dewme

nubus said:

dewme said:

Are EU consumers taking advantage of the bludgeoning of the "evil gatekeepers" and suddenly basking in the glory of being able to purchase EU made products and services at more affordable prices? That is the goal, improving choice and driving lower prices, isn't it? 

Mac-users as a group have gained most from regulation (though from US). At one point 95% of all users were on the Microsoft IE browser with sites demanding ActiveX that only worked on Windows. It forced consumers to Windows as Mac browsers including IE for Mac didn't work with their banks or other basic systems. I had to switch bank to stay on Mac, but most didn't. 

US regulation forced the unbundling of IE from Windows and it opened the web + made Mac a platform that could be used on the level as Windows for most people. And the fear of regulation forced Microsoft to make a deal with Apple to producing MS Office for "at least 5 years" + made a huge investment (+3% of Apple). At that time Apple was 90 days from going bankrupt. Microsoft needed Apple to stay alive to keep US authorities at bay. Thanks to US regulation we still have Apple and competition.

Thank you for your informative response. Here in the US actions taken to supposedly help US consumers and businesses be more competitive against foreign suppliers very often does little more than force US consumers to pay more for the products that are in the “protected” category. 

Once again, thank you for another well written and engaging article/white paper/mini book. Whatever you call it, it's good stuff.

Unless Apple has changed their feature naming, I think what you've identified as "Continuity" is really "Universal Control." I love the Universal Control feature and see where Apple has tapped into their prior work around this amazing capability to bring it to Vision Pro. After having watched a lot of British TV I suppose I could say the Universal Control feature is "absolutely brilliant." My only knock on Universal Control is that Apple hasn't brought it to the iPhone yet. Why? Continuity is on all of their major platforms, so why not the equally brilliant Universal Control?

Edit: Universal Control is part of the Continuity subsystem that includes Universal Control, Continuity Camera, AirPlay to Mac, Sidecar, Continuity Markup and Sketch, SMS on Mac, Phone on Mac, Auto Unlock (Apple Watch), Handoff, Universal Clipboard, AirDrop, Apple Pay, and Instant Hotspot. Wow.

Regarding the Vision Pro, I think we're all at a point of learning what it really is based on its current and near term capabilities. I think it's better just to try it on for yourself, think about it, and consider what it means to you and how it fits into your lifestyle. There are currently a plethora of people that have already picked sides for one reason or another. I suppose if you've already forked over the non insignificant coin to bring one home you are likely to defend the Vision Pro because you've taken the plunge and need to reassure yourself and those around you that it was a wise purchase once the contact high acquired at the Apple Store demo wears off. Likewise, if you'd really like to take the plunge but you don't have the funds or line of credit to make it happen, then it's easy to denigrate the Vision Pro so you don't feel so bad about not having one of your own. Then there's all of the wait & seers who aren't quite sure whether the Vision Pro is something they really need. And of course those who simply don't like Apple no matter what they create. 

So it really comes down to the undecided and wait & seers who will propel the Vision Pro past the early adoption phase and into the mainstream. I'm still of the opinion that the Vision Pro  has to stand on its own. When I consider whether the Vision Pro is something I want for myself I'll base my evaluation on what the Vision Pro brings to my world at the time of purchase. I refuse to accept that anyone's current take on the Vision Pro is the last word or the only word. The Vision Pro's potential is obvious and unbounded by current computing platforms and current conventions for man-machine interaction. It's a whole new world, one that touches both the past and the future and the real and the virtual. There will likely be a point where several of the Vision Pro potentials transform into consumable realities, or at least have a believable timeline for their impending release. But if the current realities are compelling for whatever reasons motivate you to make the purchase decision, go ahead and jump on it. Life is short and time is more precious than money.

I'm not minimizing or trivializing the influence that price has on one's purchase decision for the Vision Pro, but I don't think price is even a showstopper for a lot of Apple customers. Simply being an Apple customer indicates that you value Apple products way beyond the marginal price premium you pay for premium products. It's kind of a natural selection process. Higher pr9ices may cause you to think about it a little bit more, but if you want it you're going to find a way to make it happen. Still, when you consider acquiring a Vision Pro, or not, the decision should be based on your own objective criteria and not the musings or opinions of others on either side of the debate. Of course you should also be aware of your own bias towards and attraction to Apple products. Again, let your evaluation of the Vision Pro be based on how it stands on its own. Let the Vision Pro tell its own story to you, one that's neither propped up by true Apple believers nor dragged down by those who live in the shadows where the light of the Apple halo never shines.

