401–410 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we make some laws that say they do then yeah they will have to.
And Tesla? Will they also have to allow third parties to “upgrade” their cars since many of the additional features are software controlled? Why stop there? Kindles? Roku sticks? WebOS TVs? TiVo’s? Cable boxes?
https://apb-law.com/understanding-magnuson-moss-act-relates-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fear the inevitable end down that path lies people who bought an iDevice, enabled alternative stores, were duped/hacked/otherwise-invaded, visited a Genius only to be told Apple won’t help them, and then lawsuits against Apple for their trouble.
So this must’ve happened to Google already since they allow sideloading... I was not able to find anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are missing the social and political implications of your choices. Its not just about being a monopoly in the economical sense, which is bad per-se, but to let a private company to control what you have access or not based on particular moral, political views. To forbid you to access technology that can compete with what they offer on the basis of "security". If you do not get it, they control the only ap…
> You are implying they are good actors somehow that are doing all this thinking on you, while in reality they will do whatever they can to maximize their profits, and as long as people like you are fine with it, nothing will change. Yes. Americans fully support their money going towards 2 trillion dollar companies as long as their device works well and they can upgrade to the fastest model every 2-4 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate that iOS does not allow software to require this. Yes you can avoid the giant mess of 3rd party launchers on Mac, but only by writing off huge swaths of the software market. Want to run Photoshop? You get to have the Creative Cloud client. The current state of iOS software is that I never have to go into Task Manager and see what junk has inserted itself as a startup item, whether anything will break if…
Then don't download apps from a hypothetical secondary iOS App Store. You literally have the same option as people in this thread who say "just don't buy Apple."
Like that time when Epic Games said "We don't want to use the Google Play Store, so if you want to play Fortnite you have to install it from the Fortnite Installer". And then we immediately had this: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/112630336?pli=1
> This vulnerability allows an app on the device to hijack the Fortnite Installer to instead install a fake APK with any permissions that would normally require user disclosure.
If they could switch to Fortnite Installer on iOS I assume they would. Would it have security holes? Would it do other annoying things that the App Store doesn't let them do?
Repeat those questions for a hypothetical Microsoft iOS Store, Google iOS Store, Amazon iOS Store, Steam iOS Store, Ubisoft iOS Store, EA iOS Store, Pokemon GO Installer, Nintendo iOS Store, iOS Minecraft Launcher, and I'd expect to see more security vulnerabilities and/or hostile behaviors that Apple doesn't allow.
It's a tradeoff. I know the current system isn't perfect, but I worry that forcing Apple to allow other stores to do their own thing will be worse in a variety of ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not let consumers decide if Apple's 30% uplift is worth it? Clearly for yourself that is the case, but others may come to a different conclusion. Most markets offer a variety of tradeoffs in price vs. quality. Consumers rarely pick the cheapest product. If Apple's app store is superior, they will have no problem in justifying their 30%.
How many consumers on Android are using the Amazon store?
It seems paternalistic to suggest that consumers are too dumb to make an App Store decision on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, when Apple will just sue any competitor for "infringing" on it's millions of stupid software patents
When has Apple initiated a patent lawsuit since Cook became CEO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beyond the security of not giving our credit cards, and the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients, Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways. If they’re forced to open up to 3rd party stores, I hope they can do it in a way that prevents Adobe from running 8 background processes to make sure my license is current and there…
the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients Obligatory glance over at Steam goes here. Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways. It would be a much safer solution if Apple's operating system limited 3rd party software's ability to do things it shouldn't. Trying to filter malware at the app store level might improve your od…
• Steam (Valve)
• Uplay (Ubisoft)
• Origin (EA)
• Epic (Epic)
• Galaxy (CDProjekt)
• LoL Launcher (Riot)
• Battle.net (Blizzard)
• Twitch (Amazon)
• Minecraft Launcher (Mojang)
Probably others I'm missing.
Can't wait to have a whole home screen dedicated to different app stores because each one has a single exclusive game that I wanted to play
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, I think this is one of the two points where the case against Apple's App Store model is the strongest. Not allowing applications to use third party in-app purchase systems is weakly defensible, but they not only don't allow that, they not only don't allow you to load an online store in a web view, they not only don't allow you to link to an online store that will open in Safari, the App Store terms literally do n…
Can I advertise in Walmart that they can buy the sane item cheaper from my own website?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think you would lose any of those benefits if Google had an iOS app store too? What if you also had the option of Microsoft iOS app store? Would the competition likely to increase pro-consumer benefits or decrease them? Pro-consumer vs anti-publisher is a false equivalence. This is not a zero-sum game, not at all.
Or if Facebook had one, and Amazon had one? And when developers are forced to support all 5 big ones? And when any benefit of a reduction in fees is completely lost because of the requirement to support all 5 stores? If the remedy for Apple picking winners is more stores, then it just means all of the big players will get to pick winners. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is pro consumer about having Google…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I'm an idiot, please explain it to me. Of course I know what it means — the argument is way more nuanced than "hurr durr there are 2 and 2 > 1".
It actually isn’t. When you have a choice between paying a premium and paying half as much like 85% of the world. It isn’t a monopoly.
Google and Apple are a cartel.
They made the world worse than it was for software distribution. It used to be open in the 90's and 00's.