It's incredible how long Apple has gotten a pass which makes me wonder why are they so protected.
No wonder they got fined for 30 billion $
What about second 30billions?
But seriously, I mean, this is the company that was hiding their tax dodging behind Tim Cook coming out as gay and making a huge deal about how he was "brave" and a "hero" when he has a fucking team of private security protecting him at all times as if that wasn't gross.
I honestly don't understand why anybody cares. If someone doesn't want to use the closed Apple ecosystem, just don't use Apple?
Seems to me that Apple's most attractive aspect is the closed ecosystem, and I don't see why they should be forced to change it in this way.
I use GrapheneOS btw- the only Apple device I ever owned was an iPod Touch.
The problem is that there's only really two ecosystems: Google and Apple. If there was more competition, maybe it would be fine if users opt-in to a closed ecosystem, but if there's only two options, there's a strong incentive from both parties to collude to prevent new competitors.
That said, I'm similar to you, I use GrapheneOS as well and have only owned the one Apple device (also iPod touch), and I largely avoid both ecosystems. However, going a third way definitely has significant repurcussions, as in I can't use many apps because they require Google's ecosystem to function.
Thanks for your input! Is that what's happening here, though?
Not sure, I'm not a lawyer and haven't investigated either party to know for sure. But what I do see is both the App Store and Play Store using "security" as an excuse to lock apps to their respective ecosystems. So whether there's overt collusion is anyone's guess, but they both seem to be playing with a similar set of cards.
Oh damn, is Google moving toward not allowing apps to be installed from outside the Play Store?
Regardless, I see now how it's a problem; if we let Apple do it, and then Google decides to too, we're fucked, and it would then be unfair to not let Google do it since the precedent was set by allowing Apple to
They've had the "this app might be malware" or whatever nonsense for ages, and I think they've stepped it up a bit. That won't stop power users, but it does chill average users and was a big reason Epic Games sued despite having the ability already to offer a sideloadable app.
And yeah, it's all about precedent. Microsoft has been trying to go this route for a while as well, and every time they do, it's always "security" as the excuse for why it needs to be that way.
It's not about if a company is shafting you then don't use them. If a company is shafting it's userbase, it shouldn't fall squarely on the customers to make a company stop shafting them, it's legislators and governments with teeth who should do something about it.
Try telling this argument to the team behind Netscape Navigator. Microsoft's most attractive aspect was using their Windows market share to, in their case, take market share in other submarkets like browsers and word processors. If the customers don't want to be behind such a dick move, they shouldn't use it? The government shouldn't do anything about it?
But hasn't Apple always been this way? It's not like people don't know what they're getting into when they choose Apple over Android. Is there something I'm missing?
There’s SO much you are missing
There are currently two ecosystems covering about 99% of the worlds phones. If you do not want to use either system you are locked out of what has become vital tech.
Opening up this would encourage innovation. It wouldnt be enough for airpods to work samlessly with iphone if they also worked seamlessly with android and "XOS". They would have to compete on price and featureset.
You’re being downvoted because everyone has stopped worrying about Netflix and now the zeitgeist is to hate Apple.
It's incredible how long Apple has gotten a pass which makes me wonder why are they so protected.
No wonder they got fined for 30 billion $
What about second 30billions?
But seriously, I mean, this is the company that was hiding their tax dodging behind Tim Cook coming out as gay and making a huge deal about how he was "brave" and a "hero" when he has a fucking team of private security protecting him at all times as if that wasn't gross.
I honestly don't understand why anybody cares. If someone doesn't want to use the closed Apple ecosystem, just don't use Apple?
Seems to me that Apple's most attractive aspect is the closed ecosystem, and I don't see why they should be forced to change it in this way.
I use GrapheneOS btw- the only Apple device I ever owned was an iPod Touch.
The problem is that there's only really two ecosystems: Google and Apple. If there was more competition, maybe it would be fine if users opt-in to a closed ecosystem, but if there's only two options, there's a strong incentive from both parties to collude to prevent new competitors.
That said, I'm similar to you, I use GrapheneOS as well and have only owned the one Apple device (also iPod touch), and I largely avoid both ecosystems. However, going a third way definitely has significant repurcussions, as in I can't use many apps because they require Google's ecosystem to function.
Thanks for your input! Is that what's happening here, though?
Not sure, I'm not a lawyer and haven't investigated either party to know for sure. But what I do see is both the App Store and Play Store using "security" as an excuse to lock apps to their respective ecosystems. So whether there's overt collusion is anyone's guess, but they both seem to be playing with a similar set of cards.
Oh damn, is Google moving toward not allowing apps to be installed from outside the Play Store?
Regardless, I see now how it's a problem; if we let Apple do it, and then Google decides to too, we're fucked, and it would then be unfair to not let Google do it since the precedent was set by allowing Apple to
They've had the "this app might be malware" or whatever nonsense for ages, and I think they've stepped it up a bit. That won't stop power users, but it does chill average users and was a big reason Epic Games sued despite having the ability already to offer a sideloadable app.
And yeah, it's all about precedent. Microsoft has been trying to go this route for a while as well, and every time they do, it's always "security" as the excuse for why it needs to be that way.
It's not about if a company is shafting you then don't use them. If a company is shafting it's userbase, it shouldn't fall squarely on the customers to make a company stop shafting them, it's legislators and governments with teeth who should do something about it.
Try telling this argument to the team behind Netscape Navigator. Microsoft's most attractive aspect was using their Windows market share to, in their case, take market share in other submarkets like browsers and word processors. If the customers don't want to be behind such a dick move, they shouldn't use it? The government shouldn't do anything about it?
But hasn't Apple always been this way? It's not like people don't know what they're getting into when they choose Apple over Android. Is there something I'm missing?
There’s SO much you are missing
There are currently two ecosystems covering about 99% of the worlds phones. If you do not want to use either system you are locked out of what has become vital tech.
Opening up this would encourage innovation. It wouldnt be enough for airpods to work samlessly with iphone if they also worked seamlessly with android and "XOS". They would have to compete on price and featureset.
You’re being downvoted because everyone has stopped worrying about Netflix and now the zeitgeist is to hate Apple.
I also hate Apple lol
lol