311–320 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But some business users in rich countries buying Surface devices can't possibly make 10% global PC market share.
Why not? It does wonders for fruity devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? It does wonders for fruity devices.
A lot more regular people worldwide buy iPhones, not just business users in a few countries.
Successful enough that made Apple start shipping keyboards with the iPad to compete in that segment, as laptop wannabe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does opening up the walled garden impact you if you never side load anything?
It's the same for people who want homosexuality to be forbidden. It's not enough for themselves to not be homosexual, they also have to force their faith onto others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Windows" didn't sell them a computer. Microsoft sold an OS to - for example - Dell, who then sold a computer to the user. So they are Dell's customers. And Dell, for sure, earned a lot of money selling placement on the Home Screen (or pre-installation) to 3P app developers. (Of course, there are also computers such as the Microsoft Surface, but these represent a tiny fraction of the universe of Windows computers eve…
1. Microsoft does sell users a computer. Sometimes. Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. 2. Apple also sells Macs, where developers can access "Apple's customers" unencumbered, without needing to play by Apple's rules (developers may also opt-in to a lower-form of "playing by Apple's rules" by submitting their apps to Apple for notarization, or naturally, they may also opt-in to the Full Rule…
According to Gartner, "Surface has never had more than 2.1% of the PC market."
At 2.1%, they're basically a non-player in the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Microsoft does sell users a computer. Sometimes. Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. 2. Apple also sells Macs, where developers can access "Apple's customers" unencumbered, without needing to play by Apple's rules (developers may also opt-in to a lower-form of "playing by Apple's rules" by submitting their apps to Apple for notarization, or naturally, they may also opt-in to the Full Rule…
>Surface devices represent about 10% of all desktop computers. Really, Surface has THAT MUCH?! I honestly doubt it. I think I've only seen 4-6 surface devices in the wild in my life(in Europe). Maybe in the US they have 10% market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same for people who want homosexuality to be forbidden. It's not enough for themselves to not be homosexual, they also have to force their faith onto others.
Come on man, is this really a good faith interpretation of what I said? You will recognize that this feature means widening the attack surface for no value (if you're not sideloading apps)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store. If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.
The "Alternate store" might just be Epic's own store, the one with Fortnite. A big trustworthy name in the parents' eyes. Then the parents insert their CC info so Timmy can get the latest Disney skin for his game. And of course the store doesn't have any safeguards or parental controls, they're on the iOS side. In the official store. Can you seriously, hand on heart, tell me that people will in this case blame Epic f…
And mind you - nothing actually stops Apple from designing a safe and respectful sideloading system like MacOS. They actively choose to make iOS a diminished and neutered platform for profitability purposes. People will blame Apple, and they will be right - Apple brought this upon themselves. There is no one else to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, for little Timmy to buy diamonds in a mobile game from an alternate store he would have to install the alternate store then "borrow" his parent's credit card to register with the new store. If "little" Timmy is pulling those sort of shenanigans then I suggest his parents have bigger problems and they probably won't blame Apple at all.
Now think about this scenario: the parent approves installation when asked because they didn’t realize it was an open ended financial commitment, and because like most people they associate app stores with curation which prevents abuse. When they get a huge bill 6 months later, or after the game company is acquired, etc. the first thing they’re going to ask is why nobody warned them. That’s the point of these dialogs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30% is just too much and they don’t give anything near enough value for devs or App Store consumers.
Traditionally, when faced with something that isn't a good deal, you don't buy it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on man, is this really a good faith interpretation of what I said? You will recognize that this feature means widening the attack surface for no value (if you're not sideloading apps)
If you are not sideloading apps, your attack surface is unchanged.