- Last Active
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.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.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.That is undeniable and proven no matter what metric you use.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.
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.
Then ....... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Really.
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?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.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.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.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.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.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?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.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?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 iOSBTW- 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.
launfall said:I feel fine about it. It's about time apps that support lies and insurrection are thrown out.The question should be, is it acceptable for Apple to have so much control over a platform that a decision they make would put another company out of business? Does this power give them an anticompetitive advantage or cause consumers harm? What if it was a news app, which published a story that put Apple in a bad light and they decided the app should be disqualified from inclusion in the App Store? Or force them to remove the news story? Where does Apple’s contract with developers and their “protection of their users” end, and my rights to use my device how I choose begin?