“I couldn't care 2 ****s how much money apple makes, so long as they do it without a closed OS.“I posted about how I hate Apple? Where? When? Maybe if u had not been laboring under such a stupid misconception from the start ur posts would make for better reading.
If Windows had always worked that way, I could hardly complain, now could I? In fact, even if it hadn't, as long as Microsoft fully disclosed that, by choosing to upgrade to Windows 12, I would join their walled garden and lose the ability to install non-certified software.Say MS puts out Windows 12 or whatever and now u can no longer install apps from the internet, u can only install apps through their new store...You would be absolutely happy with them doing that?
Post #60, above thread. In reference to Google vis-à-vis Apple, you said you "hate Google also".I posted about how I hate Apple? Where? When?
Maybe. But not in this case....What Epic wants is for phone owners to be able to install it's software on thier phones without interference from whatever ******* happens to make the phones OS.
Your the outlier. Most iDevice users are drawn to the closed system for the security it offers!“...so long as they do it without a closed OS.“
I completely agree - you’re arguing against the wrong person though... I was arguing the same points as you ?Your the outlier. Most iDevice users are drawn to the closed system for the security it offers!
you could always buy a somewhat hardware compatible phone and install Cydia
or us a secondary app installer!
![]()
Apps Like TweakBox ( Top 10 Cydia Alternatives )
Here is a list of the 10 Best Alternative to TweakBox . These apps will allow the download of unofficial apps and games on your iPhone without a jailbreak.cydia-app.com
iOS also isn’t as closed off as the haters makes it appear. Any developer can do what epic should have done. And created a secluded app for distribution under the industry program.
many font programs and crypto currency programs use enterprise apps distribution. Some companies even offer both enterprise and standard App Store apps.
In fact most of the alternative App Store apps in that link are enterprise app installs!
They do not provide neither access nor support "through their platform" for Epic Games in-game purchase, they merely force the purchases to be made through them, and take a 30% cut off it.You mean other than providing a storefront and ongoing access.and support through their platform?
For one, Apple would be free to offer distribution and support services for any price they want, as long as developers would be free to choose any other such service. But Apple doesn't want that, Apple wants to maintain a monopoly, no competition and a 30% cut of every sale they didn't contribute not even a tiny bit to.That service that requires constant work to maintain availability and a modicum of security?
They do not provide neither access nor support "through their platform" for Epic Games in-game purchase, they merely force the purchases to be made through them, and take a 30% cut off it.
For one, Apple would be free to offer distribution and support services for any price they want, as long as developers would be free to choose any other such service. But Apple doesn't want that, Apple wants to maintain a monopoly, no competition and a 30% cut of every sale they didn't contribute not even a tiny bit to.
A developer account gives extra privileges on an Apple device. That’s why Apple is far stricter with those accounts. Security is actually FAR superior on iOS than any other operating system. There is no 100% secure OS in existence. But if you know of a more secure one than iOS, please let us know.Also stop referring to Apple's purported, but in reality non-existing security measure and guarantees, because that's a self-defeating argument, that even Apple admits to, because that's actually what they used as an "argument" for why they should be allowed to also ban the Unreal Engine, despite that not being in violation of their terms at all. Ie. because Apple said that then Epic could use it as a trojan horse and circumvent their security measure.
So, if someone can do that any time just because they're in the App Store, then that obviously means App Store offers no security whatsoever. Which btw is confirmed also by history, because Apple has a very lengthy history with security vulnerabilities and the lack of effective antimalware protection, far worse than any competing platform, including Android and Windows.
No, neither iPhone, nor App Store provide support for Epic's apps, or for any other developers' for that matter. So, stop repeating this non-sense.um... what do you call the iPhone, then? And the AppStore? Apple provides both - and support for both...
No, they're not. Epic tried that with Fortnite, and that's the exact reason why it was booted from the App Store.Developers ARE free to choose other services
Yes, they have. See above!because Apple doesn’t have a monopoly!
