Judge was quite skeptical that there is anything the plaintiff could do to fix it, but it’s standard practice to allow the plaintiff to try at least once or twice.A win for Apple for now but a new amended complaint might be coming soon.
Judge was quite skeptical that there is anything the plaintiff could do to fix it, but it’s standard practice to allow the plaintiff to try at least once or twice.A win for Apple for now but a new amended complaint might be coming soon.
Let's see.... open platforms that no one (EVER) blame the hardware maker for software they chose to install or ever had a damaged reputation:This is impossible. In the end, that iPhone has Apple's logo in it, so anything that went wrong will affect the brand no matter what you think. This is why Jobs (and Apple) was super control freak. Because they actually one of the few who paid attention to their branding.
Why do you think people today still have the notion that Windows is unstable and crashes/BSOD a lot? Because whatever people do to their PCs, when it booted, it showed Microsoft Windows' logo and brand. So whatever happens, even if it was not Microsoft's doing, will be associated with the brand.
Why do you think more and more Android OEMs are locking their bootloaders and making it more difficult to root? Because they realized that when things went south, people will associate the bad things with the brand they saw on their phone.
I don't have any personal thing for/against jailbreaking. But I understand Apple's positioning. You may own the phone, but everything else associated with the phone is associated with Apple's brand. Look at how Ferrari told their owners what they cannot do on their own cars.
I agree with many sentiments, but I would argue that the need for control is synonymous with greed and nothing more with security being the marketing to cover put wool over the eyes of their sheep who buy into every BS thing they claim.No, Apple just hadn't thought about many things when they developed early macOS. Did you know? Steve Jobs didn't even want to put expansion slots on the original macintosh. And look at today. Apple increasingly put additional safeguards and restrictions on macOS as well. There are plenty of interviews with Craig and the team about how they think macOS could've been more secure. Apple, way from Jobs, wanted control. iOS is the culmination of everything they have learned so far
And this all have nothing to do with what you want. From Apple's perspective, anything bad will not be good in their brand as the logo in that phone is Apple's logo. Apple will ensure control whenever and wherever they see fit.
Apple is control freak, as Steve Jobs was as well. If you refuse to acknowledge that and you still use Apple products, you're simply in denial and will continue to be annoyed at what Apple is/will be doing.
Yeah, I think there are a bunch of folks that just see “libertarian” as “whatever I want”. Even if that was true, there’s a disconnect because, if that’s what they believe, then any OTHER person also gets “whatever THEY want”, including protecting their investmentsI'm not even so sure that's the right analogy? I'm pretty libertarian myself, but I think that also includes protecting the right of a company to build a product that's intended only for use within the parameters they create for it?
Pretty much. And, thing is, that was the SAME option that faced Apple back when they were working with Motorola on the ROKR. They knew that with what was going on in the cell phone market, they wouldn’t be able to come anywhere close to their goal of software/hardware integration and consumer control (remember, it was a NORMAL practice in those days for carriers to disable the data port so that you couldn’t transfer data from your computer to your device. You had to email the file to yourself and, of course, the carrier would get a nice .10 charge for the convenienceApple bankrolls the toolset and platform, other seek to profit by using hacks and security holes to sell their own wares without paying the platform holder. If this guy wants his own App Store then he should make his own hardware and OS for it to run on.
Sure, you can "argue" anything you want. That doesn't mean the words are worth any more than the cost of transmitting the bits from here to there.I agree with many sentiments, but I would argue that the need for control is synonymous with greed and nothing more with security being the marketing to cover put wool over the eyes of their sheep who buy into every BS thing they claim.
[....]
Attempting to use the power of the state to force private companies to allow content they don't wish to host is very greedy, I agree. Im glad you are against that.I agree with many sentiments, but I would argue that the need for control is synonymous with greed and nothing more with security being the marketing to cover put wool over the eyes of their sheep who buy into every BS thing they claim.
To: Jay (Sauron)Honestly, I think this is the right time to say Thank you to Jay/saurik, for the fun youth in the 3GS era, and being the rebel which helped make iOS what it is today.
Which is such a stupid and artificial delineation. Computing is computing. You cannot even say that game consoles are special purpose since they are not only to play games. You cannot say the TVs are special purpose as they are not only to watch TV (I know, right?).inb4 “general purpose” vs “special purpose” computing.
Exactly. The App Store has never been the best place for discovery. It has gone up and down over time as far as its value. Every app on the store as a dedicated link (or several now). Every developer has that link and should be doing their own marketing. Put the "Get on App Store" button on your site. Send review copies and press notes. Advertise. Make the next great app and generate some buzz - then you get on the front page of the App Store.No? I mean, every developer feels their app is the BEST app. Should Apple recommend EVERY developer’s app on that basis?
I will say though, that App developers have a duty and a responsibility (especially if they want to make money) to make apps so good that people use them, are delighted by them and recommend them to their friends and family. And, they shouldn’t expect that “preferential placement on the App Store” should be the be all and end all of their marketing strategy. Send copies to reviewers and YouTubers, try to create viral content on social media making folks want to try the app.
A developer is dependent on App Store Discovery ONLY if they want to be.
Jailbreaking is legal. Apple lost that lawsuit years ago. But jailbreaking relies on exploits in the OS. Apple has the right and responsibility to close those exploits. That's why jailbreaking was always a cat-and-mouse game.Jailbreaking the phone in order to circumvent that should ALSO be valid and legal. But you can't "have the cake and eat it too" of doing that and still using the device the way Apple intended you to use it.
