Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

My question is why are mobile operating systems and desktop ones treated differently? Why can’t steam run their own store for free on iOS just as they can run that same store on Windows..

Steam can, when they make their own phone. Simple. Just like they now have their own handheld.

Why should they be allowed to install their store, bypassing any revenue or profit sharing, on a device they never R&D'ed or had a hand in on building?

 

[twilo99]

Steam can, when they make their own phone. Simple. Just like they now have their own handheld.

Ah, so Microsoft can do the same on their Surface line PCs and not get in trouble because they manufacture the hardware?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ah, so Microsoft can do the same on their Surface line PCs and not get in trouble because they manufacture the hardware?

You are conflating PCs with cell phones. Apple's OS on their laptops allows for programs or storefronts to be installed.

Steam Support :: Steam and macOS 10.15 Catalina

help.steampowered.com

MS can try, but the precedent has been set. They are free to try again with cell phones and jumpstart the Nokia/Windows Phone brands again.

 

[Bry0]

Apple should allow side loading and downloading apps from other stores on iOS just like macOS does. Steam deck does not limit you either, you are free to go into desktop mode and buy games off epic store and run them through proton if you want. I would love to see consoles get cracked open a little more too, something along the lines of Xbox dev mode but better. They should entice purchases by having the best storefront on the device, not by making it the only storefront usable on the device.

 

[Xyphie]

My question is why are mobile operating systems and desktop ones treated differently? Why can’t steam run their own store for free on iOS just as they can run that same store on Windows..

They shouldn't be. That's why the EU is finally forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps like Android.

 

[twilo99]

You are conflating PCs with cell phones. Apple's OS on their laptops allows for programs or storefronts to be installed.

Steam Support :: Steam and macOS 10.15 Catalina

help.steampowered.com

MS can try, but the precedent has been set. They are free to try again with cell phones and jumpstart the Nokia/Windows Phone brands again.

The difference between a PC and a cell phone was very much there in the 90s, but today.. I don’t see it. An iPhone 14 pro is more capable than most laptops out there..

 

[twilo99]

They shouldn't be. That's why the EU is finally forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps like Android.

Of course not, I feel like law makers just haven’t caught up to it yet.

Sideloading is good step forward

 

[twilo99]

Why should they be allowed to install their store, bypassing any revenue or profit sharing, on a device they never R&D'ed or had a hand in on building?

Valve had absolutely nothing to do with developing Windows, and yet, they are using it for free to profit without any issues.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The difference between a PC and a cell phone was very much there in the 90s, but today.. I don’t see it. An iPhone 14 pro is more capable than most laptops out there..

I think all of this is irrelevant if Side Loading is in the 15 due to EU. We don't need a legal precedent here, least of all led by IMO, bad actors end game in Tencent's Trojan Epic.

Because I know it won't stop there, and we will all be revisiting this with consoles down the road should Tencent/Epic win. And that would be the end of consoles as we know it. R&D investment wise. Which you can then kiss big budget single player AAA gaming as a whole goodbye as well. Get ready for everything being like Fortnite and the like.

Steam had absolutely nothing to do with developing Windows, and yet, they are using it for free to profit without any issues.

They are not using it for free. They pay for licensing like everyone else.

 

[twilo99]

They are not using it for free. They pay for licensing like everyone else.

Think about that for a minute..

 

[archangelmorph]

Steam can, when they make their own phone. Simple. Just like they now have their own handheld.

Why should they be allowed to install their store, bypassing any revenue or profit sharing, on a device they never R&D'ed or had a hand in on building?

Arguably because:

1. It’s pro consumer
2. It’s pro competition, which encourages more content, more diverse content variety, healthier market practices & maximises consumer value
3. It doesn’t hurt them commercially in the slightest. In fact it does the opposite; increasing further diverse ecosystems to grow and evolve on their platforms increasing stickiness and expanding sales of the hardware they invested in developing, distributing and scaling in the market

 

[DeepEnigma]

Arguably because:

1. It’s pro consumer
2. It’s pro competition, which encourages more content, more diverse content variety, healthier market practices & maximises consumer value
3. It doesn’t hurt them commercially in the slightest. In fact it does the opposite; increasing further diverse ecosystems to grow and evolve on their platforms increasing stickiness and expanding sales of the hardware they invested in developing, distributing and scaling in the market

I can see both sides of the argument.

