11–20 of 289 posts
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook are the iPhone Al Capone. There's no technical reason software needs to be distributed this way. It's only greed. I hope this mounting evidence leads to a single verdict from the DOJ: "no more app stores" for common computing devices. (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)
You don’t think the security/trust argument has any merit?
Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or well, it should be.
>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same? >Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
> Apple CEO Tim Cook defended the company’s App Store commission structure in his sworn testimony before the House Antitrust Subcommittee on Wednesday. > “We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules,” Cook said, in his testimony. “It’s a rigorous process, because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality. We do look at every app before it goes on,” he added. Slightly different…
Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as new opportunities emerge. If you have a…
Why should I not get the best wages, negotiated employment agreement, interest rates, lease terms, and deal with the IRS on taxes that I really don't want to pay as my most successful peer?
Banks bend over backwards for their VIP customers, why shouldn't they do the same for me?
My neighbours didn't get a rent increase this month because my landlord likes them, why should I have to negotiate for getting the same thing?
Bill on my team got a 30% bonus this year, I also want a 30% bonus... And would love to see this sort of thing codified in law.
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook are the iPhone Al Capone. There's no technical reason software needs to be distributed this way. It's only greed. I hope this mounting evidence leads to a single verdict from the DOJ: "no more app stores" for common computing devices. (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)
You don’t think the security/trust argument has any merit?
App review is meant to enforce Apple's payment rules as much as anything. They don't and can't catch everything.
Strong sandboxing, granular permissions, and remote kill switch (that can be disabled) can do effectively the same job. It just won't earn Apple gobs of racketeering money.