I think Apple got in the habit of upgrading iOS and iPadOS one version too much in the past. Maybe they were trying to impress their customers with how long those products could support the latest and greatest operating system. Unfortunately it created a situation where the devices that had one-too-many upgrades became unusable because the performance went in the crapper. That coupled with no longer signing the last version that worked reasonably well resulted in fairly useless devices. Been there and done that. 

Xed said:

dewme said:

It’s important to recognize that Apple and Steve Jobs in particular intended the iPhone to be a closed system. He only reluctantly agreed to open up the iPhone and iOS to third party applications after a lot of internal debate and with a series of conditions put in place.

The App Store and 3rd-party app were always intended. That's why the UI was designed the way it was with multiple pages and room for additional apps on the home screen. The reason why it didn't launch with the App Store is because it took time to build right. Remember that Jobs announced it in October 2007, a little over 3 months after the Phone went on sale and during their Fall event right before the Christmas season. This wasn't some hobbled together solution where they never considered the need for 3rd-party apps.

Hmm, not according to what I've read in here and in Walter Isaacson's book.:  

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-steve-jobs-resisted-apples-app-store-marks-10-years-of-third-party-innovation

I think it's also clear to differentiate between a "closed" system and an "extensible" system, which Designr articulates in his comment. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like it was always a goal for the iPhone to be extensible through third party contributions and apps, but the mechanism for achieving this objective changed over time. One recognized approach to building reliable software is captured within a group of design principles captured under the acronym "SOLID." Here's an overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID#External_links

The "O" in SOLID, the Open-Close principle, is all about providing extensibility through various forms of abstraction in order to achieve a degree of separation and reduce the coupling between the closed software provided by the underlying system (iOS) and those who wish to extend its capabilities without altering the integrity of the underlying system. It's important to recognize that the mechanisms and granularity of abstraction have changed over time, so what was once done at abstraction mechanisms provided at a language level using languages like C++ and Java have moved up to higher levels of abstraction using libraries, frameworks, and subsystems accessed through application programming interfaces (APIs) and various types of messaging for near model, far model, synchronous, asynchronous, stateful, stateless, etc.

However, the common goal of the open-close principle has remained the same: to protect the closed part of the system, provide secure and robust ways to extend the closed part of the system, and to always protect  the closed part of the system from being adversely affected by the behavior of system extensions, e.g., prevent a crashed third party app from crashing iOS. As Designr pointed out, progressive web apps were probably a more secure and less coupled mechanism for extensibility compared to what Apple eventually provided through library based APIs.

Apple settled on an extensibility model that let extensions/apps have a tighter and more highly coupled interaction with the closed iOS system. To mitigate the risk they "protected" the closed part of the system by enforcing rules, code signing, and subjecting extensions to review by Apple's own people. At the same time the natural separation of core system level functionality from application level functionality provided by the iOS architecture, i.e., kernel level versus user level (or application level) is still in place. It's not like Apple gave away the keys to the kingdom, they simply moved to a tighter and more highly coupled extensibility model from what a web based model would have provided. In its purest sense web apps would not even have access to the file system, so something more, i.e., progressive web apps, were necessary.

Again, everything is fine as long as the compromises put in place to placate the EU do not impact the protection mechanisms that Apple has put in place. I seriously doubt that Apple would allow anything that would destabilize iOS. But what happens inside the third party silos that the EU has forced Apple to allow is anyone's guess. They probably won't be able to access anything that Apple deems to be under its own security and privacy umbrella, or crash iOS, but what happens with apps provided outside of Apple's app store is anyones's guess. Just don't call Apple if those apps behave in unexpected or harmful ways. You asked for it.

Tower72 said:

Oh And I really love this line

"Ultimately, there are things that we have not allowed on our App Store-- things that we didn't think would be safe or appropriate". A huge portion of the userbase is well over 18 with the ability to think for themselves,  and Apple wants to tell people what is appropriate or not based on what, their standards? 

Still though I think this is a scare tactic, as installing things from outside of the official app store, will cut into Apples profits. 

Oh how I wish that most folks over 18 had the ability to think for themselves. Half the US population believes in crazy conspiracy theories and bold faced lies. Maybe it’s a case of convenience-of-thought where people choose to ignore reality because there’s a bigger cognitive or financial payoff for selectively sidestepping reality.