For example, you are not forced to use Apple Music, you can use any of the music apps made.

But with that said, how does it impact the consumer whether Fortnite was on the App Store, or Epic wanting their own non proffit sharing store?

If doesn't impact the user at all. It's not about the consumer, it's about Epic and Tencent profiting 100% off another device makers consumers. Nothing more.

None of the apps on the App Store are any more or less than on Android which is more open. The consumers doesn't have access to any more innovation, etc.. They're pretty much the same, other than Apple in my experience recently, having to deal with far less app updates and more app stability. Which is one of the many reasons I am switching back. Hell, I have banking apps that I won't be able to use on Android 9, because they now require 10, and AT&T won't update the Galaxy to 10, even though Samsung has the OS ready, but they leave it up tot the carriers which is annoying as fuck (forced upgrades ). I still have a much, much older iPhone 5SE that those same apps run fine and is STILL getting iOS updates since Apple handles that themselves.

So with that example, being too open "for the consumer," is actually hurting the consumer with forced upgrades.

 

[Elder Legend]

Damn

"Hate" is a strong word to use for a product or company.

Not really. Imagine paying $1000 for a phone and then not even being able to use any charger you buy at a electronics store. You are literally forced into buying all of their products and the stupid sheep eat it up. Yeah, ever since Steve Jobs didd the company went to utter shit.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not really. Imagine paying $1000 for a phone and then not even being able to use any charger you buy at a electronics store. You are literally forced into buying all of their products and the stupid sheep eat it up. Yeah, ever since Steve Jobs didd the company went to utter shit.

Samsung or any comparable phones are no cheaper tho. And if you want cheaper, you get what you pay for. Cheap phones are well... cheap. I've seen those hogs of shit constantly locking up running slower than piss next to a quality Android.

Reason being (the prices), no interest subsidization in your monthly payments.

 

[Elder Legend]

Samsung or any comparable phones are no cheaper tho. And if you want cheaper, you get what you pay for. Cheap phones are well... cheap. I've seen those hogs of shit constantly locking up running slower than piss next to a quality Android.

I have a Samsung Z fold 3 that costs $2000, I however managed to get it for a $1000 because I switched over from AT&T to T Mobile. T Mobile gave me $3,000 in credit. I got 50% basically of mine phone, my dad got a Samsung Z Flip and my mom got a iPhone max or whatever it was a year and a half ago at the time.

I don't have an issue with expensive products, I have an issue how everything is closed off and you are forced into buying more of their products to even have a functioning phone.

Their laptops though are atrocious and overly priced.l for the performance they offer. Phones are the only good thing they have as far as quality goes.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I hate Apple, I hate overpriced products and I hope they rot. Fuck em.

Not really. Imagine paying $1000 for a phone and then not even being able to use any charger you buy at a electronics store. You are literally forced into buying all of their products and the stupid sheep eat it up. Yeah, ever since Steve Jobs didd the company went to utter shit.

I have a Samsung Z fold 3 that costs $2000, I however managed to get it for a $1000 because I switched over from AT&T to T Mobile. T Mobile gave me $3,000 in credit. I got 50% basically of mine phone, my dad got a Samsung Z Flip and my mom got a iPhone max or whatever it was a year and a half ago at the time.

I don't have an issue with expensive products, I have an issue how everything is closed off and you are forced into buying more of their products to even have a functioning phone.

Their laptops though are atrocious and overly priced.l for the performance they offer. Phones are the only good thing they have as far as quality goes.

 

[archangelmorph]

I can see both sides of the argument.

For example, you are not forced to use Apple Music, you can use any of the music apps made.

But with that said, how does it impact the consumer whether Fortnite was on the App Store, or Epic wanting their own non proffit sharing store?

If doesn't impact the user at all. It's not about the consumer, it's about Epic and Tencent profiting 100% off another device makers consumers. Nothing more.

I hear you.

Epic and Tencent have their own agenda here sure. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that said agenda may also align with a wider position that could be beneficial for the market overall.