No, they can't launch on iPhones via those. What you're saying is akin to if Ford would force all petrol stations to only purchase gas from them and only accept payment for gas from drivers through them, and would charge 30% for that, on the basis, that it was them (ie. Ford) creating the cars and that they're the ones also distributing the fuel.... (which would obviously be both ridiculous and absurd in itself) and then you would come by, and would try to argue, that hey, but petrol stations can also just "launch via" Toyota, Volkswagen, etc., which btw would also purportedly all charge 30% for supplying fuel to their cars. You obviously recognize the absurdity of this model with cars and fuel, but yet somehow you really and seriously want to argue for the same absurd model when it comes to cell phones and apps.They can launch via Steam, Android, Xbox, PlayStation....
For one, that's not an argument for Apple being right, but if for anything, then for they all being in the wrong with that. Also, Xbox, PlayStation and Android are not app stores, and Steam is not an ecosystem. You're just obviously utterly confused about even such basic things. Comparing Apple to oranges, bananas and skyscrapers, you know.and guess what - each charges just about the same service fee...
Apple doesn't charge 30% for that. Also an admin/root account gives extra privileges on a Windows or a Linux box. Should you then have to pay Microsoft 30% of all your income? So, then what's the point you're trying to make here? Confused, again, aren't you?A developer account gives extra privileges on an Apple device.
Talk about making no sense, no relevance whatsoever.That’s why Apple is far stricter with those accounts.
No, the system is riddled with security holes, and just this year they have not even one, but two *unfixable* holes in iOS devices. Apple is known and "recognized" in the security community as having the worst security of all mainstream platforms in existence, and it's only Apple and clueless fanboys who advertise that otherwise.Security is actually FAR superior on iOS than any other operating system.
Apple provides support for every approved app in the appstore... which, up to a few months ago, included Fortnite. So if you paid XXX $ for something and didn't get it, you can contact Apple support... What nonsense are you talking about?No, neither iPhone, nor App Store provide support for Epic's apps, or for any other developers' for that matter. So, stop repeating this non-sense.
No, what it's akin to is if Ford built a new type of car with a special type of fuel that only they use. If you then wanted to sell that type of fuel, you'd have to pay Ford a % since they invented the fuel and the car that uses it.No, they can't launch on iPhones via those. What you're saying is akin to if Ford would force all petrol stations to only purchase gas from them and only accept payment for gas from drivers through them, and would charge 30% for that, on the basis, that it was them (ie. Ford) creating the cars and that they're the ones also distributing the fuel.... and then you would come by, and would try to argue, that hey, but petrol stations can also just "launch via" Toyota, Volkswagen, etc., which btw would also purportedly all charge 30% for supplying fuel to their cars.
Playstation, XBOX and Android HAVE app stores - try to at least pretend you have some brains here... If you want to sell an app (or game) on these systems, you have to use the proprietary appstore/gamestores that come with these devices. They all charge a % because providing these stores isn't easy or cheap! Do they profit from them - OF COURSE! Why else would they be providing these services to you in the first place?For one, that's not an argument for Apple being right, but if for anything, then for they all being in the wrong with that. Also, Xbox, PlayStation and Android are not app stores, and Steam is not an ecosystem. You're just obviously utterly confused about even such basic things. Comparing Apple to oranges, bananas and skyscrapers, you know.
Root in Windows / Linux / Android is given to you for free... thus making it rather easy to do "unauthorized stuff" on them.Apple doesn't charge 30% for that. Also an admin/root account gives extra privileges on a Windows or a Linux box. Should you then have to pay Microsoft 30% of all your income? So, then what's the point you're trying to make here? Confused, again, aren't you?
Talk about making no sense, no relevance whatsoever.
iOS is NOT riddled with security holes - and if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the "unfixable" holes you are talking about were HARDWARE based - and have been fixed on all devices going forward.No, the system is riddled with security holes, and just this year they have not even one, but two *unfixable* holes in iOS devices. Apple is known and "recognized" in the security community as having the worst security of all mainstream platforms in existence, and it's only Apple and clueless fanboys who advertise that otherwise.
No, they don't. And even if they would, they'd provide that to their end users, not to the companies selling the apps, so they should charge the former.Apple provides support for every approved app in the appstore...
