seller (not the manufacturer) liable for the failure and the article doesn’t mention whether his phone was bought from Apple or a third-party. 

Much as this is an interesting project, a compromised boot loader being an attack vector, I would only think about doing this on a burner account. Keep your real-world data away from a machine modified in this way. 

Waiting for the real reason for this change to surface. Apple does things for a reason. This scratches an itch for some people, but the real reason is probably that they want drive people to switch to Apple email to facilitate more features in AI.