4 ms·

I think this falls a little below the level of what should be a federal crime. It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is

I think this falls a little below the level of what should be a federal crime. It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is up to individual developers and not Apple. (It cuts both ways: there are some apps that aren't updated to run on the newest devices. So you could take that as Apple encouraging you to keep your old device and to NOT upgrade.) Think about it this way: you want to haul Apple into federal court because they poorly cache app store search results on a CDN. The DoJ will have to hire new expert attorneys to prosecute this, and it could take years. That means they either stop prosecuting other federal crimes while working on that one, or your taxes increase to pay the new attorneys necessary for this case. The ultimate outcome for Apple will be paying some tiny fine that probably is less than a year's salary for a software engineer and being forced to fix their CDN setup, while the taxpayers pay millions of dollars. Best case. The worst case could be years of legal costs for the government, and absolutely nothing in return for the taxpayers. I think you have to choose your battles, and this isn't the pick. Consumers aren't getting severely fucked, it's just kind of annoying to some people. We can use our limited tax dollars more effectively.

dqv 6y ago
>So you could take that as Apple encouraging you to keep your old device and to NOT upgrade. Does Apple show you apps that won't run on the newest devices/OS versions in the app store? >It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is up to individual developers and not Apple. But Apple runs the store, so the onus on them is to present the store in a way that gives me what is compatible with my device. When I go to the physical store, I don't expect to find kid's sizes in the adult clothing section (and vice versa). Even if the "clothing developer" in question only makes child sized clothes. >prosecute Whoa, hold on. We're in a thread asking for public comment on dark patterns. Look at point 6 in the event announcement PDF: > What harms do dark patterns pose to consumers or competition? For example, do certain dark patterns lead consumers to purchase products or services that they might not otherwise have purchased, pay for products or services without knowing or intending to, provide personal information, waste time, spend more on a particular product or service, remain enrolled in a service they might otherwise cancel, or develop harmful usage habits? (emphasis mine) >Consumers aren't getting severely fucked, it's just kind of annoying to some people. Sorry, I'm not understanding your point. Most dark patterns don't severely fuck anyone and are just kind of annoying to some people. I think that's the point of this FTC public comment - to get a consensus on what dark patterns are.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dqv 6y ago

>So you could take that as Apple encouraging you to keep your old device and to NOT upgrade. Does Apple show you apps that won't run on the newest devices/OS versions in the app store? >It's an annoying usability issue, but ultimately which devices are supported is up to individual developers and not Apple. But Apple runs the store, so the onus on them is to present the store in a way that gives me what is compatible with my device. When I go to the physical store, I don't expect to find kid's sizes in the adult clothing section (and vice versa). Even if the "clothing developer" in question only makes child sized clothes. >prosecute Whoa, hold on. We're in a thread asking for public comment on dark patterns. Look at point 6 in the event announcement PDF: > What harms do dark patterns pose to consumers or competition? For example, do certain dark patterns lead consumers to purchase products or services that they might not otherwise have purchased, pay for products or services without knowing or intending to, provide personal information, waste time, spend more on a particular product or service, remain enrolled in a service they might otherwise cancel, or develop harmful usage habits? (emphasis mine) >Consumers aren't getting severely fucked, it's just kind of annoying to some people. Sorry, I'm not understanding your point. Most dark patterns don't severely fuck anyone and are just kind of annoying to some people. I think that's the point of this FTC public comment - to get a consensus on what dark patterns are.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]