It seems like in your ideal reality, the entire world would be constrained to your own needs/wants. That's quite myopic.
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.
Phil Schiller: Apple Will Not Change Decision on 'Hey' Email App, No App Store Rule Updates Imminent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems like in your ideal reality, the entire world would be constrained to your own needs/wants. That's quite myopic.
macOS was open from day 1 so that expectation was set since its inception. iOS / iPadOS were not.
Then why did you say "Do we need/want the app economy to be even bigger?"
Yes it would be more secure if that switch wasn’t there.
[automerge]1592587264[/automerge]
Because relaxing the rules isn’t going to add anything that benefits the consumer.
The iPhone didn't even have an app store at launch. Things change.
Yes it is. Lower pricing and more competition just to name a few.
No, I think people should be able to chose a product that meets their needs. I don’t want products that meet my needs to be spoiled by others imposing their decisions on me.
So because you're too afraid of telling your mom/dad/aunt/sisters that "this switch is off-limits, don't touch it" (you know, the direct app download switch), we should all suffer because of you?
Also, you mean like non-administrator users are restricted on a company computer? And someone has to type the administrator password to allow them to do "dangerous" things?
Note that I'm not saying there should be administrator and non-administrator users in iOS. I'm just saying, technically, access control is possible. It's even already implemented in iOS in the form of parental controls.
Or even go look at the Mac's "Allow apps downloaded from" setting in System Preferences, that I showed in a previous post. You really think your mom/dad/aunt/sisters will find that switch and flip it? If they do, and if again you're too afraid of telling them not to do that, what computer do you recommend to them? Surely it isn't a Mac since they have that option. Or maybe, why aren't you championing Apple to remove that choice from our computers as well so you don't need to have a very slightly uncomfortable talk with your mom/dad/aunt/sisters?
You aren’t suffering though. You can already pick android. Android is not an option for me. Why would you want to take that choice away from people?
If they're using terms like "video," "music," etc. and NEVER mention the word "email" (sort of a major category on par with those, don't you think?) then the obvious conclusion is that email apps are NOT reader apps. Not to mention, email is obviously not restricted to professional use, so "professional database" would not make me think of email at all. And if all that wasn't enough, Apple has now stated multiple times on the record that an email app does not fit the criteria of "reader app."
Then stay on iOS 13 while the rest of the world moves on without you. You won't have to be burdened by new features and options.
You're getting more desperate by the second. Care to start a discussion about this? I'm pretty sure my MSc and upcoming PhD in cryptography (which is not security, but close) will give me the upper hand though.
I think it’s clear we’ve reached the end of this discussion.
[automerge]1592587728[/automerge]
Nope, not in the slightest! We are only going to go around in circles so it’s pointless. Some have (sadly) resorted to childish retorts, so that’s the end of it now.
Asking for a single argument on how having a switch will create an attack vector is a childish retort?
I never painted them as an underdog. People at all levels can cave to pressure. I felt the same about how they stood their ground against the FBI. I admire that. I admire people and companies that stand on principle vs. changing as the winds of popular opinion blow (or at least the opinion that is made to appear popular by media coverage).
That sounds like ambiguity to me. It also says nothing about requiring professional use, it said "accessing a professional database" I can and do use professional apps and services for personal use all the time. Again, ambiguity. If they're going to kick people out of the store over these rules, the least they could do is make them clearer. How about as a bare minimum instead of just listing a couple of categories that fit, give some that don't (e.g. "email services do not classify as reader apps") rather than making people guess. How hard would that be?
And yet the App Store came and opened things up a little. Why couldn't Apple now just open things up a little more? This is how progress works.
If the regulators have their way as a result of the pending investigations, Apple most likely will. Guess we'll just have to wait and see. I don't see Apple doing it willingly.
Again, email is a MAJOR category. The fact that it isn't mentioned should make it quite obvious that it's not included. The irony here is that what you are suggesting (that "professional database" would include email) is what would be ambiguous, were it true. Also, email itself isn't a database, only your address book. And Email is not a "professional" service that happens to be used in personal ways anymore than snail mail is a "professional" service. They are used pretty equally for both personal and professional use. You're really stretching here to try to make something ambiguous, when the plain reading of the rules is not ambiguous in the least.
But even if a developer were not sure, they could always ask rather than assume.
Also, Apple already admitted that the iOS app was approved by mistake. It should never have been in the first place. It was an oversight. So it's not like they've changed their mind or anything.
So it's such a major category that it's implied, just not major enough to be mentioned? Not exactly a bulletproof point.
That would depend on what you think "professional service" means. By the most basic definition, a professional service is just one that you pay for. Since you pay for Hey, its servers would obviously fall under the classification of "a professional database". Again, this could all have been cleared up with some more descriptive language in the rules, but Apple didn't want to do that. You clearly have one interpretation of what the rule means, but it's far from the only one.
You could try ask, but Apple isn't known for giving clear answers on things like this.
Or you could look at examples of other email apps, where you'd find examples like Fastmail, that have operated this way with no repercussions until now.
Or, maybe they consulted a lawyer who took a look at the rules and said "Yup, you guys are good under this wording".
Do you honestly believe these guys invested millions in building this app and service over two years just to try make a point?
I don’t know about this. This seems to me like coming up with a policy or justifying it‘s rational to support services revenues. This is why I’ve never been a fan of Cook’s focus on services...because it seems like starting with the financials and work backwards to a product/policy. Is getting 30% of someone subscribing to HBO really something you’d want to crow about as a company? What’s innovative or insanely great about that? What’s insanely great about rent-seeking?
The AppStore has many similarities to China where Apple makes their stuff. Both the AppStore and playstore needs a drastic change. Microsoft got hit with severe monopoly court cases and lost some time ago, I’m certain the same will happen with the AppStore in the not too distant future.
Informative video about it:
Informative video about it:
So after the fact they claim that it's an oversight, and you just swallow that explanation hook, line and sinker? Wish I was that gullible, life would be much simpler.
With two million+ apps on the app store, somehow I think Apple thought this through. And frankly, opinions to the contrary the app store seems quite robust, even if some devs have an issue with it. Decentralizing the app store is probably not where Apple wants to go. And whether this goes any further or not is anyone's guess.