Your argument against Epic & Tencent could be applied to every content creator publishing content on any platform ever. It’s basic capitalism in action.

If we take a step back from that angle though and focus on “the market overall” and “what’s best for consumers” (which ultimately is what consumer markets regulators and legislators should care about consequently), does it _really_ matter who created the market when it comes to anti-monopoly law?

All markets were generally seeded, cultivated, expanded and/or originated by at least one firm who was savvy enough to identify demand for something and then provision supply against that to grow commerce within that domain. Sometimes demand shape changes entirely incidentally but other times it’s driven by well conceived, planned and executed corporate strategy.

Either way, companies that build success within a market reap the rewards of doing so inherently. Apple becoming the world’s first trillion dollar market cap company is evidence of that.

Ultimately these firms operate commerce in jurisdictions under the blessing of local policy makers whose core focus should be on protecting the interests of their own populous. If said firm’s products/services become so intrinsic to the lives of said policy makers then local policy makers need to consider the nature of said market and whether it’s really shaped in a way they truly reflects the best interest of said populous. If it doesn’t then they should have an interest in doing something to change that.

I think there’s a good enough basis of an argument to be made here that the public aren’t served best with this market that exists as an effective duopoly, that dominate the lives of domestic citizenry. Doesn’t matter who sold all the hardware (they’ve received their reward for that in the tens/hundreds of billions in profit they make annually).

Ultimately corporate’s don’t have a right to sell you something; that’s a privilege the lawmakers offer to you for doing so in terms that *should* work in the interests of the public.

 

[Elder Legend]

You realize that Samsung Z Fold 3 also acts as tablet right? It's an amazing device, especially for businees/work. It's not overpriced for what it is my guy. If Apple made a similar product it would be costing you $3000 or more. One top of that, I got it for the same price as a regular $1000 phone, so your "gotcha" moment is not doing too hot here.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I hear you.

Epic and Tencent have their own agenda here sure. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that said agenda may also align with a wider position that could be beneficial for the market overall.

Your argument against Epic & Tencent could be applied to every content creator publishing content on any platform ever. It’s basic capitalism in action.

If we take a step back from that angle though and focus on “the market overall” and “what’s best for consumers” (which ultimately is what consumer markets regulators and legislators should care about consequently), does it _really_ matter who created the market when it comes to anti-monopoly law?

All markets were generally seeded, cultivated, expanded and/or originated by at least one firm who was savvy enough to identify demand for something and then provision supply against that to grow commerce within that domain. Sometimes demand shape changes entirely incidentally but other times it’s driven by well conceived, planned and executed corporate strategy.

Either way, companies that build success within a market reap the rewards of doing so inherently. Apple becoming the world’s first trillion dollar market cap company is evidence of that.

Ultimately these firms operate commerce in jurisdictions under the blessing of local policy makers whose core focus should be on protecting the interests of their own populous. If said firm’s products/services become so intrinsic to the lives of said policy makers then local policy makers need to consider the nature of said market and whether it’s really shaped in a way they truly reflects the best interest of said populous. If it doesn’t then they should have an interest in doing something to change that.

I think there’s a good enough basis of an argument to be made here that the public aren’t served best with this market that exists as an effective duopoly, that dominate the lives of domestic citizenry. Doesn’t matter who sold all the hardware (they’ve received their reward for that in the tens/hundreds of billions in profit they make annually).

Ultimately corporate’s don’t have a right to sell you something; that’s a privilege the lawmakers offer to you for doing so in terms that *should* work in the interests of the public.

My argument is the trickle down effect.

Macs are open to install. PCs are open to install.

Phones made by Apple, have their storefront, but more than likely will have sideloading in the 15 along with USB-C due to EU, making this court case redundant. Phones made by others that use Android, you have that option. Apple isn't even the market leader in phones, Android is.

I just know Tencent/Epic will not stop if they should win. My bet is that they will target and impact the console industry down the line, which will undoubtedly cripple it, and you can then kiss those high budget AAA games investments goodbye as well as high powered consoles for low consumer buy-in as we see it today. Gaming in general will be impacted.

And Fortnite will still rule the roost for Battle Royale since people are usually locked into FOMO and their vbucks spend unlocks which makes it hard for a newcomers in the saturated market, just as it's hard to impossible to break into the MOBA market with the handful of key saturated players.

