tomahawk

Love how his own example blows holes in his argument.

"Yes, Apple built the iPhone hardware and they designed iOS, and they deserve to earn a fantastic return by selling their devices with their operating system, as did the railroads deserve to earn a fantastic return by profiting from selling railroad tickets and transportation services," he tells The Verge.

"But what they cannot do under the law, and under any principle of fair competition, is Apple cannot use its control over the hardware and operating system to impose trade restraints on related markets," he continues. "Apple prevents other companies from establishing competing stores on iOS. That's similar to the railroads blocking the oil refineries from shipping their products on the railroad in order to take over those related industries."

Apple isn't blocking him from selling his products (if he follows the rules everyone has to follow).  They are saying, if you want to use OUR tracks, that WE built, you have to pay a fee, just like everyone else. That's literally the equivalent of selling "transportation services" for a railroad.

He's basically arguing that it doesn't matter that the railroad spent the money to build the tracks, he should be able to put his own train on them and use the tracks at no cost since they're already there...

Also, note that as this article mentions, third-party Mac developers have to add an extended attribute to their app download distributions (com.apple.quarantine) if the apps are distributed outside the Mac App Store. Although most developers will honor this requirement, it's still possible that some won't - leaving some downloads as a security risk which can bypass some of Apple's app security in some cases.

I feel like this isn't as clear as it should be. It isn't up to the third-party developers to add an extended attribute to their app download distributions. It is up the third-party applications that offer download or unarchiving capabilities to ensure the attribute is properly applied, or remains applied, when downloading and unarchiving.  The security provided by Gatekeeper would be 100% useless if all developers were required to do something for it to work. Bad actors would simply not add the attribute at all.

Apple removing the bypass may cause more annoyance for some Mac users, since doing so now requires a trip to System Settings on every app first run for non-Mac App Store apps. There's not much users can do about this other than disabling SIP, which again, Apple doesn't recommend.

It would only be accurate if the device is set to only allow applications from the App Store.  If it is set for App Store & Known Developers, it will only appear for applications that haven't gone through the appropriate processes to notarize their applications.

robin huber said:

Ditto, but for me Ace became the place. They even give an additional 1% cash back when using ApplePay. When I asked an HD clerk when they were going to accept AP, she gave me a dirty look and said “Never!.” That was it for me. Only shop there for things I can’t get at Ace. 

No offense, but a clerk at a store knows diddly about the payment services or plans determined by corporate. You may have gotten a short response because I'm certain the employees are just as annoyed at their employer refusing to accept a modern form of payment as the customers are and they likely get asked about it constantly.