For sure, but they are (mostly) still adults capable of making their own decisions and owning the outcomes, even if they are dumb decisions.
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.
U.S. Bills Allowing Sideloading Would Cause Consumers to Be Hit With 'Malware, Ransomware, and Scams,' Says Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's way too much power in the Executive Branch. We have courts for a reason. Make some rules to protect individual and corporate rights, sure, that's what laws are supposed to be used for, but enforcement/collection should be the responsibility of the individual parties in the courts.
Yes, you can sideload on a Kindle. A smart TV is not a computing device, so it is as much of a red herring to this argument as Amazon and grocery stores. Let's stick to the actual argument instead of introducing fallacious points to the discussion.
I would actually say the court overstepped their bounds. Force the repayment of extorted monies, sure, but banning him from ever working/conducting business in that field again? Excessive, and I'd argue not within the scope of the court's authority.
The criminal charges he brought on himself, if they are true, and a jury decided they were.
Because there isn't one. Apple has managed to hide behind this fallacious argument for years and now that people are not buying it anymore they are doing the equivalent of a two year old who has always been spoiled stomping his feet when he didn't get the cookie he demanded.
Thank you straw man. Why don't you also stop pretending that his is a relevant argument in the context of this discussion?
Looking through the comments here, I would say it's not necessarily the majority, much les the "absolute" majority. What are you basing that assessment on? Let's see where the numbers are coming from that you used to conclude this.
And even so, you are dealing with anti-trust and interference and distortion of free markets, which is harmful to everybody. It doesn't matter if the people that want this specific thing are the minority or not. Those who don't care are still being harmed whether they realize it or not.
Maybe you should look up case law or anti-trust history. Apple absolutely has a monopoly. Not over mobile devices (and nobody has argued that), but over app distribution on iOS/iPadOS. Developers have to pay twice (for a developer account with Apple and then again when Apple takes 15% - that used to be a whopping 30% - off the top of whatever the develop manages to sell, sometimes in spite of Apple marketing their apps in uncomplimentary ways) just to get an app to an end user. In what other market is that considered normal or acceptable? In what other market is telling a consumer that they can ONLY install software on YOUR device that you bought and paid for that THEY decide you can have access to, while extorting ungodly amounts from those brave enough to attempt to provide a product, and only if Apple doesn't deny access to the store for wholly nonsensical reasons, which has happened to many developers on the platform?
Remember when Microsoft was sued by the government for merely incorporating their own browser into Windows, even though you could still install any other browser you wanted?
Both cases were about anti-competitive behavior. Apple has less of a case than Microsoft did in the 90's and the aughts.
I guess to answer your question, we should ask another question: Should developers be required to pay Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. just to sell software that runs on Windows/MacOS/ChromeOS?
Still not a valid argument. The devs don't pay LG to make their smartTV app available, and LG doesn't charge you to install it. That's what vertical integration is, but if you wanted to be even more strict having 3rd parties provide apps isn't really vertical in itself.
Did you find it difficult to install Office365 onto your Mac? I'm guessing not. Same thing will come to pass on mobile platforms. The manufacturers and developers alike will adapt and make a consumer friendly solution rather than the solution now that is decidedly anti-consumer as well as anti-developer.
Uh...market competition. For both end users and app developers. If you have different stores available, the app developer can choose which one to sell though based on the pricing and service a given store provides that is right for them, or even create their own store, or none at all and sell directly to the consumer where you can download from their website. The potential options are legion.
For consumers, they will be able to price compare/shop, much like you do for products now (Amazon, B&H, Newegg all carry the same or similar products at different prices and deals). This sort of competition is nearly always good for the consumer.
People really need to think about the implications of this decision. This could negatively impact gaming consoles if its about digital marketplaces. The only way I am on board with this is if EVERYTHING changes, not just Apple. I don't want this to be "going after Apple because its Apple". If its decided digital marketplaces must allow side loading, then it should apply in all cases - Playstation, Xbox, Switch and others included.
It's already there. Odds are you'll be just as aware (or unaware) of it as you are now. Do you really think state sponsored spyware doesn't exist in these app stores under the guise of software companies already? Apple's curation process is notoriously porous. Beyond that many of these get on your phone already just from opening a web page or receiving a properly formatted text.
