Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senate Panel Approves Antitrust Bill That Would Allow Sideloading
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just like Apple’s policy changes. The truth is that Apple changes policies to protect their digital services at the expense of third party digital services and their customers properties …
In this context … the reason why Apple wanted to keep at bay the businesses mentioned I think its because Apple now believes it was a mistake to allow third party video and music streams … so its undercutting any other form of streaming … protecting its potential interests on the subject … Gaming.
Some might think that such practice … is anti competitive. Hey, Apple might just change their mind and require both Spotify and Netflix to list every single music Album or Series in the App Store / Apple TV … who knows.
The truth is that without the good old capitalist democracy driven regulation, citizens and digital businesses have their belly totally exposed to Big Tech anti liberal, control centred, mercantilist and expansionist agenda.
Last edited:
It’s not a strawman to point out that the slippery slope is a fallacy and then give an example of that fallacy. My example of the fallacy is certainly no more absurd than your slippery slope argument that regulating Apple here will eventually lead to the government capping the allowable income of an individual.
And regulating markets is certainly a valid responsibility of the government.
I don’t know of any business that doesn’t amend their policies and procedures as time goes on. It’s not like this may happen is a new revelation in the business world.
Ok.
It is a slippery slope. We’ll have to disagree.
That’s the slippery slope that government can regulate anything. The good news is many bills fail to see the light of day.
Yes, at 100,000 feet it’s a broad responsibility that can be misused.
The straw man expert
hehehe. Neither do why, but that was not the point and you know it was not.
At the end of the day, I don’t concern myself with conclusions reached through fallacious reasoning.
Straw man are sometimes useful to illustrate fallacious reasoning.The straw man expert
Ops another straw man … you are really an expert in those. Yes, when reducing a fallacy to its absurd. But you need to assume the fallacy as true and arrive to a contradiction. But that was not how it was used, you produced a fallacious relationship in context to counter argue.
Yes change is a constant … policies … the wether ... How this subject related with potential anti competitive practices being discussed? Please explain.
Again, getting further and further out from the point I’ve made.
Last edited:
I think most would tend to agree with opinions not reached through fallacious logic. Of course that’s also an opinion that you’re free to disagree with. Your opinion may be that a great deal of value should be placed in fallacious reasoning. That’s your right.
There is no fallacious logic in stating my opinion this is a bad bill. One can try and justify their support of this bill through use of any of the logical constructs but at the end of the day this thread is filled with opinions of whether this bill is good/bad just or not.
Responding to fallacious reasoning?
At this point the bottom line is some people support this bill some don’t and we’ll see where it goes. My vote is cast for the universe to see. It’s like buying a lottery ticket, your chance of winning don’t increase exponentially because you bought multiple tickets. Saying the same thing multiple times probably wont alter the course of this bill.
I guess when one needs to resort to fallacies to justify our stances we reach such a point. Look I don’t specifically support the solution on this bill … mandatory side loading … But I do think that businesses should not be able to charge for the sale of things they don’t sell … neither be able to block the sale of things that they do not sell … through any kind of technical or administrative device on properties they do not own!!!! You see, the OS is from Apple, Google or whatever, the IP in the device too … but the Device(s) and the Apps … aren’t!
The idea that ones IP rights, case in case Apple’s, are above any other forms of property and rights is a slippery slope.
Last edited:
Simply stating your opinion itself is indeed not fallacious logic, however your use of the slippery slope fallacy by definition uses fallacious logic to reach your stated opinion. But like I said, you’re allowed to hold opinions reached through fallacious reasoning. Just don’t be surprised when people recognize that though.
Last edited:
Slippery slope arguments are important in certain contexts as they show where things are headed. After being a member of this community for so long, nothing surprises me. We all have our voice, use it as needed. Good luck in getting this bill ratified.
you apparently haven't been paying attention... why do you always say things that are clearly and easily proven false? Apple deny's apps all the time for things not even closely related to the categories you mention. You really should inform yourself of the things you argue so much about.
Apple's own website has a list of some very subjective reasons they might reject your app.... and this is by no means all of them.
App Review - App Store - Apple Developer
Learn about the technical, content, and design criteria used to review apps submitted to the App Store.
"Not enough lasting value"
Who the hell does apple think they are to tell me how valuable something might be to me or one of my app's users?
Multiple people on this forum said I should just ignore/block you... I'm realizing they were probably right.
Last edited:
No. I actually think the people that are insisting on a walled garden experience are expecting the majority to suffer for the wants of the minority.
Apple’s motives are purely profit driven. Everything else is window dressing. Feel free to move on.
Do you believe an enterprise has the right to control their platform? Write an editorial to any major newspaper, is it a guarantee yours will be published? Is Costco under any obligation to sell every product under the sun or can they pick and choose?you apparently haven't been paying attention... why do you always say things that are clearly and easily proven false? Apple deny's apps all the time for things not even closely related to the categories you mention. You really should inform yourself of the things you argue so much about.
