NYT: Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors? [aka There Used to Be An App For That]

[Arlen G. Holder]

NYT: Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors?
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/opinion/apple-app-store-iphone.html>

Parenting-App Developers claim Apple is punishing them for competing with
Apple apps. Apple claims parenting apps had too much power & functionality.

Specifically, the parenting apps knew too much about what the kids were
doing, and hence could control too much of what they could do.

o Apple vs. iPhone parenting apps: Here's what's going on in the privacy battle
<https://www.cnet.com/how-to/apple-vs-iphone-parenting-apps-heres-whats-going-on-in-the-privacy-battle/>

Shocker of all shockers, the Apple apps are far less functional, and,
shocker of all shockers, app developers claim Apple isn't being upfront on
their actual reasons.

*Apple claims the apps need to be less functional for privacy reasons.*

WHAT IS MDM?
o MDM lets employees use their own devices in the workplace by giving a
company tools to manage and secure employee-owned devices to protect
corporate information.

What are parental-control apps?
o parents can manage access to apps and games, filter websites, block
inappropriate content, set time limits for device usage, track a phone's
location, set up geo-fences and monitor phone-call activity and
social-media posts.

What's the difference?
o The capabilities of parental controls and MDM do overlap, but the goals
are different: To keeps kids out of trouble and to protect corporate data.

In short, the Apple app, shocker of all shockers, is far less functional
than the top-rated third-party app, for example, named "OurPact".

Here's a detailed statement from the makers of the functional app:
o There Used to Be An App For That
o Apple Removed OurPact From the App Store. Here¢s What You Need to Know.
<https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>

Bearing in mind that Apple has _never_ even once made a best-in-class
non-walled-garden iOS app, what do you think about this fact that Apple
banned the far more functional apps, apparently in favor of a decidedly
less functional iOS app (by all accounts, mind you) of their own?

[Alan Baker]

Have you figured out what an "assertion" is yet?

>
> Here's a detailed statement from the makers of the functional app:
> o There Used to Be An App For That
> o Apple Removed OurPact From the App Store. Here¢s What You Need to Know.
> <https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>

And those makers... ...can you think of any reason they might be biased
in what they say?

>
> Bearing in mind that Apple has _never_ even once made a best-in-class
> non-walled-garden iOS app,

Assertion, not fact.

> what do you think about this fact that Apple
> banned the far more functional apps,

Assertion, not fact.

> apparently in favor of a decidedly
> less functional iOS app (by all accounts, mind you) of their own?

Assertion, not fact.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:09:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

>> o There Used to Be An App For That
>> o Apple Removed OurPact From the App Store. Here¢s What You Need to Know.
>> <https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>
>
> And those makers... ...can you think of any reason they might be biased
> in what they say?

Hi Alan Baker,

You appear to be making the classic Apple Apologists' mistake of instantly
and brazenly assuming, sans a shred of fact or any research on your own,
that the people who wrote the truth are lying, do you not?

HINT: Think about your Dunning-Kruger tendencies when you respond please.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-05-03 4:27 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019 15:09:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>>> o There Used to Be An App For That
>>> o Apple Removed OurPact From the App Store. Here¢s What You Need to Know.
>>> <https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>
>>
>> And those makers... ...can you think of any reason they might be biased
>> in what they say?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> You appear to be making the classic Apple Apologists' mistake of instantly
> and brazenly assuming, sans a shred of fact or any research on your own,
> that the people who wrote the truth are lying, do you not?

You appear to be making your classic mistake of believing that something
is truth merely because you assert it.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Fri, 3 May 2019 17:13:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> You appear to be making your classic mistake of believing that something
> is truth merely because you assert it.

Hi Alan Baker,

Did you even _read_ the cites before brazenly denying their factual veracity?

--
HINT: Your actions are proof of the mind of the typical Apple Apologist.

[Wolffan]

On 03 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote
(in article <qahp16$dvn$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> NYT: Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors?
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/opinion/apple-app-store-iphone.html>
>
> Parenting-App Developers claim Apple is punishing them for competing with
> Apple apps. Apple claims parenting apps had too much power & functionality.
>
> Specifically, the parenting apps knew too much about what the kids were
> doing, and hence could control too much of what they could do.
>
> o Apple vs. iPhone parenting apps: Here's what's going on in the privacy
> battle
> <https://www.cnet.com/how-to/apple-vs-iphone-parenting-apps-heres-whats-going-
> on-in-the-privacy-battle/>

