ArchStanton

dewme said:

If employees at Apple (or any other company) are not happy with what they are doing and have a hard time dragging themselves out of bed to take on the daily grind - they should absolutely move on to something they think is more to their liking. This is a 100% positive scenario for both the employee and the employer. I don't know why anyone would view this as anything other than a win-win situation. 

Let's not turn this into a soap opera, this is just what happens when we are living in a strong economy with high demand for certain people with certain skills. If we were in a deep recession and big tech companies were slashing and burning through their workforce with mass layoffs we'd be seeing the other side of the pendulum swing. Employees would be keeping their heads down, cranking out the work, and sucking up their grievances to make sure they can still make their mortgage payments.

You can invent or attach all kinds of your own rationale or forced narratives to these cyclical swings, but you're just making stuff up and playing silly games with yourself as the only interested party. Nothing to see here, other than the pendulum swinging widely in favor of certain people with certain marketable skills playing their cards for maximum gain. Let's hope it lasts.

APPLE2c-1984 said:

ArchStanton said:

APPLE2c-1984 said:

ArchStanton said:

APPLE2c-1984 said:

Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
Regardless of ideas, the lack of them is the only common point in most posts regarding this matter. There may be people who find this so important they signed up to comment - you are very welcome. This was all very obvious for a very long time now, especially since the Epic attack on Apple. Iv been a dedicated Apple Insider for twenty years now and commenting for a decade, so for some of us this has been widely debated. But again it seems crucial for non-trolls to realize the sheer size and scope of this matter.

1 - Anti-Trust laws are there for a reason, and we wouldnt have Apple now if they hadnt been upheld before.
People attacking the regulator approach will always have the option to keep exactly the same phone usage, only further options will be available to the rest.

2 - Security downgrade claims are blatantly fallacious, when what is being advocated by common sense here is simply allowing the same App Store sandboxing magic to other app stores.
If Apple simply curates third-party app stores like it does its apps, its phenomenal security will be remain just the same for the former.

That’s personal trolling. It can be bad. There’s also astroturfed trolls. The astroturf trolls typically can be identified from the ongoing basis of their posting content. Just as a random example, say an Apple fan site, the poster is repeatedly posting anti Apple messaging. This kind of trolling also can be seen, as another example, in the ratings section of Amazon. Astroturfed trolls specifically posting purposeful messaging ratings meant to sway users/customers over to their ultimate sponsor. 

The glib anti trust argument again? Is your idea of anti trust to law fare or legislate what you don’t like?. Real history: varying elements of the Sherman act have been applied rarely considering its age. Not even Microsoft could be found as a monopoly and harmful to consumers (which it was as close to that as one could get in the modern age). An underpinning of Sherman was its bar to establish harm to consumers. That’s purposeful in order to keep regulation as much as possible out of the market. See, you say more regulation is why there is Apple, I say less regulation is why there is an Apple. More regulation makes one just another country that waiting for someone else to come up with the idea->to market. Too many barriers in the already difficult two step process means, likely, someone else will do it. 

Regardless, you are arguing sideloading is a big consumer harm and makes Apple….a monopoly? Seriously? And that the App Store that keeps scams, spyware etc away from an internet that, fairly stated, is loaded with these nefarious things, and the apps are mostly free. Yep, that sounds like pure Sherman, a real ongoing and big harm to consumers. The App Store is clearly Standard Oil all over again. Obviously I am laying the sarcasm on thick to make the point. What also makes the point is you have to go write laws tailored specifically at Apple to get this BIG sideloading consumer harm and BIG App Store consumer harm fixed. I emphasize big as I’m sure you wouldn’t be advocating for these really smart politicians writing a law aimed specifically at one company to stop something that isn’t a BIG harm to consumers, right? This isn’t to write a law that fixes a problem-ish sorta thing. You wouldn’t advocate for that would you?

Much of your claim is demonstrably fallacious:
The Appeal to Authority “I’m a 20 year Apple Insider and 10 year poster”. That is a good thing for you personally but means absolutely nothing on the point of discussion. 
The Tradition Fallacy: they’ve always done it (anti trust) so it’s ok to do it here. 

The Circular Logic Fallacy: it wouldn’t hurt consumer security (it demonstrably would) because the App Store 2 and 3 would be exactly the same as the App Store and Apple would oversee the security of App Store 2 and 3. Oh lord. But you just slipped up BIG time, you just admitted Apple’s App Store IS a benefit to consumers because of safety. You’re own words. Did you notice that? Washington DC Headline: “phenomenal security” for consumers of the App store to be expanded by keeping Apple in charge of stores opened by act of Congress. (Oh lord)

Now consider: most Apps are free, guidelines for being added to the App Store are universal, an app maker can have a web page for transactions (See: Kindle) so this huge user base distribution of the app costs 100$ Apple fee, there are thousands and thousands of Apps from numerous developers — and by your own words Apple makes it safe. 

This is what needs an act of Congress to save consumers? John Sherman is rolling over in his grave. 

Btw, pass all the custom aimed laws you want, if you can.. Look forward to the big court battle that has a solid chance to be tied up for multiple years. 

im gonna go out on a limb here and trust you are not intentionally trolling.

Sharing my loyalty years to this platform and brand is meant to make it very clear that ill take no lessons from anyone about defending Apple. Steve Jobs changed my life so many times, up until his very funeral day, that taking shit from people is ok as long as i feel like i contributed.

I dont know how old you are but Microsoft was found to be transgressing anti-trust laws, not sure what you are going on about. Not only that, but many biographies and behind the scenes tales make it very clear that these laws were the only thing that prevented Microsoft destroying Apple when they could (and tried).

I am not asking about anti-trust laws, i am telling you that Apple will be condemned for this and when this happens our beloved company better be ready. Dont think so? No problem. Go through my past posts here and you will notice that theres is always someone like you in each. But they never come back or remember when they realise they were talking out of their

I don't know why you would have to "go out on a limb". That in itself could be considered trolling isn't it? Maybe just as "I don't know how old you are" and "there is always someone like you". So I'll go out on a limb, too, and assume you aren't purposefully trolling, and respond, again , with factual information. (side note:  I was pointed in some of my responses. Maybe I should have been less so),

Regardless, facts are facts. Sherman has factually been used sparing for its age.  Also, despite my age (which is older, you can read my previous posts to see of my employment at Apple in the 80s), the DOJ investigated the Microsoft case for a number of years, The case was ultimately brought circa 2000, Microsoft was found by first judge to be "transgressing anti-trust laws" (in violation of the Sherman Act, fyi) only for that to be reversed by an appeals judge. The judgement was nullified, a.k.a. Microsoft had been legally decreed as not being in violation of Sherman. From there the parties would choose to settle the ongoing, many many year case. Since this particular case was foundational predicated on Browsers, Microsoft agreed to, essentially, put their browser in the back corner with included other browsers. Yet Microsoft would not see their dominance in PC OS market wane. They certainly would continue to carry a big club to keep it dominant. Yet their clear dominance would be factually removed by the open market -- i.e. Android and iOS/mobile computing Os would come along.  DOJ's action had a small material effect in Microsoft's overwhelming dominant position as PC OS. it would be the advent of these mobile OSs that would see them ebb in the computing OS market. (pretty good explanation for someone my age?). Interesting side note about the US/States case against Microsoft: it is the first time that a company had openly been shown to have paid trolls -- i.e. paid actors to go onto the internet to push a POV. To me it's shocking people would be upset from this obvious reality of what company and organizations and governments would do to control opinion. 

If you believe Apple will be "condemned", that is an opinion, speculation, of what may be. There is nothing fact based about that. I don't agree but mine is also purely speculation. I base this on many points; we can use US v Microsoft. MS looked real bad but it didn't change sales, The media circle jerk has a short memory, they always move on to something else, they moved on from MS. They will move on from Apple.

In your previous post you did say the argument was "fallacious" (root: fallacy) did you not?  
I gave specific examples of 'fallacy' you used (you did factually use appeal to authority). Instead of accusing my of anything whatsoever, it is very easy to respond with information to dispute it. No need to go out on a "limb".  
Was that any better for "some like" me?

Hey. i didnt mean to disrespect u, i apologise. it was hard to tell, with all possible respect - and if you were following the news then u may remember - because what im talking about can be easily verified before replying. and it seems crucial for this case. and of course my contribution is my opinion, i come here precisely to look for mind opening contributions from all, dont u? Microsofts case constitutes precisely, and adds to jurisprudence that traditionally has been, and may very likely be the basis for this court decision.

Microsoft was forced to stop defaulting IE (Internet Explorer) and drop all shenanigans preventing competition from working well.
while the latter kept going and going Bill Gates III style (by the way so curious his names math in ASCII).. in many ways that started the demise of that pos software, and if you remember the Mac experience with browsers in those days, thank God for that. The reasoning was that while Microsoft was not a monopoly by definition in the computer market, inside its ecosystem it had to create fair opportunity for competition to avoid incurring in vertical monopolistic behaviour. Furthermore it was proven with time that in fact Microsoft was not the best browser developer, to say the least, and in fact today other developers and revenue-models thrive where before this was extremely difficult, purposely, Microsoft style.

If you take this work frame to the present case, it all fits almost perfectly in every way.

Microsoft argued that IE was intrinsically part of Windows then, and that to change this was diminishing its offer and its users experience.
Turns out it wasnt. far from this, as with all free market settings, expansiveness prevailed. Thing is EPIC, and Spotify, and iv lost count of the many others, are all looking at this through their belly buttons, in a very dumb way, arguing about fees when in that department there is absolutely no basis for an anti-trust claim. that is not the issue, and Apple has managed to deal with this much better than Microsoft did (here too), but the truth of the matter is that the people working for the regulator are not as dumb, and have likely realised the real issue in terms of anti-trust legislation: the necessity for Apple to guarantee its trademark safety for 3rd party app stores. Because just like IE was not inseparable from Windows like Microsoft claimed, so isnt the App Store framework in regards to iOS security. that is just bs, and that will come out. rather than discussing whether or not this is the case, im sharing that Apple could right away share its sandboxing facilities (kind of like it already does with test Flight beta testing "store") with 3rd-party app stores, and entirely dismiss this anti-trust case. Because if they dont, the regulator will not be so kind and will likely separate the App Store from Apple as a way to break the verticality. This has happened before. And that, fellow Apple supporter, is for me the worse that can happen to us in terms of user experience and safety. better make it so and accept that they had a good run financially, and deservedly so for the past decade or so. Reminds me of Googles response to all pressures to go public: when it finally gave in, they posted that "there is enough for everyone" song.  and such is the case. Apple can charge whatever it likes, but the user is by law entitled to purchase elsewhere as it pleases them. And whoever wants to use the iPhone the same, can just go on using it the same!.. nothing changes for those who dont want this.. so i cant understand for the life of me this discussion in that sense..

because it is precisely if Apple doesnt open the market of its own free will asap, that the regulators decision may very well fck up our beloved user experience.

APPLE2c-1984 said:

ArchStanton said:

APPLE2c-1984 said:

Trolling is attacking a poster rather than presenting intelligent arguments and discussing.
Regardless of ideas, the lack of them is the only common point in most posts regarding this matter. There may be people who find this so important they signed up to comment - you are very welcome. This was all very obvious for a very long time now, especially since the Epic attack on Apple. Iv been a dedicated Apple Insider for twenty years now and commenting for a decade, so for some of us this has been widely debated. But again it seems crucial for non-trolls to realize the sheer size and scope of this matter.

1 - Anti-Trust laws are there for a reason, and we wouldnt have Apple now if they hadnt been upheld before.
People attacking the regulator approach will always have the option to keep exactly the same phone usage, only further options will be available to the rest.

2 - Security downgrade claims are blatantly fallacious, when what is being advocated by common sense here is simply allowing the same App Store sandboxing magic to other app stores.
If Apple simply curates third-party app stores like it does its apps, its phenomenal security will be remain just the same for the former.

