571–580 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.
Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO, it’s about the moral equivalent of using dark UI patterns to trick users into performing actions they don’t want to do. The scary warning and convoluted workaround for running un–notarized apps is ostensibly to prevent non–technical people from compromising their computers. Now Apple is abusing that security mechanism for Business Reasons that have nothing to do with protecting users. The fact that users can tec…
This is completely off-topic, but isn't the regular hyphen what you want in "non-technical"? I don't think the en-dash is correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to note that you can still run unsigned Mac apps. Apple isn't preventing users from running a tool they want to run, it's just showing them a big scary warning and making them jump through some extra hoops. It's incredibly scummy and inappropriate, but I would put it more along the lines of an attack-ad than an outright ban. Edit: Now, one thing that isn't totally clear is whether or not devs who have…
The pop-up box you get when you try to run unsigned applications gives the user absolutely no hint as to how they can jump through those hoops to run the thing. You need to know what to google for to find the right magic incantation to enter into the macOS terminal. On Windows, at least, the “Run anyway” button is merely behind the “More information...” link.
You right click it and select “Open”...
Almost all MacOS users even the non-technical types encounter this at some point unless they go 100% Mac App Store which almost no one does if they have a job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't get to use retaliatory behavior to discourage lawsuits, in this form, especially as a service provider. If they wanted to sue Epic back over frivolous patent violations, they're allowed, but if you're going to engage in retaliatory behavior you can't do it in a way that violates your own ToS.
Apple has terms and conditions for developer accounts, which, if broken, result in account termination. Epic agreed to, and then broke, those terms and conditions. This results in account termination. I'm not sure how this is retaliatory behavior. If I had an app and snuck violations into my app to get past review, then had my app removed, then instantly released a PR campaign and filed a lawsuit, I think it would be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stallman is a difficult person to like and he is wrong about many things, but not about this, the central issue of his career.
What do you find him wrong about?
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
[0]: https://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html
---
I don't think child pornography should be legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Windows world, you can just pick a new certificate vendor. In Apple world, they have a monopoly and get to dictate who gets 'full access' to both their mobile devices and their desktops/laptops. They could still do unsigned MacOS apps from here out, but Apple has purposely made it difficult for end users to run them.
Lock-in was their business model back in the 80s, it still is to this day. It got them to the verge of bankruptcy then, it will be their downfall now.
Apple’s poor financial state under Sculley was more because they had an objectively poor product (going by the technical merits alone), a confusing product line-up, a failure to recapture the education sector that was quickly switching to Windows due to its enterprise-friendly features like Group Policy and compatibility with Directory Services like NetWare, and because it didn’t have a plan going forward into the 21st century.
I do note that in the 1990s under Sculley they both licensed macOS to third-party hardware vendors and were fine with PowerPC being adopted by other platforms (even Microsoft, and evening when it was incompatible with Apple’s architecture) - that’s the very opposite of the vendor lock-in-in that you’re describing. It can be argued that Apple’s “nice guy” approach further contributed to their decline - it certainly didn’t help raise sales nor their share-price.
Aldo consider when Steve Jobs returned they made deals with Microsoft to ensure Office would still be available for the Mac. Apple’s stewardship of WebKit was about driving open web-standards, even though Safari is very much Apple-exclusive. Apple also made a big-deal about how the then-new Mac OS X was a POSIX-compliant BSD system.
I think you’re confusing Apple’s aggressive control of the user-experience with IBM and Oracle-style lock-in. With IBM/Oracle a company or gov dept will have sunk $lots into a system that they cannot take away to a different vendor: there is literally no alternative than to continue with whatever gargantuan system their sales reps convinced the customer to buy. This is why banks and insurance companies are still rocking IBM Z-series today after 30+ years even though a system that’s just as resilient could be built for a fraction of the price on commodity hardware (I’m not going to pretend that Linux was a viable option back then, but systems like VMS or a project requirement to use POSIX were options back then). When people say that banks/insurance companies are “conservative” when it comes to technology I think it’s better to describe them as being technically inept or even corrupt which led to them being caught in vendor lock-in which paralysed them internally: I feel the arguments that they don’t want to risk losing billions over a bad technology move are just excuses for being unable to make a technology move even if they wanted to.
I believe that Apple sees that their controlling of the user-experience of its customers creates value for the user - whereas IBM/Oracle-style lock-in rarely does. I reckon 90%+ of non-developers using Apple hardware today (iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc) could switch to Android, Surface, and Windows PC respectively without losing much in the way of capability - but they would lose a cohesive and well-thought-out user-experience, which is Apple’s moat.
From a preliminary statement of Epic's motion: > Just over two weeks ago, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook was asked during a Congressional hearing whether Apple has “ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store”. Mr. Cook testified, “We do not retaliate or bully people. It’s strongly against our company culture.”
Some might see a difference between "a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store" and a developer who deliberately violated the policies and then filed a lawsuit and started an extensive PR campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties. I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or…
> I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to. While I agree with the overwhelming majority of your reply, I'd suggest that the significant majority of iPhone owners expect to be able to run "any third-party software they want" because they expect substantially any third-party software they would want to be a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they want you to think. Which is why they say it. Sounds better than "Tim made the order to retaliate, sayonara"
Given that there are lawsuits in place pretty sure they aren't going to lie about it. Question is how serious the multiple infractions are.
1) not giving Apple their 30%
2) publishing code without prior approval by Apple
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so that's why I never liked nor trusted this whole idea of code signing with non-self-signed certificates, especially on desktop OSes. This notarization mechanism introduced a single point of failure: Apple. And now there is concrete evidence of how exactly this is bad. On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.
It's important to note that you can still run unsigned Mac apps. Apple isn't preventing users from running a tool they want to run, it's just showing them a big scary warning and making them jump through some extra hoops. It's incredibly scummy and inappropriate, but I would put it more along the lines of an attack-ad than an outright ban. Edit: Now, one thing that isn't totally clear is whether or not devs who have…