gc_uk

davidw said:

Here's where I'm getting with that. Of course Mercedes has a monopoly with their 4Matic. There are a lot of companies that have a monopoly with the products they own and market. BK has a monopoly with their Whopper, McDonalds with their Big Macs, Toyota with their Prius, Microsoft with their X-Box, Panasonic with their Lumix camera,  , etc. But these monopolies are not the type that are subject to anti trust laws.

Mercedes owns 4Matic, it belong to them. 4Matic is not a product they sell but used to make their cars more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. And like you say, it is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else have access to their 4Matic.  The government should not force Mercedes to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Mercedes to make 4Matic available to other car makers.

No, these not examples of monopolies or restrictive monopolies. Like I said, you don’t understand what monopoly is, so stop saying things are monopolies when they aren’t.

davidw said:

Apple owns iOS. It belongs to them. iOS is not a product they sell but used to make their iDevices more competitive in the market they compete in. A market where they do not have a monopoly in. It is perfectly acceptable for them to not have to let anyone else to have access to iOS. The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in their market, by forcing Apple to make iOS available to other mobile device makers.

Stop. Nobody is saying Apple should be forced to licence iOS. Stop making strawman arguments.

davidw said:

Features in Mercedes cars with 4Matic and Apple iDevices with iOS are marketed as selling points in their respective market, to make them more competitive. The government should not get in the way and force Mercedes or Apple to diminish any of these features, so to make them less competitive. 

Security is a main selling point for iDevices with iOS, in a market where they compete with Android devices.

Security is ONE of the features that Apple uses to market iOS. As the owner of an Apple device, if that feature is important to me and I trust that by only downloading apps from Apple’s App Store my device will be secure then that’s fine. Likewise if it isn’t important to me and I’m willing to accept the risk of downloading apps from other stores which I also trust it’s my decision and not Apple’s. Right now consumers don’t have a choice except to trust apps they are allowed to download from the Apple App Store. 

davidw said:

That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use.

It’s irrelevant is what it is.

davidw said:

One of the reason is because Apple limits where apps can be downloaded from. This includes not allowing the downloading of apps from the internet.

The government should not force Apple to be less competitive in a market where they do not have a monopoly in, by forcing Apple to allow iOS capable of downloading apps from the internet, thus making iDevices less secure. It should be up to Apple if they want to make their iDevices more competitive in the market by either making it more secure or sacrificing some of that security by allowing the downloading of apps from the internet. It should not be determined as a result of a bunch of spoiled developers wanting to bypass the 30% commission of the Apple App Store, by claiming Apple has a monopoly with iOS. Evidently, the same monopoly Mercedes has with 4Matic. If enough iDevices users would rather have internet access for apps, than their iDevices being more secure, then I'm sure Apple will follow and change what's necessary in order to sell more iDevices. After all, Apple did eventually make a larger screen iPhone, when they said they weren't interested in doing it. 

This is becoming tiring, you don’t address any of the points which are made to you and instead make up your an argument to talk to instead. If you want to prove Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in Apps Stores on iOS, please point to the alternative App Stores which can be used to install apps on an Apple device and how Apple doesn’t restrict access to those alternative stores.

flydog said:

How Bumble manages to lose $100 million a year on an app is anyone's guess, but being able to track people appears to be the least of their problems. 

Don’t know, have you seen how much one kid made on YouTube just opening boxes of toys?

davidw said:

Then  ....... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?  Really.

I'm not really sure which part you're talking about when you say "what is your problem". If you read and understood what I'd said you'd know, so I guess you're just ignoring what I say and filling with your own straw man arguments. Especially when you say things like this:

davidw said:

If you want all of that, then use what 75% of mobile device users use ...... an Android device. You have that choice. Apple hasn't taken that away from you or away from anyone. Take advantage of it. Why are you here complaining about how Apple is not running their business they way you would like them to, when Android is? 

Here is my point in the simplest way I can make it: DOES APPLE'S TYING THEIR DEVICES TO ONLY USE THEIR APP STORE CREATE AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE SITUATION OR ONE HARMFUL TO CONSUMERS. I would argue yes it does. The existence of another competitor doesn't mean there is choice or competition.

davidw said:

All the apps you want should be on Android because they are all available on the internet, right? Software developers can develop for 75% of the mobile market, without paying a commission to an app store to host their apps. So why would they even think about developing for iOS? Android users have to fix their own device when they accidentally download malware, without the help of Google or the phone maker. They can give their CC info to websites that might not be secure. They can deal with the developers for a refund. Just because you have no problem with that and Apple won't let you, doesn't mean that you can't, just use an Android device. You have a choice. 

Again, the apparent existence of a competitor doesn't mean there is choice or competition.

davidw said:

Just exactly what do Apple iDevices have that appeals to you, that Android devices don't have? If nothing, then WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? iDevices appeals to hundreds of millions just the way Apple wants it. 

I would love to have the choice of the 4Matic drive train that's found on my wife's Mercedes SUV, factory installed on my Dodge mini van. But that's not going to happen. Dodge do not have to and can not give me that option. If I want to drive a car with a 4Matic drive train, I will have to switch to driving a Mercedes. Even though I find a mini van more useful to drive around in. Evidently, Mercedes has a monopoly on their 4Matic drive train. 