 

[Kdad]

My question is why are mobile operating systems and desktop ones treated differently? Why can’t steam run their own store for free on iOS just as they can run that same store on Windows..

Because a company that builds its own computers and its own OS should be able to control the experience. The don't hide their garden...purchasers know the garden exists and developers know the garden exists. If either do not like it there are other options available to consumers. Just because Apple allows 3rd party install on MacOS (to compete with the market leader) shouldn't mean they MUST have a Phone/Tablet OS that works the same way. When GM forces you to only install apps to their cars via the GM store and cuts off Carplay and Android Auto, you don't think they'll get away with that? Tesla already does this.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Because a company that builds its own computers and its own OS should be able to control the experience. The don't hide their garden...purchasers know the garden exists and developers know the garden exists. If either do not like it there are other options available to consumers. Just because Apple allows 3rd party install on MacOS (to compete with the market leader) shouldn't mean they MUST have a Phone/Tablet OS that works the same way. When GM forces you to only install apps to their cars via the GM store and cuts off Carplay and Android Auto, you don't think they'll get away with that? Tesla already does this.

Hell, you can't even charge your car until you set up a charging account with Tesla. They will disable your charging port.

Others do it too.

 

[RoboFu]

"Hey!!! You made a very popular thing! Let me profit exclusively off your hard work! "


You are not going to win epic. Its really an idiotic claim... Just dont put anything on IOS maybe? Let the millions of indie devs keep profiting even at a -30%.

 

[twilo99]

Because a company that builds its own computers and its own OS should be able to control the experience.

Microsoft builds their own PCs and their own OS and yet...

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft builds their own PCs and their own OS and yet...

Because that was a precedent they set. They can build their own phone and have their own store like Apple. Nothing is stopping them but them.

 

[A.Romero]

It might surprise you, but every game developer out there supports Epic in winning against Apple.
No one cares that you have a hate boner for Tim Sweeney.


Not a very smart person, are you?
How is it preventing competition when the games are releasing on the SAME platform?

I'd like to see testimonials for every game developer.

Even if so, it's just so they can put up their own store fronts within the platform holder's ecosystems and that would probably include PC so we would be getting even more launchers. Publishers (another key part of the industry) are probably not rooting for Epic to win, specially the 3 main ones.

Game developers are not going to invest in infrastructure. They can release games that don't have MTX if they don't like paying the store's front. That way everyone would be happy, right? Gamers get games without MTX and developers don't need to pay a fee.

Personally I seldom spend money on MTX but on principle I think it's unfair that a platform holder bets on something unheard of (like the appstore at release), revolutionizes the way software is sold and delivered and then are not allowed to reap the profits. What is the incentive to actually bet on complex ecosystems and innovative delivery method if an idiot like Sweeney can come a few decades later and sue you because he doesn't want to pay anymore (specially after using said ecosystem to gain popularity in the first place).

I'm not an Apple fan at all. I don't own any of their products and I think I never had. However, I see Epic Game Store and its state years after release and it's pretty clear to me that they are not interested in gaining the audience's favor by actually making a competitive product. They just want to break in by throwing money in alternative ways while at the same time preaching about fair competition. I'm really surprised some people don't see it.

 

[A.Romero]

My question is why are mobile operating systems and desktop ones treated differently? Why can’t steam run their own store for free on iOS just as they can run that same store on Windows..

Because mobile devices as we know them today were conceptualized with a walled garden in the first place while PC's were not. There are challenges in actually controlling the PC ecosystem in the same way like the fact that anyone can build a PC and install an Open Source OS while it's not the same on mobile devices.

Also backwards compatibility is something PC's must keep in order to be useful in the real world, specially in the corporate environment.

 

[RoboFu]

Microsoft builds their own PCs and their own OS and yet...

brrr wrong....

Microsoft got big off of IBM pcs and IBM clones. DOS was written for those IBM pcs.
They were always a thirdparty. You might could call them second party at one point. MAYBE...

 

[Griffon]

Apple's own app store sucks donkey dicks, I wouldn't mind the open and easy ability to install alternatives.

 

[twilo99]

brrr wrong....

