hackintoisier
About
- Username
- hackintoisier
- Joined
- Visits
- 47
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 400
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 87
Reactions
-
Head EU antitrust regulator wants Apple to allow alternate app stores
Give users choice. No one is forcing anyone to use alternative app stores, but given that the app market is a billion dollar enterprise, I can see why governments are now interested in ensuring adequate competition.I do believe it’s just a matter of time before alternative app stores are allowed on iOS.
-
Multitasking on iPad gets some polish with iPadOS 15
I don’t know if you’ve ever used Samsung dex, but it has resizable windows, and while it has its quirks, it’s a much much better multitasking experience than the more powerful iPad, in my view. Others may disagree.Xed said:
Thank god we don't we don't have to you pointers to constantly resize and drag windows around on a small display.hackintoisier said:I wouldn’t refer to iPadOS 15’s multitasking features as “polish.” It’s still a mess. No windowing support, we’re still limited to two apps on screen in split view mode, external monitor support is still a broken mirrored mess that doesn’t use the aspect ratio of the monitor.Apple can do so much better than this, I know they can.But with dex you have free-form control over the width/height of most windows (some apps have a minimum size beyond which they cannot go below). And it’s easy to use your fingers to resize windows and move them around the screen. When you resize windows, most apps resize in a way where the text doesn’t get too small to read. You can have your web browser to the left, YouTube open in the lower right, have instagram or whatever other app on the screen as well. All this from a Samsung phone hooked up to a usb-c touch screen monitor. You can customize your multitasking layout to your heart’s content. To the extent you haven’t tried Dex, I suggest to use it and compare the experience to iPadOS.I’m not saying Apple should copy Dex, but there clearly exists a better and more intuitive multitasking implementation on other tablets/phones. Apple is an extremely talented company so I know they can do better than what they’ve given us.I don’t understand why they put m1 into the iPad only to limit it in the way they have. I guess it’s because Apple caters iPadOS to the minimum specification of iPads, some of which have far inferior processors than the m1 and might be too sluggish with a more multitasking-oriented OS.
-
Multitasking on iPad gets some polish with iPadOS 15
I wouldn’t refer to iPadOS 15’s multitasking features as “polish.” It’s still a mess. No windowing support, we’re still limited to two apps on screen in split view mode, external monitor support is still a broken mirrored mess that doesn’t use the aspect ratio of the monitor.Apple can do so much better than this, I know they can. -
Intel-based MacBook Pro is Intel's latest anti-Apple campaign target
Intel does have a point that macOS sucks if you are a gamer. The latest blockbuster titles just aren’t available on Mac, and that is a fact. Of course many people buy macs for reasons other than gaming, but the gaming market is a still a relatively big market.Also, Apple could have chosen to use tiger lake and nvidia gpus, but famously opted not to do so, of course, and intel is just highlighting that.Finally, tiger lake launched with 4 cores, so it couldn’t keep up with m1 and mobile Ryzen 5000 in multithreaded heavy benchmarks, but tiger lake h with up to 8 cores is out, and it smokes m1 in multithreaded tasks and has taken the gaming crown from AMD, according to a recent Linus Tech Tips review of the 11800H.
-
Epic Games expert says iOS could be like macOS without security drawbacks
My argument isn’t whether the 30 percent cut is too high or low, I know that’s Epic’s argument. My hang up is with the restriction put into place on what Netflix (and other developers) can tell users.Xed said:
And if that was a one-off purchase that would be fine, but since all the updates go through the curated store it's really just piggybacking on Apple for their support and infrastructure and then paying them their due once costs are involved. Do you think the store would work if everything was a $0 cost through Apple and then all other costs for the customer being deal on the side with a very clear conflict of interest while still always going through Apple for App updates? I don't see how it could.hackintoisier said:
I think you’re looking at this wrong. You say Best Buy should not allow the tv to advertise about Walmart while the tv is in the store. Fair point.Xed said:
So you're asking why a store wouldn't want to allow a product to lead them to another store where products are potentially more profitable for the seller? Have you ever seen TV at BestBuy advertise about buying the same TV at Walmart to save a couple bucks?hackintoisier said:When the iPhone ecosystem was small, Apple’s level of control wasn’t really on anyone’s radar, but as the iOS ecosystem has ballooned to billions of users and billions of dollars of trade, I can see why governments and courts around the planet are interested in how the ecosystem operates.But you’re not talking about what the purchaser of the TV does with it AFTER they purchased it. Would you want Best Buy to have the power to tell Samsung or Sony (device manufacturer) that they’re restricted from allowing users to look at Walmart ads after they took the tv home? That would be ludicrous.But yet Apple has the power to tell Netflix (app manufacturer) what users can do with the App AFTER we purchase/download the app? Once the app is on our phones, that’s akin to taking the tv home in my example above. That’s where your analogy breaks down in my view. Netflix should have the right to tell its users about subscription details, etc.
That isn't to say that there's not an argument for saying Apple takes too high of a cut, but you haven't made that argument or factored in how much other stores take for the same or even less service. And let's not forget how much app stores charged before the Apple introduced the App Store for iOS.Remember, Apple doesn’t actually restrict Netflix’s business model… of opting not to use in app purchases. The only thing Apple restricts is a notification from Netflix on where/how the user may sign up for a subscription. If the business model (of not using IAP) is allowed, then what’s point of disallowing a note to users of where/how to sign up for a subscription? The only thing that’s being accomplished in the end is confusion for the user.If the loss of in app payments is hurting Apple’s ability to manage the App Store, it could raise its fees on developers of a certain size to recoup the costs. They can then bake the costs of doing business with Apple into their subscription fees and so on to ensure Apple gets its cut, and the developer earns a profit.I also support the idea of other App Stores because there are developers out there with a different idea of what an app can be than what Apple may think. For example, Wi-Fi Explorer to analyze your radio environment so you can know which Wi-Fi channels to use and which to avoid. No such app exists in the iOS App Store. But they do exist on android and even on the Mac App Store. If people are willing to pay for such an app in an alternative App Store, why should Apple be allowed to restrict such trade? Such an app is not harmful, it’s actually helpful. This is the question governments are going to grapple with.I know this is a hard question to deal with because of the potential for piracy, and porn which is harmful to children, and so on. I get it. It’s a very sensitive topic. But safari is a free app that can be used to access porn and other illicit content, yet it comes by default on the phone. From my point of view, on balance, I prefer a more open system.We will see how this topic is resolved. Very interesting.
