Jump to content

Brooksie359

Member
  • Posts

    13,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brooksie359

  1. Security concerns, privacy concerns, and ensuring uniform quality experience are the ones I can think of on the top of my head. Added of unnecessary complexity to the os. You might disagree but to say there is no argument is just not true.
  2. Yes it is. If a company provides a product that people like and one of those aspects is something people like but the EU is trying to make it illegal it seems like a big problem especially since Apple hasn't demonstrated that they are using their position to overcharge app developers. I mean take my example of a phone that disallows social media on it for people who have issues with social media this would technically be gatekeeping but the gatekeeping is something consumers want and arguably should be allowed. I mean it isn't like there wouldn't be phones that could have social media and forcing the company to allow social media on the phone would be bad and decrease consumer choices overall. I think your contention is that Apple violates EU policy so that somehow means there is no argument against it but my point is that the EU policy is stupid imo and entirely unnecessary. If people care about more choices in app stores then they can buy android instead of forcing apple to change to be more like android and away from their original design philosophy.
  3. I am not sure what mental gymnastics logic that is. Did you not read what I wrote? They had a design philosophy of having a uniform locked down experience from the start and everything they have done reflects that and it is part of what made the successful. A selling point is something a company does that makes them standout and provide something consumers want. It has little to do with advertising. They have a reason why they designed their products the way they did and is part of their selling point and like I said these practices were in place before they had the market share high enough to make it "anticompetitive" in the EUs eye. This clearly demonstrates that they did it for other reasons and if they did want to use it for anticompetitive tactics they would ask for more than the industry standard rate.
  4. The hyperx cloud II actually is decent for other things like music and other stuff. Not as good as audiophile headphones but I would hardly say they have bad sound quality like I have had with other gaming headsets. Also I think it was harder to make out stuff in the HD600 due 0 noise isolation and me not having a quiet ambient noise maybe it would have worked better if I was in a completely quite room but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.
  5. Yeah that isn't a sound counter argument. It would be dumb to assume that Apple or any company would need to advertise practices just because some people don't like them. Also you are ascribing intent of them locking down their OS to purposefully trying to be anticompetitive and leverage their market position. The glaring issue with that assertion is that Apple has had a design philosophy of having a uniform locked down experience for various reason even before they had a significant market share to even leverage. They have also stated the reasons for that design philosophy and some people like that philosophy and buy Apple products because of it. Also asking for 30% cut is pretty typical in the industry so I would hardly say that is extortion and it is disingenuous to say they are making use of their position to overcharge when using that industry standard rate. If Apple was asking for 40% or more then I could understand people complaining that Apple is using their control of their os to extort app developers.
  6. I have tried quite a few pair of headphones and the best ones I have found for hearing footsteps and where people are coming from is the hyperx cloud II. Does better than my mx50 or HD600 which are great for music but not as good for gaming focused sounds.
  7. Ok let me give you a situation. Let's say that a phone company comes out with a phone that disallows social media on it and it's main selling point is that it is a phone for people who struggle with social media addiction. Now let's say said phone company does super well because people like the fact that it put in hard measures to ensure they stay off of social media. Now let's say that the EU comes in and says hey you can't disallow social media on your phone because that is gatekeeping? See how that would be noticeably different then say an os that wasn't designed with being locked down in mind suddenly trying to lock things down now that they have a high market share and can get away with it?
  8. What are you even talking about? The point is that effectively android provides enough competition to make Apple's control over its own software not considered anticompetitive. If people wanted something so much that it took the vast majority of the marketshare would that be anticompetitive then? Individuals still get to choose what they want and by in large people choose Apple in alot of cases and now that makes apples practices anticompetitive because they have a large market share? That seems dumb to me.
  9. I disagree. People are entitled to choose Android if they want those apps that aren't on IOS. If Apple doesn't allow apps on IOS that consumers care about then they can switch to Android and effectively incentivize Apple to allow that app or lose market share.
