301–310 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple is quickly gaining a monopoly on not-shitty hardware By "quickly gaining a monopoly", do you mean they've somehow made it impossible for another multi-billion dollar company to do a decent job on designing and building a phone?
Specifically the building gets quite hard when apple has purchased the chip making capacity
You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or anti-consumer in the same sense as Apple. Android is open source, Chrome OS is open source, etc. Google is actually providing and contributing something back to the community. Apple intentionally locks people to specific hardware and to their app store.
As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.
The first option looks far easier.
This report is somewhat bipolar. On one hand it's arguing that Google and Apple exert too much control over smartphone app marketplaces. On the other hand its proposed remedy asks that Google and Apple exert even more control over these app marketplaces by stamping down on anti-consumer practices like subscription traps and scams. On the other other hand it proposes that Apple and Google should allow third party paym…
The release does not say these things, and it is misleading to intentionally paraphrase as to invent logical conflicts that aren't present. In particular, it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. Examples: Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. Obliging service providers to mislead the consumer about their subscription options is an ab…
I'm sorry, but it does. Just because they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did doesn't mean they didn't invoke these logical conflicts. But please, there's no need to take my word for it—I invite anyone to read the press release and form their own conclusion.
> it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power.
I agree that it's "wrong" to equate them, but equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems.
You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter. One look at the borderline-corrupt Media Bargaining Code would quickly disabuse any objective observer of that notion. It could be argued that the ACCC was somehow incapable of comprehending what an internet link is or how news article snippets come to appear on Google and Facebook. That's certainly a more charitable hypothesis than the ACCC being corrupt unduly influenced by the political interests of the current elected Government. Whether it's incompetence or malice (see Hanlon's razor) it doesn't look good for them.
You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or anti-consumer in the same sense as Apple. Android is open source, Chrome OS is open source, etc. Google is actually providing and contributing something back to the community. Apple intentionally locks people to specific hardware and to their app store.
Google is an ad company. I do not understand why people would choose to use an operating system created by an ad company, designed to harvest their personal information. I'm happy to use an iPhone, knowing my personal information is safe and it reduces my chances of being Harvested by Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort). Take the alternative app store. If they are allowed you will have some with exclusive apps. Those apps are then outside the apple rules and you have to have to hit the switch if you want them. So you loose out on the app or on all your apps being apple rule / account / payment compatible. If there is no alternative store you…
> It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort). Frankly, citation needed. If phone manufacturers can find ways to unlock bootloaders, I refuse to believe that there is no way to allow for sideloading of some form on iOS. It particularly disturbs me how this comes from the “Think different” camp which praises the quality of its software to high heaven. Nowhere have I arg…
I don't think GP meant that it wasn't technically possible, they were saying it isn't possible for this switch to exist without some popular apps eventually getting almost everyone to flip the switch and negate the whole point of having a switch.
I don't think I agree with them because Android already has this switch and I can't think of many apps that lots of users would want to sideload, except for Fortnite.
You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or anti-consumer in the same sense as Apple. Android is open source, Chrome OS is open source, etc. Google is actually providing and contributing something back to the community. Apple intentionally locks people to specific hardware and to their app store.
As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Australia NEVER moves first on these things. I think it is uncommon for Australia to move first, but we do move first sometimes. I thought the recent news revenue-sharing laws[0] are an example of that. > They want EU or US to make a move first to see what works It's always nice to know how a policy will work beforehand, but I don't think it's remarkable how rarely Australia moves first. Putting aside cultural diff…
The revenue-sharing laws were a scam, basically the Government forcing Google and Facebook to pay arbitrary bribes to a few big media companies. If the laws weren't a scam, that money would have gone to pay for journalism, not prop up the bottom line of companies which are consistently cutting back the number of journalists under their employ.
https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m...
My advice to any future Federal Government would be to gut the ACCC and rebuild it from the ground up. And then if the rebuilt entity demonstrates competence, significantly increasing its funding.
You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple? While I agree that Google has market-dominance, they are not anti-competition or anti-consumer in the same sense as Apple. Android is open source, Chrome OS is open source, etc. Google is actually providing and contributing something back to the community. Apple intentionally locks people to specific hardware and to their app store.
As a user of iOS, this is precisely why I go with Apple, and why I push my family to do the same. Particularly for the more elderly in my family, Apple's setup (by and large) prevents them from doing anything that would screw themselves over. Removing Apple's control removes my desire to be apart of that ecosystem, and I know that is true for many others outside our insular little community here.
Mobile phones are personal computers, actually of the most successful type. We should have learned some lessons, but no, people come with the same arguments as in the past decades (it's easier, it makes me look cool, I'm lazy). Then, one day, you find that your favourite app has been removed because of God knows what other arbitrary rule has been introduced in the name of the greater good, as undemocratically decided by a private company.
And, please, don't come with the "if you don't like it, choose Android": at 50% market share that's not an argument any longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I don't understand the argument Apple users are presenting. Its like they can't comprehend that they can have an option to install third-party apps but they don't have to enable or use that if they like being "protected" from hurting themselves.
Right now, ~100% of the software available for iOS has to follow Apple's rules, offer a consistent and safe payment method, and install through the App Store. I assume you think that would change, else why have other app stores. That's what I don't want. I want as close to 100% of the software for iOS as possible to have to follow the rules. That's part of why I chose iOS.
One day an app you like, or your life may even depend on, suddenly disappears because of some arbitrary, pointless rule is brought by that company, whose decisions are, I repeat, outside of democratic control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not possible to make this a switch the user can turn on or off (with reasonable effort). Frankly, citation needed. If phone manufacturers can find ways to unlock bootloaders, I refuse to believe that there is no way to allow for sideloading of some form on iOS. It particularly disturbs me how this comes from the “Think different” camp which praises the quality of its software to high heaven. Nowhere have I arg…
> I refuse to believe that there is no way to allow for sideloading of some form on iOS. I don't think GP meant that it wasn't technically possible, they were saying it isn't possible for this switch to exist without some popular apps eventually getting almost everyone to flip the switch and negate the whole point of having a switch. I don't think I agree with them because Android already has this switch and I can't…
Rather, I think that the argument is sloppy, lazy, and frankly relies on a severe lack of imagination and rigidity of mind from those that present or accept it. Thus we should stop parroting it as it makes for a very boring discussion.
Instead, maybe there is an interesting discussion to be had as to whether Google maintains control using Google Play Services? Technical aspects of how a consent mechanisms could work relative to bootloader unlocking? The viability of Apple’s offerings in terms of better privacy and payment UI if something like Fortnite “broke free” and started a competing store? All this sounds endlessly more fun to read and contribute to compared to: “I am content with the status quo, it serves me well, and I see no reason to discuss this further with you freedom zealots!”.