XenosTech

I do not believe that is a valid justification and it sounds to me like you're deliberately trying to come up with excuses for why Apple should be in control of what people are allowed to do with the devices they have bought.
You will never be able to fully get rid of people calling the wrong support number, or misattributing issues. Never.
 
Besides, you're again under the massive assumption that the average Joe will actually enable app sideloading, despite there being 0 evidence that it is common on the platforms which does allow for it. Prove that side loading is common on Android before you start making arguments as if it is.
 
And once you have proven that, it would be interesting to see some statistics from for example Samsung's support to see how many of the issues people call them about which can be attributed to sideloaded programs. My guess is that it's close to 0%, but judging by your arguments it seems like you believe it is a quite significant amount.
 
 
 
Do you believe that your ISP should be in total control over which websites you are and aren't allowed to visit?
If Verizon deems that Netflix is not up to the standard for what Verizon wants to deliver, should they have the moral and legal right to block their customers from accessing Netflix?

It depends on how it's implemented. Apple could make the default settings to just act exactly like it does now, but with an optional setting to allow sideloading, just like on Android.
 
On Android the way it works is that a user has to explicitly go into the security settings in the OS, choose to allow "apps from unknown sources" to be installed and from where (for example a browser or a third party app store), accept a popup warning, and then try to install the program.
If the average user clicks a shady link and they see a bunch of warning messages popup they usually don't click "allow", and then afterwards click "install".

I don't agree. Believe me, as someone who has worked first line IT support, the average user is deadly afraid of doing anything other than clicking on the things they are very used to. Things like "clicking the blue E which opens the Internet". People don't go into settings and change things they don't understand, much less something which displays a warning.
 
Firefox used to be pretty popular some years ago. How many average Joes do you think went into about:config and changed a bunch of settings there? You can completely wrench your browser if you change even a single thing in there, and yet people didn't do it.
In Windows it takes less than 10 mouse clicks to join the insider program which causes your computer to automatically download very early and unstable builds of Windows. How many average Joes do you think have done that?
 
 
People seriously need to stop assuming that the average Joe is a moron who just randomly goes into settings and changes things. They don't. The average user is actually very careful with what they do, because they are afraid to break things.

I'm going to have to go with @LAwLz on this. You're essentially saying that people should be happy if Microsoft only let you install things from the windows store, for exactly the same reasons you said, it's a locked down store with only approved apps and gets updated constantly with exploits constantly being fixed because anywhere else means you're  at a greater risk of malware. Yet there would be people exploding in their seats if this happened.
 
Apple doesn't get a free pass because they are Apple. 

But you literally can have both, and it would be better for everyone, devs wouldn't be forced to pay 30% to Apple and users would be able to get apps cheaper if they want to. I don't see how being able to sideload an app would affect security, most people are going to stick to the app store anyway.

In all those cases My stance is the same, that should not be the case, and I only have one caveat that would allow it, if the device was free (or heavily subsidized) and the trade of is using specific software/products to pay for it.  If neither of those are the case, then locking a device to any software/network/app is wrong.
 
Phones don't breakdown in the middle of the highway endangering life and giving the manufacturer a bad name in the process.  Car analogies almost never work.
 
Why does your relatives inability to stick with the app store mean all other users should have no other options?
 
Because it is no different to desktop computers.  The mobile phone is a computer.    There is no line that separates them.   When I buy a phone it is my phone to use as I want (NOT APPLES), therefore I should be able to run any app that I am legally allowed to use.  But at the moment apple are deciding who can supply me those apps. There is no ability for a company to sell me an app 30% cheaper of their website because in order to sell it it has to go through the app store.
 
People aren't even asking for the app store to become free or charge less, they just want the ability to side load or use an alternative store.    Neither google nor apple have the right to demand a percentage of software sales,  they have a right to charge that if people want to use the app store for their distribution, but not demand it and block all  other methods of sale.
 
 
 
 

I don't see how allowing third party app stores would introduce any meaningful threat to security.
If you want exactly the same amount of security as you do today, then stick to the official Apple app store. That won't change. I am pretty sure 99% of people won't even touch third party stores, because most don't on Android.
The issues that exist on Android won't happen with iOS.
The issues being:
1) Mostly Chinese manufacturers loading their own app store onto phones they produce. This will not happen since Apple is the only one making iPhones.
2) Apps has much wider permissions to do things on Android, which they don't have on iOS.
3) Security updates are on most Android phones very slow to roll out, if at all. This is not a problem on IOS.
 
 
You can not compare iOS to Android. You just can't. They are way too different in those 3 different ways explained above.
 
Again, I genuinely do not see allowing side loading of apps as a threat. I just don't. Most people will not go into the settings and turn on something if a warning popup. They just won't.
The ones who do accept the risks and hopefully know what they are doing.
Even if something malicious gets installed on a phone, it is very limited in what it can actually do.

