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
Actually it was your failure to use context and recognize “cellphone” as referring to “feature phone”. Anyway.
You claimed that I said Apple is a hypocrite for offering Google as an option. Nowhere did I say say that nor imply that. What I said is that Apple is not being true to their stated values by making it the default for Safari and for the inability to change it for Siri. You’re attacking the former argument, one I did not make, which is a strawman.
I agree with this part, but the regulators might not necessarily enforce the proper standards to correct this. Would they really be OK with true end-to-end encryption, no CSAM or any equivalent schemes, no release of data with or without warrants (if it's e2d encrypted Apple couldn't do it anyway), etc. to enforce privacy? I don't think Apple would provide true privacy to customers, and I don't think regulators will make them. They just don't want Apple to make the claims to get on a fake moral high ground for profit.
Not buying it.
We didn't see this with Android - move from Play Store to off site
We didn't see the reverse with MacOS - move from off site to App Store
Not seeing anything that foretells the mass migration from the App Store to off site.
What are you talking about? These two quotes are what I’m talking to you about, as is where our ridiculous conversation started:
Yup, and please highlight below where I called Apple a hypocrite for offering Google as an option.
Please feel free to expound on any part of the below that you disagree with and we may finally get out of the weeds on the topic.
So when my Nan gets her new iPhone and searches something and she gets a completely different UI, and relatively useless results, what happens?
It’s clearly Google that dominates search and clearly what people expect to use. That may be considered right or wrong, but it’s still a fact.
It’s in apples interest, and the interest of a bulk of their users to stick with the status quo, whilst offering privacy friendly alternatives for those that wish to go deeper in to that at the same time as forgoing ‘better’ search results.
Like the Apple "friends" the Chinese do right? If western regulators aimed to kill privacy that is what they would do and Apple would comply gladly and even invest as long as they had the App Store control. But you know that is not the intent of regulators ... hence the big problem for Apple ... The company aims to control the flow of money within the devices they sell to people that is all. If they are lawfully compelled to provide all the data to a government to stay in business they will.
So I think you are mistaken. Money at all costs is the true death of privacy mate. A distributed system is the thing that opens space for privacy ... not a centralised one.
Last edited:
The key word isn’t ‘feature’, or ‘smart’ or even ‘cell’ (although that’s where it all began). Crossing any of these out doesn’t change reality. The keyword is ‘phone’.
A horse is only like a car because it can transport you to a different place. That’s it.
An iPhone IS a phone.
Was your opinion this consistent when the US Dept of Justice (DOJ) mandated Microsoft un-bundle IE from Windows back in 1998?
Or when Bell was forced to be "broken up" by the same DOJ?
Not to say every instance of government intervention is ideal or well executed, however, saying "government should not be getting involve with Apple or any tech companies" seems like a not-fully-formed though.
PS: I still think this account is a bot
You mean 2 decades later than the moment I cited, against a completely different company than MS, in response to someone who said ONLY someone with BILLIONS in capital and a FLEET of talented people? AND in your response you just relegate Steve Jobs to someone along for the ride?! Good example!
Except, you are at odds with your last sentence. Apple has to oblige to local laws. If a local government made a law similar to the way the Chinese gov operates, then Apple would need to oblige, legally. So in actuality, in this case, government overreach is the true death of privacy.
It was in a later comment to a different user:
Feel free to explain why you give Apple a pass on that one as well if you'd like.
Regardless of whether or not they're both "phones," it doesn't change the fact that in the mid-2000's, feature phones were a mature product category and smartphones were a product category still in it's infancy. It also doesn't change the fact that smartphones killed off feature phones.
Is that couple of years really affect the validity of my claims or change the fact that Apple is no stranger in smartphone industry by now? Even if it is technically not 20 years (it would be 2027). The gist here is no one would say Apple dont know how to build smartphones, same for Google. And those 15 years of experience is hard for a newcomer to catch up.
OK then, the charges should be brought and adjudicated accordingly.
These are regulators trying to strongarm a path by making new regulations because they don't like the way it is now. If whatever they are doing is illegal, charge them!
Yet, government-less society has its own problems once the population reaches a critical mass. Getting rid of them doesn’t magically solve all the problems. Reagan can say all he likes, that’s just not how world works.
LMAO. If this your example then no wonder you don't get it. Wow.