asdasd

jeffreytgilbert said:

So what i’m hearing is Apple is still ignoring consumer demand regarding an unhobbled iPad OS, and unhobbled macbook pro hardware. There is 0 justification for limiting the user facing cameras to the same resolution found on the very first iPhone. Video looks like hot garbage. “Facetime HD” is laughably bad. Do better. Also not a fan of seeing trails of red smear going across my “retina” display on a 2020 macbook pro. They’re telling us laptop users don’t demand better displays? 

On one side the hardware is bad. On the other side the software is bad. Can’t win! 

There is no consumer demand for macOS on an iPad. I think it could be opened up a bit so that it could be used in engineering etc. 

honestly, as someone who has been here since 2003 when it was Mac centric I am amazed at what is going on here. I am primarily a Mac fan, the iPhone is good but I don't love it like the Mac. Yet here we are with Apple "fans" supporting ideas that would kill the Mac Pro line which is a significant revenue stream for Apple by only allowing Mac App Store apps.

If Apple were tomorrow to just allow downloads from the Mac App, which means crippling downloads in general ( I have no idea why people are talking about other app stores, they are not relevant, off Mac App Store apps are mostly downloaded from websites), it would also mean some kind of curation of the filesystem to stop side loading of DMGS, or PKGs, or apps in general which might bypass the checks. And you couldn't allow building from code in the terminal.app either, as that would clearly bypass the Mac store only rule. So that would go. Forcing sandboxed apps would cripple a lot of security, networking, photography, and other pro apps. 

In short the professional market would disappear over night. It would save money I suppose on chip design, and the non pro Mac market of grandmas would be ok with it ( or would they if they found an interesting app online to download which then didn't load?).

Web apps would dominate over native running apps as well, unless you wanted to ban those.  All of this would collapse what is left of the macOS developer market. And Pros would migrate to another operating system. 

22july2013 said:

tedz98 said:

All of this talk about security misses the point that Epic’s desire is to save having to pay Apple a commission on in-app purchases. The security of of IOS App Store prevents Epic from supporting external purchases. This is all about money and commissions. Should Apple be entitled to commissions on in-app purchases? I would argue they aren’t.

Ok, why do you argue Apple isn't entitled, and why do you single out only Apple? Yes, why do you single out only Apple?

22july2013 said:

elijahg said:

There is always going to be malware on every platform, even ones with no App Store at all. iOS 1.0 had plenty of exploits which enabled third party apps (and malware) with no App Store to speak of. Locking it [any OS] down only makes the people producing malware go through more hoops, and since the web browser is entirely uncurated content that's a huge vector. 

So your objection with anyone locking down an OS is because, as you say, it only makes malware producers go through more hoops? Are you trying to defend malware producers or people?

elijahg said:

How long until Apple only allows access to curated web pages? 

That's actually a great question. I like it, and I want to use it. Would you object to Apple curating web pages? Do you object to Google currently curating web pages? I don't remember you objecting to Google doing this through its search engine. But yet you live in horrible fear that Apple might do it.

elijahg said:

Unfortunately there is no protecting some people from themselves. Some are stupid enough to follow any random tutorial or follow the demands of a random person asking them for their bank details on Facebook, calling them and asking them to pay some tax bill they've somehow missed or sitting on a car airbag and setting it off. The same people who read the "never send this 2FA code to anyone" and then send it to some random person from "your bank" on Facebook and claim they've been "hacked". You can't wrap everyone and everything in cotton wool, lest overheads of risk reduction become so burdensome no one would ever be allowed or able to do anything.

So your logic is that you can't protect everyone so therefore you shouldn't try (and shouldn't be ALLOWED) to protect anyone. Sweet. We understand you.

This is replete with logical fallacies. 

1) tedz98 is talking about Apple because this is an Apple forum.
2) Asking him about Google IAP is whataboutary and a personal attack. He probably does believe that Google shouldn't have IAP but it isn't relevant. If he is here he is probably an Apple customer. 
3) Talking about Google curating pages is more whataboutary. And a false dilemma. And a personal attack on elijahg  when you "didn't remember him objecting to google".  People can oppose both but nobody is obliged to mention other companies on this forum. And it's not the same either, Apple would have to stop you from clicking on the site, not just reducing its frequency in a list. That curation is more visible. 
4) The "so your logic" reminds me of a BBC interview I once watched on the subject of lobsters. You are arguing a straw man. 

chasm said:

thedba said:

Actually they did, with the Mac App Store. Not very successful as many apps outside of Apple’s own, weren’t  there for various reasons, the main one being Apple’s 30% cut. 

Woah, let me stop you right there. You don't get to spew easily-disproven, nonsensical bullshit here and not get called out for it.

While specific figures are not available for the Mac App Store, it is by far the most successful of any marketplace for Mac Apps, and offers a catalog of at least 1.5 million apps (and that's a stat from more than two years ago) -- the largest single repository of apps for the Mac platform by far. Nearly every major developer writing apps for the Mac has a presence on the Mac App Store, and consumers generally prefer to download from the Mac App Store because of the incredibly low risk of malware concerns, that the app has been tested by Apple, and the store's easy refund policy if you change your mind.

Developers can offer their wares at prices that include Apple's cut on the App Store, or they can offer it independently (which is generally MORE expensive/time-consuming than 30 percent of the purchase price unless you are a large and very successful developer), or they can remember back to when software was sold in boxes in stores and both the store AND the distributors took substantial cuts that would usually total in excess of 50-70 percent. Developers can offer a product in the MAS and also encourage users to buy it in other ways (SetApp, directly, etc), but most users enjoy the convenience of the Mac App Store.. Building and maintaining a secure website that operates in every market worldwide, provides world-class analytics, with iron-clad payment security and an easy refund policy is not cheap or easy, me bucko -- try it sometime!

Your comment shows off your ignorance. Until you can provide some evidence to support your BS, maybe sit down and suck your thumb.

That’s a ridiculously aggressive comment, even if somebody is wrong. Also those figures seem way off for the Mac App Store considering the iOS store US reported as just 2M. 

aderutter said:

I do think Apple should lock MacOS down to a single Apple provided Mac app-store, but they would likely need to reduce the commission to a much lower figure to appease the big developers and not hurt the platform. Then again, they could even maybe not take a commission at all just like they don’t charge for MacOS upgrades nowadays. 

You realise that this means stopping downloads on safari and turning a largely open unix if protected unix OS into a toy? That the Terminal app would have to go? It would kill development and business use.