MS did them no favors by locking WP down as hard as iOS. Both Android and the previous most popular phone OS (Symbian) both allowed app sideloading and third party stores (though with Symbian and early Android the phones were a bit too limited to truly take advantage of that). Apple can pull the lockdown thing off exclusively because they've been in the smartphone market since the beginning and have a powerful brand which attracts developers. And also because with their huge margins having 10% of the market is enough.
 
As for whether or not you can say that the Play Store competes with the App Store, the answer is no. A phone is hardware, in theory there's no reason for it to be directly tied to specific software. Using one product you sell (a phone) to push another product or service you sell with an unfair advantage over the competition is against antitrust law. Microsoft was sued (and lost) over this back when Internet Explorer was firmly tied to Windows' functionality and had a massive unfair advantage over the competition - they were using Windows to push IE and the courts rightfully ruled that it couldn't be allowed. iOS itself can maybe be considered firmware (and therefore part of the device itself) but the App Store definitely cannot.

Absolutely not true. Competition is when two or more people/companies are competing with each other. Would you say the horse and buggy companies didn't compete with car companies in the early 20th century since their products were so different?
 
You absolutely can because people make the choice between amazon/google store vs app store when buying a phone. The number one reason why no one bought windows phones was because lack of apps. If Apple's store had no apps, iphones wouldn't sell.

Imagine if you could only install software from the UWP store
 
wait

Cause Raja turned to the dark side.
 
He was the chosen one, he was supposed to destroy the sith, not join them, bring balance to the GPU wars...

it does mean we now have a douchebag figurehead at Intel to hate like people dislike Jensen Huang at Nvidia.
 
Raja will probably do amazing things, but you cant escape the perception of being a douche. 

yea, intel is great at roasting.
 
their 95 watt products give out 150 watts of heat. thats a 150% efficiency. damn thats good. 
 
/s

My crystal ball is better anyway, it has RGB.

It's neither high end either. From a gamers perspective the x50/x50Ti cards were low end, x60 and x70 mid range and x80/x80Ti were high end. For the x80 Ti a lot of the time the performance uplift was enough to put it in it's own performance class but that's the general shake down of things from a gaming perspective. Cards below x50 just can't really game, Geforce 10 series did vastly improve those ultra low end cards though and Geforce 16 & 20 series appears to be contining that trend.
 
For the low end cards it makes no difference that the Tensor cores and RT cores are not present, a card of the scale factor would not be able to do that task. They are still Turing CUDA architecture. I don't see many people wanting RTX at 480p.
 
What's happened recently is the prices have increased to a point where people are starting to question the traditional product segmentation and are now trying to categorize products based on price, I don't agree or not agree with this it's just what's happening. Nvidia I get the feeling has started to notice this along with the realization that fewer people than which they expect or wish can afford these now higher prices which is why I think the 16 series exists, this puts all the traditional product performance categorization in to a bit of chaos because we now have two current generation x60 products. I don't even think Nvidia really wanted the 16 series to exist either, not based on their technology strategy anyway.

Wonder if they'll keep the radeon VII cooler for all models, that actually looks really nice.

Wonder if they'll keep the radeon VII cooler for all models, that actually looks really nice.

Wonder if they'll keep the radeon VII cooler for all models, that actually looks really nice.

Take a nap and come back tomorrow lol

Anyone else read "AdvIntel" and think to themselves Intel and AMD are playing a tennis match, or is my brain just broken?
 
I wonder if this means anything for consumers using these companies for their antivirus, or if it's just internal company code/access. 

nobody is arguing price to performance having a factor
we been stating many times over best flagship/halo products also sells the rest of lineup also even if they are worst then the competitor, its literally free marketing espeically for bandwagoners and they are everywhere
consumers arent the brightest you should know this because we all have our areas in products we buy where we are clueless

You don't have to be the BEST, but you have to be competitive with the best. That's why Zen has been such a success -- in some cases it's the best, while in others it's practically the same but significantly cheaper. Halo products still sell the stack and Zen is effectively a Halo product as it's so close to Intel while being much cheaper.
 
AMD Radeon has literally nothing even remotely close to a 2080ti.

It’s funny when AMD fanboys use the “they’re not aiming for the high end market” argument. Explain the Fury X, explain Vega 64 and explain Radeon VII if they really weren’t; and they’d REALLY have to explain HBM’s existence and the push they did for marketing all of those cards as the 2160p cards to get.
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to put effort into the lower-end market: the peformance that the 2500U offered for how cheap you could get into it was why I bought my damn laptop, but the high end matters, and for some reason, fanboys do not want to admit that.
Again, I’m someone who’s ONLY owned AMD (yes I prefer them for my shit, but that’s irrelevant to the truth) and I can tell you that they don’t put enough effort into making the high end appealing to the consumer and making the lower end sell because of it.

I blame noobmaster69, he's so toxic.

Not exactly. AMD is competitive in all brackets and while Intel has the single threaded lead, AMD has the multithreaded lead.
 
Unicorns don't sell products; stallions do. Having the best that is practically nonexistent in the market doesn't get buyers on board. A halo product needs to not only be the best, but it needs to actually have a presence in the market (and thus in the minds of buyers at all levels).