Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
In article <email@example.com>, Mayayana<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | Then explain why apps purchased through the Apple store, disappear from
> | my iPhone with a quick message that they are not longer sold by Apple. I
> | should have a choice, not to upgrade, if it's an app I want to use.
> It is true,
it's not true.
> but I'm not sure it has anything to do with
> Apple dropping apps:
they aren't dropping apps.
that's a rumour and one which you don't even understand what's involved
because you know so very little about apple, macs and ios.
mark used to have good sources, but most of them have dried up.
> Apple does remove apps
apple may sometimes remove apps from the app store, but they do *not*
remove apps from the device.
however, both apple and google do have a kill switch in the event of
something major, such as *very* malicious malware, but so far in the
nearly 10 year history of apple's app store, it's never been used, even
for apps that get pulled from the store.
on the other hand, google *has* removed apps from user's devices.
as usual, your hatred is directed at the wrong company.
> that they deem to be more
> sleazy than they are, or otherwise unsuitable.
you just can't stop yourself from bashing, can you?
> It could
> be the app you used was stealing personal info or
> some such. Though it does seem that Apple shouldn't
> have any right to remove an app you paid for without
> your permission.
> The story I was refering to is about the desperate
> attempt to make services work on desktops and
> laptops. Microsoft made a big push to create a single
> UI with a single type of app. They marketed that widely
> with Win10.
actually it was win8 and failed, which is why win10 took a step back
from that plan, but why let facts get in the way.
> Your whole life would be Metro. But with
> nothing left aside from Windows computers and XBox,
> Metro makes little sense. It's an app system for phones,
> not a software system for computers.
no it isn't, nor has it been called metro for years.
> Now Apple (as described at the link) is facing the
> same problem.
no they aren't.
> In their case they're successful with apps
> for iPhone and iPad, but those apps don't sell on Macs.
iphone and ipad apps don't run on macs at all, so therefore they
*can't* sell on macs. it also makes zero sense, for reasons well beyond
on the other hand, mac apps run on macs (crazy, but it's true!) and do
sell, some exceptionally well.
> So they're trying to succeed where MS failed: Make it
> so that an app for iPhone *is* an app for Mac. Write it
> once, sell it anywhere. Thus they won't have to convince
> iPhone developers to make 2 versions. All iPhone apps will
> automatically be Mac apps.
nonsense, nor is that even possible.
do you really think users are going to lift their imac off the table to
tilt and shake it to play the same games they're playing on their
iphone or ipad?
> And presumably Mac will
> head toward being a sandboxed trinket app host, just
> as MS is doing with Win10.
nope on that too.
> Now they just have to
> convince Mac desktop users to buy flashlight and
> restaurant rating apps. It might be a little awkward
> trying to look in the fusebox with a flashlight app
> shining from an iMac screen and dragging a cord behind.
that's why they make 100 foot extension cords.