maximara
About
- Username
- maximara
- Joined
- Visits
- 35
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 328
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 409
Reactions
-
Epic Games vs Apple -- the whole story
I should mention the court in the California case outline two types of security:
“Narrow” Security: Malware
"Removing app distribution restrictions could reduce this effectiveness. First, app stores often differ in the quality of app review. On Android, which allows some third-party app stores, the main Google Play app store is secure, but a variety of third-party stores allow blacklisted apps to operate. A Nokia report attributes higher malware rates on Android to Trojan app:on third-party app stores. This creates a problem because, as Dr. Rubin opined, "security is only as strong as the weakest link." 527 Decentralized distribution thus increases the risk of infection giving malware more opportunities to leak through. (..) Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."
“Broad” Security: Privacy, Quality, Trustworthiness(...)
Thus, the Court finds that app distribution restrictions increase security in the “broad” sense by allowing Apple to filter fraud, objectionable content, and piracy during app review while imposing heightened requirements for privacy." Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21
Hoeg Law two insanely long playlists if you want to have lawyer who won't make your eyes glaze over that to legalize explain this case: An Antitrust Epic and Epic v Apple: Just the Trial I found them very helpful at getting a more rounded idea what was going on.
EPips game plan should worry people more than anything Apple supposedly did:
"What the world really needs now is a single store that works with all platforms," Sweeney said in an interview with Bloomberg. "Right now software ownership is fragmented between the iOS App Store, the Android Google Play marketplace, different stores on Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, and then Microsoft Store and the Mac App Store."
Epic's plan to clean up that confusion is to come up with a system enabling users "to buy software in one place, knowing that they'd have it on all devices and all platforms."
One Epic App to rule them all - a Sauron for a new age. :-)
-
Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker
There have been several attempts already. Even South Korea didn't go as far as to force side loading and every bill in the US to do this has either spectacularly failed (North Dakota), pulled from the voting calendar because it was clear it would fail (Arizona) or went to committee where 90% of all bills die. As the EU's Digital Services Act shows such legislation is just as likely to limit customer choice as help it and it seems to be less about helping the consumers than 'let's stick it to the US Companies' ie a form of protectionism dressed up as "helping the consumer".DAalseth said:
Even if this lawsuit goes nowhere, there is legislation from the US, the EU, and many other countries that will force them to open up iOS and iPadOS to side loading. Apple can fight the tide and lose, or control the outcome and ride the wave. Their choice.Marvin said:
The arguments against Apple amount to nothing, it doesn't matter how bitter people are about it. Apple doesn't have a majority marketshare, Android does and they allow 3rd party stores. Apple allows access to the internet unrestricted and software can run either via the web or streamed. Not that it matters, people keep making the same stupid argument about an iPhone being a general purpose product, every product is designed by its manufacturer whether it's a smart TV, a console, a phone, a PC and they have a right to design it how they want with security restrictions on native software. If a manufacturer designs a Windows PC that can only run a single store and gains a 30% marketshare, it's not anticompetitive if people can buy an alternative product. If they gained a 90% marketshare, it might be different but it likely wouldn't gain that kind of marketshare if it was restrictive.DAalseth said:Apple has a choice. They can either keep fighting this battle to the bitter end and, if what has happened over the last year is any indication, get something really bad imposed on them. Or they can accept where this is going, get out ahead and control the result. The world has changed. Attitudes have changed. Apple needs to change too or they will have something bad for them and their customers forced upon them.
It’s far better to control the landing than to fight to stay aloft and end up stalling and crashing.
The original argument was about Fortnite being accessible on iOS without Apple's control, it can be accessed via the cloud, this was always an option via a browser and here it is currently running on iOS:
Apple doesn't set the prices for in-app purchases. No developers have been monetarily harmed by Apple. Here's the letter they are presenting:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/States-amicus-brief-for-Epic-v-Apple-appeal.pdf
They talk about the ruling undermining antitrust law but they aren't being honest about what their motives are. For a lot of these politicians, this is about Parler being removed from the store, getting retribution for it and laying groundwork for it not happening again and for some it will be Apple not allowing backdoors on iPhones. They want the ability to install backdoors on iPhones without Apple's permission. There was an article today about this:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/01/28/fbi-considered-using-pegasus-spyware-for-us-domestic-surveillance
The proposed legislation has been specifically targeted at companies with over 50m US store users to deliberately target it at Apple and Google. If it ever moves ahead, Apple can easily block access to the store in the 34 states that pushed for this to get the number to stay below 50m. If it moves ahead and they choose to go the route of allowing 3rd party stores instead, they can just create an entirely closed off sandbox for each store possibly running a separate copy of the OS in a VM so that malware is isolated from the boot capability of the device.
