You don't enter into a relationship with Apple...
... you just line yourself up to be shot. Or bled dry... or both... or worse... or something.
Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook, currently dealing with antitrust investigations from governments and fending off lawsuits from their disgruntled customers, appear to be finally facing their moment of truth: Has Big Tech gotten too big? The US Department of Justice (DoJ) sued Google in October, accusing it of “unlawfully …
The romans brought peace, roads, communication, sanitation, consistent law, religious freedom, and a whole bunch of other things that greatly advanced society, but they never pretended to be benefactors. They were doing it for their own good.
Apple have brought cost, confinement, exploitation, data harvesting, restriction, graft, and all while claiming to be a better choice for everyone.
Frankly, I'd prefer the romans
I kinda like how I have a device where I’m able to block third party ad servers comprehensively by default across all apps without having to sacrifice security or vendor support (for example). I also like how I don’t have to give my card details out to every Tom, Dick and Harry and how I can see every subscription in one central list with the ability to cancel without losing immediate access for the rest of the period.
Do these greedy developers ever think that as a user, I might want centralised controls?
Besides, people can say what they will about App Store practices, but their approach does have some serious advantages as a result of Apple pushing developers to use consistent development methodologies.
On macOS, the OS container is now cryptographically protected and apps are expected to be notarised and sandboxed by default. While it’s not invincible, it’s the first time a general purpose desktop OS has both full blown GUI isolation (no shatter attacks) as well as sandboxed/restricted access to all resources in use as a standard.
Linux has all the right bits available (and then some) but there isn’t a single mainstream distro where all the common desktop apps are anywhere near as restricted. Windows has AppContainer but essentially nobody uses it willingly outside of where they are forced to (e.g. Microsoft Store).
On the smartphone/tablet end of the spectrum, older iDevices with less than half the RAM of their Android counterparts still end up with superior performance. This is because Apple forces usage of specific native public APIs which reduces the overall CPU and memory consumption as a result. Also, iOS gives people 5 years of proper updates, which is an eternity compared to Android.
Again, Linux technically has the tools to outperform iOS but until developers put their heads together and declare either Qt or GTK to be the “native toolkit” (for lack of a better term) and focus on making proper use of GPU acceleration, it will never be a real winner.
I like Apple's software (some of the time), but let's be honest about it. The comment here is not honest.
"I kinda like how I have a device where I’m able to block third party ad servers comprehensively by default across all apps without having to sacrifice security or vendor support (for example)."
Implying that Apple makes this easier? They don't. I can do that on anything. On device or not. Android has firewall apps. Any desktop OS gives me a lot more control than either popular mobile OS. Apple doesn't even write that software, so why are you giving them credit for letting you run software that runs everywhere?
"I also like how I don’t have to give my card details out to every Tom, Dick and Harry and how I can see every subscription in one central list with the ability to cancel without losing immediate access for the rest of the period."
It's so terrible having to give payment details to people when you want to buy their thing with money. There are one-time credit card numbers you can use to ensure they can't charge you unexpectedly or lose data in a hack. I'm sure it's nice having everything in one place, but just because it's convenient for you probably doesn't justify to others paying Apple for the minor convenience when the heavy lifting is done by the developers.
"Do these greedy developers ever think that as a user, I might want centralised controls?"
Let me ask you a question. Why are the developers greedy? Because they don't want to pay Apple a big chunk of their revenues? When it's the developers who make the apps which make Apple phones valuable (some competing phone OSes received good reviews for OS design but failed to sell because apps weren't there)? The app developer writes the code, makes the content that makes the code useful, maintains the infrastructure that the app uses, all of that. Apple provides a place to download the app package. That's all. No, Apple can't claim that they're charging developers for all the work on IOS, because the users are paying for that when they buy IOS devices. The users get those advantages, not the devs; a new IOS feature doesn't help an app developer as much as it helps a user.
"Besides, people can say what they will about App Store practices, but their approach does have some serious advantages as a result of Apple pushing developers to use consistent development methodologies."
They don't really do that all that much. There are so many different frameworks in use to create IOS apps. Most of them are popular because they allow a GUI to be created once and run on IOS or Android. Apple doesn't prevent anyone from using those, nor has it done anything to improve them. An app can look nice or not as its developer likes, and it will get through review equally well.
