davidw

tehabe said:

mjtomlin said:

tehabe said:

Of course it is a standard, it has been a standard since it first appeared, even before iMessage was a thing. RCS is just the successor of MMS and SMS, not supporting it is a mistake. Also RCS could be the way to create interoperability between messengers. But Apple was never really good in accepting outside feedback.

Yes, but Google's version is not a standard version of RCS, it is an extension of RCS. Which is what they're pushing Apple to adopt.

Google is the new Microsoft when it comes to standards; "Embrace, Extend, Exterminate"

Source for that, Android Messages uses the RCS Universal Profile, if iOS would support this profile it would be able to sent and receive RCS messages, they would be like SMS and MMS messages, with the ability to also sent photos and other things. At the same time, Apple can remove the MMS support. The end to end encryption Google introduced is based on the Signal protocol, so also available for Apple to implement. The only reason Apple doesn't implement it is probably the same why it doesn't support Opus in an Ogg container or fixes the FLAC support for Music. And it is just a fact, iMessage is meaningless for me. I haven't received a single iMessage message so far.

gatorguy said:

lam92103 said:

Why would we want RCS? Specially when it offers no encryption at all. 

You're mistaken. Google's RCS has been end-to-end encrypted for some time now, and in a way that ensures even Google themselves can not read them. 
https://mashable.com/article/messages-android-end-to-end-encryption
https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10262381?hl=en#:~:text=End-to-end encryption is,and the phone you message.

crowley said:

Do Apple do this without informing developers?  And are developers able to set different price tiers for an app in different territories?

I’m sure the situation could be improved to give developers a bit more control over the sale of their own products, though Sweeney is obviously angling more for headlines than any actual positive change. 

For your first inquiry ...... No,      

 https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/09/20/apple-to-hike-app-store-prices-in-europe-and-other-countries-in-october

For your second ....... I imagine if a developer only sell their app (or a special version of one) in certain countries, then it's yes. They can price it as they wish. But if they sell the same app in more than one country, then the apps will cost the same in all those countries, with regards to currency exchange rates. 

If the same app cost significantly less in the US, than it does in the UK (or EU), what prevent a person (outside the US) from buying the same app in the US by using a VPN? 

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4033501

https://vpnxpert.com/how-to-download-app-with-vpn/

Users in the EU can use a VPN to avoid  VAT. but that could be illegal, if you get caught using a VPN for this purpose. But using a VPN to bypass geographical restrictions is legal for the most part. But might be against the policy of the company that owns the content. 

https://www.lifehack.org/536364/4-awesome-advantages-using-virtual-private-network-vpn

spheric said:

Madbum said:

spheric said:

Madbum said:

EU=Modern day communists in suits

Anything I don't like = communism. 

It's amazing how McCarthyism can still raise its perverse stink, seven decades and more than two generations later. 

Do you see USA telling BMW to make cars like GM?

Maybe you like communism?

That's probably the dumbest thing I'm going to read all day, I think. 

Do you mean like US regulators have been telling German manufacturers to build cars for many decades? 

European version: 

US version, with required double headlights and the ugly bumper-car bumpers completely ruining the gorgeous lines and the lightness of the design: 

Fuckin' Commies, those Americans. 

That's a poor example to compare to the EU forcing Apple to use the USB-C port on their devices, for the perceived benefit of reducing E-waste from chargers.

First of all, the US did not force Mercedes to design "ugly" bumpers. The regulation was that the auto had to survive a 5MPH crash test with no damages. The auto manufacturers could have use any design that worked. They were not forced to use the same standard bumper design.

Second, the 5MPH bumper served a real function. It had the real effect of reducing the cost auto repair for the consumers. There is no real reduction in E-Waste by forcing manufacturers to use a USB-C charging port on their devices. No USB-C charger comes with permanently attached cable. Why in the name of Hell do headphones, mice, keyboards and speakers need to use a USB-C port for charging? They have no need for fast data transfer. For these, a USB micro port for charging will serve exactly the same function as a USB-C port, when used with a USB-C charger. With no added E-waste from chargers.

And for the year of the Mercedes shown, Mercedes could have used single rectangular headlights (on each side). Granted maybe at the time, they might had to be the standard seal beam ones. But in 1984, the US did start allowing composite headlights with replaceable bulbs.

Here's a 1980 Ford Pinto with single rectangular seal beam headlights. And of course an "ugly" 5MPH bumper. It seems Mercedes copied the Pinto 5MPH bumper but not the single (on each side) rectangular headlight. Which they could have done in the mid eighties. So in the mid eighties, Mercedes had the choice of using on each side, a single round headlight, two round headlights, two rectangular headlights, a singe rectangular headlight and maybe headlights with replaceable bulbs. That a far cry from the US forcing Mercedes to use two round headlights in its design.  

https://www.ebay.com/itm/284722705224

Here's the 1984 Lincoln with the European composite headlights with replaceable bulb.
.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/a-brighter-idea

 more detail about the history of headlights in the US  - https://www.carid.com/articles/brief-history-of-sealed-beam-headlights-in-us.html

I'm willing to bet that if the EU was first to mandated autos survive a 5MPH crash test back in the 70's, you would claim how the EU was way ahead of its time by saving consumers money on the cost of auto repair. Even if it resulted in "ugly" bumpers. 

But I do agree that the Euro Mercedes were much more "sleeker" looking than the US models of the same year. 

  

Isn't Apple the one that has to (or suppose to) collect the VAT on their commission?

So a $1 App would cost the buyer $1.10, including the 10% VAT. So the total is split, Apple gets $.33 and the developer gets $.77. Apple gives the government $.03 for the 10% VAT on their commission and the developer gives $.07 for the 10% VAT. The government gets $.10 in VAT on the sale of $1. Apple ends up with $.30 and the developer ends up with $.70. 

VAT is like a sales tax on the buyers end but on the sellers end, there are other things going on. Basically, companies pays various VAT's before the sale and gets credit back when they collect it from the consumers. Too complicated for me to fully understand how it works.