CloudTalkin

The battery is user-replaceable so they aren't discarded when the battery dies. The battery will also last over a year with regular use.

This is a killer feature that may get overlooked.  The product really doesn't support any use cases for me personally, but for those who will use them knowing they aren't disposable is a definite benefit.

AppleZulu said:

CloudTalkin said:

urahara said:

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

darkvader said:

Once again, Apple's illegal abuse of their monopoly on app installation rears its ugly head.

As with the Epic case, the solution is obvious.  It's past time for Apple's unlawful app store monopoly to be broken.

If you want to remain within Apple's walled garden for all the apps you install on your iPhone, that's absolutely your right.  But Apple is abusing their app store monopoly to force everyone with an iDevice into that walled garden, and that is an abuse of their monopoly.

It's past time for governments to step in and force Apple to allow users to load apps from any source of their choosing.

If you don’t want the walled garden you have the choice to buy a different device. 

Breaking the App Store would break the entire system. Particularly for the bigger developers, if they can opt out, they will, and with them will go the security and quality protections that the walled garden creates. 

I chose iOS devices specifically because I want that system. Breaking that system doesn’t enhance consumer choice. You already have the option to get your open system by buying an android device, so you gain nothing by forcing it on iOS.  On the other hand, I would lose my choice, because you’ve broken and taken away the option that I wanted. 

So no, it’s not “past time” for you to use governments to take away the thing I want just so you can make it into the same lousy crap as the competitor I didn’t want. 

Almost everything you typed is completely absurd.  You wouldn't lose your choice to use Apple's infrastructure.  You could easily choose to only use apps that rely on Apple.  If an app decides to do their own back end processing, what facts are you relying on to claim security and quality would suffer?  You choose iOS devices because you want that system.  Nothing has to change for you.  Continue doing what you do.  For others, they gain options.  If some app you like chooses to forego Apple's processing, then you forego the app.  For every app in the App Store there are probably dozens of others that do the same function.  Pretty simple.  To maintain an "I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" attitude seems a bit shortsighted and self centered.

Your oversimplified perception of App Store and its complex infrastructure is just absurd. 

How can you open iOS for other stores and still keep it safe?
Jailbreaking is a thing. You could do it to your iPhone and load those Cidia’s apps. You can do it to your iPhone. Don’t come with your ridiculous suggestions that Apple should do it as a normal practice. 

What are you doing on AI if you are an Android user? If you are not, why not yet?

Your reliance on vague conjecture and mild FUD isn't really a compelling argument.  Billions of people use multiple backend payment systems multiple times daily with nary an issue.  To imply Apple's system is the only one with the capability to maintain safety and security defies logic.  Simply stating something else would be less secure doesn't make it so.  No matter how many times it's repeated.  The Mac App Store is just as secure as the iOS App Store and has been for years.  So iOS can be more open and still be safe imo.  But if you believe differently, back that opinion with some semblance of sound logic instead of empty rhetoric.  Whether Apple eventually allows it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  That's not what I'm arguing for/against.  Both my responses in this thread are disagreements with the content of the posts which I countered; not Apple.  There's a distinct difference.  One that some people fail to recognize.

What does Android have to do with anything?  Please tell me you aren't going to resort to ad hominem due to ineffective arguments.

AppleZulu said:

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

darkvader said:

Once again, Apple's illegal abuse of their monopoly on app installation rears its ugly head.

As with the Epic case, the solution is obvious.  It's past time for Apple's unlawful app store monopoly to be broken.

If you want to remain within Apple's walled garden for all the apps you install on your iPhone, that's absolutely your right.  But Apple is abusing their app store monopoly to force everyone with an iDevice into that walled garden, and that is an abuse of their monopoly.

It's past time for governments to step in and force Apple to allow users to load apps from any source of their choosing.

If you don’t want the walled garden you have the choice to buy a different device. 

Breaking the App Store would break the entire system. Particularly for the bigger developers, if they can opt out, they will, and with them will go the security and quality protections that the walled garden creates. 