Microsoft got big off of IBM pcs and IBM clones. DOS was written for those IBM pcs.
They were always a thirdparty. You might could call them second party at one point. MAYBE...

I was talking about current market conditions, where Microsoft makes PCs and the operating system that they run on, just like Apple.

 

[archangelmorph]

My argument is the trickle down effect.

Macs are open to install. PCs are open to install.

Phones made by Apple, have their storefront, but more than likely will have sideloading in the 15 along with USB-C due to EU, making this court case redundant.

I agree with that.

However if you follow the chronology, the EU’s move towards pushing these firms to support side-loading was entirely primed by the international attention and subsequent scrutiny this litigation fiasco that Epic and Apple began.

I agree though, the right result is bearing out on the EU side of the pond at least. I guess Epic/Tencent are still pushing ahead on the basis that they may hope US lawmakers take precedent from their European counterparts and at some point decide to follow suit with similar measures.

 

[reinking]

I hate Apple, I hate overpriced products and I hope they rot. Fuck em.

I paid as much for my last Android phone than I did for my current iPhone 14. This whole Apple is overpriced thing is out of hand. They are in line with most premium products. Sure, there are the outlier dumb things they do but for normal use they aren't priced poorly. There are a lot of things to hate Apple for but I don't feel I have over paid for any Apple device I have compared to what I was looking at when I purchased it, Apple TV (I was looking to get a shield), iPad Air (Microsoft Surface Pro) and Iphone (Galaxy Z flip 4/Pixel 4).

 

[Kdad]

Microsoft builds their own PCs and their own OS and yet...

And...I think I mentioned this before...Windows S exists and Windows RT existed....Microsoft has/is trying to build a walled garden but they are fighting the inertia of their past....they'd do it in a heart beat if they thought they'd make more money at it.

 

[Kdad]

I was talking about current market conditions, where Microsoft makes PCs and the operating system that they run on, just like Apple.

No, not just like Apple. MS chooses to have their PC OS run on hardware produced by many 3rd party manufacturers...Apple does not.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Yeah it’s just me with the hate boner. Not the entire PC gaming community sick of Epic’s bullshit as he’s been trying to buy his way into the market and failing miserably.

You are the one complaining that Epic is being anti competitive, while they are the text book example of a company that challenges the current quasi monopolists.
Apple once was a company that had nothing to do with phones, and then they went ahead and challenged the quasi monopolists in that sector by buying themselves into those markets!
But today Apple had become that themselves, therefore it needs new companies to challenge them.

No one cares that you have a boner for Tencent and Timmy Epic.

I dont give a fuck about Tim Sweeney or Tencent - I care about the economy, fair competition, and a working market.
Even the US gov has realized now that those platform companies are bad for the economy, but yes I know, its all about you having to use a different launcher that matters!

 

[Kdad]

You are the one complaining that Epic is being anti competitive, while they are the text book example of a company that challenges the current quasi monopolists.
Apple once was a company that had nothing to do with phones, and then they went ahead and challenged the quasi monopolists in that sector by buying themselves into those markets!
But today Apple had become that themselves, therefore it needs new companies to challenge them.

I dont give a fuck about Tim Sweeney or Tencent - I care about the economy, fair competition, and a working market.
Even the US gov has realized now that those platform companies are bad for the economy, but yes I know, its all about you having to use a different launcher that matters!

Apple is not, in any way, a monopoly. They are being looked at to consider anti-competitive behaviours, not monopoly behaviour.

 

[ScHlAuChi]

I'd like to see testimonials for every game developer.

Just 6% of devs say Steam earns its 30% cut - Survey

For years, Valve has thrived by taking a 30% cut of all revenues developers bring in through Steam, but the company is …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Not every dev, but 6% isnt alot.

Even if so, it's just so they can put up their own store fronts within the platform holder's ecosystems and that would probably include PC so we would be getting even more launchers. Publishers (another key part of the industry) are probably not rooting for Epic to win, specially the 3 main ones.

And where is the problem with every dev having his own shop? That its an inconvience for YOU?
There was a time before Steam where one bought a game and you didnt need a launcher. Thats how GOG works!
Do you REALLY think publishers are happy to give away large chunks of money to Valve?

