It’d be cool not to have to transform our entire digital lifestyle just because we want to do a thing that our phone is more than capable of doing, but can’t because Apple says so.If they want to sideload app they can go to Android.
It’d be cool not to have to transform our entire digital lifestyle just because we want to do a thing that our phone is more than capable of doing, but can’t because Apple says so.If they want to sideload app they can go to Android.
Sure we can.Just another reason to force open the platform, currently Apple users can't go elsewhere.
Yeah, busy like the guy from Game of Thrones that became King for chilling 8 Seasons long on his Chair.Two issues- each side only has a certain amount of time in the trial. Since this is the last full day, they are essentially out of time. Second, I believe there were some limits imposed by the judge because Cook doesn't really have much to do with the issues in the case and he's busy guy.
We knew what the deal was. This hasn't changed since 2007.It’d be cool not to have to transform our entire digital lifestyle just because we want to do a thing that our phone is more than capable of doing, but can’t because Apple says so.
Hmm. Even though his comments are addressing privacy, replace the word "everyone" with "Apple's app review board", then it's totally okay for developers to do less over time. Wait, what's this whole court case about anyway? Privacy, right?
Hmm. So your income is allocated non-specifically to the App Store… In other words, the App Store's "expenses" aren't high enough to warrant specific consideration? Wait, why are we charging developers 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions? Oh yeah, to fund R&D not specifically related to the App Store.
Ha! Hahahaha!!! I'm surprised and delighted at the stupidity to use this analogy in court. You can't "be both a judge and a player". Furthermore, products (especially toys) often have special deals inside their boxes that invite the purchaser to go to their website for special deals. Best Buy still sells those products. If that's not enough, the iPhone is not a brick-and-mortar store, it's a digital internet device. To compare online intangible purchases with real-world tangible purchases needs a lot more explanation than a simple analogy that presumes the two to be equivalent.
This is so problematic and the judge will see right through it. Like I said, I'm surprised at this statement, but delighted.
So he will be asking questions, not answering them?Tim Cook has taken the stand to ask questions levied by both Apple and Epic lawyers.
you must be listening to a different judge and a different trial than I am listening to.
Tim Apple must be reading MR with his Best Buy comment lol
They can. They can buy an Android phone."...it's hard to imagine a part of your life that you can't have an app for..."
LOL, and Cook just gave the a powerful answer that proves, why there MUST be sideloading on every platform and device, and no company should be in total control what an user can install, or a developer can develop and distribute.
"When asked why apps can't direct users to deals on their websites, Cook said it would be "akin to Apple down at Best Buy saying 'Best Buy, put a sign there advertising where we are and that you can go across the street and get an iPhone.'"
Sure, but customers a.k.a. users can go elsewhere and buy it.
Just another reason to force open the platform, currently Apple users can't go elsewhere.
You said the judge will see through something, but all of her comments and questions indicate that she thinks Epic is unlikely to have a case. As for allocating costs, as Cook pointed out, Apple is famous for using a single P&L and not allocated by product/feature. They are organized by business function, not by product.I want to respect your comment, but I literally quoted from the MacRumors post… so… please criticize me directly, or the author of the post directly… so that I can at least defend myself or agree with you.
I understand and respect that perspective, and I had a jailbroken device for a few years back in the good old days of iPhone 3GS and 4, but now that Apple has pretty much caught up with all the stuff I wanted from the jailbreak, I haven't felt that need at all with my current device. Plus these days there is no shortage of apps available in the App Store that can do whatever most people need. In my view the main person Apple won't allow to install whatever they want is the hacker who wants to install malware on my device, and I'm totally cool with that protection.Personally, I'm not a huge fan of corporations telling me what I'm allowed or not allowed to install. But that's just me.
For months, there have been these articles with MR user comments making analogies to Best Buy, Target, department stores, malls, etc.haha can you elaborate
Android, for sure.[...]
Sure, but customers a.k.a. users can go elsewhere and buy it.
Just another reason to force open the platform, currently Apple users can't go elsewhere.
haha can you elaborate
Even if I weren't ok with Apple's protection, which in some ways I'm not, I'm supportive of their right to do what they want. Even though I'm not part of Apple in any way, those rights apply to other corps and individuals too.I understand and respect that perspective, and I had a jailbroken device for a few years back in the good old days of iPhone 3GS and 4, but now that Apple has pretty much caught up with all the stuff I wanted from the jailbreak, I haven't felt that need at all with my current device. Plus these days there is no shortage of apps available in the App Store that can do whatever most people need. In my view the main person Apple won't allow to install whatever they want is the hacker who wants to install malware on my device, and I'm totally cool with that protection.
For months, there have been these articles with MR user comments making analogies to Best Buy, Target, department stores, malls, etc.
Few MR news ago, they stated Cook was preparing for hours for this trial testimony.haha can you elaborate
Me also. Shocked I tell you.Nice. If we’re lucky, we might get a ruling by around this time next year. And whoever loses, they’ll spend the next 5 years fighting the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In other words, nothing happened, and I am shocked… shocked!
(Don’t get me wrong by the way; I believe her about having more cases, but I’d bet a part of her just wants to put off dealing with such a difficult ruling.)
You said the judge will see through something, but all of her comments and questions indicate that she thinks Epic is unlikely to have a case. As for allocating costs, as Cook pointed out, Apple is famous for using a single P&L and not allocated by product/feature. They are organized by business function, not by product.
Rather than relying on summaries, i suggest you dial-in and listen first-hand.
Without money loss, sure not!Android, for sure.
What money loss? It's cheaper and does roughly the same thing.Without money loss, sure not!
They are trapped.