IIRC, the "blue light" thing (void blue color tones when one is about to sleep, and use warm colors like orange instead) that was added into iOS was originally only via jailbreaking. It was most amusing to hear some say that company didn't do anything when they still had to implement it for jailbroken devicesWhether you have ever jailbroken or not, you have benefited from the work of people like Saurik. Apple has copied some of its best iOS features from jailbreak tweaks.![]()
False, and it shows that you have no sense nor knowledge about branding and brand perception.Let's see.... open platforms that no one (EVER) blame the hardware maker for software they chose to install or ever had a damaged reputation:
-The Mac
-The PC
-Android Phones
-Windows Phones (when they were a thing)
-LITERALLY EVERY HARDWARE PLATFORM WITH SOFTWARE NOT IOS/IPAD OS!!!!
There is a huge freaking difference but scouring the dark web for apps and a reputable, third party app store offering apps or direct from developer downloads. Guess what? That Developers reputation is whose rep is on the line, not Apples....
Whatever you think the motivation is irrelevant. As a company, Apple has a duty and desire to protect and maintain their brand.I agree with many sentiments, but I would argue that the need for control is synonymous with greed and nothing more with security being the marketing to cover put wool over the eyes of their sheep who buy into every BS thing they claim.
The one.... the only reason we have a Mac App store today is not that Apple hadn't thought about things when developing mac OS (allllll the way back to 1984... a span of what, like 25ish years.... gee, what could have made them finally think of an idea to gouge dollars from developers).... they realized from the App store they could take a savage and excessive cut of developer revenue.
The problem? The mac app store is mostly a failure. There is often a promotional incentive to buy direct from the vendor.
They tried to market it as a security sandbox for apps.... but that is also a load of crap because you can do that at the OS level if security is your motivation.
Simply greed man. This also proved to be an epic failure for Microsoft who has since learned their lesson and cut fees and restrictions.
Also, Mac's are, despite growth, are a measly 16% market share of computers. The Mac app store, in contrast the ios app store, is FAR less restrictive because Apple needs developers to make software for Macs or people won't use them. Macs already have a very small number of apps compared to Windows.
Epic can’t even make an App Store for AndroidHere's a solution - Epic games and anyone else who wants an open platform simply develop your own operating system. Epic certainly has the resources to do so, and when they do, they can open it up to jailbreaks, all app stores, and so on. Easy solution. Please leave my iPhone alone.
Apples argument (which I tend to agree with) is that in the end, it won’t be the users choice anymore if they open the flood gates. Once the option to side load exists, developers can and will pull out of the App Store and force their users to side load. If big apps that mainstream users rely on like Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, etc pull out of the App Store, the user no longer has the choice. They HAVE to enable side loading. If employers or schools force you to use an app that isn’t available in the App Store, you don’t have the choice.
Right now, users do have the choice. You can use Android, Windows, or macOS to run third party app stores. iOS and iPadOS are the ONLY options on the market for a closed/curated experience. Why do we need yet another fully open computing platform with no restrictions? We already have them. Can’t we have at least ONE platform like iOS?
You can go and get a closed, curated experience in a psych ward too if you like.Apples argument (which I tend to agree with) is that in the end, it won’t be the users choice anymore if they open the flood gates. Once the option to side load exists, developers can and will pull out of the App Store and force their users to side load. If big apps that mainstream users rely on like Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, etc pull out of the App Store, the user no longer has the choice. They HAVE to enable side loading. If employers or schools force you to use an app that isn’t available in the App Store, you don’t have the choice.
Right now, users do have the choice. You can use Android, Windows, or macOS to run third party app stores. iOS and iPadOS are the ONLY options on the market for a closed/curated experience. Why do we need yet another fully open computing platform with no restrictions? We already have them. Can’t we have at least ONE platform like iOS?
Yet another fanboi who doesn't seem to even know that macOS exists.This is impossible. In the end, that iPhone has Apple's logo in it, so anything that went wrong will affect the brand no matter what you think. This is why Jobs (and Apple) was super control freak. Because they actually one of the few who paid attention to their branding.
Why do you think people today still have the notion that Windows is unstable and crashes/BSOD a lot? Because whatever people do to their PCs, when it booted, it showed Microsoft Windows' logo and brand. So whatever happens, even if it was not Microsoft's doing, will be associated with the brand.
Why do you think more and more Android OEMs are locking their bootloaders and making it more difficult to root? Because they realized that when things went south, people will associate the bad things with the brand they saw on their phone.
I don't have any personal thing for/against jailbreaking. But I understand Apple's positioning. You may own the phone, but everything else associated with the phone is associated with Apple's brand. Look at how Ferrari told their owners what they cannot do on their own cars.
Yet another clueless hater who didn't even read.Yet another fanboi who doesn't seem to even know that macOS exists.
No mate, iOS isn't closed to protect their branding. It is there to maximise profits from the 15/30% Apple App Store Tax.
But, each of those options require several steps AHEAD of actual installation before those apps can get on your device. Is it possible that a malicious actor could call Grandma and have her first, get Jimmy to buy her a Mac and be sure to give her admin access to the system when he sets it up, download Xcode, download the code from the GitHub repository, bring it into Xcode, properly compile it, connect the phone to the computer and install the malicious code? Yes! This is indeed a valid vector. However, it’s also a very unlikely vector so having that as an option for people to use to install code? It’s a pretty measured risk.I agree with most of what you wrote, but there are already alternative options (MDM, provisioning profiles, direct install from X-code) that schools and employers use to install non-app-store apps, without enabling side loading by the end user.