921–930 of 1001 posts
The walled-garden App Store was one of the reasons I got him an iPad in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is much harder to explain to consumers why Apple should get a percentage-based rent (sorry Core Technology Fee that enables Privacy and Security™) if they go to a non-Apple website, download a non-Apple app, to do non-Apple-related things. Like literally the only participants in that business transaction are the consumer and the company, Apple does not even enter the picture. It would be like car manufacturers cha…
It’s more like car manufacturer charging license fees to the dealership for their use of the original manuals and tools to provide services that rely on their diagnostic tools and manuals.
This would be the developer buying a license to the SDK and documentation and then that would be it.
Whilst I'm very much on the EU's side of this argument, the prospect of my 89 year-old father being able to download iPad apps from random websites terrifies me. The walled-garden App Store was one of the reasons I got him an iPad in the first place.
It's more like a solution engineered around the headline of allowing direct-downloads, in the end Apple is still heavily involved in the release-process of the app...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any particular reason you are picking on US companies? or big companies? Most, if not all, monopolies are sustained by government via laws, regulations, and so on. So let's get specific, which monopolies do you think should be forced to split up and we can test that theory and see if we can identify what government actions sustain the monopoly.
Having the OS, the hardware, and the app store, along with a lot of the (almost mandatory) cloud services AND the most popular apps, all made by the same company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's the builders of the consent notifications who are responsible for that. They are often skirting or even breaking EU law to make it a headache to refuse. The GDPR says, for example, that refusal should be just as easy as acceptance. Having to click to another screen to do that is... not that. In reality a cookie consent notification can just as well be a small widget somewhere with an accept and refuse button…
It's not just the dark-pattern cookie popups that are a problem - it's having any mandatory cookie popups --even the fairly-designed ones-- on virtually every website that you ever open. That's what's crappy about the implementation. I once read a light-hearted analysis of the cumulative time wasted by humanity due to the original USB plugs/sockets being unidirectional. I suspect a similar analysis of these cookie po…
In other words, the websites are showing cookie popups in you face because they really, really do want to track you, and for that they need your explicit consent. Nobody forced them to track you. The implementation does not matter; the intentions are crappy.
I think there is a recent court ruling saying websites should respect DNT settings as a (rejection of) consent; if that would be adapted universally, we would be done with the popups.
edit: https://dig.watch/updates/german-court-affirms-legal-signifi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's the builders of the consent notifications who are responsible for that. They are often skirting or even breaking EU law to make it a headache to refuse. The GDPR says, for example, that refusal should be just as easy as acceptance. Having to click to another screen to do that is... not that. In reality a cookie consent notification can just as well be a small widget somewhere with an accept and refuse button…
It's not just the dark-pattern cookie popups that are a problem - it's having any mandatory cookie popups --even the fairly-designed ones-- on virtually every website that you ever open. That's what's crappy about the implementation. I once read a light-hearted analysis of the cumulative time wasted by humanity due to the original USB plugs/sockets being unidirectional. I suspect a similar analysis of these cookie po…
Companies can comply with the law by following the old and standard DNT header. It's transparent to the user, no pop up of any kind.
They chose not to.
They are the ones you should be angry at, not the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not a big fan of the EU after this? They seem to care more about privacy and rights of the people within the majority of the countries that make up the EU then any other outside country that I could name. Then again, I'm not American so I can easily see the influence your country has on most other countries, so to say the "EU have enormous capacity for overreach at the expense of participating countries and t…
Well, yeah, but isn't the EU also responsible for all the trash cookie-consent notifications I get from every website now? Overall, I'm happy they're actively involved. The hands-off attitude in the US is terrible.
https://www.ghostery.com/blog/how-to-block-cookies-on-most-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not a big fan of the EU after this? They seem to care more about privacy and rights of the people within the majority of the countries that make up the EU then any other outside country that I could name. Then again, I'm not American so I can easily see the influence your country has on most other countries, so to say the "EU have enormous capacity for overreach at the expense of participating countries and t…
The EU should make a public service announcement. Something along the lines of: "We urge all EU citizens with Apple devices to have an alternate means of accessing critical internet services like banking, to protect themselves in the event we are forced to block all Apple services EU-wide for legal non-compliance." ... then watch AAPL stock drop below NVDA ... ... and Apple come crawling back, suitably obedient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yeah, but isn't the EU also responsible for all the trash cookie-consent notifications I get from every website now? Overall, I'm happy they're actively involved. The hands-off attitude in the US is terrible.
No, it's the builders of the consent notifications who are responsible for that. They are often skirting or even breaking EU law to make it a headache to refuse. The GDPR says, for example, that refusal should be just as easy as acceptance. Having to click to another screen to do that is... not that. In reality a cookie consent notification can just as well be a small widget somewhere with an accept and refuse button…