The rest of your comment, talking about security, is pretty good. I think that's a fair area to give Apple credit. In almost all cases though, none of those security benefits come from restrictions on developers. IOS can get security updates equally well whether they let in an app that accepts payments or not. Mac OS can sandbox data on disk just fine if the apps get downloaded from the internet. I give credit for those admirable accomplishments to those who accomplished them: the OS developers. Not the App Store review team.
I think the photo of Apple's Infinite Loop headquarters is telling, if you take a moment to critically analyze it.
6 lanes going in, 4 lanes going out. Come in to work RIGHT NOW, on time and when we tell you to. Leave work if and when you can, if you get stuck in a backlog that isn't our problem.
Just like the checkout lines to leave after work at the Apple stores.
It's a metaphor: check in any time you like, but then you're ours to do with as we please.
From my perspective the people complaining about Apple here agreed to abide by Apple's contract when they signed up and now want to renege.
No one is forcing anyone to create software for Apple hardware and these independant developers are of course free to remove their products from Apple's walled garden if they do not like thier contract.
I presume that those now bitching were quite happy to sign up for the opportunity to exploit Apple's captive audience so I feel their claims to be somewhat disingeneous.
Why do they not instead just remove their IP from the store and see if Apple actually suffer sufficcently for them to want to renegociate their agreements.
Alternatively the disgruntled devs could develop their own hardware platform and hence be able to dictate terms themselves.
Clearly they would rather bitch publicly than actually take any risk themselves, thus I have little sympathy for their plight. I see them as people who were happy to take their cut from Apple's customers until they thought that they could get more return on their existing products via bad mouthing their benefactor
For the record I am not an Apple customer and whilst Apple might be as bad as android no one is actually forced to use or develop for their products nor sign their contracts except apple employees.
Free full trial then limit functionality was clearly not allowed for any one who bothered to read the dev license. This example at least is down to the dev being a fuckwit and the massive fall in app review standards from the early days.
Do you want a good user experience or one where your app stops working properly?
“This example at least”. Read the comment. This sort of trial has been around, but is a crap experience. It is in a users interest to not have this sort of shit of intermittently functioning software. This is why Apple do not allow it. This is why they make it clear in the license. If this dev went live with this in place it is their own fault for failing to stick to the contract they signed.
"This sort of trial has been around, but is a crap experience. It is in a users interest to not have this sort of shit of intermittently functioning software."
I think the ability to trial fully functional software for a reasonable time for free is the best possible way to evaluate whether the additional payment/license serves your needs. This includes anything from simple phone apps up to VMWare offerings at the DC.
Paying blindly for something - whether a full app or in-app payment - and then realising it was a mistake and money was wasted - that is a crap experience. Do you not agree?
.... it's up to me to remember to cancel it if I don't like Lightroom enough....
It's clear they believe they have all the rights and the user none. I don't want to submit my credit card number just to test a software - BTW I have an earlier (non subscription) version and just wanted to ensure I had no issue running it with my actual video card, since upgrading it looks almost impossible as long as latest video cards are sold starting at twice their list price....
Yes, I remember er this model coming to these shores (UK). When I were a lad, a free trial was just what it said on the tin. A free trial. Then US companies and their "marketing" techniques arrived and a "free" trial was now only free if the customer carefully kept track of it and made the effort to cancel in time rather than the cancellation happening automagically. The whole reason for the US method is to maximise short term profit at the expense of customer satisfaction, relying on numbers of people to forget to cancel or leave it too late. The latest wheeze is easy, instant sign-up online but you have to phone or write to them to cancel. Assuming you can get through on the phone or pay the extra for recorded delivery as proof you cancelled. Bastards the lot of them.
Yes, as chronicled on this illustrious site I have had God's own job of shaking off Amazon's "free" Prime trial. There you don't even have to apply, you are automatically enrolled, or rather trapped, and it is hard to get out again.
I'm free now, I think, but to me it felt more like what our American friends call "Bait and switch."
"This is why Apple do not allow it. This is why they make it clear in the license."
I'm sorry, but they don't forbid a trial period. Here is a section of the article:
"The creator was told he had to roll out a payment system to make users input their credit card details before signing up for the trial period. There must also be a specific time limit to the pro version of the app, and once that period was over it must charge its customers money. To get out of it, users would have to explicitly cancel their subscription or else it would keep billing them."
