AppleZulu

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more. 

Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices. 

I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).

If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations. 

I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems. 

What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring? 

People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones. 

You haven't addressed my point. 

What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?

The answer is zero. 

The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them. 

Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone. 

That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.

The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)

That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.

Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.

On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met  by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection. 

I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.

It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.

It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.

Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.

It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.

That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.

I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost. 

Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions. 

Do users not have a right to know what's going on? 

Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them. 

If your search for users who are aware of “restrictions” consists of asking people if they’re aware they can’t side-load 3rd party apps, for most who respond they aren’t aware, it’s because the thought never occurred to them. If your follow-up question is “do you like that restriction,” most will probably say “no,” particularly if you don’t mention the security, privacy and and stability that comes from it. 

The important thing that you’re misinterpreting is thinking that they actually care about these particular limitations. In the abstract, people don’t like to be told they can’t do something. If, in reality, they never wanted to do the thing they ‘can’t do’ in the first place, then their passion about the “restriction” is nonexistent. 

That doesn't change anything with regards to my point. 

If being transparent, up front and making sure users are aware of the restrictions prior to purchase is enough to get Apple off the anti-trust hook (and it one hell of a hook), why not just let users know? What's to lose? 

The reason, is that many would think twice about moving forward with the purchase and Apple definitely knows this. 

This isn't about 'abstract' situations, it's about the bottom line and when you ask someone to sign off on these types of restrictions (once things are clearly spelt out to them) they won't like it. Marketing would have a terrible time turning such a situation around. "You want it this way. It's why you chose iPhone. It's in your best interest". Good luck with that. 

My whole point is that people don't buy iPhones because of the restrictions, which is what many people here would like us to believe.

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more. 

Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices. 

I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).

If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations. 

I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems. 

What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring? 

People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones. 

You haven't addressed my point. 

What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?

The answer is zero. 

The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them. 

Oh, I forgot. You're the one who wants Apple to require that customers sign some kind of detailed EULA before they can even purchase an iPhone. 

That is of course comically ridiculous. If you required users to fully understand the details in the EULA for just about any electronic device, it would result in lost sales, not just for Apple.

The reality is that few people read those agreements for anything, and they don't make their purchasing decisions based on those details anyway. They just quickly click "ok" on the EULA when they're setting up the device. (That's required when you set up your phone, and at least for Apple, users are free to return it for a full refund if they actually do read the EULA and doin't want to agree to it.)

That's why I wrote what I wrote previously. People buy iPhones because they want the device that just works, and because they like, in a broad sense, what Apple does to ensure greater reliability, privacy and security. Most people who really want an open system that allows them to freely side-load apps and viruses and whatnot know that they can't do that on an iPhone and will buy an Android.

Plus, when you say "that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it," you are making assumptions about how the information would be presented, i.e., "Apple restricts you from loading any software you want, and you can only get apps through their tightly-controlled app store." Sure, that'd scare some people away.

On the other hand, if you told them that "Apple will only allow apps onto your iPhone via the App Store, so that Apple can protect users and assure high quality standards are met  by the developers of apps that you load on your iPhone. By routing everything through the App Store, Apple is able to screen the software for viruses, malware, compatibility and operability. Apple also makes sure that app developers adhere to a standardized user interface so that apps are easy and intuitive to use. Additionally, Apple requires app developers to adhere to standards that protect user data and privacy." If you tell them that, it's true and most people will be happy with their iPhone selection. 

I don't want them to make users sign off on accepting the limitations. I suggested it could be a way to get them off the anti-trust hook.

It's not ridiculous if the move allows Apple to continue without changing its business model. It could even open the door to increasing commissions.

It's not about getting users to fully understand the EULA either. It's about transmitting the limitations that anti-trust investigations have signaled as anti-competitve. Those limitations aren't even in the EULA.

Making users sign off on the specific anti-trust issues is not the same as reading an EULA. It's not even close.

It doesn't matter how the information is presented as long as it is clearly understandable. Dress it up or dress it down. But don't use scare tactics. As long as the message is clear and understandable, it's OK.

That said we already know that Apple has used scare tactics in the wording to users on its anti-steering 'compliance'. That was called out by the judge.

I'm fine with you saying I am assuming sales would be lost. You yourself in your second paragraph say sales would be lost. 

Truthfully, it is unthinkable that Apple doesn't think it sales would be lost. That leads me back to my whole point. Why not be open, transparent and upfront about it if sales would not be lost? Especially if it were used as a tactic to fight back against anti-trust actions. 

Do users not have a right to know what's going on? 

Of course Apple knows the consequences of such a move: lost sales. And that flies in the face of claims that users buy iDevices precisely because of the benefits of those restrictions. They don't. I'd wager that the vast majority of users would reject signing off on accepting any such limitations. And, as I said earlier, I have yet to find a single user who is aware of them. 

ipedro said:

muaddib said:

I would like the next AppleTV to have Apple Intelligence in a way that allows my original HomePods to access it for a better version of Siri. 

Honestly this is the only way HomePods are going to get Apple Intelligence in the near term. 8GB of RAM isn't feasible on devices that are already under cost of goods pressure to meet a low retail price point. Apple TV itself is seeing demand for a more accessible price point but adding Apple Intelligence to it could help justify its cost, enabling Apple TV to then lend this feature to connected HomePods. It's also possible that the upcoming HomePad could support Apple Intelligence throughout the home onto Apple TV and HomePods while these client devices don't run AI themselves and can lower their price points.

Grizzmick said:

Totally agree with Pema Apple works on lots of things most of which probably will never become an actual product but often the technologies and ideas developed flow into other products. Samsung and other  foldables simply don’t sell partly because they are ridiculously expensive, heavy and have crap battery life. Opposite have a 3 screen foldable which folds out to approximately the same as an iPad Air which may actually have a realistic use but it’s around $3000 seriously over 3K for an android phone !

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

avon b7 said:

AppleZulu said:

Once again, consumer choice happens when selecting the device. If you want a managed, secure system, get an iPhone. If you want to be able to side load unregulated third-party stuff, get an Android phone. Forcing Apple to be more like Android results in less consumer choice, not more. 

Consumer choice can only truly happen when the consumer is aware of the choices. 

I've said many times before, I have never met anyone (and I've asked questions specifically) who is even remotely aware of the limitations imposed by Apple (all without informing the customer).

If those limitations were up front and the consumer signed off on them specifically, I would have zero problems with the limitations. 

I have repeatedly gone further and suggested such information might even be all that is needed for legislation to cease requiring Apple and others open up elements of their systems. 

What's to lose? What possible problem could Apple have with informing customers of its impositions if most people here are making the explicit claim that users 'choose' Apple precisely for what those limitations bring? 

People buy iPhones because they want the privacy, security and stability. These are features that Apple advertises, and they’re possible specifically because of their “walled garden” approach. You don’t need to survey people about the detailed implications of side-loading third-party apps. People also choose iPhone because they don’t have to think about how they work. They just work. Forcing Apple to make iPhones more like Android undermines those reasons people choose iPhones. 

You haven't addressed my point. 

What harm can transparency do? Especially when it is in the user's own interest and, from an anti-trust perspective, possibly Apple's?

The answer is zero. 

The problem is, that information would lead to lost sales and Apple knows it. And that is what tumbles the idea that users are happy with the restrictions. And, like I said, I have yet to find an iPhone user who is actually aware of them.