Because thats the only way they can bully content creators and competitors.As long as Apple isn’t held legally liable why should they care?
Because thats the only way they can bully content creators and competitors.As long as Apple isn’t held legally liable why should they care?
How is that related to the retail example I mentioned just now? As if the retail model in my example would lead to authoritarian anything.![]()
I agree that Apple should be able to set the terms for the thing they've created from scratch.Because people would do something stupid, get themselves in a mess and then be all over social media blaming Apple, which would potentially damage their image (which they are fiercely protective of)
Apple have always taken a “we know best” approach with iOS whereas Google have been more pragmatic with Android.
I can see arguments for both approaches but I do believe Apple should be able to apply the rules they want on the platform they developed: if a user wants more freedom and control, there are plenty of other phones on the market
Do you apply this logic to other corporations, or just Apple? You'd prefer we live in a corporate free-for-all where nothing they do is regulated?I agree that Apple should be able to set the terms for the thing they've created from scratch.
The lie is exactly what I said it was - that sideloading apps would "break the security and privacy" of iPhones. The false connection is that apps have to be in the app store to be certified as safe by Apple.What is a lie? Privacy and security are not binary and never 100%? What is the percentage that apple collects for "app security?" Can you point to it? Do you think the entire ecosystem will be more secure if app loading was essentially a free-for-all?
Surely it’s both?I agree that Apple should be able to set the terms for the thing they've created from scratch.
And I think its ridiculous when they claim that security is the reason, and not control and revenue.
I think things should be regulated that are damaging to consumers. Like when the only way to get broadband internet was down a phone line and BT was the only option, the Government regulated that BT must give access to their exchanges to other providers. Then consumers were able to choose different suppliers, a bit like how we can choose smartphones from different manufacturers.Do you apply this logic to other corporations, or just Apple? You'd prefer we live in a corporate free-for-all where nothing they do is regulated?
Well if most vpn providers would use stamdard protocols ( as but not limited to IPsec) and just provide a profile fir ios we would not need apps for vpn the client is allready included in the os and the connection can be easily totned of and on via settingsHad to install my preferred VPN program on wife's iPhone. Even with a unique App name it was frightening to have to sieve thru all the lookalike programs hoping to fool me to make in install. There are so, so, so many sketchy developers in the App store. It is frightening. If one makes a mistake, gets fooled by an dark pattern it can mean $500 lost to a fraudulent subscription program. Apple STILL HAS NOT done anything to protect users from this. Hope the developer currently suing Apple on a suit related to this gets to go to trial and lets us have some insights about how much profit Apple makes from not protecting users from fraudlent apps. Amazon does the same. So hard to find a trusted branded product given the hundreds of Chinese lookalikes. Apple == Amazon Tim. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Like most political interviews they are puff pieces coordinated with Apple PR and NYT. They may even pay the NYT. I am amazed how much of new is coordinated PR having participated in a little of it.Hey, he's happy again.
What is the purpose of these interviews, they never ask the hard questions.
Yes it’s always just sound bites. You only find out how things really are in law courts (Usually).Like most political interviews they are puff pieces coordinated with Apple PR and NYT. They may even pay the NYT. I am amazed how much of new is coordinated PR having participated in a little of it.
Dude...It's their product they should be able to do what they want with it. Stopping competitors? any company can compete, there is just nobody except Google trying. They can even just shut it down if they want.yes they might own their OS and love it enough to block successful competitors. Antitrust? Yes! #StopTheAppStoreAbuse
Do you seriously think any incoming CEO is going to change it? That would be a death knell to being one of the top valued corporations on the stock market.Privacy and security concerns are a smokescreen to protect their lucrative AppStore monopoly. The sooner Cook goes the better.
As long as Apple isn’t held legally liable why should they care?
Yes, i believe in transparency, like most Americans.Do you seriously think any incoming CEO is going to change it? That would be a death knell to being one of the top valued corporations on the stock market.
iOS and Android control 99% of global market share.I think things should be regulated that are damaging to consumers. Like when the only way to get broadband internet was down a phone line and BT was the only option, the Government regulated that BT must give access to their exchanges to other providers. Then consumers were able to choose different suppliers, a bit like how we can choose smartphones from different manufacturers.
It would be foolish of any new CEO to change direction on privacy and I presume anyone likely to become CEO is already onboard with selling the privacy angle.Do you seriously think any incoming CEO is going to change it? That would be a death knell to being one of the top valued corporations on the stock market.
I understand some view app store security as binary and use that as an argument to discredit Apple. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water. However, I didn't think the masses knew that by having apple reviewing an app certifies them as 100% safe in absolute sense. I don't think that was ever the case. (At least safe enough to give the app your credentials to your life savings without a second thought)The lie is exactly what I said it was - that sideloading apps would "break the security and privacy" of iPhones. The false connection is that apps have to be in the app store to be certified as safe by Apple.
And android is 90% of that!iOS and Android control 99% of global market share.
Dollars come first....we are a capitalist country.....make all the money you can, if you can't then start screaming communism, communism, communism.Yes, i believe in transparency, like most Americans.
There is always someone who wants to ruin things for others.Dollars come first....we are a capitalist country.....make all the money you can, if you can't then start screaming communism, communism, communism.
I think all of these Apple app wrote haters should ll get together and start a company to make a competing product/OS and run it how they all feel it should be run.
That is true, but let's hope for that not to happen.It would be foolish of any new CEO to change direction on privacy and I presume anyone likely to become CEO is already onboard with selling the privacy angle.
But there’s an outside chance they could get a CEO who just says screw it, lets monetise the hell out of user data and us consumers would have very little we could do about it since there is no other company providing this competitive advantage.
I think history will show us that apple was on the right side of this argument.That is true, but let's hope for that not to happen.