Evidently you don't know what a monopoly is. It's perfectly acceptable for Mercedes not to be compelled to factory install their drive train into a Dodge mini van. BUT, you could BUY a Mercedes, remove the drive train and have it installed in a Dodge. To be clear where this fits regarding App Stores and competition, the Dodge is your iPhone, the Mercedes drive train is an app, and the Mercedes dealer is another App Store.

davidw said:

Were talking iOS on iDevices here, not OS X on a Mac. Apple has very little control over third party software installed on a Mac with OS X. 

So why is it acceptable for Apple to allow software to be installed from different sources on macOS, but not on iOS?

davidw said:

If an app in the App Store crashes iDevices, then Apple will remove the app and get the developer to fix the app if they want to be on iOS. The developer do not have to fix the iOS on the device that crashed, if Apple allowed them into the App Store. The whole purpose of the App Store is so that iDevice users has some reasonable expectation that Apple have already done some testing and any app in the App Store won't do too much damage if their iDevice do crash from installing it. If the iDevice crashes because an app in the App Store found a bug with iOS, Apple will release an update to fix the bug. App developers aren't force to work around the bug.

You have only to look at cases where apps have been in the store for a long time and then someone discovers they are gathering data they shouldn't or sending data where they shouldn't to know that an app being in the store is no guarantee it's been "checked" by Apple. In fact, with the numbers of submissions the app store will receive, I'd say it's fanciful to believe it would even be possible to check such things.

davidw said:

Who checks if an app conform to Apple iOS security standards in an app store outside of Apple control? If you don't think Apple should be the "gatekeeper". It can crash tens of thousands of iPhones and still be available for days to those that haven't heard about it yet, because it's not in the Apple App Store where Apple is the "gatekeeper" and can stop its download as soon as they know about it. You think a developer selling $1.99 apps that didn't work is going to offer a refund or even a way to get a refund? I willing to bet Apple will refund to buyers iTunes accounts, even if the developer won't or it wasn't the developer's fault.

You think when Apple gives a refund it's coming from their pocket? Of course not, they reverse the transaction and claw back the amount from the developer's next app store cheque.

davidw said:

Who stops an app from outside the App Store, from purposely loading malware? Who will check to see if an app is not accessing personal data that they are not allowed to? 

Apple don't even do this for apps submitted to their App Store, why should you require another store to do so? (See above). Having a condition that installing software from sources other than Apple absolves Apple of any claim if an app causes damage to my device would seem acceptable to me.

davidw said:

There's a reason why iOS is much less infected by malware than Android. No OS can stop malware from loading if the user agrees to download software that they didn't know was infected with malware. But with iOS, the users are limited to just one place where they can download apps for their device. And even for users that say that they will never download any app except from the App Store or a trusted site, if it's possible to download an app into an iDevice from elsewhere other than through the App Store, hackers will find a way to install their malware without the users even knowing they downloaded and installed the malware. Just like they do with Android.  Google can probably make Android thousands of times more secure, if they just prevent the downloading and installation of apps off the internet. Like Apple does with iOS.

Correct, as you say NO OS CAN BE FREE OF MALWARE, so it's safe to dismiss everything you said after that as irrelevant.

davidw said:

If your iDevice crashes with an app that you downloaded from the App Store, bring it down to an Apple Store and they will try to fix it. At least they will try to recover your data from it if there's no other backup, before attempting a factory restore. What if the most recent backup doesn't include the data you need from yesterday. Apple might be able to force a BackUp. Bring in a jailbroken iPhone that crashed because you downloaded an app off the internet and Apple will most likely balk at fixing it. They might at least do a factory restore for you but won't work on recovering your data in the device or repair/replace any parts that was damaged due to the unauthorized download. Not even under warranty. Of course you can remove the jailbreak yourself before bringing it in by doing a restore to factory, but that's going to delete all the data you might be trying to save. When was the last time you heard of an Android user bringing their crashed Android device to a Google store to get help?

Isn't that what I said? If you bring your iOS device to Apple they will try and recover a backup, wipe and restore the phone. If I take a device to Apple after I've installed an app from a different source to the App Store, they won't touch it? And as I said, I'm fine with that. If the clutch went in your FrankenDodge and you took it to a dealer after installing a Mercedes drive chain, would you expect them to honour the warranty?

davidw said:

The cost of an Apple Developer Program is the cost of writing programs for iOS. Developers wouldn't pay for the program if they weren't planning on writing programs for iOS. There is no other reason for developers to have their apps in the App Store, other than they want their apps to be on iOS

There's no other way to distribute apps unless they are submitted to the app store, so whatever else you think the development fee pays for it most certainly is required to develop for iOS.

davidw said:

BTW- sorry for answering in this format. I have not yet figure out how to split the your quote into separate answerable sections, like you did. I knew how to do it in the old version by just clicking "q" in the menu bar with the cursor at the beginning of the quote and again at the end and then a window opens up right under, where I can respond. Or just highlighting the portion of the quote I want to respond to and clicking on "q". But "q" is now gone and I can't find it anywhere. It's probably simpler now, once I find out how it's done. 

At least we can both agree that the forum system here is awful. I use the method Elijahg mentioned and edit the tags directly.

Apple introducing M1 Macs - “Mac users have immediate access to an entire library of iOS apps”

Also Apple - “no install, only look”

launfall said:

I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out. 

I agree, and as a European I think the “free speech” tag gets way too much use as a reason to excuse harmful speech. I also think it’s absolutely correct that Google, Apple and AWS have the right to decline hosting apps with content they don’t want on their platforms and we shouldn’t make laws to compel them to do so. Social media should be made to take all reasonable steps to moderate and remove posts which encourage violence or are intended to cause harm to others, and there shouldn’t be exemptions for users just because of their status in society.