Apple's own website has a list of some very subjective reasons they might reject your app.... and this is by no means all of them.
App Review - App Store - Apple Developer
Learn about the technical, content, and design criteria used to review apps submitted to the App Store.developer.apple.com
"Not enough lasting value"
Who the hell does apple think they are to tell me how valuable something might be to me or one of my app's users?
Multiple people on this forum said I should just ignore/block you... I'm realizing they were probably right.
Similarly for Apple.
Another straw man argument. When you are presented with an observation for which you have double feelings … you systematically jump wagons.
Individual property rights are not under threat by gov regulators. In fact as it seams quite the contrary. A company being able to enforce a charge on each buy / sale of a product it does not sell or host, as well as blocking the sales and acquisitions of things it does not sell or host, all on top of properties/ devices it does not own but are owned by 50% of Americans looks more like Apple is a the threat to property owners rights. In fact these rights have been eroding in the last decade, up and down to the recent Right to Repair (their own property) movement.
There is a difference between a company having the right of receiving compensation over the use of its tech and the method of compensation adopted that throttles over the property rights of others if not also value.
I wonder if the iPhone came to market advertising a royalty of 30% over digital business revenue would have attracted so many people and businesses (the exception Ad based businesses). The reality is the it came with an App Store, meaning a software device / business that distributes and sells software programs … this was accepted by the general public.
All the extensions to this reasonable concept came after the fact in time with successive unilateral policy changes leveraging on its mobile market power to push digital businesses to accept such changes in the deals. Either take the deal or leave 50% of your customer with minimal support from the business on their mobile device of choice … leaving the business backdoor open to competitors if not Apple itself.
Changes that gave the App Store the power to charge … say dating arrangements, a remote math lesson, a game stream, a song, a remote IP call, groceries … whatever it is offered by the business in their property / App … none of it owned, sold, hosted or distributed by the App Store … this is not a traditional Shop or Market fee but a “tax” over commerce on smartphones! People that think its like regular retail … it isn’t and know nothing … its not even a matter of opinion … its a straight demonstrable fact.
This is the impression I have over the complaints at hand.
Its not even a matter of winner and losers. Its indeed a change in the fabric of commercial processes empowered by recent digital technology advances that devoid American individuals and businesses of common rights over their properties … rights are being taken by Big Tech companies such as Apple using terms such as App Store, Google Play … as as the front “man” of such practice. Rights that used to be guaranteed by democratic governments whose power to act on it seams to be shaken in the midst of armies of lawyers and lobbyists.
I think is preferable to leave this sort of arguments at bay and focus on the complaints and address them rationally and reasonably. Its totally unreasonable to expect a bank down to a math or music teacher to come up and market their own mobile phone in order to avoid and compete with private ”taxes” over commerce.
Cheers.
Last edited:
ding ding ding you got it, for example Gab was an app Apple Removed for political reasons , and used excuses of their TOS even when Reddit, Twitter, Facebook have the same issues. I personally sideload lots of apps using altstore
side loading is not jailbreaking, it’s like saying the same for android it’s not rooting the phone
Years ago, you used to have to pay hundreds of dollars for a compiler and development environment like Metrowerks CodeWarrior to program for the Mac. Apple now provides Swift essentially for free (although there is an annual developer fee). At the same time, the App Store makes it easy for people to find and buy apps. These developers now use Apple's code and libraries as the basis of their businesses and yet don't want apple to get a dime.
I don’t think you are using your calculator that well …
I started programming in the 80s and so had the opportunity to live first hand the progress of this young industry for the last 40 years. My first computer was a ZX Spectrum, than Commodore 64 and Atari ST … development environments and SDKs where free for a few exception. Than came the reign of MS Windows focused … and than IDE become payed up to a $6000 a license per dev (Visual Studio, Borland … ….). In Windows these competition was crushed by MS when they launched MSDN. For $6000 a yer a developer would have access not only to the IDE but development licenses to use Enterprise databases so on and so forth as well as books, lessons and documentation. There where no royalties … nothing.
I guess these aren't using third party code and libraries ... just @Apple heheheh. Fictional remark that one of yours.
Now lets at us now inside the Apple dome ... for the same. Say you have a tiny business, 1M revenue a year … 300k for IDEs, binary distribution and billing is absolutely insane. As the you revenues grow so does your IDE price tag … it become even more paradoxal … 2M … 600K …
Parallel to this the open source movement grown greatly offering their own IDE, development tools and databases for free. If you look around, the Open Source movement generically won the IDE battle out side the Apple dome … free. Covering Windows and Linux … even MS joined the bandwagon …
So for a dev that actually make something useful that others are willing to pay for it, your IDE costs had rose several orders of magnitude within the iOS Apple dome … and infinitely when compared to the ones outside. (you can always track people and get their data to target and serve the Ads, in which case you Apple gives it all for free). MacOS it’s totally different. The same op as others … fair prices. If you leave your money and properties on the table … anyone will gladly take it and make it recurring …
So who are these greedy developers you talk about?
Cheers.
Last edited: