That being the " Service " department at your local car dealership.
If I'm not mistaken, the courts basically told dealerships to f*** right off when they demanded folks bring their cars into a " certified $brand_name dealer " or use only " certified $brand_name parts " for all service and warranty related issues lest you void your warranty. All at a considerable markup on parts of course. . . . ..
I would suspect the end ruling on this will flow along similar lines.
I'm pretty sure you can only install XCode projects if you have a registered developer account that can sign the code. For which, Apple also extracts an annual fee.
Wrong.
You only need that Paid developer Account to Publish Apps to the Apple App Store. The Free Dev. Account works fine for publishing Freeware Apps, AFAIK.
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
It is a monopoly of where you can get software. name a single other place you can buy programs/apps that will install and operate on an ios device/ that is where the term monopoly fits.
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple. Amazons app store is a good example- there is no reason for apple to prevent users from clicking "I agree this can break my phone" and loading whatever they want on their device.
1. You can "side load" Apps from Source since iOS 8 (over five years now).
2. You can "side load" Apps from.ipa files using Cydia Impactor (and a NON-Jailbroken iOS device!) since iOS 8 (over five years now).
3. If a popular sideloaded App turned out to be a Trojan, ALL the Public would understand was that "iPhone Apps No Longer Safe!", and that perception could NEVER be overcome in the public's mind.
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
i think they should just add a "do you trust this source" feature like android so you can install from anywhere rather than just the app store BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
They DO do EXACTLY that when you are installing Open Source from another Publisher, and possibly when you install.ipa files directly from another Publisher.
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
Apple didn't promise an open ecosystem and then pull the rug out, you knew it when you bought it. There's no legal compelling reason for them to be forced to accept to undermine their system and run unapproved 3rd party junk.
If there were, their anti-jailbreaking stance would be illegal also. And it isn't.
It's about time. Apple has been allowed to use government agencies to steal legitimate parts at the border, relentlessly stolen software innovations for years, locked vendors and users into an ecosystem where they must play by Apple's rules. It's about time we do something about it.
That's ALL total horseshit.
1. Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
2. Apple hasn't stolen anything any more than any other company. That is the essence of innovation and progress.
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT! See? Wasn't that easy?
It is OBVIOUS from the FACTS that people do NOT buy Apps directly from Apple; but rather THROUGH Apple.
The simplest fact which proves this is: App Developers (Publishers) are free to set the PRICE of the App (including FREE). Obviously, if the Publisher of the App is setting the Selling Price, AND the Publisher of the App is writing the "Ad Copy" for the App's Listing in the App Store, AND the Publisher of the App is deciding on the Category(ies) that the App is Listed-Under, then it is the Publisher that is simply listing his wares in Apple's Store Catalog, for which Apple charges a 30% commission for hosting, payment processing, indexing, etc.
Since Users purchase their Apple mobile products with the understanding that the main source (but not the ONLY Source! *) of Apps is the Apple App Store, and since Apple certainly doesn't hold a "monopoly" position in ANY market, there simply is no question of anti-trust here.
* Since iOS 8, Apple has allowed Users to install Apps from Source Code Projects using XCode, and from.ipa files using Cydia Impactor (which runs on MacOs, Windows and Linux).
Nor can Apple's. How many white hat hackers penetrated the walled garden and got away with it? All of them. Only when they self reported did they get booted.
Add to that nobody else can reliably scan apps for malware, and you're just asking for it
You mean like BOTH of them?
Funny that there haven't been any significant malware incursions in either of Apple's App Stores, whereas there have been literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in Google Play.
Somehow, I don't see the equivalence you are trying to foist.
It is that people keep coming up with dodges that evade the scanning and then the scanning engines have to get updated to deal with the new malware. This is just another instance of that.
That's funny!
Unscrupulous Developers try that stuff constantly with the iOS and Mac App Stores, too.
But the difference between them and Google Play, is that with the Apple App Stores, I can count the successful "dodges" on just a few fingers.
And we don't need a whole bunch of crappy cameras, just one good one.
