darelrex

applecolin said:

...

Read on AppleInsider

I removed all the deceptive opinions you flooded your article with and left behind the facts. Apple won’t allow iMessage on Android, and this is absolutely against the consumer. This is why we need better messaging protocols like XMTP and Farcaster. 

Let me get this straight: Company A has some servers that are performing A-internal functions for A's own products, then company B discovers a way to hack into those servers and make them do stuff for company B, and company A responds by disabling the hack a few days later, then company A is "absolutely against the consumer," because you say so? And your opinion trumps that of A and all of A's customers even if 99% of them are perfectly OK with A's actions in disabling that hack — but that doesn't make you anti-consumer at all.

I can't imagine how I would justify such an opinion.. unless I had a severe, ulterior dislike of Apple and its customers, and on that basis I hungered for any rationale for Apple to be screwed with in any way possible.

What I want to know is, if someone has a successful app on the App Store, like say Monument Valley, and if they decide to continue selling it only on the App Store, then will pirate copies start showing up on EU alternative app stores, and will it be up to the authors of Monument Valley to try to do anything about that? Or does Apple intend to block that with its notarization feature, and will the EU even allow Apple to do so? This is a super-important point that strangely isn't addressed by Schiller in his interview, as far as I can tell.

When Sweeney says Apple is illegally stifling competition, he really means, "I want to install whatever I want on Apple's platform, with no Apple oversight/approval, and totally for free (except to my own customers who will pay handsomely to play my games)." That's his idea of fair competition. The insufferable whine of an everything-belongs-to-me psychopath.

Sweeney Rick VanMeter says Apple's package of new EU terms "is not fair, reasonable, nor non-discriminatory". That's a reference to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory). FRAND is a set of licensing term limitations that applies (or at least is supposed to apply) to patents that have been given to the 3G/4G/5G cellular transmission standard in exchange for guaranteed, per-device payments to the patent owners. FRAND rules don't apply to everyone's platforms/products, everywhere. What kind of delusional world does Sweeney VanMeter think he lives in?

darkvader said:

It's well past time for Apple to end this charade.

Artificially blocking app installation should be illegal everywhere.  Allowing users to install apps from any source they choose is the only option Apple has, the longer they fight the more chaos there will be when they're finally forced to do the right thing.

This so-called "charade" of "artificial" supervision has proved to be the most vibrant, successful, secure, high-quality, third-party app ecosystem in the history of computing, for the past fifteen years. But who cares about that — let's force them to turn it into another 1990s-PC-style, anything-goes, flea market of crap, because that's the "right thing to do," and the "only option." Great.