iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[inuragon]

They can, because all of those apps aren’t hitting the App Store at once. They’re absorbed by the review process before they get to the App Store. So they have time to work through the list of apps for review, without those apps posing an active threat to users in the App Store. They cannot do that for the entire internet. Just because you see App C and App D released the same day or a day apart, doesn’t mean that App D only got a day worth of review time. It could just as easily mean that both were reviewed for several weeks, and one was either submitted a day later than the other, or had more that needed review. If Apple’s review process only reviewed one app at a time, we’d really be sunk…

you clearly have no idea how big job reviewing that many apps is, apple would need to spend a fortune to be able to do it in any reasonable timescale.
Pretty sure if you submit an app to apple they dont make you wait years while they clean up their review queue, because their review is not a thorough one.

 

[Kal Madda]

That's why i didn't.
You made some arguments so it's on you to prove them.

Feel free to name them, or not, i don't really care

A. You did. You made the claim I was wrong for saying that they placate the highest bidder. Lobbying exists, so clearly this is happening on some level or other, because that’s the whole idea of lobbying, paying politicians enough so that they push forward your goals and agendas. But you made the claim that I’m somehow wrong for pointing this out, so you must prove your assertion that it’s not happening. Good luck with that… Especially since all the evidence points to it happening…

B. Look up the Austrian School of economic thought. It has a long and storied history of experts who agree with my position such as Friedrich Hayek. Also, see Adam Smith, most of our American founding fathers, etc. You made a claim that there aren’t any real experts who agree with me. It’s on you to prove that…

 

[Kal Madda]

you clearly have no idea how big job reviewing that many apps is, apple would need to spend a fortune to be able to do it in any reasonable timescale.
Pretty sure if you submit an app to apple they dont make you wait years while they clean up their review queue, because their review is not a thorough one.

They likely do spend a lot of money to do it, and that’s why collecting a commission is completely reasonable. Again, it doesn’t take 100 people to review 1 app, you can have hundreds or even thousands of apps being reviewed at the same time. And some apps are very simple apps, so are likely very fast to thoroughly review. Again, making claims you can’t support like “because their review is not a thorough one”.

 

[inuragon]

Friedrich Hayek. Also, see Adam Smith, most of our American founding fathers,

Adam Smith doesn't really count as an expert considering his knowledge is bit dated on the count of him being dead for over 200 years, we are talking about current day after all.
Even Hayek died in 92, lot has happened since then. (Also that was bit before EU even existed too)

 

[inuragon]

Again, making claims you can’t support like

Just like you.

 

[Kal Madda]

Just like you.

No, you’re the one making unsubstantiated claims. The existence of lobbying on the scale it exists in the EU points to the EU placating the highest bidder at least occasionally. Otherwise, wouldn’t you think the lobbyists would get tired of wasting their money on all of these “incorruptible” EU politicians and pack their bags and move elsewhere? Yeah, again, all the evidence points to my claim being true. You have yet to provide any evidence for the many unsubstantiated claims you’ve made while accusing me of making unsubstantiated claims… Most people would call that hypocrisy…

 

[inuragon]

accusing me of making unsubstantiated claims

let's see

They likely do spend a lot of money to do it, and that’s why collecting a commission is completely reasonable

it doesn’t take 100 people to review 1 app, you can have hundreds or even thousands of apps being reviewed at the same time.

With this new implementation, there are bound to be new weaknesses.

people literally are forced to buy a phone that supports sideloading. Now customers who prefer the greater security of a system that doesn’t support it don’t have a choice but to get a system that supports it.

there's just few of your unsubstantiated claims. (And no, simply saying there's evidence without citing it does not change that)

You have yet to provide any evidence for the many unsubstantiated claims you’ve made while accusing me of making unsubstantiated claims… Most people would call that hypocrisy…

Pot meet kettle

 

[Kal Madda]

Adam Smith doesn't really count as an expert considering his knowledge is bit dated on the count of him being dead for over 200 years, we are talking about current day after all.
Even Hayek died in 92, lot has happened since then. (Also that was bit before EU even existed too)

Those aren’t the only experts who have ever believe in a limited form of government. 🤦🏼‍♂️. There are several modern living experts who adhere to the Austrian school of economic theory. These figures works just happen to still be very influential to several modern experts.

 

[inuragon]

Those aren’t the only experts who have ever believe in a limited form of government. 🤦🏼‍♂️. There are several modern living experts who adhere to the Austrian school of economic theory. These figures works just happen to still be very influential to several modern experts.

Perhaps you should have given their names instead, would have been more relevant.

 

[Kal Madda]

let's see

there's just few of your unsubstantiated claims. (And no, simply saying there's evidence without citing it does not change that)

Pot meet kettle

A. I said they likely do spend a lot of money. I didn’t say they do as a matter of fact. But many people familiar with the issue seem to believe they do.