That’s personal trolling. It can be bad. There’s also astroturfed trolls. The astroturf trolls typically can be identified from the ongoing basis of their posting content. Just as a random example, say an Apple fan site, the poster is repeatedly posting anti Apple messaging. This kind of trolling also can be seen, as another example, in the ratings section of Amazon. Astroturfed trolls specifically posting purposeful messaging ratings meant to sway users/customers over to their ultimate sponsor. 

The glib anti trust argument again? Is your idea of anti trust to law fare or legislate what you don’t like?. Real history: varying elements of the Sherman act have been applied rarely considering its age. Not even Microsoft could be found as a monopoly and harmful to consumers (which it was as close to that as one could get in the modern age). An underpinning of Sherman was its bar to establish harm to consumers. That’s purposeful in order to keep regulation as much as possible out of the market. See, you say more regulation is why there is Apple, I say less regulation is why there is an Apple. More regulation makes one just another country that waiting for someone else to come up with the idea->to market. Too many barriers in the already difficult two step process means, likely, someone else will do it. 

Regardless, you are arguing sideloading is a big consumer harm and makes Apple….a monopoly? Seriously? And that the App Store that keeps scams, spyware etc away from an internet that, fairly stated, is loaded with these nefarious things, and the apps are mostly free. Yep, that sounds like pure Sherman, a real ongoing and big harm to consumers. The App Store is clearly Standard Oil all over again. Obviously I am laying the sarcasm on thick to make the point. What also makes the point is you have to go write laws tailored specifically at Apple to get this BIG sideloading consumer harm and BIG App Store consumer harm fixed. I emphasize big as I’m sure you wouldn’t be advocating for these really smart politicians writing a law aimed specifically at one company to stop something that isn’t a BIG harm to consumers, right? This isn’t to write a law that fixes a problem-ish sorta thing. You wouldn’t advocate for that would you?

Much of your claim is demonstrably fallacious:
The Appeal to Authority “I’m a 20 year Apple Insider and 10 year poster”. That is a good thing for you personally but means absolutely nothing on the point of discussion. 
The Tradition Fallacy: they’ve always done it (anti trust) so it’s ok to do it here. 

The Circular Logic Fallacy: it wouldn’t hurt consumer security (it demonstrably would) because the App Store 2 and 3 would be exactly the same as the App Store and Apple would oversee the security of App Store 2 and 3. Oh lord. But you just slipped up BIG time, you just admitted Apple’s App Store IS a benefit to consumers because of safety. You’re own words. Did you notice that? Washington DC Headline: “phenomenal security” for consumers of the App store to be expanded by keeping Apple in charge of stores opened by act of Congress. (Oh lord)

Now consider: most Apps are free, guidelines for being added to the App Store are universal, an app maker can have a web page for transactions (See: Kindle) so this huge user base distribution of the app costs 100$ Apple fee, there are thousands and thousands of Apps from numerous developers — and by your own words Apple makes it safe. 

This is what needs an act of Congress to save consumers? John Sherman is rolling over in his grave. 

Btw, pass all the custom aimed laws you want, if you can.. Look forward to the big court battle that has a solid chance to be tied up for multiple years. 

im gonna go out on a limb here and trust you are not intentionally trolling.

Sharing my loyalty years to this platform and brand is meant to make it very clear that ill take no lessons from anyone about defending Apple. Steve Jobs changed my life so many times, up until his very funeral day, that taking shit from people is ok as long as i feel like i contributed.

I dont know how old you are but Microsoft was found to be transgressing anti-trust laws, not sure what you are going on about. Not only that, but many biographies and behind the scenes tales make it very clear that these laws were the only thing that prevented Microsoft destroying Apple when they could (and tried).

I am not asking about anti-trust laws, i am telling you that Apple will be condemned for this and when this happens our beloved company better be ready. Dont think so? No problem. Go through my past posts here and you will notice that theres is always someone like you in each. But they never come back or remember when they realise they were talking out of their