After Belarus, I thought Apple would have learned it's lesson and might loosen it's so-called "security" a bit and allow 3rd party apps/app stores on their phones, but nope; they went full steam ahead into their M1 chips with forced code signing in ARM, demonstrating that they learned nothing.

Apple positioning itself as the sole proprietor of what can and cannot run on their machines will only get worse as censorship becomes normalized.

See Open Banking, that's taken many years to implement but we are starting to reap the rewards.

The other option is to use a different virtual credit card for each subscription and just cancel the number when needed.

Eg "If we're massively successful in building/buying the water distribution network in $city why hamstring us?" Is an argument that holds no water.

There's a decreasing long-run average total cost curve for systems software. Which is why microsoft dominated the desktop for so long and why there are only 2 viable phone operating systems - where the veondors and controllers of those operating systems use their massive market power to compete in how much abuse of the users they can dole out.

I realise trying to explain conflict of interest and market power abuse to fans of a company that literally tax the revenue of anyone selling software on their phones and tablets, then destroy success by competing with it unfairly abusing that platform control, is doomed. But it remains a very strong economic argument based on the technical defintion of market failure accross the spectrum of economics as I studied it late last century, from Friedman to Keynes.

As ever, anything that contains "...with a computer" prevents most adults from engaging the critical thought region of their brain. [1]

[1] I'm really happy to have people disagree with me on specifics if they can explain why this thing "..with a computer" is different and needs to be treated differently in law and policy to the same thing, contstructed with thousands of people, filing cabinets, paper and old-school dial-up telephones. Imagine how you would provide the service with the latter. What policy is appropriate? What law is appropriate? When should that law be enforced? Then apply just that to the same system with a bunch of servers and software.

If that "same system - computerless" analysis and case was made each time, we'd have much more sensible policy and policy discussion. I can dream, right?

I wrote this with a computer. :s

No it isn't a counterargument unless you think it's success is solely the consequence of it's anticompetitive market practices...in which case yes it's definitely at fault for it's own success.

>so what exactly is the reason that Apple can't try to convert its platform into a conduit for services revenue?

They can charge high rates by virtue of having created a monopsony in what's essentially a duopoly. This is bad for the consumer. This is bad for competition. This is bad for capitalism.

It's entrenched enough and able enough to extract this way that it's value soared to more than the GDP of a host of countries including Italy, Brazil, Canada and Russia and still there's plenty licking their boot because their product is good.

If a water utility country delivers the freshest and well filtered water to your home if it does so at ridiculous rates because it pushes legislature in it's favour and stomps on the competition using it's clout then that's still a shit state of affair

The fact that there's an alternative option in a duopoly rolling with these high rates protecting both from being called out and split up doesn't matter much. Especially if they only deliver sparkling water which you happen to dislike. Looking back it's a bad analogy because these companies would do a whole host more than just water and interconnect their services.

Without either of those, your comment is just noise.

Oh I see, you're the one asking the question - Pfft so, since you don't know the answer yourself I'd love to hear how you know that my answer is incorrect. I've only been around computer culture since the 70s when Apple was born... what could I possibly know?

Just because there’s healthy criticism doesn’t mean it’s some negative malevolent argument. Most criticism of Apple is activist focused. Most gushing about Apple is consumerist focused.

People are actively trying to move off closed platforms. So what?

Prohibiting anti-censorship apps and content-based censorship of apps at the behest of undemocratic governments is not immoral or unethical?

> Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them.

Not every company monopolizes the distribution of a third party product to an identifiable discrete set of customers.

> In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.

That would be a valid way to remove the moral issue by taking the ability to impose censorship out of the corporation's hands.

If you can do a shuffling run, punctuated by awkward hops around a stage while screaming, "Eeeeeeeeeeeeee!" to applause from a huge crowd at a corporate event, then you've got some devoted fanatics.

Apple fanbois are annoying, but Apple haters are equally annoying. The idea that any sane person could like Apple for reasons other than being sheep never crosses their mind.

That's a really weird assertion.

Nerds as a tribe are typically not willing to let factually incorrect statements pass without refutation, but if we do that re: Apple, it's because we're insecure about my tech choices? I mean, seriously?

I did see some Reddit thread about someone creating an iOS port but saying that it lacked all the functionality of the Android app.

And same thing with the U.S.A. today! How do you think that this war-mongering country will be seen a few decades from now? My guess is that it will be seen in the same light as the British Empire of a century ago. True, they had very nice things "inside", but they were totally callous on the countries that they controlled for economical interests (e.g., India, South Africa).

It's perfectly possible to allow arbitrary third-party software without exposing the device to a risk of bricking.

I would say "fanatic". Of course the word "fan" is derived from "fanatic", but perhaps the fact that "fan" is a shorter word implies less zeal than the longer word.

