22july2013

I have two questions: 

1. Is it theoretically possible using any virtualization software that I will be able to run two copies of Big Sur on the same Apple Silicon computer?
2. People talk about being able to run binaries for iOS/iPadOS on MacOS, because they are the same binaries, but does that also mean that I will be able to run macOS binaries on iPadOS (since it supports a mouse and keyboard)?

I haven't noticed anyone talking about these issues. But I may have missed it. These are important questions for me.

brianloftus said:

The only one I really care about is Microsoft Office.  I want the Macros that I currently use in Excel to work on the Apple Silicon.  Mac Office on iPad does not support Macros.  I do not need them office but they are really nice to have. Otherwise, once per year, I will need to spashtop into a windows machine when traveling to do a Macro once I upgrade my MacBook Pro.  

The last time I checked, Mac Office for MacOS did not support Visual Basic. Has that changed? That's why I never used Mac Office.

High demand is good, but if Tim Cook was a supply chain expert he wouldn't have let it happen that within hours of launch the product was already in a 3 week delay.

gatorguy said:

lkrupp said:

"It also will create a standalone agency with a $10 million budget tasked with enforcing California privacy laws, and also enables district attorneys from 

And what kind of business, other than medical, would possess race, genetic, sexual orientation data?

We also list representative data elements for each of these categories of CA Personal Information:

• Audio, visual, or similar information: such as photographs you share, in-store security video, customer service audio recordings

That item includes race data, it also includes what language you speak. Since it's audio-visual, it also includes any visible medical issues you have like whether you use a wheelchair. And it includes a lot of information about your personality, including your personality type. In many cases people wear outward indications of their religion, so it also includes religious affiliation for some people.

elijahg said:

22july2013 said:

elijahg said:

22july2013 said:

crowley said:

sflocal said:

I don't understand people like you.  A developer with an iOS App is no different than a bread maker asking Costco for permission to sell its bread in their stores.  It is EXACTLY the same thing.  Developers are whining that they should be allowed to set up shop in front of Apple and sell their stuff to Apple's customers, bypassing Apple entirely.  Lets see that bread-maker set up a booth in front of a Costco store's front door and see what happens.

A Costco customer isn’t locked in to only buying bread from CostCo. 

A bread maker can sell bread to any number of other retailers other than CostCo.
CostCo have practically limited shelf space.

There are many significant differences. I’m sure you can see them.

Your points are valid, kind of. But the difference of opinion here is that some people think that Apple has a monopoly on app stores, and some people recognize Android and other platforms as "the competition."

P.S. A Costco customer is indeed locked into buying bread only from Costco if that's what Costco decides to do.

But they aren't "the competition" without spending several hundred+ dollars on a new phone, and then spending more hundreds re-buying all the software you've got on iOS. Plus any iOS accessories would need to be replaced, a HomePod would become a brick. If there was no cost to switching then you'd have a point, but when barrier for entry to the competition is so high, it's not really competition.

Costco can't lock customers into buying bread just at Costco. A Costco customer can use a different store and buy bread there - albeit not Costco bread, just as Apple apps wouldn't be on a different platform - and it costs them exactly nothing to use a different store instead. It would be like Costco making all white bread (iOS apps) available only in Costco, and enforcing the use of a specific ingredient (Swift) only available for use with bread to be sold in Costco, preventing sale elsewhere. The baker would have to reformulate their bread (rewrite their app) to sell it elsewhere.

People here keep negating that barrier to entry for both the developers and Apple's customers, when that's significant for both parties.

Your argument is a valiant attempt to make a case, but it's weak. Bottom line, which you aren't discussing: Apple has no obligation to sell anyone else's software on its store. You can't make em. Nothing you can do can force Apple to provide a service (the Apple App Store) if Apple doesn't want to. Apple's normal profit on its iPhones is about 30%, and you want Apple's profit on software sales to be what, 5%? Apple isn't a charity for entitled people. Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what Apple's profit level is? Let the market decide, if you support capitalism.

Absolutely it cannot, and I never claimed that it should - but getting a refusal right now has no alternative for the developer.  You're going off on a different matter, we are talking about the App Store itself, not the percentage cut Apple gets. Either way, the market can't decide the cut because there is no competition in the market on iOS. There is no alternative source for iOS apps to drive the commission down. Capitalism is private enterprise, where someone could set up an alternative store. But of course it's not capitalist because Apple won't allow that. In fact any creative interpretation of the rules (a very capitalist concept) is immediately stomped on by Apple. So in fact the Apple's control over iOS is closer to communism, where there is just one source of apps. You're only allowed to sell your product if the state authorises it, in a state owned shop, but part of the sale (decided by the state) must always go to the state. And until recently, you were not allowed to challenge the rules either, just like communism.

You are correct that nothing I can do can force Apple to provide a service it doesn't want to. But regulators can force it, and regulators can force Apple to allow unfettered access to my own device. It's my device, and with it I shall do as I please. But Apple is placing barriers to this, as if it's actually their device and not mine - we don't license the device from Apple, its our own.

If I want to install something Apple doesn't approve of, and as long as I agree to a wavier regarding privacy, malware etc, who is Apple to refuse that?  And as I said, that developer then cannot sell that same software elsewhere, because it's specific to iOS. That is where the competition is essentially non-existent, and where Apple will likely lose. You can argue all day long that the App Store isn't anticompetitive, but there are what 5 countries now investigating them, so there has to be some merit to it no matter what your opinion on it is.

Also Apple's phone profit is nearer 40%, it used to be more, but the ballooning R&D budget under Cook has reduced that somewhat.

I don't know where to start. There are so many things wrong in your post. I'll try to be brief and summarize why you are wrong. But I'll also say that I support you if you want to get control over your iPhone by installing Android (or Linux, or anything you want) on it. That way you can install "anything you want, with unfettered access." Sure, I'll help you with that request. Apple already does this with its PCs, you can install other OSs on Macs. I'm sure with a little public pressure Apple would let you install Android on iPhones. But that's not what you (or companies like Epic) want. You want someone to completely rewrite the license agreement for Apple's iOS. But you didn't say who should rewrite it and you didn't say which of the 500 rules in the current license agreement you want discarded. I would estimate you want all the iOS rules discarded. You want iOS to use the Android license agreement. Then just use Android. Don't try to force Apple to use the Android license agreement. The license agreement is part of the iOS experience. Without it, it's not iOS any more. It's just an unsafe, useless Android OS. Why don't you just get an Android phone if you want the Android experience?

Let me ask you a question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple recover its costs for all the development tools it currently distributes for free to developers? Do you want Apple to be able to charge the same 30% on all App Store from other companies? Or is your goal to get Apple to lose money?

Let me ask another question. If there was another App Store on iOS, how would Apple enforce its many existing rules, like no pornography? Would Apple still have to vet software offered on other companies App Stores? Or do you want all restrictions removed on software?

I've been arguing for months on these forums that if any regulators, including those in foreign countries, decide to try to manage the App Store rules, or any other service it sells, then Apple should simply remove the App Store from those countries. Apple will do fine without an App Store. Nobody can force Apple to sell any software, especially third party software, over the internet, period. 

Apple wrote iOS. They have no obligation to provide any features that you want, including features that let you run whatever you want. As it is now, you can get about 99% of what you want. Do you think Tesla needs to let you replace it's Autopilot software with your own self-driving software? After all, you own the Tesla, right? You should have unfettered access to the software it runs. Are you consistent on this point?