ranson

aderutter said:

They can choose the real App Store so no problem. They should be grateful to Apple. 

These are developers who spend weeks and weeks of their own time, receiving absolutely no compensation (and even having to fork over $100 to Apple for a developer account) to create a FREE APP that will never make them a penny. But yes, they should be so grateful to Apple for hopefully letting their app go in to the Apple-blessed App Store. And they won't even know if it is blessed until after they have spent those weeks completing/submitting the app and Apple has had a chance to review it. And all that work could be for naught if Apple rejects it on a whim.

And so they should be grateful to Apple if it is approved for the official App Store? No. Apple, and the people who would use the app, should be grateful to the developer for putting in the time and taking the risk to offer the product of their work, all while asking for NOTHING in return.

Good effing grief.

AppleInsider said:

Apple was the first streamer to win an Oscar. It may well remain the only one to do so. 

This is factually wrong. But it's a William article, so the bad quality and pro-Apple slant checks out.

To be clear, Netflix was the first streamer to win an Oscar, all the way back in 2016. Apple is the first streamer to win for Best Picture.

lowededwookie said:

Firefox is a has-been browser that has failed due to its own incompetence.

Its own code is hugely buggy, insecure, and resource intensive which is why Apple forced WebKit engines only on iOS devices.

Firefox had its time years ago.

Hell, even Opera ditched its own engine for Chromium as did Microsoft. Not that I think Chromium is better. I refuse to use Chrome and Google is not making me desire it with the stupid systems being implemented. But I’d prefer a Chromium browser to a Mozilla engined browser any day.

This is a really hot take, and I'm not sure what the point is of bashing an open source browser that is being maintained and improved by a community of volunteers.

It is unfortunate that more mainstream users (including myself) do not use Firefox, because it is actually a decent browser that is quite privacy-conscious.

"Hugely buggy" is certainly untrue - it objectively has about as many bugs and vulnerabilities as chrome and safari - measured by outstanding bug reports + cadence of issues fixed.

"Insecure" is patently false. In fact, a quick stroll over to any browser-related forum on ArsTechnica - a community of the most technical folks on the internet - shows that a measurable portion of the community has consciously switched from Chrome to Firefox in the last year - _because_ it is viewed by them as more secure and private. Firefox is the preferred browser of most Linux users. In fact, Safari could arguably be the _least_ secure, since it cannot currently be patched without a Apple issuing a new minor or bugfix OS release, whereas the others only require an update to the browser application itself. Meaning that actively exploited vulnerabilities can linger longer on Apple devices due to the time it takes them to publish an OS release and the time it takes most users to patch an OS versus getting automated app updates overnight while charging the device. And on iOS, since all browsers must use the OS-provided webkit library, that makes all browsers on iOS inherently more insecure than those browsers's releases on other platforms - and the browser maker can't even do anything about it (!!!). What Apple is doing with webkit lock-in on iOS should be illegal (and someday will be).

There was definitely a time where the quality/performance of FF was suspect. But over the last 5 or so years, they have largely rejoined the pack in those matters. It certainly hurt them at the time. But Mozilla's contention now (about which they are correct) is that, despite having a comparable browser to the rest of the pack, the largest forces in desktop and mobile OSes are making it increasingly harder for users to choose a browser other than one offered by the OS maker. That is exactly what got Microsoft in trouble in the late 90's over Internet Explorer, which cost them billions in antitrust fines.

40domi said:

Hardly surprising, their content is as woke and poor as Disney +
I've had numerous opportunities to have it for free...not interested, it's rubbish ߘ᦬t;/div>

If you have declined the free trial for AppleTV+ repeatedly, how do you know it is rubbish? I don't watch a lot of ATV+ content, but do occasionally. There are some great shows and movies including Ted Lasso, Lessons in Chemistry, Foundation, Killers of the Flower Moon, and more. Maybe you tried the service early on when it lacked a lot of content. But the library is growing regularly and has a number of titles worth watching on a free trial.

spacepenguinbot said:

On the one hand, they have some very high quality shows and movies. On the other hand, they have a very small audience of people watching and talking about these shows. Maybe it doesn’t seem fair, but it still matters. I don’t think they’re going to pull off a “CODA” style win again.

Actually, most of the awards that are voted on by industry members (SAG, Golden Globes, Oscars) or critics (CTA) don't have much to do with popularity/reach, and focus more on originality, writing, individual standout performances, etc. That is why the Marvel movies never win (or are even nominated) in the big categories, and movies that most people have never heard of (Nomadland, CODA, Moonlight) do win. To further that point - a good many award-winning films don't even make it to wide release until after the awards season ends.