ctt_zh

auxio said:

VictorMortimer said:

mikethemartian said:

Is bog standard Android open source?

Yes.  https://source.android.com/

The trick with Android is that, if you want your Android device to have access to Google services (search, maps, mail, etc) then you need to be GMS certified. Those APIs & apps aren't open source.

AFAIK, Samsung devices are GMS certified and so there's no way they can block use of the microphone from Google's apps. So it appears to be a symbolic ban based on favouring local. Though perhaps they have a special arrangement with Google on this.

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

paisleydisco said:

Okay. Now go after supermarkets and retail stores that charge 30% and more for products to be placed in store. 

Developers knew the price of admission and now are crying. GTFO. 

Yes. Developers knew the price of admission. We all do. The question is if that constitutes abuse of dominant position. That we can't know until the process is over. 

That "dominate position" was the fertile ground that grew those developers businesses. Now those same developers want to avoid any payments at all to Apple. 

That doesn't really look like a viable synergy, but then again, this is the EU we are talking about, an aging and brittle political and economic structure. I'll probably live long enough to see the EU disintegrate, and then, back to continuous warfare.

Lovely.

VictorMortimer said:

macxpress said:

Xed said:

StrangeDays said:

Good thing I don’t know anybody who gives a shirt about that, let alone any normals. 

You know you can like Apple products -and- want them to be easier for DIYers to repair and upgrade.

I found the video interesting and I'm glad that these are easier to repair. 

While I agree the video is interesting, 99.999999% of Apple customers really don't give a shit one way or another if they can repair it. The vast majority will just take it somewhere to get fixed should something go wrong. It's really only some on these Mac forums that make a big stink about repairability because they think Apple should make a computer like they did back in the 90's where everything is removable. . 

It's more like 10% that don't care.  The rest of us are sick of the consumer hostility.

Even if you aren't going to fix it yourself, parts pairing makes repairs MUCH more expensive for everyone and causes millions of repairable devices to turn into landfill.

And yes, some of us absolutely DO want computers to be made like they were in the '90s and 2000s when everything was removable.  It's the right way to build a computer that has parts that fail.  It's ridiculous that storage chips, which WILL fail, are soldered.  Even LPDDR5 RAM is now available in LPCAMM removable modules.  There's no excuse for Apple's nonsense.

Stabitha_Christie said:

chasm said:

I’m a little disappointed. What Epic did warranted a lifetime ban from being an Apple developer. However, if they’ve been re-granted an EU-only developer account, it means the company has signed a pact promising to play by the (new) rules. Not that Epic’s word means anything, but I expect Apple Europe will be … let’s say vigilant … for any infractions.

I look forward to Apple collecting the third-party store commission rates, and the annual app Install fee, though I have to wonder if Epic will even qualify for the latter, as you need a million installs a year and Fortnite is a pretty old game at this point … the competition has stepped up … Epic may eventually have to come up with a second game that someone cares about.  

Charging the installation fee (I don't remember Apple calls it) starts after the millionth download if you use the Apple App Store. For third party stores it starts from the first download. 

• Core Technology Fee — iOS apps distributed from the App Store and/or an alternative app marketplace will pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold.

dewme said:

ctt_zh said:

dewme said:

Here we go again, DED trying to use logic, facts, and evidence to expose the truth behind a subject that is near and dear to many of us.

Big problem. Things like logic, facts, evidence, and balanced perspective do not matter in a world driven by human emotion. Everyone loves a winner … that is, until the winner wins more than we have decided is acceptable. At that point the human mind transitions from admiration to envy. Festering envy transforms into Entitlement. Those who feel that they deserve a piece of Apple’s business without making their own commensurate level investment is clearly playing the entitlement card.

If Microsoft had its own external App Store, hosted the software and handled all payment processing itself... what percentage of a $70 Microsoft 365 subscription being handled completely by Microsoft do you think Apple should be entitled to (and for what exactly)? 

I don't see the connection to Apple in your question. If Microsoft invested in their own App Store and all of the requisite infrastructure and payment systems they should receive the full price (100%) of what they sold through their own store since they own the store and they are also the developer. Apple's not even in the picture in this scenario. If Microsoft sells products through Apple's App Store then Apple should be entitled to whatever percentage defined by the terms and conditions that Microsoft agreed to when they signed up with Apple to sell their products through Apple's sales channel. That's basically the same model that all store owners employ. Product vendors pay a commission to sell products through the store. They can also sell direct.