ArchStanton
About
- Banned
- Username
- ArchStanton
- Joined
- Visits
- 5
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 378
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 200
Reactions
-
Lobbying group backed by Apple and Google rails against Open App Markets Act
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.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.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.
-
Apple to spend millions on outreach, relocation for homeless living on its San Jose land
I do know about it. From Gilroy up to Brisbane over to Pleasanton and down to Santa Clara County. Apple may be paying for it but this isn't an Apple problem, no serious person would actually think that. This is a city and county government problem. And you could quadruple the amount you'd relish Apple to pay directly to this and it is going to substantially change anything. And that is a story repeated for many years now. Never mind the pervasive underpinning issues, even 50% LTV equity real property primary residence in the Bay Area will require a cost to sustain and maintain that people without very substantial gainful employment will be unable to meet. And the response has been to put more money into the same thing, a feel good headline, while factually the problem has gotten worse (the laughably smug speak of this not being Flint Michigan aside).mpantone said:
One thing for certain: you don't know squat about SF Bay Area real estate.sflocal said:"Millions" for 35-70 people? Go figure.
The people throwing money at the homeless problem must be the same running the San Francisco money-pit as well.
Small properties (like 1 bedroom condos) in much of Santa Clara County run around $700-800 per square foot. Even a small rental unit -- like a 400 sq. ft. studio (which don't really exist) -- for two years would probably run around $1200 per month.
Much of the "reasonably" priced real estate in the area dates from the housing boom of the late Sixties and early Seventies, mostly apartments and condo conversions, maybe ranging from a low $500/sq. ft. in the less expensive neighborhoods to $1000/sq. ft. in upscale neighborhoods like Palo Alto (their public school system drives up the price).
The article specifically states that Apple is also including some funding for healthcare (super expensive) and financial help.
It's not like they are going to relocate these people to Flint, Michigan and dumping them in tenements.
So yeah, "millions" for 35-70 people isn't so far fetched. But you don't know anything about cost of living in the SF Bay Area, specifically Santa Clara County, that is for sure.
Apple and Google and Intel etc finding a few private and actual solvers of this problem to provide substantial donation is the only thing that may alleviate the real problem. Otherwise this is just window dressing that pushes the issue down the road while smug people felt swell because Apple paid more and got a headline.
-
Lobbying group backed by Apple and Google rails against Open App Markets Act
Big fan? Huh, my memory must be bad on that. Thought I’d Been reading recent posts from you on your dislike of Apple policy, dislike Apple’s file pro, etc. Maybe I’m thinking of someone else.dee_dee said:I’m a pretty big Apple fan, but when someone pays $1000 + for a phone, they deserve the right to do what they want with it. I will still use the App Store, and I’m sure lots still will. But if someone wants to side load god knows what and is fine with the risk then go right ahead.Regardless, devices and software are routinely built with safety mechanisms. Circumvent them and you void certain EULAs etc. As the other poster said, those people are frequently the first to cry for warranty protection.
But even more so, Apple is very very upfront that they intend to take as much risk out of the user usage process as possible. As simple, safe, and reliable as possible. What a concept right? They’ve done that. Obviously many many of us like and appreciate that. That’s what Apple sells and does so very upfront about it. Numerous times they’ve even blocked what others allow across a number of differing things, even passing up greater short term sales, in order to stick to keeping it as simple reliable and secure for users. Even better, For users who don’t like that, they have the numerous alternative just one display case over. It’s much more free to do what you want. Yet oddly some people, even a rare big fan of Apple, insists Apple has to get back the engineering table, design it to better open up, and get that Apple to stop selling it the way they think is best to sell it.
-
Lobbying group backed by Apple and Google rails against Open App Markets Act
Total posts 1 for “JohnDinEU”. Nothing but a Troll. If any problem needs addressing its trolls who have a single mission to disinform (a.k.a. Harm) those using what would otherwise be (and should be) the greatest tool for information, the internet.JohnDinEU said:Apple (and Google) are way too strong for anyone’s liking, incl the App Store. I remember the old days where Steve was on every platform to complain about, mostly, Microsoft. These days it’s Tim’s shop that stops every competition and we the consumers are paying for it (sometimes with our lives). Of course there need to more places to get Apps, or like in the old days, download directly from a website. The argument that Apple keeps us safe is since two weeks out of the window anyway because Journo’s and political activists were killed because Apple was sleeping at the wheel.Apple “stops every competition”. Almost all Apple products are hugely copied and marketed on the planet. Nothing wrong with that, imitation is the finest form of flattery. But it completely squashes this Trolls lie. Chances are good he is from a troll farm whose reason for spreading this lie is to help a product that is in competition with Apple.
-
Samsung's new Galaxy Watch 4 models are not iOS compatible
Companies can't just throw money down a hole. Samsung has a VP of the Watch department. Samsung requires this person to have a plan with metrics and projections that show a viable profitability. Mr VP says "well we sold 25,000 watches to iPhone users. Mr VP's boss says 'and you are spending millions for iPhone development? You're fired'.p-dog said:These Samsung watches, which have a tiny share of the wearables market, are limiting themselves even more by shutting themselves off from the dominant smart phone platform in many wealthy markets. Coincidentally, the Apple Watch, the #1 selling watch in the world, is becoming, albeit slowly, ever more independent of the iPhone. Which one is the winning strategy? Hmmm…
Apple Watch may be more usable elsewhere but the top of the mountain is having an iPhone with the AWatch. Other than specific triathletes and similar prolonged training sessions, I think someone is just not thinking it through if they have an iPhone -- then buy a smart watch that isn't Apple.