1) The cameras in modern phones are pretty good. Adding additional ones won't make them worse. 2) Having multiple cameras actually makes them better because you can do all sorts of cool computational photography which can get great results without huge optics. 3) Having multiple lenses means you can have multiple focal lengths. Many phones already have two. 4) If cost is an issue I'm sure there will me phones with fewer cameras that you can buy for less money.
Given a certain price-target, the more you, as an OEM, spend on cameras, the less you have to spend of the entire rest of the product.
Like google ad words? You mean the service that they are using? (search) Thank you for proving my point that they are just as guilty as the service they are going to be using.
and only their app store? The ads here are bringing in $500 million by the end of this year, and expecting to bring in $2 billion by 2020
Now you might be thinking, only $500 million? that's nothing compared to apple's other revenue streams. But then, why are they selling out their principles for an extra (estimated) 0.15% revenue? I would guess because they don't really care.
Are they even Ads, or just search result-rankings in their App Store? Yes, there is a difference.
And Google hovers-up data from all KINDS of sources. Apple is just using internal demographic information from AppleID signups and other App Store purchases.
But it doesn't matter what I say; you'll just find some way to find some nefarious purpose in it.
Why does anyone treat a comedian who had a moderately successful child's TV show like an authority on anything related to science? Every scientific achievement was, at one point, science fiction.. if not "magic".
Slashdot Mirror
Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
So if Tim Cook calls up his Congressman he'll get no more help from the government than would a small business owner with 5 employees?
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
That being the " Service " department at your local car dealership.
If I'm not mistaken, the courts basically told dealerships to f*** right off when they demanded folks bring their cars into a " certified $brand_name dealer " or use only " certified $brand_name parts " for all service and warranty related issues lest you void your warranty. All at a considerable markup on parts of course. . . . . .
I would suspect the end ruling on this will flow along similar lines.
Then you suspect wrongly.
I'm pretty sure you can only install XCode projects if you have a registered developer account that can sign the code. For which, Apple also extracts an annual fee.
Wrong.
You only need that Paid developer Account to Publish Apps to the Apple App Store. The Free Dev. Account works fine for publishing Freeware Apps, AFAIK.
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
It is a monopoly of where you can get software. name a single other place you can buy programs/apps that will install and operate on an ios device/ that is where the term monopoly fits.
https://iosninja.io/ipa-librar...
Next?
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple. Amazons app store is a good example- there is no reason for apple to prevent users from clicking "I agree this can break my phone" and loading whatever they want on their device.
1. You can "side load" Apps from Source since iOS 8 (over five years now).
2. You can "side load" Apps from .ipa files using Cydia Impactor (and a NON-Jailbroken iOS device!) since iOS 8 (over five years now).
3. If a popular sideloaded App turned out to be a Trojan, ALL the Public would understand was that "iPhone Apps No Longer Safe!", and that perception could NEVER be overcome in the public's mind.
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
This. This. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!!
Non-free software should be banned. Copyright needs to die.
Spoken like someone who has never written a single byte of code.
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores. How is this different? Are they being investigated, too?
Good Point!
i think they should just add a "do you trust this source" feature like android so you can install from anywhere rather than just the app store
BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
They DO do EXACTLY that when you are installing Open Source from another Publisher, and possibly when you install .ipa files directly from another Publisher.
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
Precisely!
Apple didn't promise an open ecosystem and then pull the rug out, you knew it when you bought it. There's no legal compelling reason for them to be forced to accept to undermine their system and run unapproved 3rd party junk.
If there were, their anti-jailbreaking stance would be illegal also. And it isn't.
Exactly!
It's about time. Apple has been allowed to use government agencies to steal legitimate parts at the border, relentlessly stolen software innovations for years, locked vendors and users into an ecosystem where they must play by Apple's rules. It's about time we do something about it.
That's ALL total horseshit.
1. Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
2. Apple hasn't stolen anything any more than any other company. That is the essence of innovation and progress.
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT! See? Wasn't that easy?
It is OBVIOUS from the FACTS that people do NOT buy Apps directly from Apple; but rather THROUGH Apple.