There were 17 parenting apps in the App Store. Apple saw that some of them
used MDM-like features, without saying what they were doing, both of which
are no-nos. Apple told the devs to stop doing that. Six of the devs either
weren’t using MDM-like features or updated their apps to remove the
features. Apple kicked the other 11 out... NOT for being competition, the
fact that six stayed proves that, but because they tried to use features
which would give 3rd parties command and control over software _specifically
intended_ for use of _children’s_ devices. They wanted to _SPY ON
CHILDREN_. They shouldn’t have been kicked out of the App Store, they
should be explaining to the FBI why they wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 04 May 2019 12:56:17 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> There were 17 parenting apps in the App Store. Apple saw that some of them
> used MDM-like features, without saying what they were doing, both of which
> are no-nos. Apple told the devs to stop doing that. Six of the devs either

> weren┤ using MDM-like features or updated their apps to remove the

> features. Apple kicked the other 11 out... NOT for being competition, the
> fact that six stayed proves that, but because they tried to use features
> which would give 3rd parties command and control over software _specifically

> intended_ for use of _children┬_ devices. They wanted to _SPY ON
> CHILDREN_. They shouldn┤ have been kicked out of the App Store, they

> should be explaining to the FBI why they wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN.

Hi Wolffan,
Thanks for that summary, which appears to be based on the response by Apple
to the NYT expose, where your summary appears to be a reasonable summary
from Apple's standpoint.

Hence, I will only summarize, in turn, what major app maker said in
response to Apple's response to the NY Times expose on the subject:
<https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>

1. Apple says MDM puts users privacy & security at risk
2. In doing so, Apple's response to the NYT expose is "misleading"
3. Without MDM, by all accounts, iOS lacks the desired functionality
4. MDM is a documented public API "initially" intended for corporations
5. Apple has subsequently "extended" MDM for use in schools
6. Apple's statements are misleading because Apple always controls the data
7. It's on Apple servers that all MDM commands are sent to user devices
8. In fact, "Apple is the only one who has access to" the data
9. Hence, Apple's own documentation contradicts Apple's claims about MDM

In fact, the record clearly shows that Apple uses MDM to "protect" children
in classrooms every day, which, as usual for Apple, indicates that
something is very wrong with Apple's basic logic that MDM is a privacy risk
only when Apple isn't the one making the money off of it.

Any adult conversation has to take into account Apple's own words, which,
clearly, make no sense in terms of logical compatibility.

Either MDM is a risk, or it's not.
o For Apple to claim it's a risk only when they want to,
o And then claim that it's not, is duplicitous, at best.

At best, it's contradictory, at worst, it's a brazen lie.
o The question is which way do you lean when it comes to the facts?

Since Apple has clearly issued obviously contradictory practices,
o It remains to be seen which of the "two truths" Apple espouses...
Is the actual truth.

When Apple is selling use of MDM for children, it's safe...
o But when others are doing EXACTLY the same thing, it's not safe.

Hmmmmmm....

[Wolffan]

On 04 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote
(in article <qaklgu$7ho$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sat, 04 May 2019 12:56:17 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > There were 17 parenting apps in the App Store. Apple saw that some of them
> > used MDM-like features, without saying what they were doing, both of which
> > are no-nos. Apple told the devs to stop doing that. Six of the devs either

> > weren¢t using MDM-like features or updated their apps to remove the

> > features. Apple kicked the other 11 out... NOT for being competition, the
> > fact that six stayed proves that, but because they tried to use features
> > which would give 3rd parties command and control over software _specifically

> > intended_ for use of _children¢s_ devices. They wanted to _SPY ON
> > CHILDREN_. They shouldn¢t have been kicked out of the App Store, they

> > should be explaining to the FBI why they wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
> Thanks for that summary, which appears to be based on the response by Apple
> to the NYT expose, where your summary appears to be a reasonable summary
> from Apple's standpoint.

It’s based on the facts. They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN. They should be
severely prosecuted. You want to defend them. You shpild join them. They, and
you, and scum.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 04 May 2019 14:39:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> It˘s based on the facts. They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN. They should be
> severely prosecuted. You want to defend them. You shpild join them. They, and
> you, and scum.

Hi Wolffan,

Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.

We can't even rationally discuss logic - until we agree on the facts.

FACT:
o Apple says MDM is safe when Apple uses MDM to protect children.
o Apple says MDM is not safe when others use it to protect children.

MORE FACT:
o It's from Apple servers that all MDM commands are sent to user devices
o Where Apple's own documentation says:
"*Apple is the only one who has access to*" the data

As an adult, we have to first comprehend the actual facts
o Before jumping to conclusions which are not based on facts.

