danvm

davidw said:

danvm said:

nubus said:

tech_traveller said:

Does it really matter?

It hurts. M$ copied the Mac - it can never be #1. And then MS lost on mobile, on tablets (at least round one), on MP3 players (Zune), and AWS started eating into their server business. And now that company is worth more than Apple. And the main reason for that is Apple.

So, Mac and iPad sales are dropping big time, iPhone is static, R&D is going to an Apple Car that seems stuck, and then Microsoft understood AI, while we in 2023 had the same old Siri and the option to buy a new HomePod, which was exactly the same as... the old HomePod. Flatlining companies don't attract the best talents. We need for Apple to grow, add more users, and enter big markets (cars). Competing with Zuckerberg on doing the heaviest headset is taking away talent, and now MS is once again #1.

From what I know, both MS and Apple copied Xerox, so I suppose they are the one supposed to be hurt, right?

This was Gates famous quote during the Apple vs Microsoft trial with Apple accusing Microsoft of stealing the Mac GUI .....

"I think it’s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."

Gates admitted that he "stole" from Apple but felt he wasn't really "stealing" from Apple because he thought Apple "stole" from PARC. But Apple did not steal anything from PARC. Apple paid Xerox for licenses to use some of the features they saw on the Xerox Alto computer GUI, for their own Apple System 1 GUI, that Apple was already working on before the visit to PARC. Apple visit to PARC  was more about the Mac team trying to convince Jobs that a GUI was the way to go with the first Mac. Up until then, PARC had the first and only fully working computer that was based on a GUI. Many members of the Mac team came from PARC and knew about the GUI on the Xerox Alto and were working on one for the first Mac, before Jobs visit to PARC. It's a myth that Apple first got the idea for a GUI, after their visit to PARC.   

Plus the GUI that Microsoft developed from "copying" the Xerox Alto was the like of Windows 3.1. Which actually was more like the GUI on the Xerox Alto than the first Mac Apple System 1 GUI (which actually appeared first on the Apple Lisa computer). Only Windows 3.1 is just a shell on top of DOS. What most associate with Microsoft copying Apple GUI was Windows 95. Neither Mac OS System 7 (at the time) or Windows 95, were anywhere near similar to the GUI on the Xerox Alto. So Microsoft could not have copied the original GUI seen at PARC, for Windows 95. No one had any doubt that Microsoft Windows 95 copied heavily from Mac OS System 7, not even Microsoft. But Apple was in no condition to sue in 1995. Specially after soundly losing their first trial over Microsoft copying the first Mac Apple System 1 GUI, over the concept of "look and feel". Jobs wasn't even at Apple in 1995.

https://crm.org/articles/xerox-parc-and-the-origins-of-gui

https://www.cultofmac.com/386189/how-apple-responded-to-the-release-of-windows-95-twenty-years-ago-today/

geekmee said:

It’s comparing Apples to…If you’ll excuse the pun…oranges.

Microsoft has abandoned technology and now is purchasing stock to grow ‘by any means necessary.’

While Apple has done it by introducing new technology.

Apple is introducing Vision Pro next month, while Microsoft has renamed Office.

hammeroftruth said:

nubus said:

geekmee said:

While Apple has done it by introducing new technology.

Apple is introducing Vision Pro next month, while Microsoft has renamed Office.

Last year Apple relaunched the HomePod, didn't upgrade a single iPad, gave us MBA 15" with features from the 2022 13" - didn't even bother to give it Wifi 6E. Microsoft added AI to products while M3 didn't improve on the Neural Engine. The market is pretty smart this time. While the engineers in Cupertino are having neck pain from Vision Pro the Redmond team is doing LLM AI.

What, you think all of Apple was working on VP?

They do have a LLM team and from what I’ve heard, they have been making products, most of them are internally, like the program that retail uses to grade devices for trade ins. It’s not determined by humans anymore over the condition of the device. The salesperson uses their device to scan temporary pictures of the front and back and it comes back with a price. From what I saw when the iPhone 15 came out, it was pretty much on the money for analyzing the condition and determining the trade in value. When I asked the salesperson what happens if it’s wrong, she told me they just run it again and most of the time it resolves the misquote. It even gave value for a damaged device after another salesperson told his customer their damaged phone wasn’t worth anything. 

LLM AI is also used in the camera app along with the LiDAR sensor to help take better pictures faster and determining where exactly your focal point is. 

The reason why you think they’re not doing anything is because they’re not jumping on the chatGPT bandwagon like everyone else is. 

It’s the new buzzword since B2B. 

davidw said:

danvm said:

davidw said:

danvm said:

9secondkox2 said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:

1. How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
2. How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
3. How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
4. Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
5. How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
6. How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
7. How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
8. In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.

