Not the integrity of OS but the market size and ability to earn money. So MacOS is unsafe? Is the corporate and government OS of choice, Windows, also unsafe?
Eventually? Forced? They could just answer “good idea, next year!” They did not.
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.
EU's Digital Markets Act Failed to Lower App Store Prices, Apple-Commissioned Study Says
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Eventually? Forced? They could just answer “good idea, next year!” They did not.
Less safe than iOS? Absolutely. Also has 10x fewer users, which means a vulnerability affecting iOS has a much larger impact and therefore a stricter approach is warranted. (Remember, a vulnerability that affected only 10% of iOS devices would be equivalent to a vulnerability affecting ALL Macs worldwide.)
And yes, Windows is unsafe. Why do you think corporate and government IT departments completely lock down Windows devices to prevent end users from installing software? My last client's IT department wouldn't even let me install the software for my Logitech mouse without getting approval for a "business need" from my client manager, his boss, and the Deputy CIO.
They said lightening would be the connector for a decade, helped create and did more to popularize USB-C than anyone, and were clearly moving in that direction. There was no need to kill of port innovation entirely because Apple was taking a few years longer than some would like moving its most popular product to a standard it helped create. Particularly after getting raked over the coals by consumers and the press the last time it did so (when that was an obvious and significant improvement, unlike USB-C which was, for most users, at best a slight improvement and at worse, just a requirement to buy a bunch of new cables).
For developers to earn money. They need Apple. Apple gave them a way. They all loved it. You saw the keynotes, don't pretend they didn't happen and was FILLED with developers happier than Pigs in poop pens at every new thing Apple did to make their lives easier and more money. Apple never charged more than the 30%
MacOS is inherently less safe than iOS. Because you can install from anywhere. While Apple goes to lengths to try and protect the end user. It's still easier to get into it than an iPhone. Since you can't by default install applications within the phone or as easily from a web browser or USB stick. You have to go through the store. Plus, a mac has more resources to throw at the problem.
Windows is not safe due to its large user base. More hackers attack Windows than MacOS mainly for that reason.
Again that is not to say it's not possible to break into an iPhone without the user knowing. There are always security vulnerabilities in anything, and state actors that have unlimited resources. But, by default it's not as straightforward to do on an iPhone than a mac.
You also have to realize that an iPhone has a much smaller battery than a MacBook. So having anti malware running 24/7/365 isn't a good use of the power that you have available. Same goes for storage. Yes, you can get 2TB now on an iPhone but, end users would much prefer that space be used for apps than "protection". Apple can get away with providing less storage, and less battery because they don't need to run unnecessary protection software, or provide space for it on the device. The simple protections come from not being allowed to do X or Y or Z.
I feel as though people just "feel" like Apple can do it. So they should just do it. Without any thought to how this would be accomplished and what the trade offs would be by them doing so. They truly believe that because "they" have no issues with malware/ransomeware/etc. That no one else does either. And that by default this must be the case for almost everyone. Its wild.
I'm currently in that situation. Can't use the bluetooth to add a wireless headset, and they provide soft phones on the laptop for all your calling. But, I have to use a cabled headset. And get approval for bluetooth mice. So I have to use the dongle. And swap for the headset USB when I need that. SO STUPID!!!!
I'm personally sitting next to 3 lightning cables. Fortunately they are for my keyboard and mouse. And a spare.
I hardly store anything other than photos in the iCloud besides I have it in my iPhone which are already backed up using One Drive subscription (which is 6 TB for 6 family accounts for less than $68 per annum). It was more a iPhone backup which is very expensive for 200 GB storage.
Sounds like Apple's profit isn't increasing from your actions which means you aren't affected by this at all. I don't understand the complaint. If Apple is making more money and you aren't paying more, you should be happy because Apple will just continue to invest in the platform to make it better for you.
I sometimes wonder about that too, because I thought this would be pretty obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of high-school economics and an understanding of how the App Store works.
More often than not, software doesn't have any marginal cost of production. It's why games like Fortnite or clash of clans can be given away for free and monetised with paid upgrades, tokens or skins. It's already made!
Since there is no fixed cost involved in the distribution of apps, how exactly is a 30% platform fee supposed to be passed on to consumers? The developer sets a price which maximises revenue for them, and even if the 30% App Store fee were removed, what incentive is there for developers to reduce prices? If users have demonstrated that they are willing to pay $10, why charge $7?
Contrast this with say, an import tariff on a foreign-made car, which does have physical costs of production involved with every unit that gets brought in. Apple's platform fee is effectively a tax that only developers bears and that wouldn’t reduce IAP prices if abolished.
I guess an argument could be made that developers should deserve to keep more of their earnings since they are the ones who invested that sweat and blood into creating those apps (never mind that Nintendo similarly charges 30%), What's missing in this conversation is the role Apple played in recreating a market that had ceased to exist (few people downloaded apps in the past because of fears of malware and viruses), as well as conditioning users to trust the app download process while also making it as safe and seamless as possible, and all this just ceases to matter simply because Apple is so big and financially successful now?
Which really just leaves user choice (which I feel is a valid point, in light of Apple removing apps from the App Store in the US, though said app could just as easily have been a website).
It is what it is, I guess.
Sorry, but your comment "the beauty of markets" completely contradicts your support of this government action. Fine if you support it, but don't conflate two opposites. If you want true capitalist free market behaviour with this, then Apple would be allowed to do whatever they want, and it would be up to the consumer to influence Apple by buying if they approved of Apple's methods or NOT BUYING APPLE PRODUCTS if they didn't.
That is how true free markets work, not simply buying something that doesn't work the way you wish it worked and then complaining about that obvious fact.