Since my belief system is based on facts, and since you appear to disagree
with my belief system, which of those purported facts above do you have
evidence for being incorrect facts?

If you disagree with those facts, please let us know the basis of your
disagreement, since, as an adult, our belief systems should not be
imaginary - but based on actual facts.

[Wolffan]

On 04 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qalf0t$prv$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sat, 04 May 2019 14:39:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > It¢s based on the facts. They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN. They should be
> > severely prosecuted. You want to defend them. You shpild join them. They,
> > and
> > you, and scum.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
> o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.

They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN, You support them. You’re scum.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-05-03 8:23 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2019 17:13:14 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You appear to be making your classic mistake of believing that something
>> is truth merely because you assert it.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Did you even _read_ the cites before brazenly denying their factual veracity?
>

I read what you wrote...

...none of it was supported by anything.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-05-04 6:41 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2019 14:39:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
>> It¢s based on the facts. They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN. They should be
>> severely prosecuted. You want to defend them. You shpild join them. They, and
>> you, and scum.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
> o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.

And yet, you regularly post assertions as if they were fact.

>
> We can't even rationally discuss logic - until we agree on the facts.
>
> FACT:
> o Apple says MDM is safe when Apple uses MDM to protect children.

That's an assertion, not a fact.

> o Apple says MDM is not safe when others use it to protect children.

That's an assertion, not a fact.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Alan Baker wrote
(in article <qam3kt$h92$3...@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2019-05-04 6:41 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 May 2019 14:39:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
> >
> > > It¢s based on the facts. They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN. They should be
> > > severely prosecuted. You want to defend them. You shpild join them. They,
> > > and
> > > you, and scum.
> >
> > Hi Wolffan,
> >
> > Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
> > o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.
>
> And yet, you regularly post assertions as if they were fact.

because he’s scum.

>
> >
> > We can't even rationally discuss logic - until we agree on the facts.
> >
> > FACT:
> > o Apple says MDM is safe when Apple uses MDM to protect children.
>
> That's an assertion, not a fact.

Apple’s system says up front what it does and gives control to the parents,
where it belongs.

>
>
> > o Apple says MDM is not safe when others use it to protect children.
>
> That's an assertion, not a fact.

The evil fuckers he supports hide what their does MDM does. In particular
they hide who has access.

They’re scum. He’s scum for supporting them.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Alan Baker wrote

(in article <qam3hu$h92$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):

That would be because he’s an evil motherfucker.

[Lewis]

MDM is not used by Apple. MDM is used by the OWNER of a device to set
restrictions and policies for a device. Normally, this is an employer
using MDM for a device they allow an employee to use.

A parent can create a profile via Configurator 2 and install that on a
device that they own, or they can use MDM software like Jamf.

The difference is that the company making these app, by using MDM,
effectively becomes the owner of the device. They can monitor anything
the device does, and log it and control it.

> They’re scum. He’s scum for supporting them.

Exactly.

--
perfectly ordinary books, printed on commonplace paper in mundane ink.
It would be a mistake to think that they weren't also dangerous, just
because reading them didn't make fireworks go off in the sky. Reading
them sometimes did the more dangerous trick of making fireworks go off
in the privacy of the reader's brain. --Soul Music

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrnqctu43....@Snow.local>):

> In message<0001HW.227F042A00...@news.supernews.com> Wolffan
> <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
> > On 05 May 2019, Alan Baker wrote
> > (in article<qam3kt$h92$3...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>
> > > On 2019-05-04 6:41 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> > > > o Apple says MDM is not safe when others use it to protect children.
> > >
> > > That's an assertion, not a fact.
>
> > The evil fuckers he supports hide what their does MDM does. In particular
> > they hide who has access.
>
> MDM is not used by Apple. MDM is used by the OWNER of a device to set
> restrictions and policies for a device. Normally, this is an employer
> using MDM for a device they allow an employee to use.

And this use of MDM would be by _adults_ who have given _informed consent.
The scum in question did not obtain consent from either the parents or the
children.

>
>
> A parent can create a profile via Configurator 2 and install that on a
> device that they own, or they can use MDM software like Jamf.
>
> The difference is that the company making these app, by using MDM,
> effectively becomes the owner of the device. They can monitor anything
> the device does, and log it and control it.

And that’s why they’re scum who want to spy on children.

>
>
> > They’re scum. He’s scum for supporting them.
>
> Exactly.

He’s sunk pretty far before, but not to this level.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 07:45:17 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> I read what you wrote...
>>
>> ...none of it was supported by anything.
>

> That would be because he┬ an evil motherfucker.

