- Last Active
ranson said:rotateleftbyte said:Rayz2016 said:
Folk won't take responsibility
You sign a waiver/liability release to go through a Haunted Mansion or ride on a zipline, etc. Certainly (and rightfully so) Apple could require an acknowledgement of indemnity from the user when they wish to install an app outside of the official store to protect them against such things. And certainly, if a user comes in with all kinds of problems as a result of buggy software (a problem Apple fields on mac computers already), that can be treated as non-warranty work, just as if you cracked your screen or some other non-warranty service, without voiding the full warranty. The arguments that have been presented is basically that Apple does not want to operate like every other computing company that already deals with these things.
That's like proposing that the solution to Windows NT in 1999 was to install Linux. No solution, just more problems of a more significant nature.
It's like proposing living in your car as a solution to a difficult rental market.
ranson said:Rayz2016 said:dantheman827 said:OutdoorAppDeveloper said:This is why iOS needs a "Pro Mode". Users who want a safe app environment can stick with the Apple moderated App Store while users who do not want any restrictions can switch to pro mode and install any app store they want free of Apple's SDK restrictions. Pro mode users would be responsible for their own security and should expect malware, apps that drain the battery in the back ground and so on (just like on laptop and desktop computers). They would also be able to install anti-malware apps as well as the professional tools they need to get work done. Personally, I would stick with the safe mode on my main iPhone and use pro mode on older devices and my iPad.
If Apple ever allowed apps from outside the App Store on iOS, they would most certainly go with the notarization model that they have for macOS as a requirement along with enforcing the sandbox
Here's the thing: in this game, it's not a case of who's right; it's who shouts the loudest, and Apple has never shouted that loudly. They could end up in a position where they're forced to open up the phone to third-party platforms. Here's where they could preempt such a catastrophe: don't risk all the hard work they've put in building a secure platform; just build another phone line and an open version of iOS and say, "There you go. Have at it."
Support it, but don't advertise it. Build great phones, but don't offer AppleCare.
OutdoorAppDeveloper said:This is why iOS needs a "Pro Mode". Users who want a safe app environment can stick with the Apple moderated App Store while users who do not want any restrictions can switch to pro mode and install any app store they want free of Apple's SDK restrictions.
In fact, one of the primary problems of jailbreaking is that people break the security model and allow junk and malicious software that hobbles the experience, and then turn around and blame Apple. The idea that a device you buy you should have "total control over" to load your own apps stops making sense when you realize that Apple has to support that device, handle repairs, etc. And the OS you use is licensed to you. You don't own it, and you're not free to do anything you like with it because that has an impact on the entire ecosystem.
Many of the reasons that Android has failed in popularity among people who pay more than $400 for a phone is that this wild west experience is really bad. It's particularly bad for people who are not 24/7 capable of diagnosing extremely complex problems that affect their data. People hose their own Androids and then blame Android or Google or their vendor. It is not a workable situation. And those the most at risk for losing their data, or begin spied upon, or being randsomwared or otherwise injured are those who least understand the issues involved. It would be irresponsible for Apple to offer an internet-connected device with a camera and GPS tracking and then allow the use to make extremely complex policy decisions that they don't understand under the guise of "being an adult." We've had clear result data on this for over a decade and there is no longer any room for demanding the end users be given enough rope by Apple to hang themselves.
There is no way to have sideloaded apps on a smartphone that are safe from exploitation. Plenty of extremely technically proficient users have been victimized by sophisticated attacks taking advantage of this "freedom" that some users think is really important. People should stop wishing for Windows 98.
The "foldable gold smartphones" that Escobar "launched" was a scam that offered a device for $350 that buyers never received. It turned out to be an existing folding Android with a gold sticker on it.
A second "Escobar Fold 2" turned out to be Samsung's Galaxy Fold with gold stickers on it, and a few of the devices were sent to YouTubers to create attention for the scam. Escobar was "reselling" the $1800 Galaxy Fold for $400 as part of a pyramid scheme to get sales, not to give away products for less than they cost.Escobar isn't upset about Apple security of course, it's now "selling" an iPhone 11 Pro with the same fake gold foil remarketing scam. You can send in $499 and see if they send it to you.
TL:DR: YouTube is a fraud racket monetized by a huge search company that doesn't care.
MplsP said:So DED claims that people are buying iPhones because of AR? Hah! People aren’t buying iPhones for AR any more than they are buying android phones for VR. Photos may use ARkit, but that’s not what AR really is and Android phones achieve the same thing without ARkit. other than that the only AR we have is a gimmicky measure app that doesn’t really work that well.For the vast majority of consumers, AR is exactly like VR - an over hyped technology in search of an actual use.
In contrast, while Gear VR was probably seen as a general positive by consumers, they weren't lining up to pay for it. Samsung was literally giving them away to sell Note and other flagship models, and it still barely moved any needle as sales retreated to lower ASPs. That's a clearly fail, and as you can see, Samsung stopped doing it.
Android phones don't offer portrait lighting. You can add filters to any photo, but there is an apparent difference between face mapping and simple filters. And the technolgoy to do AR-enhanced photos is also used in Face ID and features like Animoji/Memoji, which very clearly were selling new phones. And FaceTime is also using ARKit technolgoies, so there's a mix of technologies that are or "benefit in some way from" the work Apple put into ARKit.
Me too efforts by Google and Samsung to copy what Apple did or sort of ride on its AR coattails are pretty clearly not as cool and did not lift any apparent interest in Pixel phones or high-end Galaxy flagships.