901–910 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't install the other stores. (That's how people who say "then don't use Apple devices" sounds like).
So you've turned the situation into an anti-consumer one. As a consumer I would then lose access to a significant proportion of apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be surprised if you thought otherwise. Imagine not being able to ditch the App Store the way publishers have done so in the Mac App Store: https://bohemiancoding.tumblr.com/post/134322691555/leaving-... https://panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ https://sixcolors.com/post/2014/10/bbedit-at-max-q/ Imagine an App Store update breaking all of your apps: https://…
>Not having choices is a bad situation. I would be surprised if you thought otherwise. really? I completely disagree, let me illustrate. I don't have much choice of toilet paper when I go to the bathroom, especially in a public restroom. Theres usually only one dispenser, but somehow nobody cares, no one is asking the government to regulate for every Walmart in the country to offer dispensers for every manufacturer,…
An Apple restroom would prohibit you from bringing your own toiler paper, plus, it would force you to use the new iPaper worth 6 times more than any other toilet paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mind if people want to pay for someone to curate their apps, but I don't see any reason developers shouldn't be able to charge those people +43% for buying through the curated app store. If there's really as much value as everyone claims then users won't have a problem paying extra, right? I also think it's crazy that IAPs are viewed as anything more than a simple payment that would incur normal payment proce…
Framing the 30% as "payment processing" is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Apple builds the entire ecosystem and suite of tools that developers use to actually make apps for the iPhone. Visa and Mastercard only provide payment processing, they don't provide the equivalent of the iOS SDKs, Xcode, the App Store, etc., to their merchants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selling separately destroys the iPhone brand and business model. Far fewer would pay for a separate OS, iPhones would have to be more expensive if they didn’t bundle a services component, customers wouldn’t trust iPhone as much. There is a simple solution, and it’s not misguided delusional antitrust talk. It’s buying the other type of smartphone that is 85% of unit sales world wide.
Two choices for something as complex as a smartphone does not make a free market.
There aren’t many freer markets. The automobile business was still a free market when Henry Ford refused to paint cars in your choice of color.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the silliest perspective on this case you could have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own prices, but in return required they don’t undercut those prices on other platforms. Apple had only a a small market share at the time. Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon, and refused to agree to Apple’s terms. This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust…
"It's awful that a $2 trillion tech company's price fixing conspiracy flatlined and consumers in 2020 pay really low ebook prices. What is American justice coming to?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft, Google, and Apple are all participants in the PRISM program, which provides data to the US federal government without a warrant (FBI and military intelligence) under the authority they claim via FISA Amendments Act Section 702. Edward Snowden is the reason we know about this. https://www.eff.org/702-spying Any data you provide to any of those companies (or any others that have been added in the time since,…
The spying thing is a problem with US gov. Why are you dinging Apple for that? In fact, Apple refused to unlock the phone when FBI requested for the famous shooting case (I forgot). Others do the same - Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. Apple is complying to the law. Also, Apple is putting encryption in hardware to prevent this sort of a thing. They don't have keys to the device.
Apple does not implement end-to-end encryption for their backups, which is why I’m “dinging” them. The iCloud device backups that happen each night on the device are backed up with Apple keys, which means that Apple can decrypt your entire message history for the device, without the device. iCloud Backup is on by default for every iPhone and iPad, which it is not inaccurate to describe as an effective cryptographic backdoor in iMessage’s end-to-end encryption, because it escrows the iMessage keys (as well as the complete message history) to Apple with Apple keys, each and every day. They don’t need any “keys to the device”.
This is well documented in Apple’s KB article about iCloud encryption: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
Apple’s on-device hardware encryption has nothing to do with this problem. This is a software design issue that Apple chose. Google chose a better, safer way to do it.
The fact that it’s a problem with the US government is a red herring. There are still good and bad choices in cryptographic system design.
Please do read the linked URL. Apple was on track to fix this glaring issue, and then, according to Reuters, Apple Legal shut down the project. Whether it was done specifically on FBI request, or proactively by Apple to butter up the FBI, is irrelevant: the FBI has no legal basis to command Apple to drop this project, so the decision not to safeguard user data from government snoops rests solely with Apple.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
Additionally, the phone that Apple famously refused to unlock is irrelevant: Apple had already provided all of the related account’s iCloud data (presumably including a full device backup) to the FBI. It’s not in Apple or the FBI’s interest to draw attention to this detail.
I wonder if perhaps the news story about how “Apple vs FBI for user privacy” was an FBI reciprocation to aid Apple’s privacy brand narrative in exchange for Apple not encrypting backups (so Apple can always provide all of the device data to the FBI without the phone).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform. I'm precisely in this boat. I enjoy playing with electronics, but I want my microwave to just work. I also enjoy fiddling around with PCs with total freedom, but I want my phone to…
I am also a developer, I love tinkering, but my router and especially my phone, I want it to just work. I need my phone, if I could tinker with my phone it would be broken half the time!
I actually have 3, two iPhones and one Android, and 3 iPads.
Once I gave up on private cross-device sync on iOS without iCloud (a bummer, to be sure), I started using the iPads as single-purpose devices instead of wanting every file on every screen all of the time. One is just for hacking (editors/ssh/browser), one is loaded with books and maps, one is for a special project.
The phones are split between primary/production, emergency backup (n+1), and hacking/testing/fun. I’ll probably end up with a fourth phone at some point (hacking * two platforms).
Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. There's two parts to this to me: app stores and the data collected by the devices. Users should have the freedom to install any software on their devices, period. Users should also have the freedom to stop all data collection by these devices. This applies to all electronics--video game consoles, TVs, printers, who knows what else…
> Device freedom is a must. Any device should be completely controllable by the end user. I have the choice of buying a completely controllable android device if I want to install mystery apps willy-nilly. I'm not interested in that, and there are millions like me. I want a locked-down device that keeps developers in check. This situation is much like the browser nightmares of the past, where Firefox users complained…
That's fine but how does from that statement follow that it's a good idea to let Apple do it to everyone? You don't want things, that's fine, don't get them. Nobody is asking to add anything to the things you already like, ruining them for you. People are asking for freedom of choice.
It's like saying you want to live under permanent surveillance, which you can do, you can have a security company install a camera in every room of your house, but why does that need to apply to the entire city block?
How are you worse off if Apple is required to say, allow third party app stores, which you don't need to touch? In the same vein, why was Firefox ruined for you by addons if you didn't need to install any?
As a consumer, I really like how the AppStore works and I buy iPhones for me and for my family specifically because there is only one store and one way of subscribing and one way of using in-app purchases. I really, really hope Apple win this. I just don't want to have to deal with the possibility that every app is going to have its own in-app-purchase dark patterns. If everyone that wants to be able to side-load alt…
So you like having only 1 app store for convince. I get that. But there is an legitimate argument to be made by those who do want it. The lack of competition is probably hurting you too, in the form of higher prices for everything. If there were alternatives you wouldn't be forecd to use them. What if apple starts trying to monetize in ways you don't like? (like trying even more aggressively to get appleTV/ AppleMusi…
That's just not true. If App Developers choose to only release their app on one store then i am forced to use that store.
Say this Apple loses this battle and are forced to let companies run their own Stores on iOS. What's to stop a company like Facebook moving their suite of apps to exclusively be distributed through their own Store, which conveniently bypasses the App Review process, severely undermining user privacy. If i wanted to keep using these popular apps to communicate with my friends I'd have no choice but to use their alternative Store.
> You are putting a lot of trust in a company that may change its ways. If they change, where are you going to go?
Then I'll switch to Android