Hi Wolffan & Alan Baker,

It's interesting that I'm an "evil motherfucker" simply for stating facts.
o You don't like facts (but that doesn't change that they're facts!)

Facts first; then reasonable adult logic.
o The fact is that both of you are clearly Apple Apologists!

THANK YOU BOTH for providing facts proving my point!
o I _love_ when the two of you post, because you prove me right.

Apple Apologists are not anything like normal adults
o They tend to gravitate to wholly imaginary belief systems
o Where they refute facts simply for the reason that they don't like them

In the case of Alan Baker, he can't comprehend even simple facts
o And, in fact, Alan brazenly denies facts without even reading the cites!

In the case of Wolfran, he turned into instant child when confronted with
facts (as can be seen above).

This "instant child" trait of the Apple Apologists is most well represented
by the likes of Jolly Roger, Lewis, BK, et al., but Wolffan clearly
exhibits this trait (as can be seen by his response to facts above).

Most of the Apple Apologists cited above have learned (surprisingly), that
they can't compete with normal adults, so they're currently too scared to
post (since they're easily proven wrong, just as children are).

But the two Apple Apologists Alan Baker & Wolfran, haven't figured out that
they prove exactly why Apple Apologists gravitate toward Apple products!

Alan Baker:
o A poster child for someone who denies facts sans even reading the cites

Wolffan:
o A poster child for someone who believes only what Apple MARKETING claims.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 00:34:40 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
>> o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.
>

> They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN, You support them. Youe scum.

Hi Wolffam,
It's extremely interesting how your belief system works.
o Tell me more.

The fact is that I've been studying you Apple Apologists for years, mind
you, where you all tend to have a similar set of a rather limited
half-dozen common traits.
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Fundamentally, since your belief systems seem to be completely imaginary,
you have great difficulty processing facts that don't fit into your
imaginary belief system.

In the case of Alan Baker, for example, or nospam, or BK, or Lewis, or
Jolly Roger, et al. they simply brazenly deny, outright, any facts that
don't fit into their imaginary belief systems (surprisingly, without even
_reading_ the cites, mind you, backing up those facts).

You Apple Apologists are kind of like children who are told by a friend
that their parents are Santa Claus, where you instantly devolve into the
actions of a child by calling me an "evil motherfucker" simply for me
attempting to converse with you in an adult manner by using well-cited
facts.

It appears that, for almost all, if not all apologists, the manner in which
you process facts you don't like is to simply deny them out of hand, where
you all seem to gravitate greatly toward Apple imaginary MARKETING
messages.

The fact you all own completely imaginary belief systems is interesting.
o You're not like normal adults.

It's only an hypothesis, but I posit a key reason you presumably own Apple
products is merely that the Apple MARKTENIG messages resonate beautifully
with your imaginary belief system.

Your extremely strong tendency of Apologists to merge your imaginary belief
system with Apple MARKETING messaging, is why you gravitate to Apple
products, it seems to me.

You gravitate toward the imaginary IMAGE that Apple cleverly crafts for you.
o Apple marketing clearly did their job (they're the best of the best)

HINT: Apple knows their customer far better than even I do, so it's not by
accident that people who gravitate to Apple MARKETING messaging don't
handle facts well which are contrary to their imaginary belief system.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 5 May 2019 14:51:47 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> The difference is that the company making these app, by using MDM,
> effectively becomes the owner of the device.

Hi Lewis,

Facts first; then reasonable adult logic can result
o Without agreement on the basic facts - no adult logic can ensue.

I realize you don't handle facts well, so I don't expect any response from
you, let alone an "adult" response to this fact...

But the fact is...(which you ignored, likely because it doesn't fit into
your belief system), was already shown that... (and I quote):

Either MDM is a risk, or it's not.
o For Apple to claim it's a risk only when they want to,
o And then claim that it's not, is duplicitous, at best.

Here are the facts you seem to have ignored, Lewis:

1. Apple says MDM puts users privacy & security at risk
2. In doing so, Apple's response to the NYT expose is "misleading"
3. Without MDM, by all accounts, iOS lacks the desired functionality
4. MDM is a documented public API "initially" intended for corporations
5. Apple has subsequently "extended" MDM for use in schools
6. Apple's statements are misleading because Apple always controls the data
7. It's on Apple servers that all MDM commands are sent to user devices
8. In fact, "Apple is the only one who has access to" the data
9. Hence, Apple's own documentation contradicts Apple's claims about MDM

These appear to be factual statements, are they not, Lewis?