Apple has plenty of options to go for but before this is even worth considering, the complainants have to prove what they are arguing about - that Apple is stifling competition and harming developers and users. They haven't demonstrated this at all. The fact Fortnite is currently capable of running on iOS without Apple doing anything discredits the entire argument.
-
Epic vs. Apple takes new turn as 34 US states & DOJ side with 'Fortnite' maker
"Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I’m not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington" - White House and 35 US states support Epic Games antitrust appeal against AppleDogperson said:List all the states so people can contact their representatives. Actually do something about this BS.
Or go on your state gov website and look at pending legislation!
The crazy thing is the California court could only use state law to claim anything for Epic - on every Federal guideline they found for Apple. That is why I suspect this might be little more than political pandering as I can't see the Ninth Circuit overruling the California court. Never mind any legislation could turn into a 'let's open up everything' boondoggle.
-
FTC's lawsuit trying to break up Meta will go on
What grounds would the FTC even have to break up Apple? Apple is in no way a monopoly as even the California court in the Epic case said that. In fact, the only thing the California judge could give Epic was by using a really gonzo interpretation of a law that a business lawyer said will likely wouldn't survive appeal (the Ninth circuit put that part of the ruling on hold meaning Epic has basically got nothing).slow n easy said:I will be very disappointed if they try to break up Apple.
Never mind that if the FTC really wanted to do its freaking job it would be doing something about the local cable/ISP company monopolies.
-
India antitrust regulator launches probe into Apple App Store payments
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. LibreOffice vs. Microsoft Office: How Does It Measure Up? takes look at both and shows that you can select what your UI is in LibreOffice. Best of yet you don't have to worry about Microsoft going 360 again and forcing you to pay a yearly fee. As for GIMP there are ways to make it look just like Photoshop. Besides I didn't mention GIMP but rather GraphicConverter which I notice you avoided like crazy.danox said:
LibreOffice is a Microsoft office clone is worthless (it’s birthplace is Linux and it shows), its claim to fame is similar to Gimp on a Mac which is also worthless both have a U.I. From 1997…maximara said:
I guess this person has never heard of Libreoffice which along with its variants or about GraphicConverter which are still being updated today and are insanely old (1999 and 1992 respectively) There was no "rug" to pull out from under them by Keynote-Pages-Numbers going free as OpenOffice (what LibreOffice forked from) predates all of them. Only a totally ignorant consumer or one that thinks they "need" some obscure feature (that in reality they rarely use) would get a commercial word processing program when a free option has been around for 21 years. And one of the nicknames of GraphicConverter is "poorman's Photoshop"danox said:foregoneconclusion said:
Ridiculous comment. OF COURSE the "Apple's platform" and "Apple's rules" make a difference. Apple did create iOS/iPadOS/tvOS. Apple did create the App Store for iOS/iPadOS/tvOS. IMO, the legitimate issue per the App Store is NOT whether Apple can have control or make the rules, but more about whether Apple is living up to their public statements about how the App Store rules are applied. Are they really being enforced equally? Do certain developers get exceptions while others do not? Those kinds of questions make sense, but the stuff about "should Apple be allowed to have control of their own operating system or their own store" is ridiculous.gatorguy said:Does anyone still doubt that the AppStore model won't survive as currently done? All the "It's Apple's platform and Apple's rules" comments here over the past couple of years won't make one iota of difference. It's gonna change at both Google and Apple. And they will both still be ridiculously profitable after the changes that are being forced on them.
In life the big people/companies ie the (RICH) get further ahead by being flavored (see Google-Apple) 15 billion per year paid to Apple, and the free, subscriptions Apps by the big boys are slowly killing most of small companies. Apple making Keynote-Pages-Numbers free pulled the rug out from under many small to medium sized companies (in word processing in particular).