This section outlines what Apple accepts. As you can see, it includes a trial period. Trials are not what they object to. What they appear to object to is that the user would have several chances at a trial. Perhaps instead it's that the app isn't using a subscription model which would earn them revenue. Either way, Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with the trial model as long as it only happens once and customers are enrolled into a subscription beforehand. The second part of that could easily be seen as self-serving.
You might not like trials in software which expire. If Apple forbade them, you might have a leg to stand on. They don't. In my opinion, there is no good excuse to forbid that anyway, but we don't have to have that hypothetical discussion, because that's not what happened.
"I'm sorry, but they don't forbid a trial period." (doublelayer)
"Read the developer license. It is forbidden." (A.Coward)
Wrong.
The Apple Developer Agreement does not contain the word trial.
In the App Store Review Guidelines document, the section 3.1.1 states:
"Non-subscription apps may offer a free time-based trial period before presenting a full unlock option"
It's a question of lesser of two evils. Do I want to give my personal data to a massive data hog that knows no bounds, or do I want to give it to a secretive paranoid company operating out of a UFO? Both are similar *ssholes, but the latter at least seems to value my money slightly more instead of viewing and treating me and my personal data as a piece of merchandise. So while I don't like it, I'll go with the latter (for now).
Not all of that is correct:
"You should check out the Libren brand of smartphones"
Brand is Librem, not Libren. Also, they have only one model of phone.
"by Purism of India"
Purism is based in the U.S. San Francisco, to be exact. Manufacturing for the phone is done in China (or optionally in the U.S. if you're paranoid, have a ton of money, and haven't actually considered whether built in the U.S. fixes your paranoia problem).
"that have a physical kill switch to turn off the phones GPS chip, cell chips and camera chips when those functions are not in use."
Actually, the killswitches work on the mobile chip, WiFi and Bluetooth, and cameras and microphone respectively. GPS is disabled by a separate software-controlled circuit when all three switches are disabled.
How? Apple only snoop on their customers, Google think everyone on the planet is product for monetisation.
Apple have always provided security updates for their mobile OS, Google dragged their heels for years claiming it was impossible.
Google used their dominance in search to make their browser the dominant global browser. Apple downloaded a U2 album to iPhone users.
Google drove around the world slurping Wifi data. Apple bought map data.
Explain how Google are better than Apple.
Here in the US we've been steadily eroding our financial base for decades so we're really running out of companies to bleed. These tech companies have been extraordinarily successful because we effectively handed them the Internet, a huge public resource that became a vehicle primarily for advertising and its associated commerce. As a result they're practically the only source left of truly 'hard' cash so, not surprisingly, everyone's now on their case. There's also the 'Clash of Titans' factor coming into play -- Oracle wants to take out Google (or rather get a piece of Google's action) so they resort to assisting states with anti-trust actions -- behind the scenes, of course, but they're obviosly not doing this because they're public spirited.
What's surprising about Apple is that all the independent developers would assume that they're some benevolent organization that likes to promote 'the little guy' rather than an intensely monopolistic corporation that just hasn't got around to looking at these market segments yet. They're no different from Microsoft or any of the 101 other companies, in fact they're no different from the typical company that pushes the idea of the "family" to the employees right up to the moment that they're laid off -- or fired. Business is business, after all. All business exists, in the US at least, to 'maximize shareholder value'. Nothing else matters; ethics and even legality is just a matter of opinion, opinion that can be shaped by armies of skilled professionals. So expecting a symbiotic relationship with them -- at least a lasting one -- is a bit like having a tiger for a pet. Just make sure it never goes hungry.
Rather than the symbiotic relationship one might hope for, reality is closer to having a giant pet leech, sucking your life blood at every opportunity.
The other internet giants are just the same.
I wonder what disaster plans they all have in place to maintain control in the event of anti-trust actions being successful?
The only thing Apple would lose if antitrust efforts are successful is a chunk of the App Store revenue - or at worst the App Store would have to be spun off as a separate company. It would hurt them, but it would hardly be a mortal wound. If they go after Facebook, Google or Amazon on antitrust concerns those companies would no longer exist as they currently are because the only cure would be to break them up.
