avon b7

The pot calling the kettle black:

"The US government must not permit what is effectively a foreign cyberattack waged through political means," they said. "If the UK does not immediately reverse this dangerous effort, we urge you to reevaluate US-UK cybersecurity arrangements and programs as well as US intelligence sharing with the UK."

The US isn't in a position to permit or not permit anything outside its sovereign territory but seeing its current president wade into the Ukraine problem (negotiating without consultation with allies) and then hearing Hegseth say the US didn't not have Europe as a primary security focus it is crystal clear that 'America First' means everyone else should roll up their collective sleeves for their collective arms to be twisted or broken if they don't follows 'oders'.

Cowboy Diplomacy. 

This from the country that promotes 'clean' networks and yet would love to have its own backdoors installed across the board. The same country that created PRISM and was on the Cypto AG train. 

Perhaps the UK should just say no to the threats and shut down intelligence sharing. It was always a two-way setup anyway. Let's see how the US does by going it alone. Maybe Canada could do the same. And Australia. Any country suffering threats. 

The threats to the UK were the same over Chinese companies and ICT infrastructure. 

The UK is wrong in its requirements but the solution is for Apple to appeal and pull out if it isn't happy with the demands. 

Threats are the new normal in Washington and I think the allies need to pushback with threats of their own. It's the only language Trump understands and no doubt 'allies' are making their opinions heard behind closed doors at the NATO meeting today and on the sidelines for non-Nato issues. 

Public EU commentary (although measured due to diplomatic protocol) makes it clear that no one is happy with Trump's latest moves. 

Although tongue-in-cheek, the recent comments floated around Canada applying to join the EU, could actually be used for some short term leverage. At least until Trump has 'left the building'. 

The device was designed to be expensive without being impossibly expensive. That was to get best in class features into many areas of it.

Meta took the opposite approach and designed for a larger market base. 

Both approaches are perfectly fine. 

One is going to sell more than the other simply because it's more affordable but both companies (and everybody else in the field) is quite literally working from the exact same book of ideas and need real-world data and feedback. 

That can only come from shipping hardware. There will never be a true substitute for that. No matter how good your lab setting. 

What Tim Cook has gone on record as saying makes good sense. 

Whether or not Apple decides to produce a lower cost version with less than best in class options will depend on executive strategy just as Meta producing moving to produce a best in class product will depend on their executive strategy. 

All that said, one year on, I think the software and third party development side of things could have shown more inertia than it has to date. 

I'll re-post my reply from the original linked article on 'Huawei'.


"Honor was divested from Huawei a few years ago as a result of sanctions.

apple4thewin said:

At what point would a iPhone Fold just replace the whole iPad mini market?

Not a point in the near future. 

The 'folding' aspect adds cost to the device and brings certain tradeoffs.

Hinge assembly, screen and battery considerations. The mini is free of those but can't compete with the star feature of folding phones: to fold in half or even more than half (in the case of tri-folds). 

Then there is the question of ubiquitous cellular connections. There might be a time in the future where that is the case for tablets but again, I don't see that happening in the near future. 

With that in mind both options should overlap for a while. 

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

jfreedle2 said:

avon b7 said:

Macocalypse said:

Because porn has NEVER been used as a vector for malware.

Why is that relevant? Lots of non-porn apps have also been used as vectors for malware. 

Apple should never have been allowed to dictate what users could or couldn't download in the App Store in the first place. That should have always been in the hands of the user. 

Apple does get to choose what is available in the AppStore in the same aspect that BestBuy, Target, and other stores choose what merchandise is available.

Yet those stores do not forbid other stores from existing. Remember, this is platform specific, and to use your own analogy, those stores all exist on the same 'platform'. 

The whole point with the changes is that stores like the AltStore can exist. 

The trouble with your thinking is that you think iOS is a product that Apple sells and that it's open for anyone to use and monetize. Yes, BestBuy, Target and other stores do not forbid other stores from existing but they do forbid other stores (that competes with them) from existing inside their own stores or in their parking lots or other properties that they might own. If you choose to shop at a Walmart and don't like their selection of electronics, you can't demand that Walmart allow a Best Buy to open a store in a Walmart electronics section. If you want to shop at a Best Buy, you go to a Best Buy. Walmart can not stop you or are required to pay for your transportation to get to one if the nearest one is across town.

