191–200 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judgment can be grounded in reality or it can be picking a random subrange of a list of somewhat random ranges and then picking a midpoint because why not.
What would you expect them to do in this case in particular?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone, so I would call that substantial evidence that PCs have NOT "been handling [it] just fine." For these folks, PCs are a total failure; a dead end. A danger zone to be avoided at all costs.
If you have a citation that droves of people are abandoning PCs for phones specifically because PCs allow them to install software of their choice, rather than other reasons like the convenience of a computer that fits in their hand, I'd be interested in seeing it. Because that sounds like an absolutely outrageous claim to be asserting as a fact to me.
This shows that younger kids aren’t using traditional PCs, at least not to the same degree. They just use phones and tablets. At best they may play games on their PC by installing via Steam. Very few of them are becoming proper technologists (able to install and use any software, script the computer, or write their own software).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why even have fines when they amount to an insignificant cost of doing business? What is the purpose? If the purpose is to deter companies from doing some thing, then a fine that equals a tiny number of days revenue is not providing any kind of deterrence.
Isn’t this a counter factual that can’t be proved? How do you know it won’t deter other companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong 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 i…
Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .
I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing.
Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party app stores that still require Apple's blessing and taxes don't count).
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.
You had the choice to buy another phone.
A duopoly is not a choice.
For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.
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 should we be paying Microsoft when we buy Steam games on Windows? 30%? I'd be okay giving Microsoft whatever they wanted on the Windows app store as long as they loosened their grip on being able to run what you want, from where you want, without their explicit blessing. Same applies to Apple. If their App Store is really that good, it can compete on a fair playing field with other options (and no, 3rd party…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a citation that droves of people are abandoning PCs for phones specifically because PCs allow them to install software of their choice, rather than other reasons like the convenience of a computer that fits in their hand, I'd be interested in seeing it. Because that sounds like an absolutely outrageous claim to be asserting as a fact to me.
You can Google it yourself. There are tons of studies showing a decline in technology literacy among younger generations (Z and alpha). Millennials were the peak. This shows that younger kids aren’t using traditional PCs, at least not to the same degree. They just use phones and tablets. At best they may play games on their PC by installing via Steam. Very few of them are becoming proper technologists (able to instal…
The phenomenon you're talking about now is so completely in another universe that it's insane you would conflate the two. I actually can't finish typing this response properly because it's hurting my head every second I continue to think about your argument. To sum it up really shortly: smartphones universal, required to even participate in society, people now given smartphones from early age, multi-functional as phones, cameras, etc, they fit in your pocket, more than sufficient for normie use cases and in fact more suitable for many use cases that don't entail sitting at a desk at home, computers are specialised tools for specialised functionality that many people have no need for. There are 100000000 reasons why smartphone usage displaces PC usage that aren't because they explicitly abandoned PCs for the crime of allowing them to choose what software to install, which was your claim. Not even having mentioned that globally, 75% of smartphone usage is Android which doesn't lock its users in the cage (for the time being).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so. If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There sho…
There are entire classes of people who have simply given up on PCs and only use a phone, so I would call that substantial evidence that PCs have NOT "been handling [it] just fine." For these folks, PCs are a total failure; a dead end. A danger zone to be avoided at all costs.
That’s how fine PC’s have been doing software.
Search for your preferred PC brand and list of CVEs.
I’ve had Windows / malware roll back a BIOS update to a previous version that had a know (published CVE) remote code execution vulnerability complete with published proof of concept.