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote
(in article <qandku$ca2$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 00:34:40 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > Let's simply discuss this using the mind of a sentient adult.
> > > o As an adult, what I care about are facts first; then reasonable logic.
> >

> > They wanted to SPY ON CHILDREN, You support them. You¢re scum.

>
> Hi Wolffam,
> It's extremely interesting how your belief system works.
> o Tell me more.
>
> The fact is that I've been studying you Apple Apologists for years,

not an ‘Apple Apologist’. I just don’t like scum. Like you.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qanc7q$9qp$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 07:45:17 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > I read what you wrote...
> > >
> > > ...none of it was supported by anything.
> >

> > That would be because he¢s an evil motherfucker.

>
> Hi Wolffan & Alan Baker,
>
> It's interesting that I'm an "evil motherfucker" simply for stating facts.

you stated no facts. And you support SPYING ON CHILDREN. _That_ is what makes
you an evil motherfucker.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 15:51:47 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> you stated no facts. And you support SPYING ON CHILDREN. _That_ is what makes
> you an evil motherfucker.

Hi Wolffan,

Adults are capable of thinking, where, this is a direct quote, Wolffan:
"It is difficult to accept that Apple┬ arguments have merit and
therefore [we] conclude that this move has been driven more by
Screen Time than any genuine concern for privacy and security"

I simply ask you to think like any normal adult should think
o Is that too much to ask of you to think as an adult?

Adults first agree on facts _before_ creating their belief systems.
o Children who don't comprehend facts are easily misled by others

That's why children believe in the Easter Bunny, for example.
o Or that closing the closet door keeps the monster out of their bedroom

But adults are supposed to form belief systems based on facts, Wolffan
o I simply ask you to comprehend facts before building belief systems

Is it a fact, or is it not a fact the statements below?

7. It's on Apple servers that all MDM commands are sent to user devices
8. In fact, "Apple is the only one who has access to" the data

And...
MDM cannot see personal data such as:
o Personal or work mail, calendars, contacts
o SMS or iMessages
o Safari browser history
o FaceTime or phone call logs
o Personal reminders and notes
o Frequency of app use
o Device location

Specifically, Wolffan, is this previously cited statement true or not?
"OurPact does not have access to any of this private information
via MDM. It is impossible for us, hackers, or anybody else to obtain it
Apple is the only one who has access to and uses this data."
<https://medium.com/@ourpactapp/there-used-to-be-an-app-for-that-41344f61fb6f>

Is it a fact, or is it not a fact, that _multiple_ reliable sources (where
actual adults are employed, mind you), _question_ Apple's "excuses"?
o Why Apple's Privacy And Security Argument Has No Merit In Its Clash With Parental Control Apps
<www.forbes.com/sites/richardwindsoreurope/2019/04/29/why-apples-privacy-and-security-argument-has-no-merit-in-its-clash-with-parental-control-apps/>

"[Apple's] own words cast plenty of doubt on its _excuse_
of privacy and security"

"[Apple] decided that MDM violates the policies of the App Store once
it had launched its own version: Screen Time. Screen Time is not
nearly as comprehensive as some of the 3rd party products and
[Apple's tools] *offers far fewer options*"

"There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the owners of the
parental control apps had been spying on their customers' data.
Consequently, unless Apple has found proof that this has been
happening, *Apple's position makes no sense* as this is exactly
what the parental control apps had been providing"

"if MDM was as incredibly risky as Apple states, the practice would
have died out years ago. The last thing that companies will do is
put their trade secrets more at risk than they have to"

"Furthermore, Apple has not shut down the commercial MDM solutions
meaning that it is being selective in how it applies its policies"

As is usually the case of Apple's lack of functionality, the authors posit
"those parents that wish to prevent their children from circumventing
the fairly weak Screen Time parental controls will be incentivised
to *switch their kids to Android*"

In the end, as is usual for Apple, who has _never_ even once created a
best-in-class app outside the walled garden, the authors concluded:
"Given that Apple is generally not very good at Digital Life Services,
this could do more damage in terms of market share loss compared
to any service revenue that it might pick up as a result."

In summary, Wolffam, you may not be used to thinking like an adult thinks,
but adults generally take in factual data such that their belief systems
stand the scrutiny of facts.

By way of contrast Wolffan, your belief system appears to be instantly
DESTROYED by mere facts, is it not?

As am adult, I first agree on the facts
o And then I derive logical rational assessments of those facts

If any facts stated here you believe to be wrong, then all you need to do,
if you wish to be considered to own the mind of an adult, is refute those
you belief to be incorrect - with facts of your own, Wolffan.

If you can't even back up your belief system with even a single fact
o Then what does that prove to tell us about your belief systems Wolgfan?

[nospam]

In article <qanlkf$r0i$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> Is it a fact, or is it not a fact the statements below?
> 7. It's on Apple servers that all MDM commands are sent to user devices
> 8. In fact, "Apple is the only one who has access to" the data

not a fact. not even close to fact.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 15:50:40 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> The fact is that I've been studying you Apple Apologists for years,
>
> not an ¡Apple Apologist¢. I just don¢t like scum. Like you.

Hi Wolffan,

I simply ask you to act like an adult in backing up your statements.

Why am I scum simply for bringing up facts you don't happen to like?
o It's a trait of the apologists to vehemently hate the bearer of facts.

You calling me scum simply for citing actual facts is sort of like calling
me scum for explaining to a child that closing the closet door doesn't
actually keep the monsters out of her bedroom when she goes to sleep.

I certainly understand your intense _need_ to _feel_ safe, Wolffan
o But an adult should comprehend facts such as those I've cited

While I can find plenty of cites on the net (from adults, mind you), that
argue Apple's statements are contradictory, can you find a _single_ cite on
the net that backs up your claims?

Really?
o You can't even find a _single_ cite that backs up your belief system?

Hmmmmmmm....

Do you realize it's a basic trait of the Apple users to want to _feel_ safe
o Without actually _being_ safe

I suspect you're not aware of this trait, since you seem to exhibit it.

I've said many times that Apple MARKETING feeds Apple users the IMAGE
o That they're safe
Without actually making them safe.

Same thing here, Wolffan.

The main difference between you and me, is that I comprehend facts.
o And hence, I form belief systems that are bolstered by facts.

By way of contrast Wolffan, you seem to form beliefs based on 0 facts
o Where a single well-cited fact instantly DESTROYS your belief system

That's why you call me "scum", Wolffan, I believe.
o You hate that your belief system is DESTROYED by mere simple facts.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 17:57:16 -0400, nospam wrote:

> not a fact. not even close to fact.

Hi nospam,

Thanks for posting consistently as an Apple Apologist does
o Each post from you reinforces my belief system about the Apologists

It's a typical trait of you Apple Apologists to deny facts out of hand
o Without providing a single basis for their outright denials

As everyone is aware, my stated facts have never once been materially wrong(1)
o Meanwhile, your credibility has been shown to be worse than a coin toss

As we've shown in the past, you, nospam, deny facts you don't like
o But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they are facts

If you are an adult, and if you feel any of my facts are wrong
o Then simply provide a reliable cite bolstering that opinion

In short, if you're an adult, you'll be able to pass the 3-word test
o Name just one

--
(1) Since I'm human and since Usenet is a casual medicum, out of thousands
of posts over the decades, I must have made a factual mistake at least
once, but since I don't state facts that aren't well cited, I don't form
imaginary belief systems. The fact is that nobody can find any material
fact I've ever stated that was wrong (trust me, they've tried), which you
have to admit is pretty incredible to earn such stellar credibility on
Usenet.

[nospam]

In article <qanmtc$t4o$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen G. Holder

<arling...@nospam.net> wrote:

> As everyone is aware, my stated facts have never once been materially wrong(1)

yes they have, consistently.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 18:39:16 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> As everyone is aware, my stated facts have never once been materially wrong(1)
>
> yes they have, consistently.

o If your belief system is based on facts, nospam, you'll pass this adult test
o Name just one

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qanmfi$sbf$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 15:50:40 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > The fact is that I've been studying you Apple Apologists for years,
> >
> > not an ¡Apple Apologist¢. I just don¢t like scum. Like you.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> I simply ask you to act like an adult in backing up your statements.

I don’t take requests from scum.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qanlkf$r0i$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 15:51:47 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > you stated no facts. And you support SPYING ON CHILDREN. _That_ is what
> > makes
> > you an evil motherfucker.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> Adults are capable of thinking,

The adults in charge of the companies making the 11 banned products thought
only of profits. And SPYING ONN CHILDREN.

You are, in theory, an adult. You think only of attacking Apple. And
supporting those who want to SPY ON CHILDREN. And to continually attack
‘Apple Apologists’. I’m pretty sure that I’ve not replied to one of
your screeds prior to this thread, or if I did it was a long time ago. I
can’t I don’t give a shit about your fight with Apple. I care, deeply,
about evil motherfuckers who SPY ON CHILDREN. And those who enable them. That
would be YOU, you evil motherfucker. If you stop supporting people who SPY ON
CHILDREN, I will go back to ignoring you.

We both know that you will NEVER stop.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 20:23:19 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

> The adults in charge of the companies making the 11 banned products thought
> only of profits. And SPYING ONN CHILDREN.

Hi Wolffan,
Clearly you hold very strong opinions, where, the fact is...
o You can't find a _single_ cite on the net that backs up your claims

Do you consider _nobody_ reliable holds the same opinions as you do?

> You are, in theory, an adult. You think only of attacking Apple.

I speak only facts, Wolffan; and then I make logical deductions from them.

There's a _reason_, Wolffan, that I have been the one who has had to
apprise Apple posters on this newsgroup that iOS, for example, can't even
do the _simplest_ of things (e.g., debug WiFi, or record calls, or even
modify the homescreen for Christs' sake).

The reason is that the typical Apple poster apparently is clueless.
o For example, they had no idea Apple surrendered to Qualcomm

Until I proved the facts, they actually _thought_ that Apple negotiated
lower royalties, for example, where the facts are clear the new royalties
are clearly GREATER than the old royalties, for just one example.

There are literally _hundreds_ of these situations, Wolffan, where the
Apple posters to this newsgroup own IMAGINARY belief systems, that I had to
DESTROY with the simple application of mere facts.

Hence, the reason you so vehemently hate me, Wolffan, is the same reason
Jolly Roger, Lewis, Chris, BK, et al., vehemently hate me.

I only speak facts.

> And
> supporting those who want to SPY ON CHILDREN. And to continually attack

> íApple Apologistsó.

I only speak facts about the Apple Apologists.
o They, themselves, prove my facts to be true.

All I do is point to what they write.
o The Apple Apologists always prove the veracity of my statements for me.

> Ióm pretty sure that Ióve not replied to one of

> your screeds prior to this thread, or if I did it was a long time ago. I

> canót I donót give a shit about your fight with Apple.

My "fight", with Apple doesn't exist, Wolffan.
o I own _plenty_ of Apple products, Wolffan.

My "fight" is for facts.
o You hate facts; hence, you hate me.

But the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

> I care, deeply,
> about evil motherfuckers who SPY ON CHILDREN. And those who enable them. That
> would be YOU, you evil motherfucker. If you stop supporting people who SPY ON
> CHILDREN, I will go back to ignoring you.

Hi Wolffan,
I "support" the truth.
o You hate the truth.

The reason you hate the truth is clear.
o The truth instantly DESTROYS your imaginary belief system.

In fact, you haven't cited a _single_ reliable source that agrees with you.
o Your belief system is backed up by exactly 0 facts, Wolffan.

It's 100% emotional.
o And 0% fact.

Every Apple Apologist is 100% emotion and 0% fact
o That's why they always fail the simple 3-word adult test.

Name just one.

> We both know that you will NEVER stop.

Agreed that I will never stop being an adult, and speaking only of facts.
o You hate facts

Do you know why you hate facts so much Wolffan?
o Hint: I do.

DOUBLEHINT:
o Your belief system has exactly 0 reliable sources that back it up.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 20:11:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> I simply ask you to act like an adult in backing up your statements.

> I don┤ take requests from scum.

Hi Wolffan,

Do you realize you follow the canonical model of the Apple Apologists?
o They all call adults childish names because they hate facts too.

What you're doing is like calling a teacher scum for telling students facts
o Facts DESTROY your imaginary belief system, Wolffan.

The fact is that I provided multiple reliable factual cites
o That backed up the statements I made

That's because my belief system is that of an adult
o My belief system is _bolstered_ by facts - not threatened by them.

There's no doubt you hold strong belief systems, Wolffan,
o That are based on exactly zero actual facts.

If your belief system was that of an adult, Wolffan
o Then you'd be able to find one other reliable person who agrees

And yet, you can't find a _single_ reliable cite on this planet
o That agrees with your strongly held, but still imaginary belief system

That's a fact you proved yourself.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qao837$sst$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 20:23:19 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > The adults in charge of the companies making the 11 banned products thought
> > only of profits. And SPYING ONN CHILDREN.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
> Clearly you hold very strong opinions, where, the fact is...
> o You can't find a _single_ cite on the net that backs up your claims

As predicted...

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qao8hu$tjr$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 20:11:59 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > I simply ask you to act like an adult in backing up your statements.

> > I don¢t take requests from scum.

