sinnoh

boy, that kind of "deep regulation" into UX design from a single arbitrary company should be illegal regardless.

people bought apple hardware and the operating system, not voted them the unilateral governing body on consumer choice in that platform. one should not be taken to imply the other.

the fact that I, a software developer by trade, can't install or run any code on an ios device without running something by apple first.

that's like tesla releasing a car saying if you are a lawyer who wants to drive it you have to pay them 100k a year plus 30% of what you earn, or are "free" to drive another car (even if theirs is the fastest/safest/best-for-price in the market.)

or, now, can obtain a "provisional" license to drive it that expires weekly, with the same option to pay yearly for an annual license - these are all artificial barriers. installing software has up till now always been as simple as owning the device you're running it on and running the appropriate commands, these artificual barriers introduced by apple ensure anyone wanting to do so has to check in to see if it's okay with them.

because people have had a longer amount of time to understand food. hang in there, my friend :)

they'll argue that they already have this while blissfully ignoring the fact that they've made its barrier to entry on their platform artificially high.

it has been "this will" and not "this does" for the better part of a decade, I think it's time for people to realize that theory and practice are two very different things and the first does not vindicate the second.

incorrect.

phone choices are inelastic. users do not drop phones and switch to a competing platform because they cannot install an app, it's the other way around. besides, with that logic you have no guarantee against ALL platforms becoming locked down (as they more or less have) to compete.

Seriously, I thought I had a handle on the worst apple's done and this surprised me.

no reason not to go after both. "Two wrongs" and all.

and phones have [some fraction] marketshare on overall devices people buy, what's your point?

the argument is markets within the ios ecosystem, of which there's effectively one, and how it affects developers' ability to build on that ecosystem.

you're comparing different markets. that's like saying Earth has 1/8th the marketshare on planets therefore nothing that happens here can be called monopolistic.

as long as apple gets their 100/dev/year + 30%, that is.

it theoretically would be fine to dev for apple, if they added proper progressive web app support (or gave users the tools to build this out themselves) but of course that would hurt their interests by introducing competing (even if inferior) software distribution methods to the native effectively walled garden monopoly they have now.

that's like saying it's impossible to have a monopoly in a country because you can just move countries.

when the store also controls the ordinance it lives in and makes shoppers approve several big red "THIS STORE IS UNSAFE" banners if they even think of shopping anywhere else, then yes, that store having a monopoly over its shelves is an issue.

no one is arguing it has a monopoly on mobile phones, the argument is and has always been that they have a monopoly on the ios software ecosystem they've built.

really the entire concept of a 'store' has been bastardized by these companies (another thing we can thank apple for) and is a misdirect.

the locked down software platforms wherein users can't install anything on their own devices without the owning company's say-so is the artificial monopoly. they're trying to get away with adding things like device management now to weasel out of it but in reality these are artificially high barriers to entry for any competing software distribution services or 'stores'.

when Amazon can barely even get a foothold in a competing ecosystem with its own 'app store' you know it's anticompetitive and it's working.

"their" platform. nominally you can install whatever you want using profiles, but effectively having to do so is an artificially high barrier to entry for competing app stores (not to mention you have to pay apple $100/year for the 'privilege' of installing whatever you want on your own device for a year. no way to do so permanently.)

the degree to which apple has singlemindedly anticompetitively abused their vertical integration frankly astonishes me. the breaking point for me was opening the music app on the at the time 'latest' ios to be presented with a full page ad for apple music.

utter garbage and I hope they get what's coming to them before they have a chance to worm out of it.

no one said you can only keep one copy of anything you own.

Did you read those links? He said to delete the data, not just the accounts.

Point one: Sure it is. Those offices you describe? Look at how many of them are focused on things that require creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. A functioning ADHD individual could be a good writer or ad exec, or any number of other high-paying jobs, based more on their talents or portfolio. Though as you say, likely with accommodations - but what industry doesn't have its share of those.

Point two: you made it a point to use the wrong word - A person with ADD sure as shooting can finish a book. Might they skim some boring sections, find later that it seems like they jumped around and missed something, use bookmarks often when bored, or reread sections to 'catch up' and remember what they've forgotten? Sure - but that doesn't preclude finishing a book if it's good.

Point three: from a brief skim I probably agree, plus I'm bored now ;)

I'll volunteer (will email later). I don't have an android phone but will happily pick one up if this ends up being something I can/should use (been meaning to switch anyways).

too