davidw
About
- Username
- davidw
- Joined
- Visits
- 187
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,752
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,195
Reactions
-
Apple appeals against EU mandate that it freely share its technology
chelin said:
Tell that to car or appliance makers.. all industries are regulated wherever they arerob53 said:Apple owns its products not the EU. The EU has no right to dictate to Apple how its products operate. As I’ve said before, the EU has every right to build their own platforms but it’s obvious they don’t have the ability or talent to design and manufacture anything people, including those in EU countries, want. It’s time to boycott everything made in the EU but I’m not so sure there’s actually anything they make I really want.Being "regulated" is not the same as forcing car and appliance makers to share their IP with their competitors in order to meet government regulations. There is a big difference between "regulating" industries for the safety and benefit of consumers and forcing companies to share their IP with their competitors that can't innovate on their own.The EU is not using the DMA to "regulate" industries. They are using the DMA as a license to steal from the most innovative US companies and giving it to the less innovative EU companies. In the name of "leveling the playing field".If the EU pass regulation in their auto industry stating that all gas autos must get 50 MPG (in city driving) in the next 3 years, without increasing emissions and only Mercedes were to meet that deadline by coming up with technology that allows their gas autos to get 50 MPG (in city driving), without sacrificing safety, horsepower or increasing emissions, would the EU force Mercedes to allow BMW and Porches to use their patented technology without compensating Mercedes? Or force Mercedes, at their cost, to adapt their technology to BMW and Porches engines? Just because you (and a few other clueless here) thinks that's what "regulating" an industry means and allows the government to do this?But if it were GM or Ford that came up with that technology, I can see the EU forcing GM and Ford to share that technology with EU auto makers like Mercedes, BMW, Porches, VW, etc. All the EU have to do to pass some BS act that makes the biggest US auto makers ........ "gatekeepers".Should the EU force Apple to use Android OS with their iPhones, so that iPhones are 100% interoperable with the 75% of the mobile phones made by the other phone makers?
-
Epic resubmits 'Fortnite' to the App Store for review, as its initial request seemingly ig...
mpantone said:
Yeah, however various courts have ruled that Apple has to open up their walled garden. Just ignoring Epic and letting things stay status quo is not compliant with those orders. Apple is in hot water right now because of their persistent behavior, dragging their feet, etc.apple4thewin said:I learned this in the 6th grade. It’s called a “Pocket Veto”. Apple doesn’t do anything about it, so they aren’t agreeing or denying it. So, can Apple really be at fault for it? They could just say they didn’t have the time to check into it.
And worse, Apple would have to ignore every single other app review request to make that "Sorry, didn't get around to it" excuse work. By selectively ignoring Epic's app review request is clear evidence of discriminatory behavior toward them. And judges typically dislike it when plaintiffs don't follow court orders.
Note that Apple does not have any "pocket veto" authority here. In the same way, you can't just speed down your street or ignore red traffic lights because you "did't have time to look at signs and lights."
If you were a landlord and had to evict a tenant for reasons that the courts agreed on, then you have every right to not consider renting out your unit again, to that former tenant. That's the "pocket veto" authority Apple have. It was Epic Games that sped down the block without looking at the signs and lights because they were too stupid to consider all of the consequences.
-
Epic resubmits 'Fortnite' to the App Store for review, as its initial request seemingly ig...
CrossPlatformFrogger said:I hope Apple continues to ignore Epic, not because I have anything against Fortnite being on the App Store, but this brings more attention to Apple and its abuse of its platform. So Apple, please carry on!FYI- This is what "...... abusing its platform" looks like.Apple (and Google) should ban Epic Games from their app stores, for life ..... for abusing its platform.
-
Prepare for a scam gold rush with the App Store changes
mike1 said:I said this in an earlier post, but I hope there will be an option in settings to choose the app store as the only place from which to download.Better yet, let Apple device users have a choice to install a version of their OS that do not allow for any installation of third party app stores. This way, there's no way they can be "phished" into installing a third party app store or have malware installed by way of security bugs in the coding added to the OS, that allows for third party app stores and the installation of apps from them. Apple can call this safer and more secure version ......... iOS "Classic". And one can change their choice at any time in the software update settings.Apple can publish how many of their users are on the new version of the OS that allows for third party app stores and how many are choosing to use the "Classic" version. This way developers can get an idea of how many potential customers there are, when they put their apps in a third party app store. Plus any malware taking advantage of the OS coding needed to install third party app stores and the installation of apps from them, will only affect users of the new version of the OS. Users that chooses to install the "Classic" version will still be more safe and secure.If Apple device users are given a choice, my bet is that the percentage of users that chooses to install the version of the OS that allows for third party app stores, will about mirror the percentage of users that jail breaks their Apple devices. Probably less than 10% now of days. And is why it's no coincidence that the Google Play Store market share is in the 90% range. Only about 10% of users (on both platforms) cares to or have a need to, install their apps from third party app stores (or by side loading).
-
App Store Freedom Act hopes to bring alternative app stores to US iPhones
sirdir said:
I think they can still get compensation. But why, I thought they sell phones. Why shouldn’t the OWNER of the phone have a choice where he licenses his software??docbburk said:All without compensation? That's what they are trying to do to Apple.The EU DMA and any similar bills, couldn't care less about any perceive rights of a mobile phone OWNER, to have a choice of where they license their software. These bills are not about the consumers. The DMA is NOT a consumer rights bill. Consumer protection is NOT one of its main goal. Any benefit to consumers is purely a side affect and is not a requirement when the commission go fishing for violations based on made up BS criteria that has never been proven to be the threshold limit for anti-competitiveness.The DMA is billed as a "fair" competition bill. It's goal to see the the 5 largest US tech companies competes on a level playing field by limiting their abilities to profit from their IP and by forcing them to give away their innovations to competitors, so they can better compete against the big 5 US tech companies. There is no requirement for companies that competes with the big 5 US tech companies, to invest in R&D, in order to better compete. Their R&D consist of being able to leach off the big 5 US tech companies by crying loud enough to the government about how "unfair" it is for the big 5 US tech companies to have the money and resources to innovate and then not share those innovations for free, with its competitors. WAH WAH cry the CEO of Spotify and Epic Games.As a consumer and the OWNER of a mobile phone, your choice of where you want to license software is limited by where the developers offer their software for licensing. Not on any consumer rights you might think you have in choosing where you want to license software. If a developer only develops for Android, an IPhone owner has no inherent rights to force the developer or Apple, to make that app available on iOS. If developers only wants to have their apps available in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store, the phone OWNERS has no choice to demand that the developers make their apps available for sideloading, because sideloading is how they want to license software.The phone OWNERs rights to choose where to license their software takes third place behind the developers rights to choose where to offer their software for licensing, which is behind the rights of the IP owners of the phone OS, to control and profit from their IP. The EU DMA goal is to erode the IP owners rights to control and profit from their IP, in order to benefit the developers perceived rights to profit from using others IP for free, on some not need to be proven and not required, premise that the phone OWNERS might also benefit.
