cropr
About
- Username
- cropr
- Joined
- Visits
- 160
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,373
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 1,149
Reactions
-
Prominent Apple apps in App Store search results face more criticism
mjtomlin said:
First of all comparing Google search with App Store results is not an equal comparison... App Store results represent apps that only run on Apple devices. Google search results should represent everything that’s available on the web - an open platform. If Google listed their services first on their Pixel devices - who cares! It’s their hardware. it comes down to... “You bought our hardware, here’s some other stuff you might like from us.” I don’t see any problem with that whatsoever. Whether it’s Apple, Samsung, Google or Microsoft. You purchase their hardware there’s bound to be some “freebies”. That’s a normal incentive most OEMs take part in.
Second, 90% of the apps Apple puts in the App Store are apps that come FREE with the purchase of Apple hardware. When someone buys an iPhone and they’re told it comes with free software - most people will search for that free software, so of course Apple’s apps may come up on top most of the time! Would everyone prefer Apple preload all that software instead? That would be extremely unfair to 3rd party developers. Instead Apple puts those apps on the App Store with the possibility that a user may discover and choose an alternative 3rd party app. That’s more than fair.
Finally... After all the hype in the media, when the Apple Card was finally released, Apple Wallet went to #1 !!! What a blatant anticompetitive move!!! /s Really!?
What’s next? Apple will be taken to task because they only allow their own apps on icloud.com!?Of course Apple can do whatever it wants, because Apple owns the App Store.However, don't start complaining if the EU will fine Apple because Apple is abusing its App Store monopoly. You just gave all the ammunition the EU needs.
-
Apple eases app notarization conditions ahead of macOS Catalina release
lkrupp said:
And what, exactly, is your problem with Apple hardening its requirements for safety and security? In my opinion it will serve to root out half-assed developers who cobble together some crummy code and try to sell it to unsuspecting Mac users, like the Hallmark Card Studio apps that are little more than Windows ports. And for those developers who don’t play by the rules and won’t participate in any of the programs Apple offers, well, to hell with them. I’d like to see a list of all the developers who have abandoned their software and either won’t or can’t make their code compatible with Catalina. It’s going to be a slaughterhouse for the users who unknowingly update to Catalina only to find that the wonder-app they’ve been using won't work anymore.bobolicious said:...here we go again...
I've been voting no with my wallet.
'digital fatigue'...? Hmmm...You are clearly not a developer, completely underestimating the loss of productivity for developers releasing their software. I am developing software on iOS, Android, Windows, Linux and macOS. On iOS it takes 2 days to put a new version of an app in production, on the other open platforms 30 minutes. For critical bug fixes, the damages on technical on commercial level during these 2 days can be huge.Signing an app does improve the integrity of the download, not allowing any hacker to change the content of the app package. So as a user you are certain that the app behaves as the developer intended.But signing does not increase the security if the app, because macOS is an open platform, where the developer has basically 100% freedom to do what he wants. Apple cannot put technical limitations on the features of apps on macOS: half of the apps would just stop functioning or would not make sense anymore. So in terms of safety and security the user will always have to trust the developer.My feelings are that Apple is not really honest about its intentions. Time will tell, but the hidden agenda might be that Apple wants to get more control and eventually force the app developers to the iPhone model, guaranteeing a 30% cut for basically doing nothing.
-
Developers say Apple's limitations on location tracking are anti-competitive
sflocal said:Fortunately, Android has a far, far larger market share so these developers can simply go and mooch whatever personal data they want from Android users.Owning an app developer company for both Android and iOS, I can say that is a wrong for a number of reasons.- Collecting personal data is sometimes necessary for the normal functioning of an app. Explicit user consent (like imposed by the GDPR in the EU) is the way to go ; Apple crippling the functionality is counter productive.
- Only one out of 5 apps my company is developing, are eventually profitable. The profitable ones are profitable because they are available on both platforms. Business wise it makes much more sense to port an almost profitable app to the other platform than to come up with a new idea that might be failing
- Some apps only make sense if they are available on both platforms. I've made a electronic voting app for the general assembly of large organizations. This app only make sense if all members of the organization can vote. And in order to make it resistant to spoofing, it is collecting personal data during the registration phase.
- The App Store is only existing distribution channel for iOS apps, where both Apple apps and non-Apple apps are competing. Because Apple is judge and involved party in the App Store, Apple should refrain from using technology in its own apps while forbidding it in competitive apps. The complaint of Spotify against Apple Music is exactly about the fact that Apple gives Apple Music an unfair advantage
-
Apple & Ireland head to court to battle $14.4B EU back tax on Sept. 17
larryjw said:Aside from legal fees, is the merely (though important) a case about legal interpretation of EU tax law, without real financial consequences for Apple, but real financial consequences for the EU.
As has been noted in the past, the $14.4B was placed in escrow pending the outcome of this case. The US treasury gets the taxes if EU case against Ireland was wrong, the EU gets the taxes if EU was correct. By treaty, companies don't get taxed twice on the same income.You do not understand the issue at stake.It is not about tax law and definitely not about the EU getting the tax money.It is about anti competitive behavior of Ireland. The court has to answer the question if Ireland has violated the competition rules in the EU by collecting only 0.05% tax money from Apple while all other companies in Ireland have to pay 12.5%. Basically the EU commission accuses Ireland that it has used anti-competitive means (a special tax regime) to attract Apple to put its European HQ in Ireland. If Ireland loses (and most probably it will), Ireland will be forced to collect the unpaid taxes from Apple. The money would go straight to the Irish budget.In any case the EU is not paid any money.
-
Apple suspends Siri quality control program, will let users opt out in update
For the GDPR, there is absolutely no difference if a human actually listens or not or if the there is always a recording. The fact that in some cases a human might listen for quality purposes, is sufficient to require an explicit permission.genovelle said:
According to to the article it is in the terms but not explicit that a human would listen. It is also different from listening to always recording audio in stead of in this case recordings of the actual invoking of Hey Siri to determine if it was on purpose, to prevent it from involving accidentallycropr said:Soli said:This wasn't a big issue since the data was already anonymized and yet they're taking even more steps to help ensure user security. I wish more companies acted this way.Anonymizing is great for structured data, where you can delete the sensitive data fields. But for listening to a human voice, anonymizing does not make sense. People don't talk in "structured fields".Apple has violated the GDPR rules in Europe because Apple did not ask an explicit permission to the user. Maybe this is the reason Apple temporarily stopped the quality assurance and will ask an explicit permission in future, but anyhow Apple (like Google) can expect to get a fine for this violation.
