You seem to think that sideloading would somehow affect the security of your hardware...I do not want a software developer interfering with my hardware security
How exactly would that happen if you choose not to make use of that feature?
You seem to think that sideloading would somehow affect the security of your hardware...I do not want a software developer interfering with my hardware security
Antitrust laws say otherwise...It is Apple's App Store and Apple's iPhone. They can do whatever they want with it.
Apple should have the courage and listen to MR comments, pull out of South Korean Market!.
By wanting another way for developers to serve users, you do in fact want sideloading.I second that. We don't want Android style sideloading, just wish that AppStore should not be the only way for developers to serve iOS users. It really hurts consumers as much as it hurts publishers.
Give us a counter-example.You may not be ignorant or gullible but you just painted everything with one broad brush stroke..also known as all or nothing thinking.
That might have some truth if it weren't for the fact that Fortnite is also available on Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo Switch which all also charge 30%Epic couldn’t make a profit on iOS with a 30% cut.
Epic offered an alternative payment system that paid Apple 0%. That was their solution.
Apple said that doesn’t work either.
So, Epic and Apple brought it to the courts and the courts said Epic has to pay Apple 30%.
And there’s your answer. You can’t put a game like Fortnite on iOS.
![]()
Trump administration reportedly questions Epic Games and Riot about Tencent ties
It’s previously focused its ire on Tencent’s WeChat app.www.theverge.com
And the reason Apple couldn’t allow 0% is because each Fortnite update is at least 100MB.
100 MB * 10,000,000 / update = 1 petabyte in server traffic on the App Store. That obviously was hurting Apple.
Now there is a court ruling that says you can’t stream console games on iOS or Android. Tough luck. Sorry not sorry. Buy an Xbox.
I already left a link with some information. Seems like there is no middle ground here, which was my point to begin with.Give us a counter-example.
Name a corporation that puts people before profits.
(Hint: if you do what your very bone marrow demands and say, as you must, “Apple, of course!” I’ll just pull out a few of the many news stories about Apple, say, looking the other way while Facebook does the barest of bare minimums to address its app — distributed by Apple! — being used extensively by human traffickers / slavers in the Middle East, to this very day.)
That’s not the outcome of the recent court case.Antitrust laws say otherwise...
They exist to prevent a single company from controlling the entire market and preventing competitors from entering it...
But wait, Apple does exactly that with the App Store and not allowing any competing stores... see the issue?
Just because a company may have customer-centric tendencies doesn't mean they place those values above profits when in conflict. I point again to the iPad example. Or the middle finger to consumers that is the ridiculously overpriced and outdated $149 ATV HD.I already left a link with some information. Seems like there is no middle ground here, which was my point to begin with.
I already left a link with some information. Seems like there is no middle ground here, which was my point to begin with.
They wanted more money and got no money out of their decision. Karma doesn't play.Epic did not play by app store rules. Seems ridiculous of them to speak about "fairness"
You left a link full of PR fluff. Fine, I accept that all that stuff is true. But all that stuff is hardly the whole picture, is it? Isn’t that just you standing at one extreme and berating the folks you imagine to be at the other extreme for being extremists?I already left a link with some information. Seems like there is no middle ground here, which was my point to begin with.
More context:The Cupertino tech giant is said to be lobbying against a bill that would prevent the import of goods into the U.S. unless companies could guarantee they weren't produced with forced labor. Some of its proposed changes include keeping some supply chain information from the public and extending compliance deadlines.
User-owned, transferrable content is a great idea.
Things in our world are not totally black or white. It isn't that Apple or other corporations support these things, its just not in their interest to focus on them. And Apple is still one of the better corporate companies, they are not perfect, in fact far from it, but so isn't USA or any other Western power.Slavery. Human trafficking. According to Apple, those things are like rat hairs and droppings, right? You can’t mass produce a can of soup without a few of them finding their way inside, just like you can’t make a few hundred million iPhones or run an App Store without exploiting some slave labor or looking the other way on the occasional bit of genocide or human trafficking.
That was my point, in the context of my reply to the other poster, who was expressing the view that Apple is a company that puts people before profits.Things in our world are not totally black or white. It isn't that Apple or other corporations support these things, its just not in their interest to focus on them. And Apple is still one of the better corporate companies, they are not perfect, in fact far from it, but so isn't USA or any other Western power.