I chose iOS devices specifically because I want that system. Breaking that system doesn’t enhance consumer choice. You already have the option to get your open system by buying an android device, so you gain nothing by forcing it on iOS.  On the other hand, I would lose my choice, because you’ve broken and taken away the option that I wanted. 

So no, it’s not “past time” for you to use governments to take away the thing I want just so you can make it into the same lousy crap as the competitor I didn’t want. 

Almost everything you typed is completely absurd.  You wouldn't lose your choice to use Apple's infrastructure.  You could easily choose to only use apps that rely on Apple.  If an app decides to do their own back end processing, what facts are you relying on to claim security and quality would suffer?  You choose iOS devices because you want that system.  Nothing has to change for you.  Continue doing what you do.  For others, they gain options.  If some app you like chooses to forego Apple's processing, then you forego the app.  For every app in the App Store there are probably dozens of others that do the same function.  Pretty simple.  To maintain an "I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" attitude seems a bit shortsighted and self centered.

Read the post right above. Breaking the App Store model will mean many developers stay out of it, and it will be difficult or impossible for iOS users to avoid them if they want those apps. Many of us want iPhones specifically because they work the way they do. To maintain an “I don’t like it therefore it should be forced to operate like Android” seems a bit shortsighted and self centered. 

It will mean no such thing.  Imo, if Apple does eventually allow 3rd party backend processing the vast, vast, vast majority of apps will remain status quo using Apple's systems.  It will be financially and logistically in their favor to do so.  Only the largest devs would realistically be able to take advantage.  As long as the App Store makes the devs money they'd stay put. I say this because anecdotal evidence suggests it's exactly what would happen.  What anecdotal evidence you ask?  Android.  Android, which you mention derisively is the most likely analog for what would happen to iOS.  It's obvious you have no idea how Android works.  Vast majority of Android devs use Google's backend (all of them on the Play Store use it, just like all devs on iOS currently).  For access to alternate android app store and billing, a user would need to manually and purposely elect to sideload an app or app store.  Those who choose to do so don't affect those who like gong through Google.  It would be the same circumstance on iOS imo.  

I'd love to hear the thought process behind thinking devs would "stay out of it".  

I'd love to hear the thought process behind thinking Apple must break the App Store, even though, apparently, nobody important will do anything different as a result. 

Currently, Facebook, Google and others are quite put out that participating in the app store will require them to ask users' permission first, before they track them and sell their data. You think that's not an incentive for those major and minor developers, whose business model is built on monetizing end-user data, to move out of the app store?  You think they won't take the opportunity to go to a separate store platform, if doing so provides the option to stay on iOS devices without meeting Apple's basic privacy requirements? That's the whole reason they're currently clamoring to break the App Store with your BS narrative that the App Store is anti-competitive. They don't want the competition that the App Store creates! If they're successful, they'll gladly take away user choice to have the privacy protections built into iOS. Gladly.

Either read better please or refrain from snarky attempts to use my words in arguments against me.  You can't hear my thought process regarding the things you requested because I never said any of it.   Nowhere have I advocated for Apple breaking up the App Store.  Nowhere have I stated or implied the App Store is anti-competitive.  But you're more than welcome to go back and try to point to where I did.  As I clearly stated, I'm disagreeing with the points you're making, not Apple.  More importantly, nowhere have you provided anything close to a convincing supporting argument for your opinion.  All you're doing is finding different ways to say "they're gonna wanna leave".  Why would they? Most devs are going to continue doing what they've always done because it's cost effective and efficient.  Being responsible for their own backend incurs costs they currently don't have.  Remember the vast majority of devs already qualify for reduced commissions to Apple so they're already saving there.  Switching processors wouldn't be the huge disruption some think.  

Large devs with established infrastructure would probably be the only ones to use their own (already established) backend.  

An alternate app store on iOS would produce the same results as alternate app stores on Android: fringe use with little to no uptake.  Little to no uptake from devs and customers.

urahara said:

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

darkvader said:

Once again, Apple's illegal abuse of their monopoly on app installation rears its ugly head.

As with the Epic case, the solution is obvious.  It's past time for Apple's unlawful app store monopoly to be broken.