For one, that's not support for the app, which you claimed it was, but for the purchase, if anything. Apple provides no support for the apps it sells. It does not act as a merchant. It merely acts as a payment processor. But payment processors (Visa, MC, even PayPal) generally don't charge 30% for their services, but less than 1/10 of that. Of course they don't hold an illegal monopoly either, that's why they charge a fair slice, and that's why Apple, who does hold an illegal monopoly, can charge a lot more, which can not be substantiated by any cost analysis.So if you paid XXX $ for something and didn't get it, you can contact Apple support...
About your obvious lack of knowledge of even the most basic things about how the App Store works, and about your circular arguments.What nonsense are you talking about?
And that's why Apple's stance is anti-competitive and illegal.And Devs CAN choose other places to sell their products! If they want to sell their products on iOS though, they have to use the Appstore.
Yes, Apple DOES HAVE a monopoly (on access to iOS), which it uses as a leverage in other markets (like payment processing, but also other kinds of app and services, which it bans from the App Store if it has or develops a competitive product/service). That's illegal.Apple DOES NOT have a monopoly
No, because there's nothing special neither about the App Store, nor about app distribution, and especially nothing special about Apple's payment processing. These all are not only available from Apple for iOS users because Apple's technology is special and because Apple invented anything about them, but because Apple's anti-competitive and illegal control of iOS supplies.No, what it's akin to is if Ford built a new type of car with a special type of fuel that only they use.
As already explained: Apple didn't invent anything - certainly not the app store model, not app distribution and not payment processing. Apple artificially prevents any competition, despite gazillions of competitors being able to provide the same services (payment, app distribution, etc.) also for iOS devices from the technical perspective. Actually, Epic proved with Fortnite this very fact, that it is very well capable of doing that.If you then wanted to sell that type of fuel, you'd have to pay Ford a % since they invented the fuel and the car that uses it.
Yeah, this doesn't change the fact that Ford would be doing something illegal, just as what Apple does is also illegal. Monopolies are not illegal, because consumers theoretically can't refrain from purchasing from monopolies, but because they make competition impossible in the affected markets.Drivers who didn't like this arrangement would be free to buy other cars though... just like fuel sellers would be free to simply not support this new Ford!
Which is not what you said. You said stupid things, and that has been pointed out. The fact that now you want to shift goalpost and replace your original statements with somewhat less stupid statements does not refute, but actually proves that.Playstation, XBOX and Android HAVE app stores
No you don't. Not on Android, not on Steam, which was another stupid thing you said, because Steam is not an app or device platform, but a distribution platform. If Apple's App Store would operate the very same way Steam does, Epic would have no problems and no case.If you want to sell an app (or game) on these systems, you have to use the proprietary appstore/gamestores that come with these devices.
Yes, providing these stores is very cheap, that's why they make billions in profit from what they charge. Ie. because it costs far less to provide those services than what they charge for providing them. Also, this is not what's illegal or discussed here about Apple's behavior, just a lame red herring.They all charge a % because providing these stores isn't easy or cheap!
And yet you try to argue that giving "extra privileges", which don't even match up to the level of root/admin, is something Apple should charge for... because of? And Apple doesn't charge for that anyway, as already explained, and to which even you admitted. So, again, what are you trying to argue for, other than Apple being holy, just because?Root in Windows / Linux / Android is given to you for free...
No, running of "unauthorized stuff" is not made any easier by having elevated privileges. And has nothing to do with neither restricting competition, nor charging far more than a service is worth.thus making it rather easy to do "unauthorized stuff" on them.
Exactly. So, then Apple doesn't charge the 30% for that, and you were wrong for bringing that up. As already pointed out.A developer account with Apple costs $99 USD per year (Enterprise is $299 per year) and gives you elevated permissions (not root though).
Apple doesn't track anything, and charging $99 won't stop "unauthorized stuff" either. It's also no ground to restrict competition and limit consumer choices.Apple charges for this and tracks developer accounts so that "unauthorized stuff" doesn't happen as often.
I actually and obviously know far better than you what I'm talking about.iOS is NOT riddled with security holes - and if you actually knew what you were talking about
No, it's not hardware based. It's purely software based. It's in the bootloader. And you're just completely clueless about the issues at hand.you'd know that the "unfixable" holes you are talking about were HARDWARE based
I already did. Feel free to read back!Please provide some evidence that Apple has the worst security in existence please....