Game developers are not going to invest in infrastructure. They can release games that don't have MTX if they don't like paying the store's front. That way everyone would be happy, right? Gamers get games without MTX and developers don't need to pay a fee.

Personally I seldom spend money on MTX but on principle I think it's unfair that a platform holder bets on something unheard of (like the appstore at release), revolutionizes the way software is sold and delivered and then are not allowed to reap the profits. What is the incentive to actually bet on complex ecosystems and innovative delivery method if an idiot like Sweeney can come a few decades later and sue you because he doesn't want to pay anymore (specially after using said ecosystem to gain popularity in the first place).

Apple doesnt invest in infrastructure either, they use the public internet, which they didnt build!
It doesnt matter if an "idiot like Sweeney" sues. What matters is that gouverments realized that those companies are bad for the economy and bad for competition.
Apple has no choice, either adhere to the DSA and DMA or leave the market. If they adhere, more comeptitiors will show up. If they leave, other competitiors will move into that market.
They can adapt or die, as simple as that.

I'm not an Apple fan at all. I don't own any of their products and I think I never had. However, I see Epic Game Store and its state years after release and it's pretty clear to me that they are not interested in gaining the audience's favor by actually making a competitive product. They just want to break in by throwing money in alternative ways while at the same time preaching about fair competition. I'm really surprised some people don't see it.

Regardless of their lacking effort, its simply impossible to get users to switch that are entrenched in an ecosytem.
Even if EGS had everything that Steam had, no Steam user would switch! The normal market forces dont work here!

 

[ScHlAuChi]

Apple is not, in any way, a monopoly. They are being looked at to consider anti-competitive behaviours, not monopoly behaviour.

That is half correct! Apple does have a monopoly in the market for iOS apps, that is what triggered the EU´s anti trust investigation when competitors complained.
Even after Apple paid severe penalties they didnt stop their abuse - that is what ultimately led to the creation of the DSA and DMA.

 

[A.Romero]

Just 6% of devs say Steam earns its 30% cut - Survey

For years, Valve has thrived by taking a 30% cut of all revenues developers bring in through Steam, but the company is …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Not every dev, but 6% isnt alot.

And where is the problem with every dev having his own shop? That its an inconvience for YOU?
There was a time before Steam where one bought a game and you didnt need a launcher. Thats how GOG works!
Do you REALLY think publishers are happy to give away large chunks of money to Valve?

Apple doesnt invest in infrastructure either, they use the public internet, which they didnt build!
It doesnt matter if an "idiot like Sweeney" sues. What matters is that gouverments realized that those companies are bad for the economy and bad for competition.
Apple has no choice, either adhere to the DSA and DMA or leave the market. If they adhere, more comeptitiors will show up. If they leave, other competitiors will move into that market.
They can adapt or die, as simple as that.

Regardless of their lacking effort, its simply impossible to get users to switch that are entrenched in an ecosytem.
Even if EGS had everything that Steam had, no Steam user would switch! The normal market forces dont work here!

Ok so we jumped from Apple to Steam. Fine, I'll bite.

I could not care less what devs think regarding Steam value. As a consumer is my platform of choice, not because I don't want to have any other launcher (I have them all) but because it is the most comprehensive. That said I'm surprised devs say that but still publish their games there, there are a huge amount of options. They don't, you know why? Because of consumer's choice (if needed check why it is my platform of choice).

I know how games worked before Steam. They sold them in floppy disks and discs later. Guess what? They were the first ones successfully built a platform of that kind. Anyone is free to give it a shot but it seems it's not that easy.

Of course apple invests in infrastructure like servers . Look it up.

Users much won't change for sure if they get less features.

To me it sounds like punishing innovation.

 

[Pelta88]

Not really. Imagine paying $1000 for a phone and then not even being able to use any charger you buy at a electronics store. You are literally forced into buying all of their products and the stupid sheep eat it up. Yeah, ever since Steve Jobs didd the company went to utter shit.

I understand your point but I'd put consumer choice before hate. Hate would be more aligned with Apple being the only option. Unfortunately, an extensive investment in slick marketing has changed the narrative...

I was surprised to realised Apple products, with the cardboard packaging in tact, adds to the release value up to 10%. People are looking for that apple unboxing experience and are willing to pay for it.