  10. Apple has always designed and targeted a uniform wall garden experience and has actually used that as part of their selling point. Android and Windows never put value on such things or designed their operating systems with that in mind. Them limiting stuff wouldn't serve the same purpose as apple because of how the rest of the operating system works.
  11. Talk about missing the point? Do you know anything about school uniforms and why schools typically choose to use them? Because if you did then you would know that if you allowed people to not wear them if they wanted then it would defeat the main purpose of school uniforms which is precisely my point. Allowing people to wear other stuff than the uniform is essentially the same as not allowing uniforms. This is the same concept that I was trying to get across. Once you allow third party apps you have added unneeded complexity and reduced uniformity of the apple experience which some people value. So basically the same situation as the uniforms.
  12. You clearly missed the point. If you make it illegal for a school to have uniforms you also limit choice in one sense to allow more choice in another. It is the same concept here.
  13. Oh diplayport 1.4 normally supports 4k 120hz without any workarounds. I think the workaround that the gpu needs to do so it can make 4k 240hz must have some limitations how many monitors it can do at once. Granted I am not sure why you would need multiple monitors to go at 4k 240hz since most people only use one monitor for gaming. Also I would have thought that if the max it could do was 2 monitors at 4k 240hz that if you have 3 monitors you would be able to do 2 at 240hz and the last one at 120hz just fine but I guess I am not sure how the limitation works so maybe that isn't possible.
  14. I think the point I am trying to make is that if displayport can support 4k 240hz then that means if you have 3 displayport connections on your card then they should be able to all run at 4k 240hz. You are dividing the amount of information one displayport can transfer by 3 or 4 for no reason. Sure if it was all running from one displayport connection then you would divide but 3 separate displayports mean you have 3 separate connections that support 4k 240hz.
  15. I am super confused. You are not running these from the same displayport connections so why are you treating it like they share bandwidth?
  16. Forcing apple to change the way they design their os isn't more choices it is just using the EU to make IOS more similar to Android. Even if I grant you that it is more choices that doesn't mean it is good. Choices means you have to make decisions and sometimes not having to make decisions is nice for alot of people and there are even studies that say if you do have to make decisions that too many choices makes people less confident and/or happy about their decisions. So more choices doesn't even mean it is better.
  17. I would argue the opposite. Your average apple user likely doesn't care or would prefer to not have 3rd party app stores on their phone and it is only a small minority that wants this so you are basically forcing a change in the intended apple experience for the satisfaction of the few who care.
  18. You completely missed the point. The people I am talking about don't need to be told but want to be told which is sorta the point. They prefer the streamline experience that Apple products have and the extra app store adds complexity for obvious reasons. You might think it wouldn't be confusing but to some it would.
  19. I would imagine most will still use the app store but I also think some might get confused by the option. I have family members who got confused by android due to different options including stuff like alternative app stores. I guess if Apple makes it super hard to get to the option so only those who really want it will see it then it might not be adding confusion and complexity.
  20. The option of other app stores adds complexity and makes it no longer the same walled garden. Granted hopefully apple makes sure people can't install their party app stores that are insecure.
  21. I wouldn't consider this more choice necessarily. I mean part of the appeal of Apple was its simplicity and its walled garden and now that is not longer an option with this change.
  22. I am a bit surprised that they lowered their rates as even if they do have competition I expect it would have a significant effect on their business as most people will still decide to use the apple store. I mean doesn't Google still take something similar to what Apple use to take even though there are plenty of alternative android app stores?
  23. For me I own the mx50 and HD600 mostly because I wanted on open back and one closed back and those two were highly recommended. Both are great for music but I still prefer the hyper x for gaming. Just plain easier to hear where people are coming from in hyper x. Also it isn't like the mx50 and HD600 blow it out of the water in terms of sound in games as I don't notice much of a difference compared to the difference when listening to music. Also the hyper x is actually pretty decent even when listening to music considering its price and that it is a gaming headset. Not audiophile level but world's better than some of the other gaming headphones I have owned which are horrible for similar price.
  24. Yeah gpu would be a significant uplift in some of those games.
  25. Yeah I am not sure what you are talking about. I have tried using audiophile headphones for games and they are just worse in terms of being able to hear direction in my experience. It's why I switched back to using the hyperx for gaming and mainly use the other headphones for music.
×