81–90 of 216 posts
I was hoping for something similar to f-droid for iPads when this all shook out. But alas not to be. The vast majority of Android tablets seem to suck for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _espe…
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate. It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their o…
The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
AFAIK this is just Apple-approved apps, just through another app and servers. How does this change anything ? Apple still has full control over what apps users can install. There is no side-loading. They still need to approve every app on third party platforms. Or has Apple actually decided to remove app signing? They sure didn't when they announced this change.
These are Apple notarized apps. As with macOS, they still have to both be signed and go through some verification , but they don’t apply any of the other App Store rules to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is not a very free country, despite the claims to the contrary. Try drinking some beer in a public park while having a picnic and see what the police do to you. The main "freedom" in America is the ability of wealthy interests to screw over everyone.
And Europe isn't free if I want to own a gun. See, I can also do a single-factor analysis and come out ahead!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening. But in general, there might exist creative counterexamples. I haven’t found any though.
> That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening. Except that this is not a good faith or legitimate freedom. Hurting people is not a freedom to anyone but a complete sociopath. The fact that the law forbids me from detonating a bomb in times square is not a restriction on any part of my ability to live life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _espe…
>An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. Is it though? To extend…
Yes, it affects all of us and positions Granny Smith for even more control over derived areas. For one, Apple are applying American morals to decisions about what kind of content is appropriate in apps.
> when consumers are willingly making this choice?
Are they, though? They're making the choice, but there's lots of factors, and this is hardly the most obvious one. So there's lots of little, day-to-day choices by individual consumers based on what looks cool, what can I afford, what has the best games - and these small chocies just happen to add up to big choice that total control of smartphones should be ceded to Apple.
> But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less).
In my country it's actually something like 80% - and it skews in a certain way so that many apps are iOS-only. Not the ones you can't live without, not yet, at least.
> Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
I know Apple are running a big fearmongering campaign, but to the best of my knowledge, all of the changes that the DMA enforce are opt-in. The only way it affects you if you don't want to opt-in is that it informs that you now have a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That freedom of gay people does affect the freedom of religious fundamentalists to prevent what they consider sin from happening. But in general, there might exist creative counterexamples. I haven’t found any though.
In other words freedom is like energy. It is finite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _espe…
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate. It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Europeans have done some good work on things like privacy, but as for Apple and their app store, it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone . There are lots and lots of other phones out there that aren't nearly as monopolistic in their treatment of users.
To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _espe…
This would only be true if Android did not exist.
But the reality is it’s not harmful at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. EU's attempted total control of all aspects of the tech platforms is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less economically literate. It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their o…
> It's funny that Apple is condemned here for applying inside their own platform the exact same strategy the EU is applying inside its tech market. The EU is a regulatory body and a union of democratic sovereign states. There is no comparison to be had whatsoever with a multinational for-profit company.
While multinational companies?! I can actually stop being their customer and vote with my wallet. Much more democratic, IMHO.