Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Brutal Battle' Expected as Regulators Close in on Apple Around the World
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nobody has argued otherwise with respect to Safari. Though which is the default is a different story.
Except for using Google as the default with Siri.
$15 billion says otherwise.
That's actually the issue though. It's not a paradise for many users, the lack of freedom is a pain in the butt. Give us the capabilities and freedoms of macOS on the iPhone and this whole issue will go away. Apple isn't going to give us that though, not because of "privacy and security" (because, um, macOS is extremely private and secure, duh), but because the lock-in is extremely lucrative, in particular the Apple App Store monopoly. So here we are, in litigation and legislation land, and it's only going to continue to ramp up.
I’m not sure you realise with your insistence to find issues, but we have gone from arguing that Google is the default search engine in safari, to it being Siri related, which is a whole different conversation.
You started off indeed ‘arguing otherwise with respect to Safari’, and now you seem to have accepted that and moved completly Siri to ‘prove’ you’re right.
Well. You are right to a degree, as I stated previously. But there is no hypocrisy, which was your initial argument. Moving sh.it around and changing the parameters doesn’t change it.
When Walmart moves in, they decimate local businesses. They drove American jobs to China, but they also 'golden shower' DC with copious amounts of cash and I guess that cash buys them coverage. Too big to jail, or too well covered to jail. Hmm...
Parameters haven't changed. You seem to be unable to recognize that I've simply added (not replaced) ways in which Apple is being hypocritical. Apple can simultaneously be hypocritical for making Google the default search engine in Safari (even though you can change it) and also for having Google as the only default available for Siri. Those two things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to wish and it's also possible to discuss both here.
Right. But what does that mean? Nothing. Your assuming that China bad the west good? That’s a flawed concept. They’re terrible, that’s no secret. But just because we have democracy doesn’t mean they don’t want the same results. China just demands. The west regulates. The result is the same.
‘Adding’ equates to moving the goalposts. You have done that.
Asking an AI to answer a question is a different concept to searching the web via safari. Again, it should be changeable, but it’s a different argument.
To be fair, they're getting "free" money for making the choice that the majority of their customers would make anyway.
No it's not lmao. Are you seriously trying to say it's only possible to be hypocritical for a single reason? It's not possible to be hypocritical in multiple ways??
Nope. I’m just saying that arguing for one thing, and then opening up the argument to include other thing which weren’t obvious or even implied in the initial argument is the very definition of ‘moving the goalposts’.
Agreed. I actually use a MBP and an iPhone, but same as you, avoid the iCloud death like the plague. The so called "ecosystem integration" between the 2 devices is the most annoying pain in the butt, and I've had to turn off iCloud almost entirely.
For example, why on hell is there no control over Text Replacement between the devices. Text Replacement makes perfect sense on an iPhone, where there is no full sized keyboard, but makes zero sense to have those same replacements automatically transfer to the MBP, and have absolutely no way to leave them on on the iPhone, but turn them off on the MBP, except to log out of iCloud entirely on the MBP. It does my head in. Do these software devs simply not even use Apple devices?
Again, moving the goal posts would necessitate changing the condition which renders Apple hypocrites. The original condition of Apple making Google the default in Safari still exists, rendering Apple hypocrites on that count, goal scored. Nothing about that has changed, i.e. the goalposts have not moved. I've simply added a second reason that further reveals hypocritical actions on Apple's part, that being only allowing Google as the default for Siri. Second, separate goal also scored.
Last edited:
Yep. People act like unseating Apple is impossible, yet they would have said the same about Nokia, Blackberry, etc.
Anything is possible. It won't be happening this year, maybe not in the next 5 years, but it'll happen eventually. Whether or not regulators force it to or not.
Cory Doctorow is an idiot for claiming iWorks is what allowed Macs to proliferate in business. iWorks had almost zero impact on Apple’s success. But then again, he’s an “activist” which probably means he thinks companies are evil but somehow big gov’t is great.
"The death of privacy will be bureaucrats regulating privacy."
Was this an Apple statement or yours? The bureaucrats you mentioned regulating privacy came out with the GDPR. Setting policies how personal data can be handled. Tim Cook and Apple not only endorsed it but also said that the way he sees it should be law all over the world.
I don't know if if for Apple is a rolling definition. The non copy righted definition is not: the quality or state of you or your things not being observed by others.
Last edited:
Privacy is many things to many people. It is my belief that apple takes steps, as much as possible, to protect one’s personal information and not scatter it around the web. That’s my definition. Others believe that because apple tracks across their services, they are not respecting one’s privacy.
And then there is the government who has no problem spying on citizens. Form your conclusion.
Whatever makes you happy. It need not be the truth.
No, Your iPhone Is Not More Secure Than Android, Warns Cyber Billionaire
An alarming new surge in malicious apps is a much more serious threat to iPhone users than you might think...
www.forbes.com
A glut of iOS 0-days pushes their price below cost of those for Android
Top price for unpublished Android exploits reaches $2.5 million, a 25% premium over iOS.
arstechnica.com
What’s your option on electricity, water, ISP? How many wireless carriers (actual, not MVNOs) that you can choose from? Do tell. Some markets simply don’t have room for unlimited players. Besides, there were more smartphone platforms in the past. The “duopoly” now is actually the result of competition. When you have a competition, there will be winners and losers. That’s called competition.
Get rid of all of the store brands and warehouse clubs while you are at it. Store brands are not only almost always "preferenced" (unless, of course, someone pays enough for dominant shelf space) but they also almost always cost less for an almost identical item as there are fewer middlemen adding their margin before the point of sale. Why can BJ's members not use their card to shop at Costco without getting a separate membership? Where are the local goods tables and popup stores that can just make use of whatever space they want without paying a single cent for it? While we are at it, why does the Brooklyn Brewery not have various other beers, such as Guinness, on tap in their taproom or sell Budweiser coozies? Why can the Christian book store in the strip mall choose to not carry Hustler on its shelves? Why are they maintaining a "walled garden" of content - especially considering how well they say their original "walled garden" worked out? Why can I not be buried in a Jewish cemetery despite being clearly non-Jewish (I am a guy, do the math)?
Less facetiously, what if the regulators get away with targeting Apple and Google? This is the question that gets asked far less than it should when this topic comes up. With Palm, Blackberry, and Windows all out of the game because they could not compete - even with all their various and substantial resources - where do you think the "competition" will come from? You think Purism is going to come out of nowhere with their Linux-based phone (that has been out for a while) and become a substantial player? OK, maybe that's extreme. What about Epic? They can have their own game store. The 40% stake TenCent has in them cannot realistically be called any more serious a threat than concerns that TikTok was going to access and siphon off user data to China and/or who knows where. Oh, wait: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...tok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access and https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/08/tik...re-than-any-other-social-media-app-study.html. And that is just another extreme, albeit vastly more likely, alternative. I am sure there are tons of others that readers on this forum can easily fill in on their own.
Less facetiously, what if the regulators get away with targeting Apple and Google? This is the question that gets asked far less than it should when this topic comes up. With Palm, Blackberry, and Windows all out of the game because they could not compete - even with all their various and substantial resources - where do you think the "competition" will come from? You think Purism is going to come out of nowhere with their Linux-based phone (that has been out for a while) and become a substantial player? OK, maybe that's extreme. What about Epic? They can have their own game store. The 40% stake TenCent has in them cannot realistically be called any more serious a threat than concerns that TikTok was going to access and siphon off user data to China and/or who knows where. Oh, wait: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...tok-tapes-us-user-data-china-bytedance-access and https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/08/tik...re-than-any-other-social-media-app-study.html. And that is just another extreme, albeit vastly more likely, alternative. I am sure there are tons of others that readers on this forum can easily fill in on their own.
Nah, they want to chant "let the market decide" and "survival of the fittest" and then complain that the Neanderthal and the dodo went extinct.
American politicians love traditional big businesses as they tend to have tight lobbyist with the politicians themselves. Tech industry is relatively new, and not usually have the best interest of politicians. Add on the need for money from Covid, it’s no brained that politicians are targeting the juicy money-making tech companies.