Google could survive in pieces, but is Amazon still Amazon if they can no longer have third party sellers or have to break up across product lines or into smaller pieces? Would everyone abandon Facebook for some other social network if it was required to split up across geographic lines or break into mini Facebooks?
Amazon has a number of more obviously separable chunks such as AWS and the video operation than separating 3rd party sellers from the main store and these could easily survive as independent operations. From a customer's PoV removable of the endless nagging about Prime would be an improvement: there's no way I'm going to sign up for a subscription for something I don't want so not having it constantly shoved in my face would most definitely be an improved user experience.
However, that's not how breakups work. They don't say "You're a big company and you abused something, so we're going to bring in some wedges and break it into chunks along existing boundaries". Instead, they find the places where abuse occurred and break along those boundaries. Separating AWS from Amazon shopping would happen if, for instance, Amazon didn't agree to sell a product if it used a different cloud provider for its support system, but that's not how that went. The abuses that are most often used as ammunition are that Amazon's shopping system gives Amazon a bunch of data about other sellers which Amazon then uses to compete against those sellers. The boundary where the break would happen should a case on that basis succeed is the boundary between the Amazon store system and the part which makes products, including Amazon basics and a few other lines.
The same general rule applies with other breakups too. If Apple gets broken up, they're not going to make iPhone Inc and MacBook Inc. They'd make Apple the hardware and OS people and a separate App Store runner. Or maybe they'd leave Apple as it is, with App Store intact, but demand that others can also run stores. Or maybe they'd accept Apple's arguments about the single App Store being a feature but make them change rules and tactics that were abused before. If Facebook were broken up, it wouldn't be small social networks with subsets of the previous members. It would be into Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp as separate entities. It all depends on the argument being used to prove an anti-competitive abuse of market power; if the courts agree, the action taken is designed to stop and prevent the abuse in the argument.
What's surprising is that they can behave like an intensely monopolistic corporation and it's taken so long for the people that are supposed to prevent that to notice.
Part of the problem is that the regulators are still working on bricks-and-mortar timescales - they see the dangers coming down the track but fail to appreciate how quickly they become embedded. Part of the problem is that when regulators outside the US try to take action they come under trade pressure for threatening the profits of US corporations.
The basic rule for "platform" companies has to be that you can't own the platform and use it yourself (except exclusively) - it's inherently anti-competitive. If Amazon wants to have an e-commerce platform, it can't sell on it itself. If Apple and Google want to run appstores, they can't distribute their own content. That, at least, would be a start.
"If Amazon wants to have an e-commerce platform, it can't sell on it itself."
I think this concept needs a but more thought. It's like saying you can't own a shop or even a market stall and sell stuff there.
Providing a 3rd party sales platform isn't in itself monopolistic because it has a rival, eBay.
Having its own product lines is not, in my, admittedly limited, experience, a problem providing it sells them under its own name. The one such product I've bought is far superior to the once-prestigiously branded article it replaced*.
Moving into areas such as grocery isn't monopolistic either - there are some big beasts there who've used their own resources to move into e-commerce on the one hand and into other product areas on the other.
In fact Amazon may well have got too big for comfort but it's difficult to pin down this part of it on sufficiently objective grounds to put up a plausible case for the prosecution.
* Why this should be is an interesting question in its own right. The famous brand got bought up. The predatory buyer can shove out crap and be able to sell it on the basis of the name. By the time they've trashed the brand image they'll have made their money back and a profit and go stalk another prey. Maintaining bought-in brand reputations isn't their business plan. Somebody like Amazon, trading through a single brand has an interest in maintaining that reputation.
It's like saying you can't own a shop or even a market stall and sell stuff there.
I think you missed the point. Amazon don't have "a shop" or a "market stall" - it's more like Amazon own the whole shopping mall or market, rent out units/stalls to various buyers, but ...
If you rent a shop in Amazon's Mall then you are forced to use Amazon's processing systems. Amazon analyse the data from all the shops in the mall, and use that to guide what it sells in it's own shop - in the same mall, in competition with the other shops. Basically it gives Amazon a massive advantage in that the others pay it for the benefit of giving it all their sales data, which Amazon then analyses in order to work out how best to compete with them.