 

[hlm666]

The comparisons to windows are stupid. Windows got where it is by being open, do you really think windows would be what it is today if ms locked it to hardware only they made from inception? yeh me either. In that fantasy world OS2 is still alive. Apple managed to get their shit phones and ios where they are while being closed from day 1.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The comparisons to windows are stupid. Windows got where it is by being open, do you really think windows would be what it is today if ms locked it to hardware only they made from inception? yeh me either. In that fantasy world OS2 is still alive. Apple managed to get their shit phones and ios where they are while being closed from day 1.

The comparisons with an open smartphone OS are completely logical, when former CEO at Apple made so much noise about destroying Android.

If Android is the competition and it is a general purpose computing device built on the backs of general purpose computing initiatives like kernel.org, Java and all ISO standards technologies written up in RFCs, any suggestion that Apple (is different to the whole world of computing) didn't freeload that development work too for their general purpose use smartphone/tablet OS is nonsense, and should be held to the exact same standard for open access as the "computer" OS competition, namely Android, Windows and Linux.

 

[Mattyp]

Arguably because:

1. It’s pro consumer
2. It’s pro competition, which encourages more content, more diverse content variety, healthier market practices & maximises consumer value
3. It doesn’t hurt them commercially in the slightest. In fact it does the opposite; increasing further diverse ecosystems to grow and evolve on their platforms increasing stickiness and expanding sales of the hardware they invested in developing, distributing and scaling in the market

It hurts security.

I don’t want third party stores on my iPhone fuck off, if I wanted that I would buy an android.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It hurts security.

This is true.

 

[RoboFu]

Not really. Imagine paying $1000 for a phone and then not even being able to use any charger you buy at an electronics store. You are literally forced into buying all of their products and the stupid sheep eat it up. Yeah, ever since Steve Jobs didd the company went to utter shit.

Many many third parties sell lightning cables.

Durability wise lighting cables are way more durable than usb-c.

Jobs saved the dying company.

Why are you wrong at every statement you make ?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Many many third parties sell lightning cables.

Durability wise lighting cables are way more durable than usb-c.

Jobs saved the dying company.

Why are you wrong at every statement you make ?

As long as they're third party with standard USB-C coating on the cables, or braided.

The standard ones Apple sells, that rubber shit falls apart much sooner. But always go with the cheaper and more durable braided lines from third party.

 

[RoboFu]

As long as they're third party with standard USB-C coating on the cables, or braided.

The standard ones Apple sells, that rubber shit falls apart much sooner. But always go with the cheaper and more durable braided lines from third party.

Well the actual cable can do that with any cable but the connector .. a strong flat single piece of metal will always be more durable that a bent thin metal with a small plastic piece in the middle.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well the actual cable can do that with any cable but the connector .. a strong flat single piece of metal will always be more durable that a bent thin metal with a small plastic piece in the middle.

IDK, the Samsung USB-C cables are like titanium with their coating, lol. I have one used daily that is 5 years old and it still looks brand new, the Apple shit, peals within a year.

Braided is the way to go anyhow.

 

[Bojanglez]

It hurts security.

I don’t want third party stores on my iPhone fuck off, if I wanted that I would buy an android.

But nobody would force you to. It would be your choice.

 

[archangelmorph]

It hurts security.

I don’t want third party stores on my iPhone fuck off, if I wanted that I would buy an android.

Only if Apple let it. If they care about their consumers and device UX (which they will) there will be nothing stopping them from maintain compulsory app signing through Apple and charging devs a nominal fee for it.

The security argument is entirely solvable and no one would complain about that level of centralization either way.

 

[Bojanglez]

You are conflating PCs with cell phones. Apple's OS on their laptops allows for programs or storefronts to be installed.

I remember in the court case these two device types were conflated as 'utility devices', being devices that consumers would reasonably expect to be able to perform key tasks in their day-t-day life, such as banking and shopping, as opposed to more specialist devices such as games consoles.

I personally think that is a reasonable argument, if Apple falls out of love with an App only bank then consumers would be screwed. They have complete power in certain instances. Now you could argue that it is foolish to bank on with a service that only offers services through an App, but that's a different argument.