Maybe Apple would be better served to fix their security holes that do exist rather than crying doom and gloom about ones that are likely to never come to pass.
Your confusing iPhones with a platform that nobody actually makes these things for. Developer create games for consoles, and occasionally the console manufacturer will solicit some extraneous applications a la Netflix, but other than that, there's no developer pool for emulators and such on PlayStation or XBox.
That's laughably preposterous.
Sure, people like the ecosystems. They apps and services Apple provides in it are in general quite good or Apple wouldn't be able to sell them.
That doesn't equate to consumers not wanting the freedom to add things on their devices *in addition to* Apple's ecosystem, anymore than it equates to people wanting Samsung or Google limiting their choices on Android. The Google and Samsung ecosystems are still there (and notably co-exist quite well), but people can still step outside when they *choose* to do so on the devices that they own outright, having bought and paid for them.
If I buy any computer other than a Mac, I can choose whatever I want to run on it, even the OS, provided it has the drivers for the hardware or a decent HAL. Why should the computer in my pocket, that happens to have mobile communications ability as well, be any different? It would certainly be more of the type of device that Jobs promised 15 years ago.
Apple does have a big monopoly. Not on smartphones themselves, but on software distribution on the mobile platform that accounts for 50% or more of the global smartphone market. Developers aren't forced to pay to play on Android if they don't want to, even if it is harder to go that route and many *choose* to keep their app in the Play Store. It's still an option for both the developer and the consumer. Not so on Apple.
Technically true. But technically you don't need electricity in your home to function in society either, but nobody would suggest it's a realistically viable alternative.
This is unrealistic fear mongering at its worst. All one has to do to dispel such a silly notion is to take a look over the fence at the Android world. Very, and I mean very, few apps are *only* available via sideloading or 3rd party app stores like the Amazon app store or the Samsung app store, and those stores because the apps in question are device specific. The notable exception for a long time as Fortnight and it didn't stop the people who really wanted it.
As far as those 3rd party app stores pushing for "exclusive deals" and whatnot to get people to use their store, that's called "market competition", and historically it has always benefitted the consumer. Stores compete with each other on price all the time, as do wireless providers and device manufacturers, automakers, and pretty much any other consumer good you can imagine.
You might want to crack an economics or a history book some time.
Good Lord, what computing environment do you live in? I've been using PC's (Windows and Linux) and Macs for a very long time and have NEVER had a virus or malware infection on my computers, even when not having antivirus installed.
I'm easily a power user on these things, and don't limit myself to email, web and word processing, either. I just don't take stupid risks like clicking on links that I don't know where they came from or where they lead to, or opening attachments that at the very least don't come from someone I know. Hell, I didn't even get caught by the I Love You virus because, well, I have eyes and a brain, and it was clear to me this person wouldn't suddenly be revealing a hidden love to me via email.
And no, Android is NOT already somewhat like this having used it all the way up to the present as well as iOS. The only time you will find yourself with malware or a virus on Android is if you're being absolutely reckless or stupid.
At any rate, nobody is forcing you to not have the walled garden Apple provides, they are just asking for a door out of the garden when they choose to step outside. If you choose not to step outside this affects you absolutely not at all.
Saying that this is government turning on consumers is hot garbage, too. This is actually anti-trust, which inevitably benefits consumers and the overall market as well. Or do you think we should still all be buying from Standard Oil or only using AT&T for our phones (and only the phones they sell/provide as well)?
Oh, you didn't know we had already seen this EXACT same scenario with AT&T in the early 80's? You might want to look it up.
Tell me you don't understand software without saying you don't understand software. ?
And "Apple's privacy lock", as you put it, is just a warm, fuzzy perception of privacy, not actual privacy.
You're clumsily (and fallaciously) calling up the paradox of choice, but I have neither the inclination or time to explain it to you or why you are misapplying it here.
"But...but...you're still FORCING me to have a choice! Any choice is too much choice and therefore is LESS choice!" ??
No I’m not. I know what I want and the actual concept of choice. As such I pick Android as my primary driver. As a consumer, I’m in control of which platform I want to be in. I don’t need the government to make my choices to be more of the same.