So it's not about saying that Amazon can't sell stuff from a shop or market stall that it owns. It's more a case of Amazon need to decide whether they want to be a shopkeeper in the mall/stall holder in the market and compete on equal terms with the other shops/stalls - or whether it wants to own the whole mall/market and not run a shop/stall in competition with it's tenants.
So a possible anti-trust settlement could be that Amazon has to split itself - one division can own and run the mall/market, another can run a shop/stall. BUT there must be a complete and effective wall between the two so that the bit running the shop cannot gain any advantage whatsoever over any other trader just because it's part of Amazon - basically it must be treated exactly the same as any other trader.
I can see your thought here but you have fallen into the same metaphor that allows the monopoly to exist. They do not own a shop or a market stall, they own the whole town/market in which they also have a shop/stall. Everyone else that wants to have a shop/stall pays them a fee before they can even start to sell anything and then pays commission on everything they sell. Even if these 3rd parties make a loss, Amazon still makes money from them.
eBay lost the lead in this because they were too casual and allowed Amazon to steal their market with delivery service etc which kept all the profits and customer data in house. This gave Amazon new avenues to push offerings and enhance their grip
We didn't hand anyone anything.
The internet you see today was built from private money, it's not a "public resource". It wasn't public money that was paying for my Cisco routers 25 years ago. It wasn't public money paying for my rack space. It wasn't public money paying for my connectivity. And I don't remember public money paying subscriptions to the likes on LINX, RIPE or anyone else.
And I don't remember Cisco building their switching gear with subsidies, or anyone else.
The internet that you know, the internet that you connect into is not a "public resource", it was a private network, and it still is a private network.
Your Cisco routers of 25 years ago wouldn't have had anything to connect to without NSFNet, which very definitely was paid for with public money.
Cisco was built on technology we developed at Stanford University, using public funds. Look up Bill Yeager and the Blue Box for more information.
The Internet of today was stolen from the public by commercial interests starting the late '80s. The theft was pretty much complete by the late '90s.
Nonsense. We were in the UK for a start, and we connected our private networks to each other through things like LINX and bought in connectivity from the US; by offering both connectivity through dial up and tiny leased lines, and then hosting webservers and colos we created the value for people to connect to the internet.
The commercial internet was not built around the idea of people connecting to the various universities.
And whilst the universities and research from the DoD created the basic internet, those were not the partners who created the network we have today. Nor were they the people who were building the internet 25 years ago.
Just because something started as a government funded project doesn't negate the billions of hours invested by IT companies in the internet to give us the network that is in operation today.
Said Steve Jobs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60dheI4ARg
if only it collaborated with it's partners and loyal customers
Collaboration is team work. You do the work. Apple collects the revenue.
Apple's definition and treatment of "partners" is worse than Microsoft's. That's surprising, because back when MS was running strong I thought there is no way anyone could outdo them in that department.
After all these years and reports of that "big business" attitude, ie; playground bully, exploiter of anything exploitable, why oh why do people still follow the shit shovel onto the dung heap ?
It's products aren't even that svelt or stylich anymore, just more over priced landfill ............. yet product developers seem to be like lemmings heading to a cliff, ignoring all the signs whilst confidently signing the praises of being dead.
As a once upon a time, "would be" software developer, I saw no tasty carrot before me, just a very ragged harness. Seemed like there was more work around helping folks out with the issues caused by their Apple fixation.
Why do people buy this crap ? And more to the point, why do people wish to have their names associated with this sort of enterprise ? One that is OBVIOUSLY holding tech back.
So to my mind being an app developer don't prove you are smart, no matter what the "temptations" of biting into the b/witches poisoned fruit would have you believe.
ALF
Their latest product appears to be some headphones which cost half a grand and are advertised as Android campatible but half the functions don't work on Android. Because it's normal that headphones which cost this much constantly remind you that you're not a good enough customer and you need to spend more money to become a better customer.
.....which takes some time an some determination.....but gets you well away from the Apple "eco-system".......
*
1. Buy a consumer grade PC (laptop, workstation.... whatever)....maybe less than £500 compared with £thousands in the "eco-system"
2. Install "elementary OS" -- overwrite that other "eco-system" from Redmond, WA -- and send elementary a few dollars
3. Get used to a LOVELY Ubuntu-based environment -- with an Apple look-and-feel and with LOTS of work-alike applications
*
There.......Tim Cook can just suck it up. I hope more folk follow this simple three step procedure....and save themselves a LOT of money!!