Apple iOS is not like Android or Windows. iOS only exist on products that Apple sells. iOS is Apple IP and not a stand alone product that others can use. While anyone can build and sell devices that uses Android or Windows. With Android being free because it's Open Source and Windows requiring a license from Microsoft. There is no way to buy or license a copy of iOS and install it on a mobile device you built. Therefore, the "platform" is not iOS but mobile devices. And iPhones competes with dozens of Android mobile phones and dozens of "other (app) stores" that exist on them. And yes, the AltStore can still exist without being on iPhones.  Apple do not forbid that. It's like Disney can not forbid the likes of McDonalds, In and Out and Burger King from existing. But they sure as Hell can forbid them from competing with their own food services .... inside Disneyland.

Apple is not competing with Android, with iOS. Apple is competing with Samsung, LG, Huawei, Sony, Motorola and other mobile phone makers in the mobile phone market. Where Apple only have a 21% Global market share. People do not choose to use iOS, they choose to use an iPhone. No one is forced to use an iPhone. If they don't like iOS on their iPhone, they can buy a Samsung or LG or Huawei or any of the more than a dozen of mobile phones that competes with Apple.

If Samsung want to, they can have it so that the only app store on Samsung mobile phones is the Samsung Store. They are allowed to develop a fork of Android that allows for that or develop their own proprietary OS. This would probably mean a huge loss in sales due to no Google Services. But it's still their choice to do so.

Which is what your favorite mobile device maker did. Huawei has finally ditched Android and making mobile devices that runs on their own proprietary OS. HarmonyOS NEXT. Of  course since Huawei biggest market is China and China has banned Google, it's not as big a deal as for those mobile phone makers that depends on having Google Services in their mobile devices. Anything wrong with Huawei only having their own app store on their own phones that is running HarmonyOS NEXT? 

https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/28/opinion_column_huawei_harmony_os/  ;

And responding with but...but...but.... Apple is a "Gatekeeper" and thus not allowed to have full control of their own devices. Devices that are not a monopoly. The EU " Gatekeeper" label is based on BS criteria whose only function is to rein in the big 5 US tech.

You begin with: "the trouble with your thinking" and end with "based on BS criteria". 

Can you see a problem with that?

My thinking has a problem but your thinking (BS criteria) for some reason doesn't. 

Everything in between doesn't change anything. Not one iota. 

The analogy doesn't work. It never has. 

Apple/iOS is a platform. Apple is a gatekeeper.
 
Google/Android is a platform. Google (Alphabet if you prefer) is a gatekeeper. 

There is a duopoly in the market. Both companies have de-facto monopolies and abuse them. Investigations have concluded that. 

There is zero room for comparison with physical retail stores. 

Best Buy cannot stop you going to another store. That's right. You leave the store and just go to another.

Apple can, and does stop you from going to another store because as soon as you leave the Apple App Store there is no other store to visit. Apple forbids that. The Walled Garden, remember? 

What Apple is or isn't is completely irrelevant here. It wants to play with the outside world. It needs apps. As soon as they poke a toe out of Apple land (something they have to do to ensure those apps), outside rules apply. 

They don't like it? Then shut the system off from outside apps. Make it all 'first party' and make users sign off on all the other restrictions it wants to impose on users - and do it prior to the sale. 

There are rules. The EU has looked at the situation and clarified things with new legislation. From there, Apple can play by the rules or pull out. And it's worth pointing out that its 'compliance' with the new legislation is still being evaluated. 

Your Samsung point just hamners home the duopoly point even though alternative stores are allowed on Android (and now Apple in the EU). 

The Huawei/HarmonyOS situation is, in many ways, truly an exception here. 

"I don't know of any other company in the world that could have redesigned 15,000 boards in a couple of years," he said."

https://www.lightreading.com/5g/huawei-is-starting-to-look-unstoppable

Let that sink in for a minute. It took one of the world's largest and most innovative companies to bring an alternative platform to market. Of course, that is an entire platform, not just an app store. A gargantuan task completely beyond some of the biggest tech companies on the planet - and that includes Apple if you factor in the time to pull it off. 

The Register OpEd you link to misses much of the point and contains factual errors to boot but it's just an opinion. Check the comments - I posted there!