zepto

Don’t use iOS then. That’s always a choice.

No, people are arguing this because they think the 15% represents good value compared to what you would have to do as an indie developer to support multiple stores and payment methods.

The problem is that people can easily be induced to install software that negates the benefit of Apple’s hardware. Apple can’t deliver their hardware benefits without also controlling the operating system.

It’s as simple as that.

How many security flaws are there, and when do you anticipate that they will all be eliminated?

If you can’t answer these questions, then you can’t make any claim about it being close to perfect.

People prefer a phone with a store curated by Apple.

> like you said, there's always going to be security issues and using them as the scapegoat for "why" this can't happen is a bad argument.

No it isn’t. If you agree that there are always going to be security issues, then there is no reason why customers shouldn’t be able to choose a product where human moderation is used to mitigate them.

You haven’t made any case as to why customers should be denied this option.

The world we live in is one where nobody is forced to buy an Apple product. If you don’t like what Apple does, don’t buy their products.

So what? There are plenty of other options if you want to develop software for you own use.

Except that Apple doesn’t in fact do surveillance advertising itself, so that analogy is complete bullshit.

So you avoided the question.

Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security?

Are you suggesting that iOS provides perfect security? If you think that, I am not going to bother to do the googling for you.

No they aren’t. If you want F-Droid, buy an android phone. Apple can’t stop you.

What are you talking about?

You can always buy a developer account.

> If that can happen, then that is a security flaw of the device and should be fixed, no?

Yes. It should be fixed.

Guess what? Nobody has ever in human history figured out how to make software that is free of security flaws. That’s why these things are only part of the solution.

> I mean, reading a text could install a virus on iPhones last year, yet I didn't see people screaming that all texts should have to go through Apple to make sure they aren't a virus

If you think application software is like a text message then you don’t know enough to comment on this issue.

IBM Visual Age for smalltalk and Java worked like this.

Don’t you mean Facebook isn’t TikTok’s size yet, since Facebook is declining both in revenue and users.

We’re taking about a feature which requires companies to get consent before tracking users. That’s all. It applies to everyone, including Apple.

It only harms Facebook because their business only works if users are deceived into being tracked when they don’t want to be.

If users wanted to be tracked, they would opt-in.

That isn’t about Apple destroying anyone. It’s about Facebook building a business on a deceptive practice.

Ok, so you deny that Facebook contributes to any problems. Understood.

Can you explain why your account was created in 2014 but was only activated 9 months ago to begin defending Facebook?

> Google's main business is surveillance advertising, and they pay Apple for the privilege of surveilling their users and returning them advertising.

Not true. Google is accessed via a web browser or via their own app. Google doesn’t have to pay to access Apple’s users. They pay for Apple to make them the default search engine in Safari. In this way, Google is paying apple to advertise their service, but Apple isn’t doing any surveillance.

> I am sorry but I do not know what else to call it other than surveillance advertising.

Yes, Google’s business is surveillance advertising. To claim that Apple has a surveillance advertising business because they receive payments from Google, is no different from claiming that the company that supplies toilet paper to the Googleplex ‘has a surveillance advertising business.’

> I have plenty of other resources of information about this

If you had a resource that shows that Apple was doing surveillance advertising, you would have presented it by now. You obviously don’t.

If you want F-Droid, Apple isn’t stopping you.

Hardly greatness without which the innovation of an entire industry is being suppressed.

You can’t seriously be claiming that a FetLife app vs the fetlife website is major innovation.

So what? It’s clearly not enough on its own.

1. You clearly have no evidence that Apple is doing any surveillance advertising, otherwise you’d present it. Claiming they do is therefore a lie.

2. Just because Google pays someone money doesn’t mean they have a surveillance advertising business. Google buys chairs, computers, food etc. That doesn’t mean these suppliers have surveillance advertising businesses.

Face it. It’s just a falsehood.

How will this ‘curated store’ be profitable?

Sure, but that’s a matter of competition. Google and Samsung both have the resources to compete with Apple in those areas.

Perhaps you can name one such great idea.

And they can. Nothing prevents that. If you think it does, you’ve been lied to.

You seem to be engaging in magical thinking by imagining that a sandbox can prevent all malware.

No serious security researcher would support this claim.