B. If it took 100 people to review 1 app, we’d all be in trouble. Perhaps I should have said it “likely” doesn’t take 100 people to review 1 app, but you’re being pedantic about this. The fact you have so many apps being added to the App Store at the rate they are indicates that Apple isn’t dedicating 100 reviewers to every individual app being reviewed, and that you can have hundreds or possibly thousands of apps being reviewed concurrently, otherwise they wouldn’t be published at the rate they are.

C. I said bound to have new issues. Not they will have new issues as a matter of fact. Besides, I referenced several articles that support the position that users will face many new security threats.

D. That’s not unsubstantiated, that’s immediately obvious fact. By forcing the option that didn’t support sideloading to now support sideloading, you’re forcing people who previously didn’t have side loading on their phones to now have sideloading on their phones and the extra risks that come with that.

E. You’re the one making numerous unsubstantiated claims.

 

[chmania]

And, the ability to debloat iOS apps no one really needs...the same goes for all those unnecessary apps in macOS

 

[Kal Madda]

Perhaps you should have given their names instead, would have been more relevant.

Look it up, the Austrian school of economic theory is still a thing, and many experts hold to it. Here’s some names so you can stop complaining about it:

Peter Leeson, Christopher Coyne, Robert P. Murphy, Mark Spitznagel, Javier Milei, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Peter G. Klein, Peter Schiff, and Mark Thornton to name a few. They are all expert economists, and they all subscribe to the Austrian school of economic theory.

 

[VulchR]

The only kinds of things the government should be interfering with are when companies violate laws such as killing customers with poison advertised as something else, etc. Most antitrust laws are just there for the government to mold the market to it’s liking, and shouldn’t exist in my opinion.

You seem not to understand the damage that monopolistic practices can do.

 

[Kal Madda]

You seem not to understand the damage that monopolistic practices can do.

Apple isn’t a monopoly for the umpteenth time…

 

[chmania]

Apple isn’t a monopoly for the umpteenth time…

Oh, come on, it is a monopoly...have you seen devices from other manufacturers with iOS, macOS?

 

[Kal Madda]

Oh, come on, it is a monopoly...have you seen devices from other manufacturers with iOS, macOS?

Have you seen Great Value products from other stores than Walmart? This is a logical fallacy. Trying to argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple platforms makes no sense. By that logic, every company that makes a product unique to them is a monopoly, which, of course, is an absurd idea. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on tech or smartphones.

 

[chmania]

Have you seen Great Value products from other stores than Walmart?

I've never been to a Walmart. We have better shops here.

Trying to argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple platforms makes no sense. By that logic, every company that makes a product unique to them is a monopoly, which, of course, is an absurd idea. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on tech or smartphones.

You don't have any idea what is a monopoly, do you?
The EU is taking action, and now the US gov't is also taking action...

 

[Kal Madda]

I've never been to a Walmart. We have better shops here.

You don't have any idea what is a monopoly, do you?
The EU is taking action, and now the US gov't is also taking action...

A monopoly is when one party has exclusive control or possession of a commodity. Apple does not have exclusive control over all smartphones and tech. So no, they do not have a monopoly on tech or smartphones. There are competing platforms such as Android.

 

[chmania]

A monopoly is when one party has exclusive control or possession of a commodity.

Is iOS or macOS a product? Is that a commodity? Tea, coffee, potatoes, milk and such like are commodities.

Apple products such as iOS, macOS cannot be installed in other devices, so is a monopoly.

Apple does not have exclusive control over all smartphones and tech. So no, they do not have a monopoly on tech or smartphones. There are competing platforms such as Android.

Any manufacturer can make an Android phone, Windows or Linux laptop, a PC. Any private person can put together a PC at home and then install any OS in it, but not macOS, officially.

 

[Kal Madda]

Is iOS or macOS a product? Is that a commodity? Tea, coffee, potatoes, milk and such like are commodities.

Apple products such as iOS, macOS cannot be installed in other devices, so is monopoly.

Any manufacturer can make an Android phone, Windows or Linux laptop, a PC. Any private person can put together a PC at home and then install any OS in it, but not macOS, officially.

Offering an exclusive brand of commodity, such as a MacBook with macOS or iPhone with iOS does not make Apple a monopoly anymore than Walmart offering a Great Value brand of tea, coffee, potatoes, and milk, and deciding which other brands of these items they offer in their store makes them a monopoly. People can choose to buy a different computer or phone. They don’t have to buy the Apple brand phone with Apple’s software. Some phone and tech brands make phones with only their own apps and no third party app distribution. And that is their prerogative and doesn’t make them a monopoly on phones or tech, just like it doesn’t make Apple a monopoly on phones or tech by offering a platform with limited and more secure third party app distribution…. Apple does not control or own all tech or smartphones, so no, not a monopoly…

My Kenmore fridge only runs software made by Kenmore, so I guess Kenmore has a monopoly on fridges by your logic.

