cropr

22july2013 said:

(a) will Apple change its policies worldwide to comply with Arizona, (eg, prohibit free in-app purchases world-wide) or
(b) will Apple simply change its policies in that state only to comply with Arizona, (eg, find a way to implement this in Arizona only) or
(c) will Apple give up doing business in Arizona (at least in-app purchases [but maybe all sales of Apple products and Services if Apple wants to really fight back]) so that it doesn't have to abide by (or break) that policy? or
(d) will Apple provide a documented way for users to switch to a different OS so that Apple can argue (I'm not sure if Arizona would think this would be acceptable) that there is now a way for users to avoid paying in-app fees. After all, many of the same apps are available on both Apple's and Google's app stores. So that could be a legitimate argument for Apple to use.

In this era of COVID we should let science be telling us what is safe and what is not safe, not use logic like "I can repair my brakes, so I should be allowed to repair my smartphone."

CheeseFreeze said:

I’m surprised about HDMI... Many monitors support USB-C now and with Airplay for presentations the lack of HDMI was only a slight inconvenience, and a worthy omission from a design aesthetics point of view (and the push to USB-C).

As for SD, it’s nice to have but I wonder what the overall usage is versus other type of storage ports in cameras. 

entropys said:

darkvader said:

sdw2001 said:

As much as I am deeply concerned about the power of Big Tech (the recent actions of FB, Twitter, AWS, Google  and Apple stand out), I continue to think Epic doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.  The developer clearly and intentionally violated the terms of service to make a point. As the article stated, they baited Apple into taking the action they did.  I don’t see how they are going to make a credible argument that Apple’s system has “driven up prices.“  Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phones. They are a major market player and they have their own system. If you want to use their system, you’re going to play by their rules.  They will claim, with quite a bit of credibility, that their system protects users, overall quality, and has led to a massive number of relatively low cost apps.  Is the developer actually going to argue that they have a *right* to have their software installed on Apple’s product? Like it’s some kind of public service or common carrier?  That argument has a lot more merit for the social media companies, and we’re not even there yet with them.  I continue to believe this is going nowhere for Epic.  

Apple absolutely has a monopoly in a major segment of the market. 

And it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone.  All Apple needs to do is add a preference to allow installing apps from any source of my choosing.  They can put whatever dire warning on it that they'd like, they just don't have the right to keep me from flipping that switch.

Epic are doing this for their own greedy reasons, but they are still heroes for doing it.

Perhaps you could explain the bit where Apple has a monopoly? It has less than 20% of the phone market. 

To do what you want the easiest way is  you could buy a phone using the operating system with the largest market share which does it fact allow what you want.