nodamage

31 ms·

331.
by nodamage 6y ago
So you took a single sentence from an entire paragraph out of context and proceeded to post an elaborate counter-argument against an argument the original poster hadn't actually made? Literally the same thing you were complaining about
332.
by nodamage 6y ago
I don't understand your point. Are you actually suggesting that poor people don't count? If you consider the US alone you're still looking at ~17 million malware infections last year on Android devices. > The guy that revi
333.
by nodamage 6y ago
Consider, for example, an app that might initially request access to your contacts for a legitimate purpose (like messaging your friends), but secretly scrapes your contacts and sells it to third parties. This is a privacy abuse that is not
334.
by nodamage 6y ago
Sorry I didn't see your reply earlier. > As the article you listed above shows, xHelper has had 33K detected cases. That's literally two decimal orders of magnitude less than Conficker, which had over 9M cases, in 2008, when th
335.
by nodamage 6y ago
Blacklisting may be an appropriate solution for malware but doesn't help with privacy issues because apps distributed outside the App Store by definition won't be subject to the App Store privacy rules. > The statistics for mal
336.
by nodamage 6y ago
Yes, Google publishes a security report that indicates that devices that side-load apps have an 8x higher malware incidence compared to devices that only use the Play Store. ( https://source.android.com/security/reports&
337.
by nodamage 6y ago
That's true, but for Epic's tying claim they've argued that the tying product is iOS app distribution and the tied product is payment processing, which again relies on establishing that iOS app distribution is in fact a valid
338.
by nodamage 6y ago
Note that Eastman Kodak is viewed in legal circles as the exception to the general rule of disallowing single-brand relevant markets, due to the particular circumstances of the case. In Kodak , customers originally purchased Kodak copi
339.
by nodamage 6y ago
I understand the context but I think you've actually largely misunderstood the point of the original poster you were quoting: > To me the iPhone is a console, end of story. That poster was suggesting the iPhone is an intentionally l
340.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Absolutely terrible analogy. How about instead you were denied the right to own a smartphone? Who exactly has been denied the right to own a smartphone? Speaking of terrible analogies... You are repeatedly conflating the iPhone with al
341.
by nodamage 6y ago
Your theory doesn't match the actual statistics: Among smartphones, Android™ devices are the most commonly targeted by malware. In mobile networks, Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of the observed malware infections, Window
342.
by nodamage 6y ago
One reason might be related to xCloud bypassing Apple's parental controls for both screen time and in-app purchasing that Apple requires for games distributed via the App Store. I expect Microsoft will work with Apple to resolve these
343.
by nodamage 6y ago
Framing the 30% as "payment processing" is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Apple builds the entire ecosystem and suite of tools that developers use to actually make apps for the iPhone. Visa and Mastercard only provide payment
344.
by nodamage 6y ago
This is incorrect. Google's own statistics ( https://source.android.com/security/reports/Google_Android_S... ) indicate that devices that use side-loading have an 8x relative higher incidence of malware compare
345.
by nodamage 6y ago
> if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine Have you actually looked up the statistics? According to Kaspersky ( https://securelist.com/mobile-malware-evolution-2019&#x2F
346.
by nodamage 6y ago
That's a pretty silly argument considering Steam launched with a 30% fee a full 5 years before the App Store was even a thing.
347.
by nodamage 6y ago
> If I am a bad actor I can submit an app for review and activate an evil mode after the application is approved. While this is of course still possible, the store model allows you to disable the app and remove the store listing to preve
348.
by nodamage 6y ago
Sorry but a market consisting of a single manufacturer's own product is generally not considered a valid antitrust market for legal purposes. You can't simply declare an arbitrarily narrow market like this because every manufactur
349.
by nodamage 6y ago
Ok now compare the iPhone's market share to Standard Oil and AT&T's market share at the time of their breakup. One of these things is not like the others.
350.
by nodamage 6y ago
> For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music. IIRC this is related to Spotify's music licensing agreements only permitting streaming and not copying
351.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Does Apple allow developers to just charge 30% more when users sign up through iOS, and just note in the app that access to the service though iOS costs more? You are allowed to do the former but not the latter.
352.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other. Again, that is your framing and doesn't take into account that maintaining independent contracts f
353.
by nodamage 6y ago
You might feel like there is a practical distinction between the two, but for legal purposes there isn't. If Epic wins their case then their theory of Apple's "monopoly" over their own products will also directly apply t
354.
by nodamage 6y ago
Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products. The fact that you might be involved in multip
355.
by nodamage 6y ago
Trust me, no one thinks that "monopoly power" refers only to a single firm. When someone says Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, they are aware that macOS and Linux exist as competing operating systems. They do
356.
by nodamage 6y ago
You didn't answer any of my questions.
357.
by nodamage 6y ago
While the courts have said it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to have monopoly power, I haven't seen any court cases where this has actually occurred . Feel free to point one out. > "which does
358.
by nodamage 6y ago
Part of Apple's objection to Fortnite's custom payment processing system is that it completely bypasses those parental controls.
359.
by nodamage 6y ago
This is incorrect. Epic already has standing from the fact that Apple has collected $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees. They could have sued to recover those fees without also getting Fortnite removed from the App Store.
360.
by nodamage 6y ago
Before I engage any further can you clarify whether 1) you are American and 2) you have any actual experience with US law? Also, since you claim "courts have ruled in the past" can you clarify which specific legal cases you are re

More ›