Perhaps we should stick to topic. Increased CO2 in the air is an outcome of warming, due to lowered solubility in the oceans as average temperatures rise, during this continued change of the temperature of the Pleistocene Ice Age that we are still in. This is one of what have already been 44 "interglacials" - slightly warmer periods within the cold - and by no means the warmest. Any decent scientist knows this, but the combination of Cancel Culture, and the Climate Crisis Industry means that you don't get to hear from them as often as you ought. So - maybe back to the continuing efforts of EPIC to get more rent from us, with the downside of them trying to break the walled garden of the Apple Ecosystem that so many of us pay a premium to be protected by.
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.
Epic Games CEO to Speak in South Korea Next Week Against the App Store Amid Ongoing Tensions With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So is the iphone a computer? Is an android device a computer? I think there are metaphors being mixed and matched. The iphone and ipad are perfectly acceptable personal replacement devices to some people. Personal is not orthogonal to computing device.
Giving your ipad to someone else does not mean Apple is not prioritizing security. Again it's up the individual use case and vote with your $$$.
Apple is not under obligation to produce a product to your exacting specifications.
As much as I like Apple products, vote with your $$$ people.
If I could make more than one laugh reaction to this post I would. You're the one that took this way off topic. I made a passing comment about climate change as part of a broader point of the history of malfeasance of for-profit corporations and you launch into a full on diatribe on climate change denialism. But since you insist on leaping head first into off-topic subjects, I'm a chemist by education and by trade. As a scientist, I trust that my fellow scientists know what they're talking about in their respective fields. I'm going to go with the best data climate scientists have to offer, not whatever some random forum member says, one who probably has no formal scientific training in the first place. ???
If you want to talk about rent seeking, we should definitely talk about Apple.
Last edited:
There is no winning in these conversations. (and much of my comments were general) These conversations don't exist to change peoples minds and there is never going to be agreement on many of these topics; except in like minded individuals. There was really no need to post some of those links in a thread about anti-competitive steering provision.
In the technical sense, yes they're computers. A calculator is also technically a computer, but that's neither here nor there. I think if you replace the word "computer" with "PC" you'll understand the obvious point I was making. Apple isn't trying to get people to replace their PCs with iPhones. If they did that, they'd sell fewer iPads, but not any more iPhones because almost everyone has a smartphone already anyway. They're aiming to do that with iPads. And yet you still haven't addressed the original question. Why hasn't Apple implemented multi-user support for consumers, something they already support for other clients, if they're so "consumer-centric".
It does actually. If a family can only afford one iPad, by not supporting multiple users Apple is prioritizing the income it receives from wealthier households that can afford to play Apple's little games by buying an iPad for everyone, over the security of the users in the poorer family with only one iPad and shared account. Profits over security.
Funny how when Apple does something not "consumer-centric" that your response is "vote with your $$$." It seems like that's your way of admitting these are non-consumer-centric actions without directly admitting as much.
Certainly, but that doesn't change whether or not they prioritize profits over consumers and security.
Again, with the tacit admission regarding Apple's prioritization of consumers. "Take it or leave it" doesn't exactly scream consumer-centricity, rather something I'd hear from someone selling a beat-up old car on Craigslist.
I guess they can charge less because they have more customers and more revenue from licensing to big game studios, so they can make it free for starters.
Yes, this is splitting hairs. Obviously a calculator is a very limited function computer. In fact, next to Windows on intel chips, most other "computing devices" are limited function. The ipad for some people can replace a computer, it all depends on an individual use case. As far as why the consumer ipads are not "multi-user" only apple knows the rationale. All else is speculation and one speculation is as good as another.
To me the above is spin. There may be legitimate reasons that you are not privy to as to why consumer ipads are not multi-user. And if one believes security is paramount then don't give your ipad to another person. To me the above is a blanket statement.
What's funny is that sales revenue is the fastest way to get a company to change. And since consumer ipad sales are good according to Apple, it's probably your use case is in the minority - which is maybe why Apple doesn't consider multi-user ipads a general use case.
Well if your opinion is profits over customers, it makes perfect sense to form an opinion like that.
Again, Apple is not obligated to produce exactly the product you want, which is where voting with ones $$$ becomes important. Since Apple is not making a product you want then you view it is "take it or leave it". But this is not far afield of an anti-steering provision conversation.
Just like no one becomes president by being a good person, no company becomes as big as Apple by being ethical.
You write paragraph after paragraph, but have yet to offer a more reasonable explanation than profit motive for the lack of multi-user support on iPads, speculation or not. And it’s a rumor website, most of what is discussed here is speculation. It’s even in the name. As a member of 8 years, one would think you’d be used to that by now. Particularly since the focus is on a company known for their secrecy. You yourself like to speculate frequently that the ruling against Apple on anti-steering may be overturned on appeal. Clearly you’ll happily offer speculation when doing so is to your benefit.