Visit some investor forums and search for TSLA sometime. They make Apple fans look tame :)

With that said, and it may be my own bias kicking in, Apple anti-fans seem way more passionate than fans. The anti-fan cannot understand why any rational person would ever use a product from Apple.

All of the above completely pales in comparison to the best example of adult fanaticism - political affiliation.

It's assumed that if you prefer Apple products, it must be because you're brainwashed or ignorant. The possibility that there are rational reasons for preferring Apple and its ecosystem is rejected with no consideration.

Only if social dynamics evaluate as a zero sum game. Which is the exception, not the rule.

Law making is really a modelling exercise. The proof of the validity of a model is measured via the success of it's implementation. The extent of that success is a function of the ability of an authority to enforce those rules.

At surface level, centralizing mass media into a handful of channels - whether it's public broadcasting or market dominance through a single private actor - seems like a boon for authoritarians when it comes to censorship. But what censorship really accomplishes is just stripping away the convenience with which undesirable information is spread. It doesn't necessarily strip the wholesale spread of information.

History is rife with examples. In the 20th century there were clandestine newspapers (French newspaper La Libération for example) and pamphlets, or listening in on the BBC via longwave. In modern times, there's sneakernets, streetnets (Cuba, even North Korea), datacasting,... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...)

When a big corporation doesn't play ball and seizes operating in a country, it only moves the needle in one direction, but never quite entirely to the end.

It's a common enough point of view. I disagree with it myself. There's plenty to discuss about just how evil it has to be before you can't live with it anymore. Those are interesting discussion. Binary discussions based on purity are usually pretty dull.

> Epic's attorneys acknowledged that the company breached its agreement with Apple but claimed Epic was simply refusing to comply with an anti-competitive contract, and that forcing a legal battle was part of Epic's plan.

You might disagree about whether it should've been part of their plan (evidently their lawyers disagree, and I have yet to see either your article or yourself mention an alternative approach), but either way, everything I've seen is consistent with their intention having been to force this into court than to covertly breach the contract.

The first argument is about standing. The second argument is about, apparently, an injunction to remain available during the course of the litigation. They're two separate issues.

I happily censor everything the government demands. Yet I do not get paid anything. Hence your logic is proven to be false. Specifically you have made a fallacy of omission.

Your perspective on what a sanction is indeed is too narrow to be very relevant. But you didn't answer, anyway. I guess you're against them as long as you can make the choice easy for yourself? But now stop dancing around and consider sanctions which restrict other forms of trade besides medical supplies.

AppleID (which you have stipulated) + timestamp (obvious) + client IP (necessary for a TCP/UDP connection) on inbound App Store requests is travel history, because client IP = city. It's quite simple.

Each time you open the App Store not on a VPN, Apple knows which city that Apple ID holder is in.

Additionally, the App Store sends the device serial number to Apple (per Apple's disclosures), so the device serial number is associated with your Apple ID.

The device maintains a persistent, serial-number-linked connection to Apple at all times (APNS) for receiving push notifications. This device-serial linked connection involves Apple seeing the client IP (and thus city) as well. Because Apple has linked the device serial with your Apple ID via the App Store, the persistent, 24/7 APNS connection allows Apple to track which client IP (and thus city) is in use by which AppleID, in real-time, whenever the device is on and connected.

I would appreciate it if you stop systematically responding negatively to so many of my comments. It feels like a pattern of harassment based on my identity to me, rather than you sincerely engaging with what I have to say.

I have not seen sneak be repeatedly pointed out that his statement is incorrect. That is a lie. He is completely correct, which is why he has never been corrected.

That's also why you're not getting a new phone from your carrier every two years like most Americans seems to do.

I can tell you that my almost impossible to resign contract from Vodafone got quickly sorted out with their help.

Don't many operators offer mobile phone contracts that are effectively a subsidy for the low up-front cost of the device[0] ?

"Apple iPhone 12 for £49.99 upfront cost" plus you pay the rest of the cost of the phone over the life of the contract.

[0] https://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/pay-monthly.html

The internet already provides a nearly free distribution medium for software application - so even paying a 5% markup to an unnecessary middleman is just outrageous. The app store only exists so that Apple (and others) can gauge even more money from developers, who ultimately pass on the cost to us customers.

First off, this is still simply false.

It may be technically possible that they are in fact reconstructing identifiable location history for individuals.

It’s also possible that they do what they say they are doing, which is to anonymize as early as possible and not use data for this purpose.

They could easily be keeping these logs separate, and disposing of them in a timely fashion, and not attempting to use them to analyze individual’s locations.

You are clearly technically competent enough to know that either scenario is possible (as well as many others).

Therefore you know it is not true to say that Apple is ‘recording you travel history’ in the absence of additional evidence.

> But even so, what are we supposed to do?

Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. Stop putting convenience above principles. Refuse to pay/subscribe/accept any terms that are clearly not in your best interest.