People aren’t really buying macOS specifically when they buy a Mac, they’re usually buying the Apple ecosystem — iMessage, FaceTime, iCloud, Handoff, AirPlay, App Store — probably because they’re familiar with it from an iPhone or iPad, or they’ve already had a Mac. Supported software like Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite etc certainly helps to sweeten the deal.
I’ll be the first to say that elementaryOS is lovely. It looks the part and it’s nice enough to use. It’s certainly a step in the right direction that the Linux desktop is finally getting some attention by a couple of people with actual design experience.
However, for many, it would still be an entirely inferior substitute. This is ultimately the problem with Linux on the desktop — it’s not quite at the stage yet where the average person on the street would know how to build a comparable experience with it.
"it’s not quite at the stage yet where the average person on the street would know how to build a comparable experience with it."
So build it for them. It's not like they are going to install their own OS, now is it?
Funny story about my Great Aunt ... I brought her a Slackware box after spending four weekends in a row cleaning up malware on her XP system. She refused to use it, because it was "too hard to make a change at my age". Several weeks later, I realized that I hadn't had any support calls from her. I called to see what was up. It turned out that her sister in Finland had sent her some pictures right about the time that the XP box crapped out again. Out of desperation, she booted up the Slack box ... and hasn't looked back.
Several months later, she asked me to "get rid of that old thing", pointing at the now working again XP box. I couldn't convince her that I could install the same version of Slack on it, with it's more modern CPU, more RAM, larger harddrive, etc. To her, the OS+hardware were a lemon that couldn't be fixed. She's a Linux advocate now, in her "over 90" club ... but unfortunately, she calls it "the version of windows that my nephew gave me" ... The above events occurred around a dozen years ago. Linux is a lot more mature and user friendly now.
So build it for them. It's not like they are going to install their own OS, now is it?
This isn’t sustainable or scalable though.
As long as the expectation is that everyone who tries to convert their friends to Linux needs to somehow work out all of their needs, plan the experience and attempt to build it for them is the exact reason why there aren’t many people using Linux on the desktop. Never mind the potential weeks/months/years of playing support hotline on top. There’s too much of an overhead still.
Developers of desktop-oriented Linux distributions need to do better. They need to make the experience smoother. They need to make it easier to get started with. They need to get some people with design experience who understand humans rather than just leaving programmers to try and build user interfaces (often badly). They need to provide better alternatives to the things that people use today. They then need to go even further by sprinkling some magic on top.
Have you ever noticed how Windows and macOS need comparatively little configuring up-front to be usable by the tech-illiterate? That’s not an accident. That’s the product of decades of user interface studies and research.
Linux on the desktop will get there one day if it gets that same attention. It’s just that today isn’t that day, and until then, it’s really no surprise that people will go and buy Macs and lean on the App Store instead.
Most people don't even know what an operating system is. They use applications. Apps are started in more or less the same way on all graphical systems.
Someone like my retired father mostly just wants a web browser. Chrome, Firefox, whatever, so long as it renders websites that's fine. I built him a NUC and put Mint on it. That was several years ago. It just works. Before that he had a succession of Windows machines that he buggered up in sometimes extremely inventive ways, but mostly just the death by cruft experience peculiar to Microsoft.
"Windows and macOS need comparatively little configuring up-front to be usable by the tech-illiterate" by being preinstalled. There's nothing intrinsically easier to setting them up from scratch.
-A.
@Captain_Veg
Quote: "Most people don't even know what an operating system is."
*
While this is undoubtedly true:
- Most people DO KNOW the difference between £1500 and £500 for their laptop (or workstation) of choice.
- Most people DO KNOW the difference between Tim Cook using Apple's leverage to obsolete their kit (both hardware and software).....in order to charge another £1500......and a somewhat cheaper and relatively open environment.
*
So it's the CONNECTION between the operating system and Apple's revenue stream that MOST PEOPLE need to understand........not the OS itself!
This is an extremely timely article and comment thread.