If you want to remain within Apple's walled garden for all the apps you install on your iPhone, that's absolutely your right.  But Apple is abusing their app store monopoly to force everyone with an iDevice into that walled garden, and that is an abuse of their monopoly.

It's past time for governments to step in and force Apple to allow users to load apps from any source of their choosing.

If you don’t want the walled garden you have the choice to buy a different device. 

Breaking the App Store would break the entire system. Particularly for the bigger developers, if they can opt out, they will, and with them will go the security and quality protections that the walled garden creates. 

I chose iOS devices specifically because I want that system. Breaking that system doesn’t enhance consumer choice. You already have the option to get your open system by buying an android device, so you gain nothing by forcing it on iOS.  On the other hand, I would lose my choice, because you’ve broken and taken away the option that I wanted. 

So no, it’s not “past time” for you to use governments to take away the thing I want just so you can make it into the same lousy crap as the competitor I didn’t want. 

Almost everything you typed is completely absurd.  You wouldn't lose your choice to use Apple's infrastructure.  You could easily choose to only use apps that rely on Apple.  If an app decides to do their own back end processing, what facts are you relying on to claim security and quality would suffer?  You choose iOS devices because you want that system.  Nothing has to change for you.  Continue doing what you do.  For others, they gain options.  If some app you like chooses to forego Apple's processing, then you forego the app.  For every app in the App Store there are probably dozens of others that do the same function.  Pretty simple.  To maintain an "I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" attitude seems a bit shortsighted and self centered.

Your oversimplified perception of App Store and its complex infrastructure is just absurd. 

How can you open iOS for other stores and still keep it safe?
Jailbreaking is a thing. You could do it to your iPhone and load those Cidia’s apps. You can do it to your iPhone. Don’t come with your ridiculous suggestions that Apple should do it as a normal practice. 

What are you doing on AI if you are an Android user? If you are not, why not yet?

Your reliance on vague conjecture and mild FUD isn't really a compelling argument.  Billions of people use multiple backend payment systems multiple times daily with nary an issue.  To imply Apple's system is the only one with the capability to maintain safety and security defies logic.  Simply stating something else would be less secure doesn't make it so.  No matter how many times it's repeated.  The Mac App Store is just as secure as the iOS App Store and has been for years.  So iOS can be more open and still be safe imo.  But if you believe differently, back that opinion with some semblance of sound logic instead of empty rhetoric.  Whether Apple eventually allows it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other.  That's not what I'm arguing for/against.  Both my responses in this thread are disagreements with the content of the posts which I countered; not Apple.  There's a distinct difference.  One that some people fail to recognize.

What does Android have to do with anything?  Please tell me you aren't going to resort to ad hominem due to ineffective arguments.

AppleZulu said:

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

darkvader said:

Once again, Apple's illegal abuse of their monopoly on app installation rears its ugly head.

As with the Epic case, the solution is obvious.  It's past time for Apple's unlawful app store monopoly to be broken.

If you want to remain within Apple's walled garden for all the apps you install on your iPhone, that's absolutely your right.  But Apple is abusing their app store monopoly to force everyone with an iDevice into that walled garden, and that is an abuse of their monopoly.

It's past time for governments to step in and force Apple to allow users to load apps from any source of their choosing.

If you don’t want the walled garden you have the choice to buy a different device. 

Breaking the App Store would break the entire system. Particularly for the bigger developers, if they can opt out, they will, and with them will go the security and quality protections that the walled garden creates. 

I chose iOS devices specifically because I want that system. Breaking that system doesn’t enhance consumer choice. You already have the option to get your open system by buying an android device, so you gain nothing by forcing it on iOS.  On the other hand, I would lose my choice, because you’ve broken and taken away the option that I wanted. 

So no, it’s not “past time” for you to use governments to take away the thing I want just so you can make it into the same lousy crap as the competitor I didn’t want. 

