3 ms·

> Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support o

by stale2002 5y ago

> Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support other app stores. Instead, Apple is the one spending extra money and extra effort in order to prevent this stuff. Other companies would be more than happy to build these other app stores, if Apple would just get out of the way.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Apple would have to develop new APIs and poke new holes in their security to enable this. Then they’d have to test and maintain these APIs. That’s work they don’t want to do and a cost they don’t want to pay for.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > That’s work they don’t want to do Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that. But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it. Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices. But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort. If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Have they been found to be breaking the law? Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?
    - stale2002 5y ago
      Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction! I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months. I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts. And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all. We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then! But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive. We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count). > if they are, are these good laws anyway? Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        I think you've misread my comments. I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet. > And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be? I'm giving my opinion (after being invited to) on the morality of Apple's actions. I'm not giving a legal opinion on the outcome of any trial. I even said 'if they are, are these good laws anyway?' which should have made that clear.
        stale2002 5y ago
        > I think you've misread my comments. No, I really didn't. If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal. So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal. > So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal. And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months. And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made. I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal. > Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be? By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'." You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how. Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal. I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior. But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal. You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Apple would have to develop new APIs and poke new holes in their security to enable this. Then they’d have to test and maintain these APIs. That’s work they don’t want to do and a cost they don’t want to pay for.

stale2002 5y ago
> That’s work they don’t want to do Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that. But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it. Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices. But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort. If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Have they been found to be breaking the law? Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?
  - stale2002 5y ago
    Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction! I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months. I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts. And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all. We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then! But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive. We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count). > if they are, are these good laws anyway? Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      I think you've misread my comments. I didn't predict anything. I asked if it had been found to be illegal. It hasn't. So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. Apple clearly believe it's legal, and no authority has given an opinion otherwise yet. > And your position, is that you think ... that no judge will rule against them Sorry I'm afraid you've misread again - I didn't say this anywhere. Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be? I'm giving my opinion (after being invited to) on the morality of Apple's actions. I'm not giving a legal opinion on the outcome of any trial. I even said 'if they are, are these good laws anyway?' which should have made that clear.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > I think you've misread my comments. No, I really didn't. If you agreed with me that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, then you wouldn't ask why/how/when their actions are illegal. So yes, by asking me why/how/when their actions are illegal, you are disagreeing with me. Thats what it means to ask that. We'll see if you were right or not, to question why/how/when their actions are illegal. > So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'. When you say "I don't know how", that is a disagreement with me. You are saying that you do not see how their actions are illegal. And my response, to you casting doubt on their actions being illegal (By saying that you "do not see how" they are illegal), is that I will show you why the actions are illegal, in a couple months. And then you can re-evaluate your previous confusion as to "not seeing how" their actions are illegal, when that court decision is made. I am pretty sure that I am right on this. And I'll be able to show this to you, when the court decision happens, and you can understand why you were incorrect to doubt that their actions are illegal. > Where do you think I said what I think the outcome of any trial would be? By the fact that you are saying things like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'." You are saying that you do not know how Apple's actions could be described as illegal, and I am saying that the court case will show you how. Thats what it means to say stuff like "So I don't know how you're describing it as 'illegal'" It means that you don't think that their actions are illegal. I also see that you are saying things like "Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.", which is implying that you don't think that they are engaging in illegal/anti-trust behavior. But like I said, this will all be settled in a couple months, and you will be able to see why it was incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal. You will be able to look back, and understand why it is incorrect to not be sure of how their actions are illegal.