61–70 of 930 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
for sure. but a newly established company with strong revenues in a part of the world where there are no rules? difficult to answer.
So what? Nobody is obliged to serve any market, or a markets obliges to open for individual companies. If company A won't, companies B and C propably will.
if your goal is more protectionism, then it’s great. but if you want to produce market leaders then it’s bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's good news! No more forced crappy webkit browser engine in iOS. The other things can be added in a secure fashion as well. Sideloading doesn't need to be wild west. macOS also makes it possible with certificates etc. Messanger interop is also nice, when done right: basically would need a shared standard like the web that is done by a messaging consortium like the W3.
> No more forced crappy webkit browser engine in iOS. you know this just means more chrome right? > Messanger interop is also nice, when done right: basically would need a shared standard like the web that is done by a messaging consortium like the W3. we went thru this before. didn’t work then, won’t work now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which ones do you find ridiculous? They frankly diverge from the current status quo but to me they all go in the right direction.
i foresee a fiasco in general, but a few stand out: > Share data and metrics with developers and competitors, including marketing and advertising performance data. with competitors? :)) > Allow developers to integrate their apps and digital services directly with those belonging to a gatekeeper. This includes making messaging, voice-calling, and video-calling services interoperable with third-party services upon requ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I edited my comment. I apologize - I was way off on both points.
Well not completely off, it is true that if the commission and council aren’t on board this bill will be stillborn.
Council not agreeing is definitely a potential problem, but given the level of support from the Commission and Parliament I doubt the Council will block this.
I think there are good intentions behind it, but it also misses the mark by targeting big tech specifically. The good that could have come of it, is a sort of open sourcing of tech companies... but of course none of that is going to happen. Yet we have standards; like USB-C which are a good thing. Question is who should enforce creating more standards (to address eg the interoperability of the messaging apps cited in…
It wasn't always this way. Before the thinness craze, I think around 2013, you could freely replace your memory and disks - and I still have several of these machines beefed up.
[0] Most of the time - let's ignore little fucups everybody makes from time to time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? Nobody is obliged to serve any market, or a markets obliges to open for individual companies. If company A won't, companies B and C propably will.
> So what? if your goal is more protectionism, then it’s great. but if you want to produce market leaders then it’s bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do have the option to choose. You can buy any number of Android phones, or you can jailbreak an iPhone with custom software. Ultimately this will be bad for regular people, and good for crypto scammers, ad agencies, and companies that rely on hovering up personal data.
And now you'll be able to choose WHILE still keep using iOS which is much better for you as a consumer. This being bad for "regular people" is typical monopolistic corporate scaremongering. Apple has proven that they're more than capable of providing secure devices that provide choice with their MacBook series.
Now what happens is that companies like Facebook and others who really want to get your data without that pesky Apple interfering is they launch legal attacks and marketing campaigns to convince people that Apple is a big bad monopoly and their "locking down" is bad for customers, etc. (so ya know, typical monopolistic corporate scaremongering) and then Apple goes and gets regulated.
With Apple finally being forced to allow a third-party app store on iOS, it makes financial sense for, well, Facebook and others to start such stores that don't respect privacy rights - Apple can't make them and then Facebook creates a neutered version of its products on Apple's App Store and creates the best version on their own (or one they support) app store. It didn't make a lot of sense to do this with just Android because you're maintaining a lot of software and it's not worth the money + you don't want to show your hand. Now with this new legislation these companies will basically eliminate a lot of customer protections that we have.
Many day-to-day people will just say "oh I need the X store for Facebook and TikTok and YouTube" and they'll sign away privacy rights to get those apps because they don't have an immediate feedback loop. They just get more and more invasive applications and then that's that.
With Apple maintaining control of the App Store ecosystem, customers could have their cake and eat it too. They got privacy rights because Apple could collectively bargain for them, but they also got their apps because so much money stands to be made anyway that companies would comply with these rules.
It absolutely blows my mind that people are rallying the pitchforks around Apple for "monopolistic corporate scaremongering" all the while missing that its all of these other "monopolistic corporate scaremongering" corporations like Facebook, Google, TikTok, Uber, and others who they're out in the streets for. I mean, you do know that Facebook is a giant corporation, right? (Not picking on Facebook here).
For me personally as a user, it means companies leave the App Store ecosystem, and devalues the iPhone and other devices.
I will quit Apple. Wait … Google is worse … :(