twolf2919

dewme said:

twolf2919 said:

I think the article is incorrect in stating Apple has 2 billion active users - it has two billion active devices.  Big difference.

Sure. What would you suggest as a more accurate measuring stick for number of users?

I do understand the difference. Some people like me have many Apple devices. But other households share Apple devices like HomePods, Apple TVs, and even iPads between family members. They’re definitely extrapolating from the one somewhat deterministic data point to one that is far less deterministic. They could have been more clear about their size being an estimate or approximation, but with such a large magnitude number it may be irrelevant to identifying the scope of the opportunity for growth. 

None of what you write is relevant.  There is no need to suggest a more accurate measure - the sentence written by the article's author would have been just as valid had they used the word 'devices' rather than 'users'.  But it would have been accurate.

I think the article is incorrect in stating Apple has 2 billion active users - it has two billion active devices.  Big difference.

Well written analysis.

Anti-trust laws clearly demand the government show the defendant to be a 'monopoly'.    US AG Merrit Garland himself defines monopoly as "the ability to set prices and exclude competition."    But clearly, before you can decide whether a company has these abilities, you have to define the market in which it supposedly has that ability - and that's where Garland is all over the map trying to obfuscate that in the only real market - that of smartphones - Apple clearly does NOT have a monopoly: worldwide it has only 20% of the market.  In the US, it's a bit over 50%.  And whether it's in the US or the rest of the world, Apple clearly doesn't have the ability to dictate prices - there are devices from $100 to $2000+ available in the market of smartphones.  And there are lots of companies selling them, so clearly Apple hasn't been able to exclude competitors!

What the DOJ is  really objecting to is Apple's ability to design its hardware and software and its ability to dictate to  companies that it lets onto its devices how much access they get to the underlying capabilities.  But in a capitalist society, it should not be the government's business to make business or technology decisions.  Apple has been very successful  with its decision to sell their products as simple-to-use, secure, elegant, and performant devices that integrate seamlessly.  As its success indicates, Apple customers have wholeheartedly bought into this combination - why is the government siding with the supposed "competitors" - which are actually just software and accessory companies Apple allowed onto their platform in the first place?

I am not suggesting Apple is perfect.  For instance, Apple did create an "app" market on its platform.  Its built-in apps should not get more access to the underlying platform than other apps attempting to provide the same features!  E.g. Apple's own Safari browser currently has access to Apple Pay, but I don't think Chrome or other browsers do (although I didn't actually check that).  The problem with the DOJ suing Apple on these grounds, is that it quickly becomes murky whether something is an "app" or a built-in operating system feature.   Using the same example of "Apple Pay", is that itself an app or a payment feature built into iOS?

I agree with the author that the DoJ doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. The only thing the DOJ has going for it is the fact that judges - especially on the Supreme Court - are elderly folks (just like the politicians in Washington) with not a flimsy grip on the technologies they need to adjudicate over.

Well written analysis of this ridiculous DoJ action.  But I think in one of your rebuttals to the DoJ claim regarding iPhone preventing 3rd-party apps  in messaging, you ignore a key phrase you even include yourself:  "from sending or receiving carrier-based messages,"  None of the apps you say have no problems being on iPhone - you point to WhatsApp - have the ability to send/receive *carrier-based message* - i.e. SMS/MMS.  At least as far as I know.

While definitely a vulnerability, I wish the author had highlighted how difficult it is to exploit.   Just telling me that the attack "must also be used on the same chip cluster as the cryptographic target app in order to function, and both must use the efficiency cores or the performance cores at the same time" doesn't really tell me that.  It sure sounds very esoteric - I'm not running a cluster on my MacBook (cluster of one?) nor do I really know what a 'cryptographic target app' means.

As most attacks, this requires you - at the very least - to download and run an app of unknown origin.  Don't do that.