241–250 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't seem to happen on Android.
My previous experience with the PlayStore might have been different than yours. In the context of this guideline and other user focused non-tracking/permissions related things, the PlayStore is “already at bottom”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they can’t guarantee it. The best they could do is give users the ability to block all internet access in an app. Currently you can only block an app from using cellular data.
Interestingly in China you can block all network access…
Could say the same thing about these cookie-accept popups as some will just redirect you off their site if you don't accept.
I think irrespective of how good the App Store policies are, every user should be given the right to load non-App Store apps if they so choose. It's totally fine if it's buried 10-levels deep in settings. It's fine if they cannot do it easily by just clicking a random link due to security considerations. It's a good idea to make it hard to do by accident, and I expect if Apple wanted to they could create an awesome UX that preserves safety & security while respecting device owner sovereignty of what can go onto their device.
Might seem like a trivial thing, but it would have made all the difference for the civil liberties protests in HK when their app got banned from the App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pre-installed apps where you can't disable them or revoke their permissions are a cancer on the Android ecosystem. Especially fun when they have permissions like "access the filesystem" or "obtain device location" or "send notifications".
There used to be a security app on my MIUI phone. Security apps can't do anything on android, because each app is sandboxed. But of course, it had full non-revocable permissions including physical sensors, precise location, contacts, camera and microphone. I hope someone cracks open their 'security' app and controls every MIUI device, just for them to learn their lesson.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the nations have a tax treaty, you are usually not double taxed on income below some threshold. Last I checked, it was around the first $100k or so worldwide income, for US taxes anyway. After that, you are taxed at some rate, but I’m not sure if it is reduced at all or how different forms of income may affect this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_treaty
I believe the threshold, which is basically a big deduction, always applies if you meet the criterion (living outside the US). Tax treaties come into effect regarding whatever income you have beyond your deductions.
That’s how I understand it, anyway. I hope to be corrected if I’m inaccurate as this is not my area of expertise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that policy entirely acceptable, for the same reasons I think shrink-wrap EULAs should be illegal. This makes me curious about Apple and iOS / OS X. Does Apple try to require that the user accepts an EULA for the OS after buying Apple hardware?
It's a very good policy, I wish they'd follow it for their own systems. To download free apps off the Mac app store I need to set up an account and provide Apple with an email address, physical address, and phone number. Apps like the Wireguard GUI don't have access to necessary system APIs outside of the app store, so the developers have no way to allow users to sidestep giving Apple that information. I'm forced to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not certain here. for the users that want the on the rails experience that Apple currently provides like the OP (seemingly), they'd still be able to do so. Meanwhile, someone that wants to download apps that wouldn't pass muster with the App Store rules (such as game streaming apps and, yes, Fortnite with Epic's payment system) would still be available to iOS users that would want them (personally speaking, would…
The issue with that is that you would end up with the balkanisation of the app delivery method as we have with PCs. You would end up with hundreds of 'stores' which act as the exclusive distributor for that vendors products. One workaround could be permitting additional stores, but insisting that anything available on the additional stores must also be submitted to the Apple store. If Apple rejects it, that's their r…
At first I hated the whole idea of the various PC game stores and would continue to buy, say, Assassin's Creed games on Steam even though Uplay came out (and iirc, they started requiring Uplay be installed for DRM or whatever anyway). Then eventually I realized that directly in Uplay, you could get pretty absurd discounts plus discounts from some type of point system compounded on top of that. So by cutting out Steam in that interaction, it made it cheaper for me and they effectively got the same amount of money so win/win. Granted, Playnite and GOG Galaxy 2 really streamlined the whole thing such that managing various libraries wasn't an absolute nightmare.
As far as iOS goes, we should look at Android and Fortnite. Originally, Fortnite was side loaded. Then they moved it to the Android Play Store because they weren't getting the traction that they expected. So they went in with the Play Store.
Could Epic do a side loaded Epic Mobile Store or something where you could get Fortnite, an Infinity Sword remaster, or Shadow Complex ported to mobile (great game, shame they haven't done anything with that property since Xbox 360 era really)? Sure, but if that did happen it would be the exception and not the rule. I don't think you'd see the proliferation of alternate storefronts you see on PCs because the storefronts came later in the PC's life so various means of pulling in new applications has been what we've experienced from day one whereas the App Store has always been there for the vast majority of iOS adopters (no App Store era was during the AT&T period and even then, early on people were under contracts and what not/weren't ready to shell out the kind of money an iPhone called for). Non-billion dollar development shops aren't going to leave the App Store because they want the discoverability nor the overhead required of setting up their own payment gateways and what not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market . (It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed , but that is not what I am referring to here.) If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know about where you live, it’s the most expensive streaming platform here. Not worth the money for occasional watching of things people share at work. Also seeing more unskippable ads lately and it’s incredibly annoying.
Youtube has two offerings: an ad-free version of youtube, and a version that shows a whole bunch of live local (and national) tv channels. The latter is close to 5X the cost of the former and is, I suspect, what you are thinking of.