What one calls "a reasonable explanation" is still, at the end of the day is, just speculation. You can assume that this entire sub-discussion is about screwing the customers, it's your opinion after all. And sure I can speculate and others are well within the discussion rights to counter that speculation.
Well, that's a classic. The normal rubbish about "trust", "faith", "belief". You may indeed be trained as a chemist, but anyone who is a genuine scientist (rather than say a technician in their day job) would know the difference between science and religion. And of course the dismissal of the other person's supposed background despite it being you who is using the non-science language.
Regarding rent seeking, those of us who own Apple gear do so for a reason. Mine is the protected ecosystem. In general, I pay a premium for those goods and services that satisfy particular requirements. Before the advent of purchased phone software I owned a variety of phones, over time, from pretty much all the major manufacturers - although I did tend to favour Motorola. If you prefer cheap and cheerful, then these examples will not mean much to you. But then if you have not bought into the Apple ecosystem why should any of those of us who have pay any attention whatsoever to your preferences regarding Apple's behaviour towards its customers?
What they always seem to be saying is, "If you don't think Apple is perfect in every way, as I do, then just leave."
That's a stunningly juvenile worldview, isn't it? They appear to see Apple the way a toddler sees Mommy and Daddy, and one tends to have about as much luck reasoning with them as one would discussing Mommy's and Daddy's flaws with that toddler.
I really don't get it. I'm an adult. I don't have to believe (or even pretend to believe) that a thing is perfect to care about it and appreciate it and enjoy it.
Basically things like this on iOS, but without having to install an enterprise certificate and Apple needing to negotiate in courts on how much they can warn users about side-loading risks:
- Thieves abused Apple's enterprise app programs to steal $1.4 million in crypto
- Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them
- New macOS Malware XcodeSpy Targets Xcode Developers with EggShell Backdoor
- Mac malware masquerades as iTerm2, Remote Desktop and other apps
- Hackers Are Using Three Fake Crypto-Related Apps to Drain Wallets
Once you have a footprint, one can seek to exploit the full API surface of the OS for privilege escalation. So while security vulnerabilities are generally on a severity scale, some lower severity items gain a much broader exposure for exploit.
They aren't likely to because those apps aren't written, or if they are written they aren't in the Mac App Store. On one hand you have a culture of safety through the App Store primarily for consumption apps, on the other you have mostly web-based apps with an occasional direct download of an app.
The App Store generates money because it created the expectation that apps were safe. That expectation is accomplished through a concert of both technological measures and auditing/review - neither one is sufficient.
You do realize that if not having third party app stores is anticompetitive, warning users of security risks when they install or use a third party App Store or third party apps is also going to get looked upon poorly by the courts as well - right?
Contracts are mutual agreements. It is hard for Epic to make a case that they were bullied into terms they couldn't agree to when they 1) had been operating under that contract for a decade 2) have treated this as a moral crusade rather than as a business/revenue conflict 3) elected themselves not to re-list Fortnight in the App Store.
Well sure, 30% sucks a lot more than 15% or 0%. That isn't a legal argument however
Apple also hardly is going to make the case that security is currently water-tight. They'll just:
- List the investments they make in security in the face of some recent example threats
- Point at the disaster which is Android
No. Apple just have CSAM and other very questionable practices which do not put the Apple execs responsible in a very good light at all.
You’re the one disingenuously conflating my “trust” in scientists outside of my area of expertise with some sort of religious viewpoint. Not me. I don’t know the first thing about designing a computer chip, but I trust that the electrical engineers at Apple do and that my phone will turn on when I take it out of the box. I don’t know the first thing about pharmaceuticals, but I trust that the scientists designing the drugs that I take do. I don’t know the first thing about setting up a climate model, but I trust that climate scientists do. Similarly, I wouldn’t expect any of those groups to know anything about coatings chemistry, which is my area of expertise. And nice try, but I’m not a technician, I’m a chemist.
It would take significant hubris and a hyper-inflated sense of self to presume one, a layperson, knows more than a subject matter expert. But surely you’ve read dozens of scientific journals, pored over a great many studies, and have the background to refute them in order to come to the conclusion that the science is bunk, right? Thank you for the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
And to go back to your initial response to me, your theory falls flat on its face. If increased temperatures were the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 (rather than the other way around) we wouldn't be seeing increasing concentrations of CO2 both in the atmosphere and in the oceans.
Hawaii Carbon Dioxide Time-Series
Yes, water holds less CO2 as it gets warmer, but that's with all other variables held constant. The effects of partial pressure and equilibrium mechanisms greatly outweigh the effect of temperature on the amount of CO2 that the ocean can dissolve.
