Perhaps you don’t understand satire.
You're satirising the anti-EU Apple fanbois? It's sometimes hard to separate genuine opinion from parody on this forum.
Perhaps you don’t understand satire.
No, I'm satirizing the EU for its interference in the free market in an obvious attempt to slant the playing field towards EU companies. There's no difference between complaining that Apple doesn't make it easy to use other computer hardware and software and complaining that Apple wouldn't make it easy to use engines and other automotive hardware and software from EU manufacturers in their cars.You're satirising the anti-EU Apple fanbois? It's sometimes hard to separate genuine opinion from parody on this forum.
What's crazy about it? Isn't web install currently in beta?This is crazy but I can't say unexpected.
No, I'm satirizing the EU for its interference in the free market in an obvious attempt to slant the playing field towards EU companies. There's no difference between complaining that Apple doesn't make it easy to use other computer hardware and software and complaining that Apple wouldn't make it easy to use engines and other automotive hardware and software from EU manufacturers in their cars.
Apple's market share in the US is almost double what it is in the EU.Yet the DoJ in the US is also accusing Apple of being a monopoly, so it clearly isn’t just sour grapes on the part of the EU.
What's crazy about it? Isn't web install currently in beta?
What complexity? Click install. If you haven't approved it before, approve it in Settings, and then click install again.The complexity. It could, and IMO, should be simple.
What complexity? Click install. If you haven't approved it before, approve it in Settings, and then click install again.
Seems reasonable to me. Similar to installing an unsigned app on the Mac.
The DoJ is full of crap also. These are bureaucrats responding to pressure from other players in the market who want government assistance to tilt the playing field. No one is stopping people from switching from Apple phones to any other manufacturer. DoJ's credibility is seriously undermined when Merrick Garland says with a serious look on his face that presenting non-encrypted text in green is anti-competitive.Yet the DoJ in the US is also accusing Apple of being a monopoly, so it clearly isn’t just sour grapes on the part of the EU.
That the EU hasn’t interfered with cars in the way you parody only demonstrates that this is specifically about digital gatekeepers like Apple, Google and Microsoft, and not a wider anti-US policy.
The DoJ is full of crap also. These are bureaucrats responding to pressure from other players in the market who want government assistance to tilt the playing field. No one is stopping people from switching from Apple phones to any other manufacturer. DoJ's credibility is seriously undermined when Merrick Garland says with a serious look on his face that presenting non-encrypted text in green is anti-competitive.
The DoJ would do better to address real problems created by real mono/oligopolistic companies like corporate agribusiness, big pharma, and the grocery business. While food deserts exist in poor communities, the impoverished are charged higher prices for food, and people cannot afford life-saving medicine that is affordably available in other countries, it is immoral for the DoJ to spend so much effort trying to tilt the playing field to putatively lower the cost of things affluent people buy.
I understand completely. People are starving and dying due to anti-competitive practices in the food and drug arena. That problem has been getting worse for decades starting with Nixon changing healthcare into for-profit businesses. The time to act was in the 1980s or 1990s.Emphasis was added by me.
That statement right there shows you do not understand the point the DOJ and AG’s are trying to make - right or wrong.
Keep in mind the DOJ is not a one item pony show. It would be of little surprise that there are groups within the DOJ that are looking at all you mentioned plus many more.
I understand completely. People are starving and dying due to anti-competitive practices in the food and drug arena. That problem has been getting worse for decades starting with Nixon changing healthcare into for-profit businesses. The time to act was in the 1980s or 1990s.
Instead, the DOJ is now acting on a recent “problem” in which affluent people might wind up paying a little more for their high-end luxury. You can have all the faith you want that the DOJ has been looking into REAL oligopolies. They are already at least 30 years late in acting. Thank goodness smug well-fed affluent people with first-world problems are being placated first. Of course, that’s because affluent people lobby and vote. Poor people? Well, they just die if you ignore them long enough.
Whataboutism? I didn’t say Apple should be able to do what they do because others get away with it also. I said the DOJ is wrong and is ignoring REAL life and death problems caused by REAL anti-competitive behavior.Whataboutism aside, ...
Frankly, trying to equate cheaper apps for affluent people with access to food and medicine is morally repugnant.
Ah… pointing that the DOJ is wrong about Apple and anti-competitive behavior and bringing up examples of real anti-competitive industries and the dire life and death consequences is an equation of the two and an appeal to emotion. Hint: It is showing that real anti-competitive behavior is NOT comparable to what the DOJ is alleging is anti-competitive behavior on Apple’s part. You are woefully wrong, but that’s okay. I won’t make the mistake of taking you seriously again.You're the one doing it. Frankly, bringing starving children and people losing limbs to diabetes into a discussion about iPhone app stores is just an appeal to emotion, rather than staying on topic.
Ah… pointing that the DOJ is wrong about Apple and anti-competitive behavior
and bringing up examples of real anti-competitive industries and the dire life and death consequences is an equation of the two and an appeal to emotion.
Hint: It is showing that real anti-competitive behavior is NOT comparable to what the DOJ is alleging is anti-competitive behavior on Apple’s part.
Apple doesn't want to do alternative marketplaces because of privacy and security issues. People claim they are lying. Governments force Apple to allow alternative marketplaces. People blame Apple for privacy and security issues with alternative marketplaces.Privacy and security has been a big Apple complaint
Then they have this...
Apple doesn't want to do alternative marketplaces
because of privacy and security issues.
People claim they are lying.
Governments force Apple to allow alternative marketplaces.
People blame Apple for privacy and security issues with alternative marketplaces.
I'm not commenting on the specific problem here, but additional privacy and security issues are certainly inevitable. Especially in the near term while they try to meet arbitrary deadlines and changing EU interpretations of the requirements..Yes, because the implementation is 100% Apple's. Or are you arguing that there's no possible way to implement alternative app stores without leaking data in such a way that users can be tracked? FWIW, the iOS version of Brave seems to have managed it.