The simplest fact which proves this is: App Developers (Publishers) are free to set the PRICE of the App (including FREE). Obviously, if the Publisher of the App is setting the Selling Price, AND the Publisher of the App is writing the "Ad Copy" for the App's Listing in the App Store, AND the Publisher of the App is deciding on the Category(ies) that the App is Listed-Under, then it is the Publisher that is simply listing his wares in Apple's Store Catalog, for which Apple charges a 30% commission for hosting, payment processing, indexing, etc.
Since Users purchase their Apple mobile products with the understanding that the main source (but not the ONLY Source! *) of Apps is the Apple App Store, and since Apple certainly doesn't hold a "monopoly" position in ANY market, there simply is no question of anti-trust here.
* Since iOS 8, Apple has allowed Users to install Apps from Source Code Projects using XCode, and from .ipa files using Cydia Impactor (which runs on MacOs, Windows and Linux).
Isn't it nice that Apple decides what software you can install on your own device?
Sorry. Even the First Amendment has limits.
Nor can Apple's. How many white hat hackers penetrated the walled garden and got away with it? All of them. Only when they self reported did they get booted.
Add to that nobody else can reliably scan apps for malware, and you're just asking for it
You mean like BOTH of them?
Funny that there haven't been any significant malware incursions in either of Apple's App Stores, whereas there have been literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in Google Play.
Somehow, I don't see the equivalence you are trying to foist.
It is that people keep coming up with dodges that evade the scanning and then the scanning engines have to get updated to deal with the new malware. This is just another instance of that.
That's funny!
Unscrupulous Developers try that stuff constantly with the iOS and Mac App Stores, too.
But the difference between them and Google Play, is that with the Apple App Stores, I can count the successful "dodges" on just a few fingers.
How long until we have more camera on our phones than a fly???
LOL!
And we don't need a whole bunch of crappy cameras, just one good one.
1) The cameras in modern phones are pretty good. Adding additional ones won't make them worse.
2) Having multiple cameras actually makes them better because you can do all sorts of cool computational photography which can get great results without huge optics.
3) Having multiple lenses means you can have multiple focal lengths. Many phones already have two.
4) If cost is an issue I'm sure there will me phones with fewer cameras that you can buy for less money.
Given a certain price-target, the more you, as an OEM, spend on cameras, the less you have to spend of the entire rest of the product.
What's 5G? It's made from hyperventilium on the planet marketingbull.
And 6 cameras sounds good until someone does 7 minute abs.
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Like google ad words? You mean the service that they are using? (search) Thank you for proving my point that they are just as guilty as the service they are going to be using.
and only their app store? The ads here are bringing in $500 million by the end of this year, and expecting to bring in $2 billion by 2020
Now you might be thinking, only $500 million? that's nothing compared to apple's other revenue streams. But then, why are they selling out their principles for an extra (estimated) 0.15% revenue? I would guess because they don't really care.
Are they even Ads, or just search result-rankings in their App Store? Yes, there is a difference.
And Google hovers-up data from all KINDS of sources. Apple is just using internal demographic information from AppleID signups and other App Store purchases.
But it doesn't matter what I say; you'll just find some way to find some nefarious purpose in it.
>> Since you can easily change the default search engine
But hardly anyone does.
And that is Apple's fault, HOW, exactly?
Why does anyone treat a comedian who had a moderately successful child's TV show like an authority on anything related to science? Every scientific achievement was, at one point, science fiction.. if not "magic".
Exactly.
there will never ever be permanent human habitation of Mars.
"The Speed of Sound will never be breached."
"640 K should be enough for anybody."
"There's nothing new to be discovered in physics now."
"Man will never fly."
Motto: Never is a Long, Long time...
The bow tie doesn't make him smart.
You owe me a new keyboard!!!
That guy is a worst kind of self-aggrandizing blowhard.
"People disagree with me on this, and the reason they disagree is because they're wrong,"
Sickening.
It's like something Sheldon Cooper would say on TBBT. Only there we all KNOW it's sarcasm. Nye's actually serious!