(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)

1. Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
2. Totally Apple's prerogative.
3. Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
4. Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
5. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
6. Might be sketchy of Apple too.
7. Not sure about this one.
8. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.

All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.

P.S. Apple just pulled another bone-head move of rejecting the 37 Signals Hey Calendar app: https://x.com/dhh/status/1743341929675493806 (here's a summary: https://world.hey.com/dhh/apple-rejects-the-hey-calendar-from-their-app-store-4316dc03)
P.P.S. Whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, Apple has become like the Microsoft we hated in the past (and IBM before them). Perhaps this is an inevitable outcome of success and size and dominance. But I think we all expected—perhaps quite naively—better from Apple.

Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.

Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.

Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.

(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)

Either way, Apple best be careful here.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.

And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.

Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.

And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android. 

Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo.  They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers. 

Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?

macOS is no where near as safe, (from a security and privacy standpoint), as iOS. It's not even a race. And this is mainly due to the fact that macOS (including Mac OS and OSX) was built from the ground up to allow "sideloading". This is what consumers expected their laptop and desktop computers to be able to do. Back then and even now, hardly any consumers would purchase a laptop or desktop, that didn't allow "sideloading".

On the other hand, iOS (including iPhone OS) was built from the ground up with security and privacy as its main priority. It has never allowed "sideloading" in its over 15 year history.  And yet there are 1.5B  Apple iOS devices in use Worldwide. With annual sales in the hundreds of millions and most of those sales are to repeat customers. I doesn't seem that not being able to sideload (or having only one app store on iOS), are issues with the vast majority of consumers buying Apple iOS devices.

macOS and iOS / iPadOS share a lot of security mechanisms, so they are close from a security POV. I agree that sideloading could have some impact in the level of security of devices.  But does it mean it become the "Wild West" as you said?  I haven't seen that in macOS, Windows, Linux or even Android devices.

And now a days, with the amount of personal, financial and medical data that consumers have on their  mobile devices, the OS's on mobile devices should be much, much more safer, (from a security and privacy standpoint), than the OS's on our laptops and desktops. Saying the iOS only needs to be as safe as macOS is a losing argument.

For some reason, security for you is based on the device, but I think should be more.  For example. why my mobile device should be more secure, when I use my Mac / PC to manage financial, private or sensitive data?  Both devices should be secure, don't you think?  Also, it has been many years, at least from what I remember, that sideloading an application caused a major security issue in macOS, Windows, Linux or Android.  

Do you have any issue with that? It's the market that should determine whether  Apple should allow sideloading or third party app stores with their iOS devices. Not because of the needs of the few that wants to "sideload" apps from developers that are trying to bypass the Apple App Store because they don't want to pay Apple anything in order to profit from an ecosystem that Apple built from the ground up or their apps can not pass Apple App Store policies to be in the Apple App Store. These few iPhone and iPad users (that wants to sideload and more than one app stores) have over a dozen other brand mobile phones and tablets to chose from, that will allows sideloading and with more than one app stores. And it shouldn't matter to them if these devices are not as safe as iOS, if sideloading and having more than one app store means that much to them.

Apple iOS devices are the choice of consumers that place a high value on security and privacy and it doesn't matter to them that there is no sideloading and only one app store on their devices. And being able to buy a device from a company that also places high value on security and privacy should not be taken away from them because of the few selfish ones that thinks it's better for consumers if iOS was more like Android. Apple is not forcing consumers to buy their iOS devices. They are giving consumers a choice of using devices that has proven to be much safer than Android devices. Choice is good for competition. Competition is good for consumers.  

If the market should determine whether Apple should allow sideloading, should Apple allow sideloading first? Because as today, Apple is then one deciding that their customers should not sideload apps in their mobile devices. I agree that most users don't care for sideloading, and they will keep using Apple App Store for their downloads.  I know I will keep using the Apple App Store, unless there is a better option than what we have with Apple.  For example, there are rumors that MS is creating a gaming app store.  I will have no issues trusting an apps store from MS, and I don't think it could compromise my device security.  At the same time, it will improve the experience of my device, since MS is far better than Apple at gaming.

BTW- Yes, Nintendo customers are forced to buy their Nintendo game console games from Nintendo. It doesn't matter that you can buy a Nintendo games disc from retailers, only Nintendo can make the games disc for their game consoles. Can any game developer make game discs for Nintendo game consoles and sell it at a GameStop or  Walmart or BestBuy? You can only buy game console games from the maker of the game console. Either downloads or disc. Game consoles ecosystem are close systems. You can only "sideload" games that the maker of the game consoles allows you to. They are not like computer OS's or Android at all.    

