georgie01

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Will we be able to uninstall the AppStore app and install one of our own choosing?

Why would you want to? Just because of ‘principle’? Whether you agree with it or not, Apple’s way of doing things makes some sacrifices for a much better overall user experience.

When I download an app from the App Store I have almost no concern about the security of it. You can say you want the right to install whatever you want on your own device (although the operating system which makes your device work doesn’t belong to you...), but that’s an issue of principle with very little actual benefit, and certainly nothing that will make a big difference in the life of 99.99% of users.

sflocal said:

Social media companies can disappear in a blink, yet companies like Facebook are in business because there's obviously a market they're serving.  Last time I checked, no one is putting a gun to everyone's head and forcing them to use FB, IG, or WhatsApp.  There are plenty of other competitors in the market, and even with all the hate towards FB, people seem to still be using them.

When there isn’t comparable competition, which there hasn’t been, then your argument is irrelevant. The question is why there isn’t comparable competition—is it because no one has stepped up, is it because Facebook is just so amazingly good and no one can do as good of work, or is it because Facebook has cornered the market and made it difficult for competitors to succeed?

titantiger said:

JWSC said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

JWSC said:

Everyone here is bitching about market economics that are ultimately self correcting.  One bitches about Comcast being a monopoly but, in SF Sonic is beating them on cost.  Another bitches about Comcast and then moves to AT&T.  What do you guys want - the Government to regulate everything and stifle infrastructure development?  Come on!

You must acknowledge that a small percentage of households are extreme bandwidth users compared to the rest.  It’s not necessarily fair to the rest that this small percentage take advantage of everyone else’s bandwidth.

We don’t necessarily have to like any of these companies.  But they do spend billions on infrastructure.  Do you want that to continue?  All I’m saying is, be careful what you wish for.  You may get it.

Not everybody has the same options that you do in SF. I only have to go about 30 miles south or west of DC for there to be only one provider -- Comcast.

That sucks.  But alternatives, some with OK service and some extremely bad service such as HughsNet are available now.  And Starlink is coming.  The market is not stagnant.

I admire your tenacious commitment to libertarian market principles, but in this case they don't apply.  HughesNet and satellite services like it suck.  So in effect, in many markets across the country, there is really only one true high speed provider in the area.  You either get 100 Mbps to gigabit service from a Comcast that bends you over on price and data caps, or you get crappy HughesNet where you *might* 1/5 that if you're lucky.  And they also do the data cap thing, but instead they slow you down to about 1.5 Mbps the rest of the month unless you pay extra.  I've lived in both situations - monopoly cable/internet provider when I lived in Nashville, and now a city with multiple providers where I live now.  It's amazing what a difference some competition makes.

The point isn’t ultimately what services are available, the point is that we all need to be wary of inviting government regulation. There is often a very unclear line between regulation and stifling investment. Like it or not, a free market, with all its negatives, produces a better end result overall. History has proven this over and over again.

So if we’re wanting companies like Comcast to stop extorting their customers, the first thing we should do is invite and pursue real competition. We could also reach out and educate the population about what they’re doing. Etc. The last thing we should do is ask for government intervention, and if we have to the intervention should be aimed toward encouraging competition.

That’s not a libertarian approach, that’s an approach based on common sense and history. 

ITGUYINSD said:

If Apple Search is anything like Apple Maps or Siri, NO THANKS!  If someone can give me an alternative to Google Search that is AS GOOD, then I might switch, but I know, in fact, there isn't one.  Someone above said DuckDuckGo isn't as good, and ever try Bing?  It's a joke.   

Be careful what you wish for.

All mapping apps will make mistakes, so you can’t point to singular mistakes in Apple Maps and ignore singular mistakes in Google Maps. I haven’t used Google Maps in several years and somehow I’ve managed to get everywhere I’ve needed to using Apple Maps...

And I’ve also been using DuckDuckGo for about a year and strangely haven’t had any issues finding what I’m looking for.

I wonder what the upgrade cycle will be for Macs with Apple processors, and how those processors will compare to mobile processors. If a Mac uses an A14 variant and then an iPhone/iPad is upgraded to an A15, will the Macs then be slower than iPhones and some Mac users feel the need to upgrade every year to have the fastest available? What Mac user is going to feel good about their Mac being slower than the next iPhone that comes out?

Or will the Mac variants of the processors be faster enough that an iPhone/iPad using next generation will still be slower?