601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related question: what does the user want? I doubt a majority of users are against side loading.
I don’t think users really want to have to use 5 different app stores. I’ll probably opt to not buy an app if I first have to download another App Store app.
Apple being motivated by improving security are BS, and it pains me te see people in this forum falling for it or reapeating this. There is a great tool to increase security: the browser and its sandbox. You don't need to install anything fishy on your phone, and the sandbox rights coukd be sufficient for many apps. But as an example, Apple denies the full screen feature for websites and even PWA... only installed on…
It's the same with privacy. Forcing app publishers to state what user data is being sucked out of their phones was just a poor PR stunt.
Nothing has changed. Applications still require payments in form of contact lists (which is more or less illegal in Europe if you don't have permission of all people in your address book to share their names and phone numbers), disguised as helping users check if their friends are using a service, or to even allow user to use some app functionality.
Unimaginative accountant that currently leads Apple on one hand bullshits public opinion when disallowing Facebook to steal data from users' devices and, on the other hand, after blocking Zuckerberg's ability to do so, he disgracefully used children protection to announce that Apple will now inspect users' data under the pretense of looking for child porn.
Apple users are being deprived of OS control with most of updates and it's always done under the untruthful pretense of increasing security or protecting users' privacy.
When this little man finally pushes ads to core macOS, he'll state that it's to help users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "the government saving us from our own choices". It's us asking our democratically elected government to stop a giant corporation from telling us what to do with our own devices.
I like how you say that as though I hadn't already considered that point. Would it be too much to ask to perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm already aware of all of the major arguments for why Apple should allow sideloading? Yes it's your device, but it's not your software. You don't own the software. And it's the software which is stopping you from doing what you want. Really though I'm just saying tha…
I'm sure that now that the EU has finally woken up, gaming platforms will be under scrunity too. Mobile phones are a much more critical part of people's lives than game consoles, so it made sense to target them first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defenders of Apple's policies always say you can just use other tech if you don't agree with them. The same principle applies here. If an app requires you to use a third party app store and you don't like it then choose another app. If you feel compelled to use a product with policies you don't agree with then now you understand how many of us feel about iOS.
But there's no push, you can literally ignore Apple's existence and use none of their products and you'll have no care in the world. Apple's network effect is basically zero. There's always one Android user in the friend group that spoils iMessage and FaceTime so we have to use something else anyway. If you mean you feel compelled to sell in their store which requires a laptop, a business relationship with Apple, and…
>There's always one Android user in the friend group that spoils iMessage and FaceTime
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the GP's point, they rent you games but the language they use is "buy", and they shouldn't. They should say "rent" instead.
You are (usually) buying a perpetual licence which is revocable, not renting a licence, so the language is correct. Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).
I wonder if they considered an "iPhone Europe Edition" - USB-C, side loading, physical SIM cards. Sounds like a good phone!
What’s good about physical SIMs? I do like apple for daring to improve the status quo there, so I want my European Edition with only e-simsz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the GP's point, they rent you games but the language they use is "buy", and they shouldn't. They should say "rent" instead.
You are (usually) buying a perpetual licence which is revocable, not renting a licence, so the language is correct. Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).
To my layman's ear the two terms sound almost contradictory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related question: what does the user want? I doubt a majority of users are against side loading.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” attributed to Henry Ford. While listening to feedback is not a bad thing, design by focus group rarely works out well. You risk ending up with things like this https://i.imgur.com/IoPkza2.png ! While this is obviously a joke, it does contain grains of truth. The other problem with this argument is how the question is framed? Are the majorit…
The pros and cons are already quantifiable on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related question: what does the user want? I doubt a majority of users are against side loading.
I doubt a majority of users want side loading. It’s available on Android and very few (relatively speaking) take advantage of that feature.
They should just allow installing other operating systems instead. If you want out of their platform, install Linux OS on your phone and have whatever you want there. Wouldn't that make everybody happy - Apple, EU and customers?
Linux on mobile is a major step back both in terms of security and usability. Modern smartphone App Sandboxes are immensely better than desktop paradigms. Sideloading should be allowed, tho.
There are people who would like to use devices they own in alternative ways ie. to develop, experiment or simply not to throw perfectly functioning, un-updatable, just few years old hardware to the trash bin.
Apple doesn't want their platform to be polluted with privileged, unsigned code. They don't want next security breach news headline to include their name in it if it originated from code they haven't verified/signed/created - because they put a lot of effort into securing their platform and profit out of it.
Allowing running alternative OSes would make both sides happy, no?