331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite an authoritarian take.
Both sides are authoritarian. One is a private company with more money than most countries, one is an economic union nominally representing the people of many countries. I don't know where I fall on this issue personally, but siding with Apple is probably more authoritarian.
There seems to be a libertarian slant to a lot of the comments on this. It reads as if most people believe they have an inalienable right to extend Apple’s products. In other words, it doesn’t matter what I do, what I say, or how I treat Apple, I have an inalienable right to extend their platform. A pretty bold take in my opinion.
It's not Apple's platform. It's mine. My device, my platform. I allow Apple to install software on my device, but it's my device. I own it, full stop. This whole idea that a company can sell you a product but still retain exclusive ownership and decision making over that thing that they sold you needs to die. It's such an abusive relationship and deeply anti-user.
You mean anti-owner, since you really own the device
If I had a Customer that spent years relentlessly complaining about my Company, I know I wouldn't want to have them as a Customer. It does present an interesting question on whether a Company can be forced to have a bad actor as a Customer, I guess this will be decided in the lawsuits to come.
Imagine if everyone wanting to publish a web app would have to be a customer of the respective browser vendors.
Everyone complains about Google and Mozilla and Safari and Edge. Luckily, that doesn’t prevent us from having our web apps running on those browsers.
I wonder why Apple doesn't open up their platforms to have everything best on their devices instead of fighting and agonising developers and governments. Yes yes, the commission is nice but they might be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I mean, Apple is amazingly good in some areas but in some other areas their products are used only because they don't give a choice and they intent to keep it this way. Th…
Apple should get out of the European market entirely. Their product offering is literally incompatible with the laws that govern EU commerce. There's plenty of money to be made in Asia/Pacific and the Americas. Apple's walled-garden approach is innovative especially on the security and stability fronts and anyone who doesn't like that or wants alternative launchers should jailbreak their ios device or just use Androi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.
> 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9). Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space just as a show of force. That is not fair, reasonable or non-discrimina…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the users who purchased an iPhone with the expectation that they would be able to execute software from Epic on their phone?
They were wrong in their supposition. It's part of free market process, asymmetric information.
Or maybe you think that if Apple went out of business, or simply decided to shut down the App Store tomorrow, then all the users with bricked devices should have no legal recourse.
If I had a Customer that spent years relentlessly complaining about my Company, I know I wouldn't want to have them as a Customer. It does present an interesting question on whether a Company can be forced to have a bad actor as a Customer, I guess this will be decided in the lawsuits to come.
Companies in quite a few industries have a duty to do business with you, with very few limitations. For example, in some countries/cities, taxis generally can't refuse transportation to you, assuming you're able to pay and not endangering the driver. Having publicly and repeatedly expressed a dislike for taxis, or even wearing a t-shirt saying "taxis in $city are an overpriced monopoly" would not be a valid reason to…
The fact that it happens says nothing about whether it's right or not. In my opinion it's wrong and immoral that taxis can't refuse to service you. But taxis are very regulated in many places. In fact, for example, Uber is illegal in Colombia. And still, despite their legal status, Uber is not only very used in Colombia, but it's also safer than getting a normal taxi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not mysterious. Every time this happens it’s because the thread triggered a flame war filter.
That’s not true. A story can disappear from the front page for a variety of reasons, including user flags and manual moderator intervention. There’s no reason to suspect this particular story triggered the flamewar detector.