Detnator

CloudTalkin said:

AppleZulu said:

CloudTalkin said:

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: "  Little to no uptake from devs and customers.

You wrote: "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."

In the context of this thread, that reads pretty clearly as advocating for breaking up the app store.

Also, as I've pointed out, it reads as self contradictory. You write (in the same post where you claim not to have written this) that breaking up the App Store will only result in "fringe use with little to no uptake."  You've also written that somehow at the same time "others [will] gain options." You can't have it both ways. Either it results in little change and "others" won't actually "gain options," or these mysterious "others" will gain options, because there will be uptake from developers. Conversely, your claim that "nothing has to change" for me is wholly contingent on those others not gaining options because there will be "Little to no uptake from devs and customers." And if that's the case, then what's the point in making Apple change anything? 

Also, I would ask that you "read better please," because you ask why developers would want to leave the App Store in reply to my post that pointed out the fact that major developers like Google and Facebook would be highly incentivized to leave the app store in order to avoid the new requirement that they ask users for permission before tracking and selling their data. This is also why this situation is not analogous to the google play store. Google isn't going to require developers to ask permission before tracking them and selling their data. Android doesn't have the same sort of standards and requirements to list apps in their store. 

Developers want to be on iOS because it's well documented that iOS customers are more likely to actually buy, subscribe and pay for things, but some of those developers clearly don't want to submit to the user protections that the App Store puts in place. So the want a third option, to get access to iOS users, but to avoid the App Store's user protections. So long as the walled garden stays in place, they can't have that, and that's exactly the thing that many iOS users are choosing when they buy an iPhone or iPad. So we don't want that taken away, and we don't buy silly arguments that taking it away won't change anything so we shouldn't worry our little heads over it.

Frankly it's difficult not to use your words in arguments against you, because you kind of keep setting yourself up for it.

ESL?  I don't say that dismissively.  I say it because you seem to lack an understanding of the words you're reading. 
1.  "For others, they gain options."  Other bud. Others not me.  Any time I've referenced myself I've done it directly.  In the context of this thread, every comment I've made here conforms to that.  I've even directly said I don't care either way.  To ignore that and reach the conclusions you did would require you to willfully disregard what I actually wrote and supplant it with your own meaning.  Which you seem to attempting.

2.  Again, me stating an alternate app store would have fringe use and little uptake is not advocating that the App Store be broken up.  That's an opinion about what would happen if there was an alternate App Store.  You really don't seem to know what advocating means.  

3.  Your bigger problem is a lack of nuanced thought and a dependency on the hyperbolic all-or-nothing. Others gaining options is not a binary.  If Susan decides she wants to dl an app from an alternate app store it wouldn't mean Karen somehow loses something on the App Store.  It also doesn't mean Susan has suddenly made the App Store less safe and secure.  There's no evidence supporting that thought process.  Previously stated, the Mac App Store runs safely and securely alongside alternate option.  Heck even jailbreaking has been available with alternate stores and iOS is still standing.  So I'm calling FUD on safety and security claim.

4. Bud, I acknowledged in two successive posts that large devs would be the only ones probably taking advantage of the backend processing or alternative app stores, while also pointing out that the vast majority of devs would remain in place on the App Store as is... cuz that's where the customers are.  That's where a willingness to spend is located.  Even if large devs did try to leave, there's no guarantee customers would follow.  It's more likely they wouldn't.  They'd have to do the same calculus as smaller devs: Would an alternate app store gain more revenue?  Again, as I said beore all available anecdotal evidence says nope.  It would not.  Customers by and large stick with what they know.  The only area where a large dev would confidently see a gain is if they did their own backend payment processing.  

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.

elijahg said:

First impression is wow that's expensive. The remote seems better though, which was one of my main complaints. Also, no use having a CPU "as powerful as an Xbox One" when all the games are graphically about the same as the first gen Xbox or PS2, and all but a few are nowhere near as immersive.

spliff monkey said:

neillwd said:

Hate the remote.

Came here to say exactly that. It reminds me of the old remotes before they used a touch pad. I dread “click, click, clicking” around m the screen rather than just a swipe which can get me to the other side of the screen in a single gesture. 

Thought I was the only one who liked and understood what the touch remote accomplished.