 

[chmania]

Offering an exclusive brand of commodity, such as a MacBook does not make Apple a monopoly anymore than Walmart offering a Great Value brand of cereal one. People can choose to buy a different computer or phone. They don’t have to buy the Apple brand phone with Apple’s software. Some phone and tech brands make phones with only their own apps and no third party app distribution. And that is their prerogative and doesn’t make them a monopoly on phones or tech, just like it doesn’t make Apple a monopoly on phones or tech by offering a platform with limited and more secure third party app distribution…. Apple does not control or own all tech or smartphones, so no, not a monopoly…

You have no idea what is a monopoly. Sometimes countries look the other way, as far as that company brings in money into the country. When other countries, or a group of countries take a stand on those companies, suddenly the parent country wakes up start charging that company of monopolistic actions. The EU is taking actions, so the US have to, at least to save face.

You see, medicine can be considered a commodity, but big pharma patented those, and reaped massive profit, while in some countries, poor people simply died. So, few large countries in the world took a stand against that, and gave a go ahead for native companies to reverse engineer those medicines. Today, those native companies have more revenue selling the medicine still at very low prices in their respective countries, and to their neighbours. Today, medicine manufactured in those countries are even imported to the US, UK, Canada, the EU etc.

If some country, or a group of countries take a stand, anything can be re-engineered, that is, if it would help their citizens. If/when that happens all kinds of patents would have no value. And, I believe, it is more when than if.

 

[Kal Madda]

One might say medicine is a commodity, but big pharma

You have no idea what is a monopoly. Sometimes countries look the other way, as far as that company brings in money into the country. When other countries, or a group of countries take a stand on those companies, suddenly the parent country wakes up start charging that company of monopolistic actions. The EU is taking actions, so the US have to, at least to save face.

You see, medicine can be considered a commodity, but big pharma patented those, and reaped massive profit, while in some countries, poor people simply died. So, few large countries in the world took a stand against that, and gave a go ahead for native companies to reverse engineer those medicines. Today, those native companies have more revenue still selling the medicine at very low prices in their respective countries, and to their neighbours. Today, medicine manufactured in those countries are even imported to the US, UK, Canada, the EU etc.

If some country, or a group of countries take a stand, anything can be re-engineered, that is, if it would help their citizens. If/when that happens all kinds of patents would have no value. And, I believe, it is more when than if.

It is you who have no idea of what a monopoly is. Apple does not have exclusive control or ownership over tech or smartphones, so they do not have a monopoly on tech and smartphones. Just as McDonalds doesn’t have a monopoly on hamburgers. They simply offer their own product with it’s own software, just like McDonalds offers it’s own hamburger with it’s own recipe/ingredients.

Pharmaceuticals have nothing to do with the topic at hand, so interesting tangent…

 

[VulchR]

Apple isn’t a monopoly for the umpteenth time…

Agreed, but you did make a blanket statement, namely that 'Most antitrust laws are just there for the government to mold the market to it’s liking, and shouldn’t exist in my opinion.' It was to that blanket statement I was reacting.

Eliminating all antitrust laws would lead to market abuse of the likes we have not seen for a hundred years. The only thing that comes close is the patent monopoly the government grants for the chemical structures of medicines (rather than patenting the process by which medicines are made, which would drive down costs as different companies try different synthetic chemistry approaches to produce a given drug more cheaply).

 

[Kal Madda]

Agreed, but you did make a blanket statement, namely that 'Most antitrust laws are just there for the government to mold the market to it’s liking, and shouldn’t exist in my opinion.' It was to that blanket statement I was reacting.

Eliminating all antitrust laws would lead to market abuse of the likes we have not seen for a hundred years. The only thing that comes close is the patent monopoly the government grants for the chemical structures of medicines (rather than patenting the process by which medicines are made, which would drive down costs as different companies try different synthetic chemistry approaches to produce a given drug more cheaply).

I stated my opinion (I specifically said “in my opinion”) that I think most (not all) “anti-trust” laws are just tools used by government to manipulate the market to their will. That isn’t a blanket statement, it’s my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. I believe that the market should be as free as possible, and government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, and should be as least involved in the free market as possible. This allows the market to pick winners and losers as it should rather than the government. Again, this is my opinion, and you can take it or leave it, but it’s my opinion as a believer in free market capitalism living in the OG USA.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Look up the Austrian School of economic thought. It has a long and storied history of experts who agree with my position such as Friedrich Hayek. Also, see Adam Smith, most of our American founding fathers, etc. You made a claim that there aren’t any real experts who agree with me. It’s on you to prove that…

Adam Smith and the founding fathers?
You’ve obviously never read Adam Smith and his take on monopolies (such as in the Wealth of Nations).

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on tech or smartphones.

They do have a monopoly on software distribution for these smartphones.

They simply offer their own product with it’s own software, just like McDonalds offers it’s own hamburger with it’s own recipe/ingredients.

Obviously not. They offer dozens of thousand of apps developed by third parties.
They force these third parties to sell their apps through Apple’s App Store.

And that is a monopoly, because once a customer has chosen to a smartphone and its operating system, he is committed to that platform and will act as a buyer of apps only for that platform/operating system.