Companies are bound by the laws of the countries they operate in. Did Apple ever condemn Trump in USA? Even Twitter had to wait for him to lose before blocking him. That's the kind of power governments wield and unlike companies they are not reluctant to abuse these powers.
Same for these companies. Look around the world, fascist powers have taken over every single major economy.I 100% include myself in this. I know what it takes to produce the things I demand to buy fast and cheap, but I buy them anyway. What’s the alternative? Throw away all my possessions and go live in a cave?
It also doesn't mean that profits rule over everything either. You've already determined the ipad multi-signon is profit oriented so no sense discussing it. As far as ATV, that's a perfect example of let the market decide....vote with your dollars.Just because a company may have customer-centric tendencies doesn't mean they place those values above profits when in conflict. I point again to the iPad example. Or the middle finger to consumers that is the ridiculously overpriced and outdated $149 ATV HD.
Seems like goal posts are moved in this post.People are saying they have no money, so Apple should give them money (or free things). Apple is rich!
OK, now Apple employees have no money (Apple retail, secretaries, drivers, custodians, daycare teachers, nannies, etc.).
![]()
Here's what it's REALLY like to work in an Apple store
"I would think readers would be surprised to see the energy behind Apple’s walls."www.businessinsider.com
Apple gave all their money away to “poor” people and had to fire everyone.
![]()
Why Doesn’t Apple’s State-of-the-Art New Campus Include a Day Care?
From the looks of the spaceship-like monolith that now stands in Cupertino, California, Apple spared no expense in creating its new headquarters. The...slate.com
Are you now going to give the Apple daycare teacher who lost her job your salary?
If the link provided is PR fluff, then your link is just showing criticism to criticize. People will always find something to criticize, whether legitimate or just hyperbole, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is room for all opinions, but not all opinions have to be agreed to in a discussion forum.You left a link full of PR fluff. Fine, I accept that all that stuff is true. But all that stuff is hardly the whole picture, is it? Isn’t that just you standing at one extreme and berating the folks you imagine to be at the other extreme for being extremists?
Which one of those laudatory things in the link you dropped offsets Apple aiding and abetting human trafficking and genocide by not pulling Facebook’s apps off its store when they are complicit in those things?
The pulled Epic’s apps off the store in a spat over service fees, for costing them money. They left Facebook’s apps on the store even though they were being used for pure evil and Facebook was dragging their feet to stop it. Why? You tell me. Maybe because going to PR war with Facebook over a bunch of dead people in Myanmar and trafficked maids in the Middle East wasn’t worth the hassle. Cold calculus, indeed.
Anyway, I gave you a current example of actual behavior by Apple that is doing real harm to real people. Of course, that’s not to say Apple is only bad — that’s just the straw man you’ve stood up to avoid engaging honestly with the problematic side of Apple. Can you even admit it exists?
Here’s another, unrelated example of Apple putting profits over people:
![]()
Coalition demands Apple take more action to defend human rights
A coalition of more than 150 activist groups have penned a letter to Apple urging it to address human rights concerns and to stop "suppressing" criticisms of its current actions.appleinsider.com
More context:
![]()
Apple’s longtime supplier accused of using forced labor in China
New documents show Lens Technology, which makes iPhone glass and is owned by China’s richest woman, received Uighur Muslim laborers transferred from Xinjiang.www.washingtonpost.com
Slavery. Human trafficking. According to Apple, those things are like rat hairs and droppings, right? You can’t mass produce a can of soup without a few of them finding their way inside, just like you can’t make a few hundred million iPhones or run an App Store without exploiting some slave labor or looking the other way on the occasional bit of genocide or human trafficking.
Of course, I’m still an Apple customer, even a fan. As bad as they sometimes are, they’re still usually better than the rest, on balance. That’s pretty messed up, but that’s the world we’ve built for ourselves.
No, not so much. Perhaps you can find a single quote where they make such statements in their own interests? I specifically referred to the likes of EPIC and their majority shareholding/investment backers from China.You mean Apple and Cook?