Last edited:
Sure, as you point out, MacOS isn't "safe", but is safe enough to take the risks I deem ok, and I'm fine. Using any device online carrys risks. But if they locked down MacOS to an App Store only I'd go to Windows. iOS started store only, so it's not like I'm gonna leave in a hurry. MacOS is obviously less secure than iOS for this reason currently, but I still don't really see a big argument why iOS would be *any worse* than MacOS currently is, and I deem MacOS fine (security-wise at least - there's plenty of warnings to enable system security to access or control stuff, albeit sometimes it's still limited in software availability due to market share, and that's without people being put off developing for it due to no 30% cut).Basically things like this on iOS, but without having to install an enterprise certificate and Apple needing to negotiate in courts on how much they can warn users about side-loading risks:
The Mac is absolutely vulnerable to such things
- Thieves abused Apple's enterprise app programs to steal $1.4 million in crypto
- Facebook pays teens to install VPN that spies on them
Note that typical device compromises against iOS/macOS have to leverage things like the Safari browser and iMessage content rendering to get a footprint. Sideloading opens the door to a much wider set of non-audited apps.
- New macOS Malware XcodeSpy Targets Xcode Developers with EggShell Backdoor
- Mac malware masquerades as iTerm2, Remote Desktop and other apps
- Hackers Are Using Three Fake Crypto-Related Apps to Drain Wallets
Once you have a footprint, one can seek to exploit the full API surface of the OS for privilege escalation. So while security vulnerabilities are generally on a severity scale, some lower severity items gain a much broader exposure for exploit.
They aren't likely to because those apps aren't written, or if they are written they aren't in the Mac App Store. On one hand you have a culture of safety through the App Store primarily for consumption apps, on the other you have mostly web-based apps with an occasional direct download of an app.
The App Store generates money because it created the expectation that apps were safe. That expectation is accomplished through a concert of both technological measures and auditing/review - neither one is sufficient.
You do realize that if not having third party app stores is anticompetitive, warning users of security risks when they install or use a third party App Store or third party apps is also going to get looked upon poorly by the courts as well - right?
Contracts are mutual agreements. It is hard for Epic to make a case that they were bullied into terms they couldn't agree to when they 1) had been operating under that contract for a decade 2) have treated this as a moral crusade rather than as a business/revenue conflict 3) elected themselves not to re-list Fortnight in the App Store.
Well sure, 30% sucks a lot more than 15% or 0%. That isn't a legal argument however
Apple also hardly is going to make the case that security is currently water-tight. They'll just:
- List the investments they make in security in the face of some recent example threats
- Point at the disaster which is Android
I also see how running an exclusive app store for the platform where you also take a cut of all apps and also in-app payments/subscriptions is a MASSIVE moneyspinner. It's not like they'd say security is a slight concern, would be worse but we could let users have that option/freedom/responsibility to install what they like, but we'll lose $billions in app store commission, so we just won't.
Sure, as noted, I'm not a big fan of Epic's way of doing things and they lost fair and square.
It's not like Apple have come out shining in recent news though in order of clamping down on exploits and giving people the bonuses or credit they deserve for finding them. Likewise with crap they let on the store. So they can't be quite as super-anal about security as it's made out, as much as making money. It's a business though. If I thought I could get away with it on a somewhat limited security excuse I would and play it up as much as possible!
There's a new article on MR today explaining why not again. But it mostly comes down to the thing I mentioned: more idiots whimsically put more crap apps on their phones and unfortuantely it comes down to the lowest common denominator of intelligence, not flexibility, freedom, and responsibility. And Apple can make a f**k-tonne of money out of it.
CSAM can be a problem, that's why it should be as open and transparent as possible. How it works, where does the data go, etc.
Without transparency and in the wrong hands image recognition can really target innocent people for different reasons. I feel some regime in the future will have the ability to upload fake incriminating evidence to people's phones and the only way to prevent that is the highest security and sandboxing possible.
Then people have to fight with all their strength to maintain that security because politicians and business people can easily sell their soul to harmful ideologies.
Well, they would need to unseat BOD members and elect BOD candidates supportive of ousting their dysfunctional CEO. This would need to take place at a Shareholders Meeting which can be called by a majority query between Annual Shareholder Meetings.
It would take effort, but it can be done.
Last edited:
Even if the CEO is the majority shareholder for the company?
If the CEO were the Majority Holder, then a group would need to attempt to relieve him of that status with a hostile action. I don’t see that here if Sweeney holds 51%.
He’s doing an Epic job as it is grasping at straws covered in grease while the Tomb of the Unknown continues to suck him down.