crowley

bshank said:

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: I'm very sure she could have used that word, and would have in a different conversation on a different day.  She used other words that mean the same thing.  She is saying that Apple shouldn't use privacy and security as a shield against accusations of anti-competitive behaviour, directly implying that privacy and security are irrelevant considerations to anti-competitive behaviour.

If privacy/security is irrelevant, why did Vestager specifically mention privacy/security in regards to alternate app stores and side loading? It should be irrelevant both ways, yet she makes a point of providing her opinion about privacy/security still being available with alternate app stores and side loading as if that has relevance. 

It’s useless to attempt to have a discussion with him. He only digs his heels in further and will not relent on whatever is pro Vestager.

foregoneconclusion said:

crowley said: They aren't saying that security and privacy on iOS are synonymous with anticompetitive behaviour, they're saying that whether the system is secure and private is irrelevant to whether it is anticompetitive and shouldn't be part of the conversation.  

Vestager is capable of using the term "irrelevant" if that's what she means. Instead, she uses the phrase "shield against competition" when referencing Apple's security and privacy approach. 

entropys said:

CloudTalkin said:

AutigerMark said:

Still not live in the USA outside of a few cities and they are already moving on to Australia?

They're mapping Austria.  It's kind of like Australia 'cept the kangaroos wear lederhosen. 

I will tell a funny story.
An old Aussie friend of mine (tall, long haired surfing buddy one hell of a lot better looking than me) had obtained his doctorate in a particularly difficult science and moved to the USA to do a post doc at UC Berkeley. 

He was in a party one night and was helping in the kitchen. A couple of undergrad girls decided he was worth talking to:

Bimbo undergrad 1 ”Oh, I just luuuuve your accent! I could listen to it all da-ay”. Titter.

[mindless chit chat and it must be said, flirting, continues]

Bimbo undergrad 2 ”You speak English sooo well! How come?” Titter.

Post doc buddy “My family always spoke English at the dining table. We got quite good at it.”

Undergrads looked on, impressed.

ArchStanton said:

crowley said:

AppleZulu said:

crowley said:

Beats said:

crowley said:

The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

”developer tax”??
So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

…oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.

No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.

Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?

Apple.

Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 

You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 

davidw said:

If she knew the scope of how just how much third party app stores and side loading decreases privacy and security for the users, she might .... Think Different.