danvm

Beats said:

RIP Windows. You made good Mac knockoffs and fooled morons into thinking your copycat OS was better than the original.

This is Apple's opportunity to put the nail in the coffin, Windows Phone style.

dyonoctis said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Why would Microsoft want to embarrass themselves (and their ARM devices) by allowing Windows on an M1 MacBook that will massively outperform their own devices?

I see that you are still living in the early 2000. Satya Nadella isn't out to destroy Apple contrary to what you seem to believe. It's time to forget that microsoft "stole" the GUI, and move on. 

Nah, that's the same bait iKnockoff morons push so we can accept "Android" as some invention. You do that and these idiots get cocky and start saying Apple makes knockoff Samsung Galaxies. There's an idiot in this forum who made himself believe that Apple makes knockoffs of the damn knockoff.

There was also another morons I met who insists Samsung invented the iPhone.

Don't take the bait guys. Hold these knockoff companies to full scrutiny and never forget history.

I'm loving the taste of tears from all the iKnockoff morons crying about another invention Apple hit outta the ballpark!
"This cannot be!! Apple is lying!!"
LOL!!!!

22july2013 said:

danvm said:

22july2013 said:

mjtomlin said:

AppleZulu said:

mjtomlin said:

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices. 

Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.

I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered. 

I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.

The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position. 

That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.

Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU. 

That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.

Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start.
Allowing for side-loading will be next.

Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS. 

Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?

All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?

By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.

I don't think that would happen, considering that you said "Apple users want a curated environment with all 500 rules in the Apple App Store License Agreement."  If Apple customers support the Apple app store as you said, developers will see the benefit of publishing their apps in the Apple app store.  On the contrary, if 3rd party app stores do a better job, then Apple will have to improve their Store to attract the developers and customers.  I suppose that's a good thing, right?

BTW, the problems you mention, like stealing user data and malicious Facebook apps won't affect you, since you will be using Apple App Store, right?  It looks like you won't miss anything if there are 3rd party stores for iOS / iPadOS devices.  

I presume you agree with my prediction that most or all developers will move to an unrestricted stores and sell software that violates our privacy and security. But you are missing my point: nobody has the right to force Apple to allow dangerous apps on their platform. I don't care if you want dangerous apps... that's irrelevant. I don't care if 1% of the apps will still be safe to use... that's irrelevant. Stop raising these red herrings. The only relevant factor, which you and your ilk don't ever address, is that nobody can force a vendor and a customer to buy and sell products that they don't want to buy or sell. Especially when those products are more secure and protect privacy better than existing alternatives. You've got your Steam Store and your other uncurated stores already. Stop trying to force everyone else to follow that model. Stop taking away the freedom of Apple to create secure platforms and my freedom to choose secure platforms. It's quite tiring when people ignore this point.

But you are missing my point: nobody has the right to force Apple to allow dangerous apps on their platform. I don't care if you want dangerous apps... that's irrelevant. I don't care if 1% of the apps will still be safe to use... that's irrelevant. Stop raising these red herrings. The only relevant factor, which you and your ilk don't ever address, is that nobody can force a vendor and a customer to buy and sell products that they don't want to buy or sell. Especially when those products are more secure and protect privacy better than existing alternatives. You've got your Steam Store and your other uncurated stores already. Stop trying to force everyone else to follow that model. Stop taking away the freedom of Apple to create secure platforms and my freedom to choose secure platforms. It's quite tiring when people ignore this point.

22july2013 said:

mjtomlin said:

AppleZulu said:

mjtomlin said:

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices. 

Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.

I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered. 

I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.

The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position. 

That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.

Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU. 

That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.

Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start.
Allowing for side-loading will be next.

Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS. 

Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?

All app developers would flock to any app store that has no restrictions on what the app can do. They would leave the Apple App store and exist only on permissive stores that let them steal user data and send it back to their HQ. Popular apps like Facebook would be the first to leave the Apple App store and then do everything malicious that Facebook is well known for doing. Are you really naive or are you just pretending to be so?

By keeping only a single App Store on iOS, Apple is able to enforce rules that keep us safe and our data secure.

22july2013 said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

22july2013 said:

Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.

I am curious to understand your logic when you make the statements bolded above. Why do you think you would lose the ability to use Apple's secure/restricted/moderated app store IF alternate App stores are allowed by Apple in iPhones/iPads? You can "choose" to NOT install any of those alternate App stores, right? I am not clear what exactly is that you would be losing when the choice would still be yours to make - which App store(s) to use for downloading the Apps for your iPhone/iPad.

If I have the option to "choose" not to install a third party app store, then YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION to choose not to buy an iPhone and use Android instead. Why does this choice only apply to me and not to you? How can you not see this double standard that you are creating? Why do you get to impose your rules for software on me and on Apple?

I choose to buy from a company that curates its software. You want software everywhere to be uncurated. You already have Android for that. Why are you trying to force competitors of Android to follow the Android model? Why do you want Apple to plagiarize the Android license agreement? What makes you so special that you can enforce your rules of business on other companies in a free market? Why do you hate competition? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate choice? Why don't you go live in North Korea if you hate choice and competition and capitalism and freedom and security so much?

These arguments have been going on for months. Are you just trolling me? Do you actually believe this? If so, you got me. I never realized anyone could believe that companies and customers are not allowed to do business the way they both want to.

elijahg said:

docno42 said:

elijahg said:

I notice the price is the same as before, so rather than dropping the price due to cheaper CPU and increasing accessibility for people, they're just absorbing the extra profit. Great, that's the Cook Way. ߙ䦬t;/div>

You aren’t buying a collection of parts, your buying functionality.

If you don’t think the value proposition works for you, don’t buy it.  Frankly I’m surprised they didn’t raise the price - this little thing called inflation means they are already grossing less just from that alone.  

If you want cheap crap there are plenty of other vendors to choose from out there.  Have at it.   I have no problem paying more for a better experience.

Yes, all these added bells and whistles are nice, looking better on webcam etc, faster ML, but those things are super niche. Better battery is great, but having 10 hours vs 20 isn't essential. When's the last time you worried about how you look on webcam, or how fast ML is? It's actually less functionality for me at least, as it can't run Windows which I use for parts of my job - And so does Apple. Amusingly, the Mac Pros are running Modelsim, which is a logic analyser. And it's Windows only. I used Windows on my Mac regularly at uni, if I couldn't, I would have got a PC laptop. Same for several of my friends at uni.