I just pointed out that you can purchase Nintendo games physical media in different retailers, and you are not forced to use the app store.

Because in order to make the macOS more secure, Apple would have to prevent sideloading and the purchasing apps from third party app stores. That is not going to happen. Its too late for that. Apple goal is to make iOS more secure than macOS, not just as secure. Just as secure is not enough, if Apple can make it more secure. Over 85% of iOS users will ever need or want to sideload or purchase apps from a third party store (and have to pay using some other method besides their Apple ID (iTunes) account). That is about the how it is with Android and Android is much less safer than iOS. So why should Apple comprise on security and privacy, for the less than 15%, just to be like Android?

Using an iPad is much, much safer, if it can replace your Mac laptop.

https://totalsecurityadvisor.blr.com/cybersecurity/are-smartphones-superior-to-computers-when-it-comes-to-malware-protection/

The biggest security issue now a days are phishing scams where one is tricked into downloading malware into their device. Because iOS do not allow the installation of software from any other source, other than from the Apple App store, it is very difficult for scammers to trick iOS users into downloading malware. Therefore, iOS shouldn't be as safe as needed, for the users that knows better. It should be as safe as possible, for the users that don't know any better. 

longfang said:

danvm said:

9secondkox2 said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

danox said:

designr said:

tht said:

designr said:

According to another article these are the things they've been looking into:

1. How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do.
2. How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage.
3. How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone.
4. Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers.
5. How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store.
6. How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag.
7. How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
8. In-app purchase fees collected by Apple.

(Numbered only so I can address them specifically here.)

1. Is probably just because Apple has great engineers.
2. Totally Apple's prerogative.
3. Might be a bit sketchy of Apple—and a legitimate reason for consumer/owner/user complaints.
4. Not sure exactly what number 4 means.
5. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.
6. Might be sketchy of Apple too.
7. Not sure about this one.
8. Would be solved by allowing users to load apps from alternative app stores.

All and all, of the various claims, complaints, and concerns leveled against Apple I would say that not allowing users to load apps from sources other than the Apple App Store perhaps carries the most legitimate weight. This is a bone that Apple can—and should—throw the regulators and anti-trust litigators before it's too late. What's more, Apple should seriously leave even more heavily into enabling a gold-standard platform for web apps (i.e., Progressive Web Apps). Surely they can't be making so much money from the App Store to risk bringing the rest of their profit and revenue structure come tumbling down. Just build the best damn phone (or tablet or computer) for running almost any kind of app (i.e., native, web, etc.) and loaded from anywhere. Do this and much of this brouhaha ends overnight.

P.S. Apple just pulled another bone-head move of rejecting the 37 Signals Hey Calendar app: https://x.com/dhh/status/1743341929675493806 (here's a summary: https://world.hey.com/dhh/apple-rejects-the-hey-calendar-from-their-app-store-4316dc03)
P.P.S. Whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, Apple has become like the Microsoft we hated in the past (and IBM before them). Perhaps this is an inevitable outcome of success and size and dominance. But I think we all expected—perhaps quite naively—better from Apple.

Apple owns their platform: 1st party devices only, the OS and platform only goes on their devices, and as such, every item on the list you have is up to them and them only.

Interesting perspective. The implication is that Apple "owns" the devices that I have purchased.

Bottom line is that I should be allowed to install apps from anyone I choose to.

(NOTE: For some of the other items like Messages, I agree, that's their platform. But there's clearly a line here where Apple is extending its controlling, authoritarian hand into a device that I have paid for—and handsomely I might add.)

Either way, Apple best be careful here.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get copy or change it and git your money back.

And downloading software from somewhere else does neither of those. That's crazy talk.

Apple owns the Software OS, you own the hardware as is you don't get to copy the software and sell it separately not without the hardware.

Stop it. No one is suggesting doing that. People just want to be able to download apps without (necessarily) getting them from Apple's App Store. This is not complicated or unreasonable. Except for Apple Fanbois I suppose.

And Nintendo customers want to download games from Steam. When you buy Apple, you buy Apple. If you want the Wild West, you buy android. 

Remember that Nintendo customers are not forced to purchase digital games from Nintendo.  They have the option to purchase physical games from many retailers. That option does not exist for iOS / iPadOS customers. 

Do you have any issues running macOS, that is in the same line of Android and the "Wild West"?

You knew going in that iOS worked this way. After getting an iPhone then complaining about the lack of alternative sources of apps is just ludicrous. 

Are people like you really this unhappy that you want to ruin the iOS experience by turning it into Android?