>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> Do you realize you follow the canonical model of the Apple Apologists?

false.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:14:35 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> Do you realize you follow the canonical model of the Apple Apologists?
> false.

Hi Wolffan,

If you're not an Apple Apologist, then you'll be able to find at least a
single reliable cite on the net that your belief system is based upon ...
mind you, I'm only asking for just one other person who is reliable, who
believes the strongly held beliefs you have ... where, as is always the
case, the Apple Apologists hold strong beliefs which are supported by
exactly zero facts ... such that you Apple Apologists _always_ fail this
simple 3-word adult test of your strongly held, but imaginary beliefs:

Name just one.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:14:16 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> Clearly you hold very strong opinions, where, the fact is...
>> o You can't find a _single_ cite on the net that backs up your claims
>
> As predicted...

Hi Wolffan,

You're not the first Apple Apologist I've dealt with over the decades.
o You're all the same

Your wholly imaginary belief system is based on exactly zero facts.
o Just like a child's belief system about the Easter Bunny

Your entire belief system is based on what your Apple parents told you
o Which you believe, even in the face of clear contrary evidence

You Apple Apologists _always_ fail a simple imaginary-belief test:
o Name just one

Notice Wolffan, you can't find a _single_ reliable person in the entire
world, who backs up your imaginary claims, which is, after all, the
canonical hallmark of a completely imaginary belief system owned by all the
Apple Apologists.

Your belief system is based on only one thing and one thing only.
o Whatever Apple Marketing has fed you, facts to the contrary be damned.

You hate me ... because you hate facts ... because ...
o Facts instantly DESTROY your imaginary belief system

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qao94s$ub0$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:14:35 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > Do you realize you follow the canonical model of the Apple Apologists?
> > false.
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> If you're not an Apple Apologist,

I’m not. And I don’t take requests from scum. You’re scum.

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qao9he$vft$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:14:16 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > Clearly you hold very strong opinions, where, the fact is...
> > > o You can't find a _single_ cite on the net that backs up your claims
> >
> > As predicted...
>
> Hi Wolffan,
>
> You're not the first Apple Apologist

I’m not.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:31:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:

>> If you're not an Apple Apologist,

> I▌ not. And I don┤ take requests from scum. You┴e scum.

Hi Wolffam,

I _love_ when you post, since you're a canonical Apple Apologist.
o Every post from you proves this to be a fact.

Thank you for your posts as you _prove_ the veracity of my words.
a. You call the bearer of truthful facts, "scum", and,
b. You can't find a _single_ cite that backs up your imaginary beliefs.

Worse, you believe in only one source for your imaginary belief system
o Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G

Which is, after all, admittedly, one of the best in the world.
o What is the most brilliant marketing move Apple ever made?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wW-fu0jsvAU/s6gu-hj2BwAJ>

You Apologists gravitate toward Apple M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G messages
o Which clearly are supported by exactly zero actual facts.

This is why you hate me - and call me "scum" simply because...
o Facts instantly DESTROY your strongly held & yet imaginary belief system

[Wolffan]

On 05 May 2019, Arlen G. Holder wrote

(in article <qaoais$1o1$1...@news.mixmin.net>):

> On Sun, 05 May 2019 23:31:20 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
> > > If you're not an Apple Apologist,

> > I¢m not. And I don¢t take requests from scum. You¢re scum.

>
> Hi Wolffam,
>
> I _love_ when you post, since you're a canonical Apple Apologist.

nope.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-05-05 12:06 p.m., Arlen G. Holder wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2019 07:45:17 -0400, Wolffan wrote:
>
>>> I read what you wrote...
>>>
>>> ...none of it was supported by anything.
>>

>> That would be because he¢s an evil motherfucker.

>
> Hi Wolffan & Alan Baker,
>
> It's interesting that I'm an "evil motherfucker" simply for stating facts.

You don't state facts.

> o You don't like facts (but that doesn't change that they're facts!)

You don't state facts.

>
> Facts first; then reasonable adult logic.
> o The fact is that both of you are clearly Apple Apologists!

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

>
> THANK YOU BOTH for providing facts proving my point!
> o I _love_ when the two of you post, because you prove me right.
>
> Apple Apologists are not anything like normal adults
> o They tend to gravitate to wholly imaginary belief systems
> o Where they refute facts simply for the reason that they don't like them
>
> In the case of Alan Baker, he can't comprehend even simple facts
> o And, in fact, Alan brazenly denies facts without even reading the cites!

You don't provide proper cites.

>
> In the case of Wolfran, he turned into instant child when confronted with
> facts (as can be seen above).

More opinion, no facts, no logic.