161–170 of 411 posts
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
Whatever they want, but let me use MY phone to install whatever app I want outside of the app store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Super confused. You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' >What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I state…
You realize in the very WSJ article you cited it said this? > A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios a…
"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.
The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.
According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."
In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:
- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode
- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned
- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period
- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out
Android users on the other hand could proactively:
- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes
- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely
- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers
Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also be applied to individual executives and board members, until they become high enough that the behavior actually changes.
$2 billion is a good start. Apple's revenue in 2024 was about $390 billion. Fines in excess of that amount should be considered.
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
10%. A finder's fee, like everything else irl. It should be regulated as such for all platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're typing that on a Pixel with a bump sticking out the back, which would mean it doesn't violate the design patent. I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.googl…
I'm not seeing how other phones are being held back by any of this. Google and Samsung have design patents, too, and my Pixel Watch also has a blood oxygen sensor.
Yes, all the other phone manufacturers also have patents. Yes, these also all hold Apple back. That's the deal we make with patents, you invent something, you get a monopoly on producing that thing.
All the other phone manufacturers are basically respecting that deal. Apple is not - they're taking that monopoly and extending it to a monopoly on distribution of software which just happens to run on the device with the thing. This is what anti-trust law, the doctrine of patent misuse, etc should prevent. Either they don't get a monopoly on the things they invented (and all the other phones get better) or they don't get to abuse that monopoly to extract money from people who already purchased the device - i.e. after the patent rights are exhausted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.
Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize in the very WSJ article you cited it said this? > A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios a…
I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference: "according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario. The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited…
But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super confused. What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated. Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples. Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"? Apple is not a fast moving co…
Google is closing down because it saw what exactly Apple got away with in previous lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference: "according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario. The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited…
Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong only about the part you disagree with? See “Gell-Mann amnesia effect”. But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago. https://support.apple.com/en-us/120340
I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is:
An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur.
An Android phone was only vulnerable if it was NOT properly secured.
So 100% of iPhone users were vulnerable, while Androids were only vulnerable if misconfigured.
So I was and I am still 100% correct, but you simply decided to nitpick that one sentence of mine that was prone to being nitpicked without bothering to understand what the significant difference between the systems were.
>But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
Yes they did, after a lot of time and pressure. And if you read my comment again, you can see that I have already stated that they have implemented it. So what's the point of you telling me something that I have already mentioned several times?