Almost everything you typed is completely absurd.  You wouldn't lose your choice to use Apple's infrastructure.  You could easily choose to only use apps that rely on Apple.  If an app decides to do their own back end processing, what facts are you relying on to claim security and quality would suffer?  You choose iOS devices because you want that system.  Nothing has to change for you.  Continue doing what you do.  For others, they gain options.  If some app you like chooses to forego Apple's processing, then you forego the app.  For every app in the App Store there are probably dozens of others that do the same function.  Pretty simple.  To maintain an "I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" attitude seems a bit shortsighted and self centered.

Read the post right above. Breaking the App Store model will mean many developers stay out of it, and it will be difficult or impossible for iOS users to avoid them if they want those apps. Many of us want iPhones specifically because they work the way they do. To maintain an “I don’t like it therefore it should be forced to operate like Android” seems a bit shortsighted and self centered. 

It will mean no such thing.  Imo, if Apple does eventually allow 3rd party backend processing the vast, vast, vast majority of apps will remain status quo using Apple's systems.  It will be financially and logistically in their favor to do so.  Only the largest devs would realistically be able to take advantage.  As long as the App Store makes the devs money they'd stay put. I say this because anecdotal evidence suggests it's exactly what would happen.  What anecdotal evidence you ask?  Android.  Android, which you mention derisively is the most likely analog for what would happen to iOS.  It's obvious you have no idea how Android works.  Vast majority of Android devs use Google's backend (all of them on the Play Store use it, just like all devs on iOS use Apple's currently).  For access to alternate android app store and billing, a user would need to manually and purposely elect to sideload an app or app store.  Those who choose to do so don't affect those who like going through Google.  It would be the same circumstance on iOS imo.  

I'd love to hear the thought process behind thinking devs would "stay out of it".  

AppleZulu said:

darkvader said:

Once again, Apple's illegal abuse of their monopoly on app installation rears its ugly head.

As with the Epic case, the solution is obvious.  It's past time for Apple's unlawful app store monopoly to be broken.

If you want to remain within Apple's walled garden for all the apps you install on your iPhone, that's absolutely your right.  But Apple is abusing their app store monopoly to force everyone with an iDevice into that walled garden, and that is an abuse of their monopoly.

It's past time for governments to step in and force Apple to allow users to load apps from any source of their choosing.

If you don’t want the walled garden you have the choice to buy a different device. 

Breaking the App Store would break the entire system. Particularly for the bigger developers, if they can opt out, they will, and with them will go the security and quality protections that the walled garden creates. 

I chose iOS devices specifically because I want that system. Breaking that system doesn’t enhance consumer choice. You already have the option to get your open system by buying an android device, so you gain nothing by forcing it on iOS.  On the other hand, I would lose my choice, because you’ve broken and taken away the option that I wanted. 

So no, it’s not “past time” for you to use governments to take away the thing I want just so you can make it into the same lousy crap as the competitor I didn’t want. 

Almost everything you typed is completely absurd.  You wouldn't lose your choice to use Apple's infrastructure.  You could easily choose to only use apps that rely on Apple.  If an app decides to do their own back end processing, what facts are you relying on to claim security and quality would suffer?  You choose iOS devices because you want that system.  Nothing has to change for you.  Continue doing what you do.  For others, they gain options.  If some app you like chooses to forego Apple's processing, then you forego the app.  For every app in the App Store there are probably dozens of others that do the same function.  Pretty simple.  To maintain an "I don't like it therefore it shouldn't exist" attitude seems a bit shortsighted and self centered.

loopless said:

A worthy documentary , I am sure. Sort of plays to the perceived demographic of the Apple eco system.
But then there can be no suprise to anyone as to the reasons why Disney+ with , say, the "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" is easily beating Apple TV+ in subscriber numbers...

This logic doesn't track.  Disney+ has an entire channel devoted to nothing but nature programming: National Geographic. 
Apple's subscriber numbers trail Disney+ because D+ has more content.  More specifically, D+ has "Tent Pole" content like the MCU and Star Wars Universe.  Not to mention their vault of Disney and Pixar properties.  Apple has no established franchises to draw viewers.  It's all from scratch.

Btw, Disney plays to the exact same perceived demographic... even more so than Apple.