I think you need to understand the meaning of "evidence"... just contradicting what someone says does NOT constitute evidence.No, they don't. And even if they would, they'd provide that to their end users, not to the companies selling the apps, so they should charge the former.
For one, that's not support for the app, which you claimed it was, but for the purchase, if anything. Apple provides no support for the apps it sells. It does not act as a merchant. It merely acts as a payment processor. But payment processors (Visa, MC, even PayPal) generally don't charge 30% for their services, but less than 1/10 of that. Of course they don't hold an illegal monopoly either, that's why they charge a fair slice, and that's why Apple, who does hold an illegal monopoly, can charge a lot more, which can not be substantiated by any cost analysis.
About your obvious lack of knowledge of even the most basic things about how the App Store works, and about your circular arguments.
And that's why Apple's stance is anti-competitive and illegal.
Yes, Apple DOES HAVE a monopoly (on access to iOS), which it uses as a leverage in other markets (like payment processing, but also other kinds of app and services, which it bans from the App Store if it has or develops a competitive product/service). That's illegal.
No, because there's nothing special neither about the App Store, nor about app distribution, and especially nothing special about Apple's payment processing. These all are not only available from Apple for iOS users because Apple's technology is special and because Apple invented anything about them, but because Apple's anti-competitive and illegal control of iOS supplies.
As already explained: Apple didn't invent anything - certainly not the app store model, not app distribution and not payment processing. Apple artificially prevents any competition, despite gazillions of competitors being able to provide the same services (payment, app distribution, etc.) also for iOS devices from the technical perspective. Actually, Epic proved with Fortnite this very fact, that it is very well capable of doing that.
Yeah, this doesn't change the fact that Ford would be doing something illegal, just as what Apple does is also illegal. Monopolies are not illegal, because consumers theoretically can't refrain from purchasing from monopolies, but because they make competition impossible in the affected markets.
Which is not what you said. You said stupid things, and that has been pointed out. The fact that now you want to shift goalpost and replace your original statements with somewhat less stupid statements does not refute, but actually proves that.
No you don't. Not on Android, not on Steam, which was another stupid thing you said, because Steam is not an app or device platform, but a distribution platform. If Apple's App Store would operate the very same way Steam does, Epic would have no problems and no case.
Yes, providing these stores is very cheap, that's why they make billions in profit from what they charge. Ie. because it costs far less to provide those services than what they charge for providing them. Also, this is not what's illegal or discussed here about Apple's behavior, just a lame red herring.
And yet you try to argue that giving "extra privileges", which don't even match up to the level of root/admin, is something Apple should charge for... because of? And Apple doesn't charge for that anyway, as already explained, and to which even you admitted. So, again, what are you trying to argue for, other than Apple being holy, just because?
No, running of "unauthorized stuff" is not made any easier by having elevated privileges. And has nothing to do with neither restricting competition, nor charging far more than a service is worth.
Exactly. So, then Apple doesn't charge the 30% for that, and you were wrong for bringing that up. As already pointed out.
Apple doesn't track anything, and charging $99 won't stop "unauthorized stuff" either. It's also no ground to restrict competition and limit consumer choices.
I actually and obviously know far better than you what I'm talking about.
No, it's not hardware based. It's purely software based. It's in the bootloader. And you're just completely clueless about the issues at hand.
I already did. Feel free to read back!
Didn’t intend to pick on anyone; just pointing out facts.I completely agree - you’re arguing against the wrong person though... I was arguing the same points as you ?
Don't hold your breath. There is a mindset that views all situations solely through the lens of self-interest. In their minds, they believe (wrongly) that an Epic victory would mean 30% lower prices for all their apps; so Apple must -- must! -- be in the wrong. It's not a sensible position, but anarcho-socialism never has had logic on its side.MI supplied a link just above to one of the most visited tertiary App Store sites on the web. Before you post further do some research...I welcome you to change our minds.
Nope: I seriously 100% support the quest (not of the previously mentioned King’s) for any logical reason for epic to shoehorn an illegal hack into a patch.Don't hold your breath. There is a mindset that views all situations solely through the lens of self-interest. In their minds, they believe (wrongly) that an Epic victory would mean 30% lower prices for all their apps; so Apple must -- must! -- be in the wrong. It's not a sensible position, but anarcho-socialism never has had logic on its side.