Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple-Commissioned Study Highlights Success of Third-Party Apps

vipergts2207 said:
Acceptable and legal are often very different, so don't conflate the two. Before the Clean Water Act in 1972 (or it's predecessor FWPCA) was it acceptable for companies to pollute our waterways just because it was legal? No. I don't know about you, but I think most of us rather enjoy clean water and would find such actions unacceptable, regardless of its legal status. In fact new laws often arise because of behavior that is seen as unacceptable being legal. New distracted driving laws being a relatively recent example.
Click to expand...
That law didn't stop the 2014 environmental injustice and bad decision making that became the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, "when the city switched its drinking water supply from Detroit’s system to the Flint River in a cost-saving move. Inadequate treatment and testing of the water resulted in a series of major water quality and health issues for Flint residents—issues that were chronically ignored, overlooked, and discounted by government officials even as complaints mounted that the foul-smelling, discolored, and off-tasting water piped into Flint homes for 18 months was causing skin rashes, hair loss, and itchy skin." — Flint Water Crisis: Everything You Need to Know
 
Maximara said:
That law didn't stop the 2014 environmental injustice and bad decision making that became the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, "when the city switched its drinking water supply from Detroit’s system to the Flint River in a cost-saving move. Inadequate treatment and testing of the water resulted in a series of major water quality and health issues for Flint residents—issues that were chronically ignored, overlooked, and discounted by government officials even as complaints mounted that the foul-smelling, discolored, and off-tasting water piped into Flint homes for 18 months was causing skin rashes, hair loss, and itchy skin." — Flint Water Crisis: Everything You Need to Know
Click to expand...
And your point would be what? That because the Flint water crisis happened the CWA is useless or that we don’t need it? I’m going to have to heavily disagree with you on that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
jakey rolling said:
"Draconian"? You mean like <gasp> allowing people to have a choice in where they are allowed to source their software? Or to allow software publishers to choose how to interact with their customers? Those kind of "draconian" solutions?
Click to expand...

"Draconian" is subjective. I don't see why Apple should be obligated to open up its software on its hardware that it invested in. In fact, some people even argue Apple should open up all of its API's.

What this means, in essence, is that Apple develops this great product - its hardware and software - and now other people are demanding to profit off of it. That seems unfair to me, especially with so many other options being available.

Can you please explain what the difference is between Apple being forced to open its API's, forced to allow third-party app stores, or alternate payment systems, and a store being told they should be forced to accept crypto, a restaurant being forced to sell a specific food item, etc.? And again, this is assuming there are other choices, as there clearly are with Apple.

In fact, even within Apple's own "walled garden", its not that hard to bypass the in-app purchase system. Netflix, Hulu and probably hundreds of other apps do it. Web apps can be developed to bypass the App store entirely.

This is akin to watching someone buy property, invest in renovating it and building a successful business, and then me walking in and demanding to profit from it. If I sell something on ebay, I do so knowing what the commission and fees are. I shouldn't be able to demand ebay list all of my products for free, and demand they accept payments that they currently don't.

*Actually, I'll go a step further. Forcing Apple to offer alternate app stores would require Apple to tweak its hardware and software to such a degree, it would be akin to me going to a store and not only demanding they sell my products for a low commission that I personally find acceptable, but also demanding they build a new wing onto their store - at their expense - to sell my products.

The first version of iOS had no app store. What if they had simply never opened an app store? Should they have been forced to create one? And if not, why should they be forced to tweak what they have in place now, that thousands of developers profit off?
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: genovelle, Maximara and quarkysg
vipergts2207 said:
And your point would be what? That because the Flint water crisis happened the CWA is useless or that we don’t need it? I’m going to have to heavily disagree with you on that point.
Click to expand...
The point was unless the government enforces it a law on the books doesn't mean anything. The Sherman Anti-Trust act had sat largely unused for 10 years until events caused it to actually be enforced. Prohibition was even more of a fiasco as corruption was rampant with only a few actually enforcing the law.
 
Maximara said:
The point was unless the government enforces it a law on the books doesn't mean anything. The Sherman Anti-Trust act had sat largely unused for 10 years until events caused it to actually be enforced. Prohibition was even more of a fiasco as corruption was rampant with only a few actually enforcing the law.
Click to expand...
Sure, that’s certainly true. However step number one is still having the law on the books in the first place. Can’t enforce a law that doesn’t exist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
vipergts2207 said:
Do you typically lay out the entirety of your position from head to toe in one comment? Or do you make further points and expand on your thoughts over the course of a conversation? It's quite absurd to expect the former. There's a lot of stuff I didn't say in my first comment, but that doesn't mean the first comment was the whole of my thoughts or logic on the topic at hand. You yourself have expanded on your own thoughts over the course of many comments in this thread. Not to mention I made my position clear on this specific point by comment number three to you. Attack my actual argument, rather than setting up strawmen for yourself to beat up. Though I realize the appeal of the latter since it's the easy, though fallacious way to debate.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we finally agree after the misunderstanding of your first post on the matter.
 
jakey rolling said:
Ahh. The "layperson" dig. Gotta love the veiled self-importance of rabid fanboys.

You make it sound like Apple would have to completely re-engineer the operating system just so that some third party application can do the same thing that their own built-in application can do. It may just be the "layperson" in me, but I kind of have to express a bit of doubt here. Because in order for that to be true, Apple would have had to spend a metric f-ton of software engineering man-hours intentionally doing the opposite of what is considered general best practices in software design, just to do something that simple software interlocks would accomplish with less expense and fewer avenues of failure.