You don't need Big Government to do that. You don't even need to be part of a mobilized group. It's in your hands and every individual can choose for themselves. Let's take responsibility for our own actions and stop using the vices/failings of others to excuse ourselves to do the same.

If necessary yes. Your forefathers fought hard to earn you your democratic and associated rights that you have all taken for granted. And that's why its slow erosion has only now made you start to feel a bit uncomfortable. So yes, you too need to start asserting for your rights.

And no, to begin with you don't need to quit your job and take to the streets.

Start by writing letters to the political parties of your country. Start by making your local politicians aware that you feel the government isn't concerned about your rights as a consumer. Escalate and urge others in your network to do the same. And move on from there. Democracy is designed to slow down political changes because abrupt political changes also has a lot of chaos. Initially you will only have to spend maybe an hour or two a week to do the above. As more and more people support you, and you all work together, this may increase to 5-10 hours a week depending on how much you are willing to commit yourself. Once a political party latches on to your issue, it then becomes a lot easier - join it or offer issue-based support to them. (Yes, often it is all quite boring and just takes patience and dedication. That's democracy - it is often boring participating in it, but still worth it).

But you can be sure that if everyone puts all their eggs in Apple's (or more generally FAANG's) basket, their only interest is and will be their corporate profit, not your or content creators' rights.

You are to ask precicely this question and think up variations of it.

I was just pondering how easy we dedicate our lives to a thing in contrast with how unpopular dying for it is. It doesn't seem both can be right at the same time?

(See: Open Banking)

My feeling living in Germany is that consumer protection rights goes as far as the "right" for some bureaucrat to keep their job. It's a constant feeling they create the problem so that they can sell the solution and get people to be oh-so-thankful for it.

Sneak said that they were recording people’s travel history, which is a lie.

You haven’t provided any such proof. All you have done is equate logging ip addresses with recording people’s travel history, which is false.

It's more a bare minimum. If you're inclined to moan about how awful something is, but you're still paying $5/month for it, it kinda bounds how awful it must be in practice. If it's that bad, stop paying them, as a bare minimum, not as an exclusive remedy.

(Exceptions for monopolies like local internet or other situation where there are considerations strongly forcing you into a particular contract. Some exception for oligarchic situations where everyone has the bad terms... but only some. If it didn't even exist 20 years ago, you don't "need" it.)

Another lie. They are recording your location. You already agreed to that except last time, you said it was "anonymized." Then you said that it was recorded but not queried. Now you're saying they're not recording it at all? Keep your facts straight.

The worst part is that you're paying for this abuse from Apple and then justifying it to others. Nobody else is falling for it.

You work with the reality you live in, but you do strive for idealism. If you don't, you stagnate as the society rots.

The reality today is that in some democracies the balance of power has shifted from the people to the corporates. And that's unacceptable. Thinking that this is what's the best achievable in your democracy is just nihilistic and pessimistic attitude. Sitting silent is not an option. Regulation is one of the tools through which the government restores the balance between the corporates and the people. And it is possible to strike the right balance between the greed of the corporates and the need of the people.

The crux of the matter is that neither Amazon or Walmart or any other online or offline supermarket restricts anyone from buying a product directly from the producer / manufacture or from elsewhere.

Apple does precisely that with its app store on ios (and soon will on macOS too). By depriving us the freedom of buying from the developer (or others) directly, Apple not only violates our privacy but also raises the cost of an app for everyone (by unnecessarily charging the developer an annual recurring fee and by charging a commission on sale).

You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity.

You completely ignored my argument that is important to look at the scale and reach of the democratic institution you're dealing with. It's all good if you say that you are working for democracy. It is not okay of your idea of democracy is to have some federal bureaucrat responsible in making decisions that affect so many people at once and does not take into account the desires and peculiarities of the people in the local level. I don't want Federal Government being responsible for and the arbiter of matters that are in the realm of the city council, much like I don't want the city council to step into things that should be in the realm of my neighbors association. The scale of power and reach matters. Do you understand that?

It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning. History is filled with examples where centralization of power has always led to tyranny and abuse. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all...

So, before you start advocating for regulations that can affect so many people and have so many catastrophic unintended consequences, consider acting on the change on the smallest possible level: you. Once you do it and can honestly tell that the change was good, then you go a little bit higher in your circle and advocate for them to adopt the policies you did. Go bottom-up, not top-down. Not only is the most realistic way to affect change, it is the most ethical one.

Democracy is about balancing the needs of everyone, and that includes the corporate too. Regulatory bodies should have the necessary independence to hold regular discussions with the stakeholders (the executive, the corporates and the people) so that appropriate regulations can be drafted and more importantly fairly enforced.

It is in the nature of corporate to vie for power with the sovereign and thus in a democracy it is very much necessary to ensure that the corporate never gain gain an upper hand to do so. Regulations can definitely help with this. But ultimately it all about finding the right balance as hurting the corporates too is not the aim and in the best interest of a nation.