Meanwhile, others will bury their heads in the sand and mumble "I can't hear you LA LA LA LA" whenever certain unpleasant facts and hard truths are mentioned.If the link provided is PR fluff, then your link is just showing criticism to criticize. People will always find something to criticize, whether legitimate or just hyperbole, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is room for all opinions, but not all opinions have to be agreed to in a discussion forum.
Pretty much. It's basically impossible to live in the world and have any sort of comfortable modern life if you aren't exploiting a whole bunch of people, some of them literally to death. Even if we make the most ethical choices we can (which I certainly don't, not always and probably not most of the time), people suffer so that we can live lives of relative ease.Same for these companies. Look around the world, fascist powers have taken over every single major economy.
We get to talk and discuss such issue but in China, they are not even allowed to search online about Tiananmen Square.
So appreciate that you have a life in the free world that allows you to publicly discuss such things, and enjoy your gadgets manufactured in the not so free world inside sweat shops.
No by all means, let's discuss it. What's the other logical explanation? Is it simply that the most valuable tech company in the world somehow can't figure out something that has been a feature on computers for ages, including their own Macs? That can't be the case since they've figured it out for education and business clients. Got any other possibilities?It also doesn't mean that profits rule over everything either. You've already determined the ipad multi-signon is profit oriented so no sense discussing it.
Agreed, the market will decide whether to let Apple rip them off by paying those prices for a product that was released over half a decade ago that only supports resolutions that only the cheapest of TVs top out at nowadays, that uses an over 7 year old processor. I certainly hope consumers will choose to not let "consumer-centric" Apple rip them off.As far as ATV, that's a perfect example of let the market decide....vote with your dollars.
Or they believe their market research shows the ipad to be a personal device, like an phone. It could be they discovered most customers use the ipad as a personal device. If one wants a community device then I guess buy a Mac.No by all means, let's discuss it. What's the other logical explanation? Is it simply that the most valuable tech company in the world somehow can't figure out something that has been a feature on computers for ages, including their own Macs? That can't be the case since they've figured it out for education and business clients. Got any other possibilities?
I agree. Let customers speak with their $$$.Agreed, the market will decide whether to let Apple rip them off by paying those prices for a product that was released over half a decade ago that only supports resolutions that only the cheapest of TVs top out at nowadays, that uses an over 7 year old processor. I certainly hope consumers will choose to not let "consumer-centric" Apple rip them off.
Yep it's fine. I'm going to change your hard truths to hyperbolic truths. Because there are those who believe it's Apples' responsibility to defend the weak on a global scale, give endless piles of money to philanthropy (but only those causes the criticizers want), pay their apple store employees more than senior engineers and so on and so forth. Endless streams of conciousness that in reality does not say or communicates anything cogently.Meanwhile, others will bury their heads in the sand and mumble "I can't hear you LA LA LA LA" whenever certain unpleasant facts and hard truths are mentioned.
Which is fine. Not everyone has to live in reality with the rest of us.
First you accuse me of hyperbole and then you cram a whole bunch of words into my mouth that I never said or even implied.Yep it's fine. I'm going to change your hard truths to hyperbolic truths. Because there are those who believe it's Apples' responsibility to defend the weak on a global scale, give endless piles of money to philanthropy (but only those causes the criticizers want), pay their apple store employees more than senior engineers and so on and so forth. Endless streams of conciousness that in reality does not say or communicates anything cogently.
Even though they market it as a computer replacement? “WhAt’S a ComPuTEr??!?” Interesting that for education and business customers it’s a computer, but for consumers it’s a personal device. So which is it, is it a personal device or is it a computer? It seems that Apple wants it both ways. How about “consumer-centric” Apple allow comsumers to make that decision for themselves? Apple making that decision for them seems pretty Apple-centric, not consumer-centric. If a consumer wants to keep an iPad to themselves, fine. If a household would like to share an iPad rather than have to buy an iPad for everyone, that should also be fine. Of course it’s obvious why that’s not the case. At least to everyone but you.Or they believe their market research shows the ipad to be a personal device, like an phone. It could be they discovered most customers use the ipad as a personal device. If one wants a community device then I guess buy a Mac.
Glad you agree ripping off consumers is not “consumer-centric.”I agree. Let customers speak with their $$$.