Apps themselves are pretty much self-contained once they have been installed. The only real change that would need to be made is some mechanism for iOS or the Apple App store to identify when an app is being maintained by a third party store and to politely leave it alone come update time.

Either way, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass how much Apple has to spend to fix what they intentionally broke.


Sure, go ahead and presume that.
Click to expand...
You’re a lay person and I’m a lay person. Neither of us know the inner workings.
 
vipergts2207 said:
Sure, that’s certainly true. However step number one is still having the law on the books in the first place. Can’t enforce a law that doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
A law on the books is still subject to interpretation. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education for instance. By the way do you know by law the state can sterilize you in the US? That is what Buck v. Bell says. :(
 
I7guy said:
forums.macrumors.com

Apple-Commissioned Study Highlights Success of Third-Party Apps

Huh? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Are you saying regulators should be expected to regulate things that don't exist yet?
forums.macrumors.com forums.macrumors.com

Looks bad when posters don’t remember what they posted.
Click to expand...
Because your last posts have been quite confusing, bordering on incomprehensibility. And in fact the post of mine you linked to has no assertions from me in it. Two of the sentences are questions and one sentence is a statement saying that I don’t understand what you’re saying. So again I ask you, what am I asserting?

Looks bad when you call a statement of confusion and two questions an assertion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
Maximara said:
A law on the books is still subject to interpretation. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education for instance. By the way do you know by law the state can sterilize you in the US? That is what Buck v. Bell says. :(
Click to expand...
Ok and? Again, you cannot enforce a law if it’s not on the books in the first place. You cannot interpret a law if it’s not on the books in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
vipergts2207 said:
Because your last posts have been quite confusing, bordering on incomprehensibility. And in fact the post of mine you linked to has no assertions from me in it. Two of the sentences are questions and one sentence is a statement saying that I don’t understand what you’re saying. So again I ask you, what am I asserting?

Looks bad when you call a statement of confusion and two questions an assertion.
Click to expand...
Seems like arguing for arguing sake on a simple concept related to discussing apple news events: “government can create any law that it wants…even laws for untold future events”.
 
I7guy said:
Seems like arguing for arguing sake on a simple concept related to discussing apple news events: “government can create any law that it wants…even laws for untold future events”.
Click to expand...
And once again you’ve failed to answer the question. Seems that it’s probably best to not erroneously accuse others of making assertions they did not make. Moving on. Hopefully.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: I7guy
vipergts2207 said:
Ok and? Again, you cannot enforce a law if it’s not on the books in the first place. You cannot interpret a law if it’s not on the books in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yes you can. It's called Common Law. In fact, the Supreme Court's entire power of Judicial Review is derived from Marbury v. Madison (1803). There is nothing in the Constitution expressly regarding the Supreme Court (or any other Federal court) having that power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
I7guy said:
Seems like arguing for arguing sake on a simple concept related to discussing apple news events: “government can create any law that it wants…even laws for untold future events”.
Click to expand...
Generally law makers look to the past when making laws. For example, even though photographs became eligible for copyright in 1865, film (which is nothing more than a series of photos) wasn't protected until Aug. 24, 1912. In fact, a common complaint about many current laws is they haven't been updated to take account of technological and social changes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Maximara said:
Yes you can. It's called Common Law. In fact, the Supreme Court's entire power of Judicial Review is derived from Marbury v. Madison (1803). There is nothing in the Constitution expressly regarding the Supreme Court (or any other Federal court) having that power.
Click to expand...
Do you think courts are going to enforce regulations like those in the various bills based on common law? They didn’t do that in the Epic case. So clearly it’s going to take passing some new laws to get the outcome legislators desire.
Maximara said:
Generally law makers look to the past when making laws. For example, even though photographs became eligible for copyright in 1865, film (which is nothing more than a series of photos) wasn't protected until Aug. 24, 1912. In fact, a common complaint about many current laws is they haven't been updated to take account of technological and social changes.
Click to expand...
Hey, something we very much agree on.
 
Last edited:
Macative said:
That's not really analogous. If you buy a PS5, can you play open source PS5 games made by anyone? No, you can only play officially sanctioned PS5 games.
Click to expand...
But But But But But thats not fair. I DEMAND that EVERYONE accommodates ANYTHING I WANT. SONY MUST stop their corporate slavery!!!!!! How dare I be limited by the designs of the manufacturer. SUCH GARBAGE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macative
vipergts2207 said:
Did you have to pay very much for all that straw?
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by this straw concept? I was simply stating that I want everyone to accommodate everything I want. Is that not what we are demanding Apple to do? I also demand you send me your lunch money.
 
applefan69 said:
I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by this straw concept? I was simply stating that I want everyone to accommodate everything I want. Is that not what we are demanding Apple to do? I also demand you send me your lunch money.
Click to expand...
Actually you were setting up a strawman that because people want increased regulations on big tech that means we also somehow want everyone else to accommodate everything else we want. Nope, not at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applefan69
I7guy said:
People don’t want increased regulation on big tech. People want their data regulated. Companies like Epic want increased regulation on big tech to benefit them.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I want increased regulations on big tech. Other people here want regulations on big tech. Some people may very well only want their data regulated. It’s incorrect to claim people don’t want the former though. Plenty of evidence on this very forum says otherwise.
Maximara said:
Yes because they have per Swift v. Tyson (1842). People often call it "legislating from the bench".
Click to expand...
Then why wasn’t it done in the Epic case? That was the perfect opportunity to do such a thing. Lawmakers also don’t seem to agree with you either since they’re writing legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back