xyzzy-xxx

I am not sure that the location of the Touch ID button is user friendly.
While it should work to unlock / wake up the device, I use many apps that feature Touch ID authentication.
The home button was easily accessible, now you have to use the button on the side of the device which may not be so easy to access when the iPad lays on a table.
I would have preferred to have Touch ID in the display (as some competitors did) but maybe there’s a reason Apple didn’t do that...

I don’t think so: when a 3rd party App Store wants to install an app, Apple (iOS) could alert the user what app with what name / icon exactly is about to be installed. So the user is in control (like with the data access alerts iOS already presents) to allow the operation and to see if the operation was triggered by her / him.
In addition Apple has control over the sandbox to only allow the operation that was approved by the user.

sflocal said:

xyzzy-xxx said:

I don't think that Epic's way is right (by first complying to the App Store rules) or at least clever. But in the end the App Store monopoly needs to be taken down.

What Apple does (and doesn't do) with their iPhone, and the software that runs on it is no one's business but theirs.

That you feel the better way is to tear all that hard work apart means you know very little how the industry works.

You are wrong in two ways:

1. If (and it looks like that from the anti trust hearing) Apple exploited their monopoly they need to be regulated.

2. Allowing alternate App Stores does not mean to tear anything down. There will just be competition. All security aspects of the iPhone should remain intact (in contrast to jail breaking).

dblanch369 said:

Bye Bye Epic!  Seriously hope they lose.  I've said it many times, I know Apple isn't perfect, but their walled garden helps keep by stuff secure. Epic (and others) just wants to burn that down.  I'd be welcome to Apple dropping their cut, but I still think they deserve their fair share.

Apple's walled garden should continue to exist for the people who want it - all other should have the choice to buy from another app store !

hammeroftruth said:

Last time I heard about Hessians was history class covering the revolutionary war.

They were pretty brutal. 

Now they want to make sure you’re not invading their privacy. 

So how do you balance in that area, a persons right to privacy vs. a persons right to safely conduct business?

This comparison is a joke - isn't it (Hessians [hired as British soldiers] in the revolutionary war...) ???
While I am not a Hessian, I am from Germany and privacy rights are pretty strong here.
The point is: Is a store allowed to test if a person has fever (does not mean an infection with Corona) and can this persons be treated differently?