731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU has always been enthusiastic about the spirit of the law, and Apple is not used to this. You can see their temper tantrum unfold every time they find this out.
Disregarding the letter of the law seems arbitrary and capricious.
There's a distinction to be made between principles-based and rules-based regulation which I bet you're unfamiliar with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried parental controls on Android or are you just taking out of the side of your mouth? I have parental controls for my kids android devices and it works exceptionally well. I am not dissing the apple version because I have not used it, and based on your comment I have to assume you have not used the android parent controls and are just needing to convince yourself that apple are better and the apple premiu…
I have tried it. More than one phone from different carriers. The parental controls are lacking. It's been a couple of years since I've last tried, but given Google's history regarding subpar controls I doubt it has gotten appreciably better.
I'm confused by this. Did it come to play regarding parental controls ? Like an extra layer from the carrier ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't…
What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If th…
You should not have to police adults on what they're allowed to do with their property. If someone asks me to help them setup their computer, I may gave some advice and warning about things to avoid. If they asked me to do something that may be dangerous, I can refuse to do it, but I will not actively prevent them from doing so. They're not children.
If someone is ok with putting their whole digital life at risk, then let him do so. Just like you can't prevent someone who wants to eat cake all day. It's not your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just switch to Android, why take this kind of user hostility from Apple?
For the same reason I don't switch to Windows: the alternatives are even worse. Apple isn't the best, no one deserves "best" in desktop and mobile operating systems, but it's the least bad. In mobiles we basically have a duopoly, and the only ones who are likely to care about the customer's interests are regulators. Neither Apple nor Google have any incentive because there is no 3rd option.
Uh. Apple and Google compete with each other. Why would they need a 3rd option for incentive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39685272 So safe in this walled garden where Apple reviews all apps for user safety and security.
I didn't claim that it's perfect, just that it's safer. Regarding smartphone safety, the only truly safe thing to do is not not use one at all.
Solid workable solution you have proposed there.
The terms and conditions for web distribution [0] are concerning to say the least. In short, you have to have at least one million first installs annually on iOS to even qualify, in addition to other terms such as "good standing in the Apple Developer Program for two continuous years or more". I doubt Epic and the like would be considered in good standing as far as Apple is concerned. Also, quote unquote, developers…
~20% of Apple's total earnings (not revenue) could come from the App Store: https://deepwatermgmt.com/apples-app-store-is-an-important-p... When you look at the multiple on services - the App Store could easily be >40% of Apple's total market cap. They're going to stick their fingers in their ears as long as they can to defend that. You don't give up the golden goose. You defend it.
Meanwhile, Android has dozens of stores and Google Play keeps the lion's share because it's built into almost every phone, has most of the apps anyway, and google's own safety assurances built-in. Google has gotten dinged but for much more insidious stuff behind the scenes, which still amounts to a few large publishers out of hundreds.
It's just paranoia at this point. Most of the market is captured, and any part Apple couldn't capture after 15 years (say, maybe premium games) is one they probably weren't every going to capture anyway. This is being worried about a crack in the brick wall while 99.999% of devs will just keep entering the front door like normal people. And most of the remaining people bypassing apple will just throw a brick at the door instead of meticulously exploit said crack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe they would be allowed to charge for the SDK and the dev tools as long as they don’t require developers to use that SDK and the dev tools. I’m sure someone else would provide an alternative SDK and tooling then.
But is it even legally required for them to provide a stable 3rd party software support? That would be ridiculous. So if they put in the effort to provide such a base and open it to public, why can't they choose to be compensated for that work? My problem can be summarized as (assume the company in question is not a monopoly): * Is it illegal to sell a device with a microprocessor in it that has no support for 3rd pa…
That’s just my personal opinion. The DMA is about anti-trust, that some companies are controlling a too large part of the cake, affecting too many users (end users as well as “business users”, e.g. app developers), which is bad for a competitive market and level playing field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The premise of a walled garden is to keep unwanted things out, not to imprison you inside. Apple maintaining a store where they've vetted everything in it is fine, and if you like you can refuse to install anything from outside of it. That doesn't justify them prohibiting you from installing anything from outside of it. It should be up to you. If you wanted to, you could even configure your phone to not add any new s…
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be opened up. I'm just stating that by being a walled garden it is safer. When things eventually open up, when Apple is finally forced to permit other app stores on their mobile devices, I'll take a hard pass on them.
You are saying you are happy in a "safe secure system".
In contrast, a "walled garden" is a prohibition on alternatives, not a source of safety. The prohibition of alternatives does not make the App Store safer.
If anything, it protects Apple from competing with safter alternatives! Like an app store only for children. Or an app store of formally verified apps.
Please correct me if I am somehow missing something...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disregarding the letter of the law seems arbitrary and capricious.
There's different ways to interpret laws for courts. One of them is called teleological interpretation where you follow the intent of the law. For this courts also look into the documentation the legislation provided when defining the law. This is usually not done by lower courts, but courts like the CJEU use those when the letter of the law is unclear to define this for the lower courts to follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Particularly when there are better alternatives. For example, put a physical hardware switch on the inside of the device that disables new stores from being added. Now you can set up your technically disinclined relatives with Apple's store, and a couple of others you trust if it pleases you, then flip the switch and they can't get into trouble because they can't add others. Move the switch back and the device won't…
What happens when Meta, X, Google et al. move to their own stores where they distribute apps unencumbered by Apple's privacy policies? Your relatives then contact you and insist that you flip the switch for them so they can install Facebook and Instagram from the Meta store so they can continue scrolling cat memes. I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this. If th…
I guess pigs fly or hell freezes over. Musk and Zuckerburg had years after such changes to make their own store on Android (which put in similar privacy policies at the same time as Apple). It doesn't make any sense for them because being off the main store is worse than gleeming off a bit more data to sell.
>I have yet to hear a convincing argument (from multi-store proponents) about how to prevent this.
How about proving that the subjects in question are on multiple stores to begin with, or otherwise have shown interest?
You're questioning GDPR's validity, but your own premise isn't a thing to begin with.