elijahg

InspiredCode said:

elijahg said:

mobird said:

twice as nice, at twice the price...  

Twice? Gotta be 4x at least!

Sounds about right

Stands $1000 ea qty 2
Crossbar $2000
=
$4000

Maybe it's hand polished by Cook himself?

mobird said:

twice as nice, at twice the price...  

Twice? Gotta be 4x at least!

AppleZulu said:

elijahg said:

AppleZulu said:

mjtomlin said:

AppleZulu said:

mjtomlin said:

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices. 

Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.

I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered. 

I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.

The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position. 

That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.

Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU. 

That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.

Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start.
Allowing for side-loading will be next.

Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS. 

Um. Ok. Not exactly sure how turning on an option to allow side loading on my iPhone affects the security of your iPhone? Would you care to explain?

Adding a back door to the OS is an added vulnerability, even for those who intend to keep it closed. 

If you want that option built in, buy an Android phone. You already have a choice.  Don’t take away my choice to own a more secure device. 

You obviously don't understand the definition of back door. You also seemed to conveniently miss my question as to why iOS isn't riddled with malware due to the fact that iOS already allows sideloading of apps, and the process of sideloading has yet to be exploited. Bit of a catastrophe for your argument right there. You are in fact already using a device that according to you, is less secure. Damn, better bin that iPhone!

I didn't miss it. I said it's not a serious question.

Please enlighten me. You say iOS already allows side loading of apps. Please clearly describe what you mean by that. What side loading does Apple actually allow and how is that accomplished?

Next, please explain, if side loading is already allowed, why are people insisting that Apple needs to allow side loading of apps? Instead of coming at me, shouldn't you be offering those folks some convenient links and instructions on how they can already do the thing they want to do? Are they asking for something different than what you say is already allowed, and if so, what is the difference?

It is a rather serious question, since your whole argument hinges on malware, claiming Apple shouldn't allow sideloading because iOS would end up less secure, except they already do, and it isn't. So now that's cleared up, I ask again, why is it iOS isn't riddled with malware as you claim it would be since sideloading is, in fact, allowed?
 
Here you go: https://jilaxzone.com/2020/04/20/complete-guide-how-to-sideload-any-app-game-into-iphone-ipad-works-with-latest-ios-no-jailbreak-is-required/

Further than the above link, why should I do their (and your) research for them/you? I already know sideloading exists, perhaps you should have checked prior to making other claims. There are no third party app stores that can be side-loaded however, for several certificate based reasons that I won't go into here, but you can do your research, since it's you claiming sideloading is not allowed and will reduce security, not me. I didn't know that people were insisting Apple allowed sideloading, you're the first to mention it and incorrectly state that it's not allowed. People want a third party App Store, that is not the same as sideloading.

Oh - and why is it you think you should have a right to take away the choice of others to have an iPhone with a third party app sore (or sideloading), so you can have things your way instead?

goodbyeranch said:

avon b7 said:

This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices. 

No.

Let me break it down for you. Apple makes a platform. It is theirs. No one elses. They can provide other people access to that platform (or not) and dictate the terms. Dont like the terms? Then move along. There are other platforms. The end.

Let me provide an example of why your statement is wrong. Microsoft makes a platform, Windows. It is theirs. No one else's. Microsoft tried to stop Netscape using their platform. Regulators told Microsoft that was illegal and forced MS to allow Netscape to operate freely on their platform. There were platforms other than Windows at the time, but Microsoft still lost the case and had to allow Netscape access to their platform. The end. Does that help your understanding?

Python is broken too, third party modules link against libraries that no longer exist on disk and fail to start. Apple knew about this before the Big Sur developer betas, they submitted a patch to the Python repo which was subsequently merged, but then Apple shipped an old unpatched version of Python with Big Sur. A common use case is Python with pyserial to communicate with various third party peripherals, and that's broken completely without manually installing a newer version of Python.