elijahg

dysamoria said:

I’m surprised Lightning doesn’t carry digital audio. I wonder why I thought it did.

It does, that's the issue. The DAC in the AirPods Max apparently can't do 24 bit @ 96kHz. If it relied on an external DAC it could do any frequency and bitrate, as it would just be an analog signal. Seems like a bit of an oversight considering the price and audience. 

22july2013 said:

branewave said:

Apple may be able to settle with Epic out of court and dodge any ruling requiring them to make changes for everyone. E.g., would Epic pass up a deal from Apple to let their in app purchase mechanism in? Apple wouldn’t have to offer that same agreement to everyone. 

Yes, fair point, but that would mean Apple could no longer argue that it treats every developer equally. I think Apple thrives on being fair and bragging about it.

But it doesn't treat them all equally, as I have told you and provided proof for. 

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Why is loss of revenue for Apple listed as a Con? Doesn't that mean increased revenue for app developers or savings for Apple customers? Couldn't that be seen as a Pro?
Unless you are an Apple employee or shareholder, you should want lower costs for developers. That just encourages more apps to be developed. That even helps Apple as their products become more desirable. As far as loss of revenues or profits for Apple, why does it even matter at this point? Apple uses a lot of its profits to buy back its own shares in order to keep the price per share rising and make their stock options more valuable. That sounds like a Con to me. Apple should be heavily investing in new products and technologies but instead continues to hoard cash and buy back shares. A little struggle for income would do the company (and it's customers and developers) some good.

This is a big point that many here miss. They defend Apple as if it's a small struggling startup, when in fact the money it's hoarding goes to shareholders or sits in the bank doing nothing whatsoever; very little goes to R&D. Many here are very selfish, and only really interested in the short term gain of their shares rather than a greater long term increase. A small revenue cut from some App Store related activity will make zero difference to Apple, but could make a huge difference to consumers and developers. More developers on a platform is always better, similarly to bigger marketshare is always better; the bigger the Mac market for example the more developers that will develop for it, else we end up back in the 1990's cycle where there weren't enough Macs for developers to bother with, and not enough apps on Macs for people to use them in the mainstream.

Xed said:

elijahg said:

22july2013 said:

elijahg said:

Xed said:

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.

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? Not only have I never seen that it's a ridiculous idea to think that Sony could advertise cheaper prices at Walmart from within a Best Buy.

Do you know what I do when I want to save money on a purchase? I look for discounts instead of just expecting them to manifest, but maybe that's me and my lack of entitlement speaking.

That is not a good analogy, as Apple's control continues after the initial purchase has been made, whereas BestBuy has no control over products once sold. Better would be BestBuy controlling what channels someone could watch on their TV, removing or adding at their discretion post-purchase, and allowing adverts for things only available though BestBuy. Alternatively stipulating that someone who buys a DVD player at BestBuy can only play DVDs bought at BestBuy. Why should BestBuy choose what channels I watch? I could of course buy a DVD player from somewhere else, but then what about all those DVDs which only work with the BestBuy DVD player? See how it's not quite so favourable when put like that?

Using your analogy, people who buy Ford vehicles should be able to install new software to replace your Ford's software. Do you really think that's safe to replace a vehicle's control software? Do you think Ford should resist that, and can Ford invalidate its warranty for people who replace its software? Or are you going to say that smartphones don't have a concept called "safety"?

Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the brakes on their Ford themselves? Do you really think it's safe for someone to replace the engine on their Ford themselves? Or a bulb? Or change the windscreen wipers? No? Best get onto your senator to change the law then because it's 100% legal, and people do it all the time. When's the last time you heard of Ford getting blamed because of a botched brake replacement someone did at home? And that's a vehicle, something that could quite easily be deadly not only for the occupant but third parties if a component failed. Software on a phone? Nah.

Yes, just like replacing the battery or putting on a new screen protector is perfectly legal and doesn't void the warranty. Any more silly analogies that don't pertain to iOS and App Store security?

I assume you're talking to 22july2013 since he brought up cars. Jailbreaking is legal too by the way, and also doesn't void the warranty, but can be reduce security. And replacing the Ford's software is also legal. As is running a third party app store on iOS, like Cydia. If you can't see how user modifications to iOS affecting its "security" is so inconsequential compared to user modifications to a car, you have little hope of understanding this case nor why Apple's arguments over its security responsibility to its users is a smokescreen.

ppietra said:

Aren’t people forbidden from lying in court? At the very least he is blatantly trying to deceive the judge...
He says that review is not necessary because of iOS's built-in defences like sandboxing, and then goes on to say that the Mac is as secure as iOS.
 Guess what, SANDBOXING is not enforced on the Mac, like many other security features that he says are what makes iOS secure, are not enforced on the Mac. So clearly the Mac is not as secure as iOS using this supposed expert own criteria for security... Which makes his all argument that iOS could be like the Mac so false!!!!!

Yes, it is by default. Unlike iOS however, the user can bypass it on a per-app basis.