491–500 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
God forbid a company makes products they want? How is the Magic Mouse 2 hurting you in any way?
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/worst-apple-design-ever
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…
An operating system that actually empowered you would give you the tools and options to prevent that, while also letting you run whatever software you desired. I will never understand people's desire to be handcuffed by Apple. Give me control over my own device god damn it.
If you give apps the right not to do things like AppleID they’ll take it and the App Store would be a highly inconsistent experience for people who want to do no thinking about how their device works. There ought to be some middle ground but consumers are the ones who will have their boundaries encroached unless an entity ruthlessly minds the border...
For the degree of opening you leave companies will extract that much concession from your users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.creativebloq.com/news/worst-apple-design-ever
Again, neither you nor the government get to force a company into making products you like. Apple does not exist for you or your whims. There are plenty of other mice on the market, and the Magic Mouse 2 isn’t harming you in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is free market not dictatorship.
Quoting from the article, "Apple attempts to justify these fees by arguing that the App Store is no different from a mall, where companies seeking to offer their products must pay rent to the owner of the mall (in this case, Apple). This argument conveniently ignores the fact that there is just a single mall when it comes to iOS and no possibility of a competing mall to rent space from. It is not illegal for Apple to…
I don't even know why people are getting hung up on this monopoly thing. You can make a perfectly valid argument against Apple's 30% cut or their overly restrictive App Store policies regardless of whether they have a monopoly or not. Those arguments stand up on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do already do whatever you want with your phone from the point you receive it in the condition Apple sell it to you. But you cannot require that Apple do work to build support for third-party app stores. Property rights do not extend to forcing other people to do labour for you. If your phone doesn't come with support for third-party stores when you buy it then I don't see how it would be your right to have t…
> But you cannot require that Apple do work to build support for third-party app stores. Property rights do not extend to forcing other people to do labour for you. You and I can't, at least not directly. But governments certainly can, if they deem it in the interest of the citizens they serve.
Tyranny defined. “Do what we tell you to do, it’s ‘for our citizens.’” That’s how you get Australia forcing companies to backdoor encryption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You want the EU to regulate whether a company wants to put a headphone jack in their devices? > So you've suggested 4 things, 3 of which don't apply and 1 of which (headphone jacks) would be gross governmental overreach. There is precedence for the EU mandating Apple change their hardware practices: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2020/02/11/apple-ch... > So you've suggested 4 things, 3 of which don't appl…
In your first source: letting the EU regulate the charging cable would have been provably dumb and absurd. Lightning was years ahead of Micro-USB when it was released and served as inspiration for USB-C. Just another example of how government overregulation would harm innovation and industries. The second source is Tile complaining about the privacy warnings in iOS 13. It’s laughable. Customers are turning off abusiv…
The Tile situation is TBD, pending Apple's release of AirTags. Will iOS user location notifications pop up as frequently in Apple's first party Find My app as it does in Tile's app? Stay tuned!
Also, the letter mentions the matter of Apple removing their previous Tile store presence (presumably in favor of AirTags), which is within their power but brings up the matter of Sherlocking. Sure, Sherlocking is legal- but is it ethical? Is it right when Facebook scouts other apps to duplicate it in their app? Is it right when Apple does the same to preexisting apps in its App Store? At the very least, these legal cases- whether you think them prudent or not- bring them before the public for examination and discussion.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can already do whatever you want with your device. Use it as a hammer for all Apple care. It's just that Apple aren't going to spend their time and money developing software to let you do things they aren't interested in. Why should they?
They don't let you modify the software on the device.
You can, however, if you figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are making the case for the app store to exist, not for it to have no competitors. Let's suppose that Apple's store is infallible. Well then the availability of other stores won't matter, will it? Apple will approve everything good and reject everything bad and you'll know that anything not in their store is bad and have no reason to ever look at another store even if they exist. But suppose they're not infallibl…
I don't see this playing out on Android where other stores exist. And lets take this to the brick and mortar model. 30 ish% of the end user price is not a lot, when many products are at least 100% markup. But first, we know the App store isn't infallible, but it has an incentive to have more false negatives than positives. It is able to correct past mistakes and does do so. But as far as competitive pressure, that ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not pro-consumer behaviour. This is pro-Apple behaviour. They enjoy the lock in + fees that the app store generates. They're even stifling web apps to maintain this monopoly. If they were so pro-consumer, why do they allow spyware such as Tiktok to exist on their platform at all?
> They enjoy the lock in + fees that the app store generates. That only affects the developer, not the consumer. What does the consumer care about who gets paid the fees. I keep seeing the App Store framed as a consumer issue rather than a developer one when it's not. The App Store is no question pro-consumer especially when you consider the fact that the "open" web has essentially devolved into using every available…
I care if it means the applications are ~40% more expensive than need be.