kelthuzad

6 ms·

1.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
We are not "helpless" and setting an arbitrary 2-year deadline is a distraction. The DOJ and EU are moving faster than they have in decades. You ask what we can do? We can enforce browser choice screens and allow alternative engin
2.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required. Then you should have been more specific, but tha
3.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
[flagged]
4.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
[flagged]
5.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds. It isn't factually and
6.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
It's interesting how the "Apple can do no wrong" shareholders and "I will hate on PWAs no matter what" types, curiously converge and keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been addressed ad nauseam, ev
7.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those? Says who? "Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store
8.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement
9.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes thei
10.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement) >Can you give an example? Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial... Of course Apple will uphold its us
11.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>This is the conspiratorial version. Everything that's inconvenient for your preferred narrative can just be dismissed as conspiratorial thinking, makes the world so much easier - doesnt it? I've compiled some of the evidences
12.
by kelthuzad 9mo ago
>Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows? No. Obviously. When a major Gatekeeper systematically holds it back to prevent it from challenging its taxation funnel, then it has no chance of competing and wil
13.
by kelthuzad 10mo ago
>Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple? What? You don't disagree with Apple anywhere in this thread; you are hellbent on defending their consumer hostile and anti-competitive busin
14.
by kelthuzad 10mo ago
What a strange non-sequitur. I did not say that "my principles" are being violated, but the principles of U.S. economists, judges and relevant authorities in the United States and their views as to what constitutes a fair market.
15.
by kelthuzad 10mo ago
[flagged]
16.
by kelthuzad 10mo ago
>Yes, i imagined this happening, my grandma imagined her bank account being empty, and the police imagined filing a report. People have vivid imaginations and still none of that is relevant to what constitutes an anti-competitive busines
17.
by kelthuzad 10mo ago
It's not "elitist", it's principled. The only question that matters is if a business practice is violating fair market principles and relevant laws or not. "What about my grandma" is not an argument and not rel
18.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
The RSF are anti-islam, even a cursory reading into their history would have educated any remotely astute reader on this. They don't let the facts get in the way of their propaganda though. Just judging by the frontpage of "europe
19.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
There is no false dilemma. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. "In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users
20.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
>If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational. "I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me
21.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
> Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial differenc
22.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference: "according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are
23.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
>Super confused. You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
24.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves. >I agree there should be personal ac
25.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
The fact that even a whiff of potential competition incentivized Apple to half their tax for specific cases shows that anti-trust regulation works and that it's the only thing that will ever force a gatekeeper to reconsider their ant
26.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
And that is exactly the problem that is being solved. It's not about "consumers screaming", but companies, consumers and governments realizing that anti-competitive behavior is harming everybody except the gatekeeper. The sol
27.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
That's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.
28.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
Apple isn't "paranoid about their battery life claims", they are paranoid about losing their taxation funnel. Everything else is contrived apologia in defense of their app distribution monopoly.
29.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
they do it on macs, they can do it on iphones. the only reason why they refuse to do so is profit maximization.
30.
by kelthuzad 11mo ago
why would installing apps void their warranties? installing apps on your mac doesn't void your mac's warranty either...

More ›