That 800% cpu is spotlight searching everything in its index for '1+2', just like it is supposed to.

If your index is large, it spins up all cores, because it's parallelized in recent versions.

You know, doing what it's supposed to do.

The option to use spotlight as a calculator is part of its feature set. And the fact that it still does recognize (after a lot of cpu usage) that I wanted to make a calculation does indicate that the calculator functionality is still there. It just seems to be triggering some huge operation that requires even more cpu usage than a normal spotlight search.

Interestingly, many large companies use services for this kind of thing, much like Apples walled garden, where their employees can spend without worrying about tracking all these details, and the service takes care of all the (significant) legal wrangling and deal negotiation to make this simple.

That's essentially what Apple does for their money: makes it possible for users to buy things across a host of jurisdictions from an ecosystem of vendors, without risking their device security or payment security. There is a significant amount of legal and infrastructural wrangling involved, most of which the end customer, and many of the vendors don't fully understand.

But yeah, let us focus on the least important part: price.

This kind of thing didn't exist before because it was impossible to make people follow the rules, and it's pretty costly to maintain, given that Apple has to vet all the software, host all the content, and do that across hundreds of jurisdictions with various local rules.

Before Apple there was no way any of this could happen, Google followed suit only because it looked so profitable, and they could afford to bite the losses for as long as it took to prop up their smartphone.

So, yeah, it would shake the industry to the core, just not the way most of the people begging for it think it would.

So, getting to the crux of the disagreement -- the way you've stated it, fair enough. What about when the farmer is actually the owner and landlord of just over half the homes in the US? Assuming enthusiastic consent from the daughter to [play Fortnite], it's not so reasonable to require her to "just move into a property your dad doesn't own", especially if the 50% he owns make up the nicer half.

There's a bunch of other places you can take this analogy. I like Epic as a pickup artist here -- in it for their enjoyment, not any caring for the daughter. And some users (daughters?) have chosen to live on Dad's property precisely because he gets to keep the less savory types away, even if it means they have a more limited choice of partners.

At the end of the day, I'm personally against the farmer-baron (thus, temporarily and uneasily allied with the pickup artist). It's the daughter's body, and I believe she should be able to make her own choices. Partiarchy is one solution to unsavory suitors, but I don't think it's the best one.

You're just going to ignore contract law because lots of people wanted the thing, but not to do what they agreed?

Otherwise for instance you could have a dominant employer in your town (eg. A factory town) write into your employment contract that you can only buy household groceries from their own supermarket etc. These kinds of things actually happened at one point in history before the anti-trust regulations.

A lot obviously depends on definition of the "markets" which is what anti-trust cases in practice largely revolve around.

Where is the monopoly here?

The service Apple has, is appealing to customers because they're aggressively protecting what is important to them, and using their fees to ensure they've got the resources to actually vet software, prevent abuses of customers, and make payment seamless.

If you don't like that, you're free to find software in many other forms.

But you don't want that, you want to have someone provide you all that, but without having to you know, pay for it.

Which is why the internet is an ad supported shit hole, and this is one place that is actually pretty great for customer experience.

This very easily can and will be be argued as using dominance in one market (distribution of apps) to extract value out othet (in-app services, books, gaming, movies, sheet music...). There's easily demonstrable consumer harm because buying the exactly same sheet music on a iPad is a few dollars more expensive than buying it on the same app on web and using it in the iPad.

Of course Apple can and probably will make the argument of "movie theater concession stand" (ie. your "in our garden" comment) and will probably make the "safety and security" argument just like concession stand owners will.

However, that analogy is very weak legally i think because iPhones are not really Apple's property (unlike concession stands on theatre property) since they're clearly sold as hardware and is off their books (EULAs not-withstanding - they're not enforceable).

So I think what will happen is Apple will lose this case and will be forced to stop preventing advertising and offering of alternative payment mechanisms by Apps - maybe with some terms and conditions for safety certification by neutral third parties.

I don't really think the remedies will stretch beyond that - but payments is what this fight is about.

Yay freedom.

I'd ask for you to post a reply comment that isn't snarky, per the guidelines. I cannot have much of a productive conversation with your comment as it is.

It's not a black and white freedom vs authoritarianism, it turns out that society works a lot better when people aren't needlessly contrary about things they don't understand.

Which is why the American morons can't imagine that Chinas numbers are real, because they can't imagine the Chinese people aren't festering shitbags shouting "FEREEEDOMZ" at every opportunity.

Chinas numbers, and numbers in many other places show the AWESOME POWER OF DOING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS A GROUP.

There is one freedom that is sorely lacking in America, it's the freedom to act as a whole for the good of your countrymen. You literally can't do it. It's illegal in half the country, and you risk being shot in an altercation with an armed moron if you're conspicuously not being a festering cunt.

Why don't you fight for that freedom?

Your first line is bristling with defense, you're not going to believe anything else even if the truth was laid out in front of you.

Sort of illustrates the futility of giving the police keys to access communications, when the number of times they pull this off without a leak is near zero.

And those accelerators don't need to be discrete, Apple can add them to their CPUs.

So, it looks like your point is: Sure, Apple is going to jump a couple process nodes from where Intel is, but everything is somehow going to remain the same?

If these people were really "just bad apples", this wouldn't be a problem anymore, as there have been literal decades to solve this.

See how that's different from a group defined by things you cannot control, like skin color?

I can't blame one person of a certain hue for the actions of a person of that same hue, because they don't share anything in common other than the hue.

Whereas police departments are 100% accountable for the actions of their members.

Today you learned, huh?

You dont think communities of people have the ability to enforce or influence behavior of the people in their community? If you watched the video I posted, or knew anything about psychology, you'd know that to be plainly false.