I have been a Mac user since 1990 and, like many such, was quite evangelical about the benefits of the Mac and its GUI. However, in the last few years I have lost much of my enthusiasm, for the most part because I came to feel trapped within Apple's consumption strategy.
A few years back I did try Linux (RedHat) but I found it just too challenging because of the need for familiarity with 'the terminal'. However, Apple themselves gave me the encouragement to try again, not least because of the 'functionality' of their latest OS, Big Sur. When I upgraded, I found that my MacBook had shifted its focus towards the App Store, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and, worst of all, the Cloud.
At this point, my Linux Guru stepped in and suggested that I buy a mini-PC which he would load with some version of Linux, Elementary OS to be precise, and that I give it a try.
So, I now have a mini-PC running Elementary with a Logitech bluetooth keyboard and a iiyama 27" screen at a total cost of £315. This sits beside my 27" i7 iMac (2011 model) which cost around £2,700 and, to my surprise, the Linux set up delivers maybe 90% of the functionality for 15% of the cost. My guess is that, in a few months, and with some determination, the gap between the two setups will close further.
So, mbiggs, you have just set out the three step programme to help others like myself escape the orbit of Apple. Thank you.
PS I now have an HP laptop, again running Elementary, to replace my MacBook (soon to be available on eBay) and the next step will be to replace my iPhone.
Thing is, with Apple becoming very aggressive in service provision, it's fairly reasonable to say that regulatory interest was bound to be stirred up. And then there's the lobbying...
It strikes me that their strategy is great, so long as it works. If it doesn't work, then the excessive greed, capriciousness and lobbying is not going to look good. Any antitrust corrections could be really quite painful.
And then one has to ask, was it worth it? If the antitrust settlement ends up being devastating, there is going to be a lot of unhappy shareholders. They were doing pretty well before this whole change =uq717qqqiastarted, could have carried on more or less indefinitely.
Epic's taking to court of Apple was the moment I decided it was time to cut myself free of all Apple entanglements. I'm jumping to Android this year and if my Apple apps don't port or have an equivalent, I will find a way to live without. I really doubt I won't find an equivalent that's not actually way better, though.
The solution to Apple turning the screws on developers is not to sue Apple. All Apple customers need to jump to other platforms entirely... it's not like their hardware and OS is particularly good or reliable or anything. The App store is already chock full of ripoff apps that Apple never removes, many of which are in violation of numerous terms of service... so Apple is already no better than the Play store.
With Apple you need to be as objective as possible when trying to understand their actions. They are quite strict at following their beliefs. Contrary to what many think, Apple does not have profit as a priority, it’s just a result of their obsession with satisfying what they think the end users need. Their internal representation of the end user trumps everything in their decision-making. This is why Apple is so bad at supporting developers, corporates and any users with different needs. Apple proudly talk about their laser-like focus at every opportunity. The problem with that is that anything even slightly out of that focus gets a terrible service from them. They are simply incapable in dealing with grey areas and compromise. In a world where they have a relatively small percentage of the market that’s OK I think, otherwise it would be a real problem.
Although many here object strongly, I actually like that apple exerts strong control over what can get installed on my iPhone and the restrictions it places on developers to comply to certain standards. I agree that the cut is a bit large, but otherwise, completely and utterly fine that say, apps can't download executable code, or that a snooping app can't be sideloaded without me knowing it's there.
If you don't like that, don't buy an Apple phone. It seems to me, that to a certain extent, some devs would really like to get around one of the reasons I buy apple in the first place to sell me shitty apps with dodgy in app purchases
Most of the world agrees with that advice:
iPhone _global_ market share is under 15% even its biggest market, USA, it only reaches about 50%
As a coder, reading the T&C as well as tech news like The Register it's clear that your choice is invest many months effort, hope Apple accept the app for their store and then reap the reward of paying a third of your income to them - if the app is a success.
As an iUser, understand that you are paying a significant premium on all your apps to compensate the developer for the 30% cut, development costs and risk of rejection by Appstore.
@anonanonanonanonanon
Link: https://www.wired.com/story/apple-app-store-malware-click-fraud/
*
Maybe you should read the news! And check for some of the malware which actually did get into the AppStore! So much for "strong control"!
*
The article in El Reg is about Apple revenue, and about Apple using high prices and application lock-in exclusively for the benefit of.........Tim Cook.