Comments on: Apple intentionally kills web applications for EU users in iOS 17.4 onward to spite its EU users

RSS Channel: Comments on: Apple intentionally kills web applications for EU users in iOS 17.4 onward to spite its EU users
Exploring the Future of Computing

Generator:	https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.5
Docs:	http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436605">Alfman</a>. <blockquote>That’s still a matter of opinion. I see a clean, reliable, safe, platform m. As many do. You *can* pay off app if you want.</blockquote> Nope, sorry but it's a fact that apple have been blocking owners from using competitive services and this is why the EU needed to get involved. <blockquote>I disagree with the no-steering aspects. Given the overwhelming research that shows even if given an option most users would still use Apple Pay when the difference is 30%.</blockquote> It doesn't matter! There is still an antitrust issue even if some users continue to use apple pay. Antitrust is about giving users the choice, not forcing them to change. Everyone here should know this.

By: lostinlodos
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436605">Alfman</a>. > I’m glad we can agree! I’ve done some not playing around and it’s definitely the developer betas. All the way back to 13, the oldest phone I have an image for: sideloading works. Makes me wonder if Apple just didn’t lock the back door ala DB? > issued apple keys that can bypass the app store They basically set the package security to the lowest non user level. Same as on macOS. Apple singed, or Apple approved. Leaving me to wonder if a shell command can turn off that requirement on iOS as well. Which is what I did on my phones. I’ll need to make a few calls though. I have no access from the US. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments “Over 153,000 app submissions rejected for spam, copycats, or misleading users” https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/app-store-stopped-more-than-2-billion-in-fraudulent-transactions-in-2022/ Apple doesn’t list rejections or pulls. But Treasure Hunt hit me directly with fraudulent charges. Apple quickly fixed it by reversing charges and pulled the game. > EXCEPT that to date apple have been blocking Given that’s the issue here, third party store, third party payment. Apple Store, Apple Pay. > …nothing changes the fact that apple restrictions have been abusive to free market competition. That’s still a matter of opinion. I see a clean, reliable, safe, platform m. As many do. You *can* pay off app if you want. I disagree with the no-steering aspects. Given the overwhelming research that shows even if given an option most users would still use Apple Pay when the difference is 30%. Personally I think Apple should just let them advertise their lower rates in app. They are not, based and *overwhelming* research, at any real financial risk. As long as those advertisements are absolutely abundantly clear that the user has left Apple’s long standing protection. >Do some research… The road to hell is paved… I don’t deny good intentions. But! For every technological antitrust issue, I can show you the damages after a ruling, or the damages the ruling if resulting, would have caused. For most antitrust cases in general I can show you consumer—public damage in the aftermath. This ruling is missing safe guards for the company, and opens up the public to less secure devices. What happens when a an ai ransomware bricks the phone. A app steals your information. You become a public hotspot unwillingly. Etc. First, consumers weren’t exposed to that before. Now they are. And second, where is the safeguard for Apple in that they should not be responsible for such occurrences. Again, like right to repair. I believe in it and 3rd party app systems. But I do so with the demand that companies be indemnified from user stupidity. One need only look at the stupidity of the Amazon prime lawsuit or spilled hot coffee to see how fast users file stupid lawsuits without legal basis. And how some judges, juries, rule with emotions instead of with the law. Apple should not be responsible for your porn virus or $1000 loot box bill on some alternate App Store.

By: lostinlodos
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436581">Alfman</a>. “In the context of sideloading” https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243 Your comment on iOS 17 made me think of something though. Appears we’re both right to some degree. Looks like the developer betas aren’t as locked as consumer releases. I tried to install the current homebrew on an iOS 15 consumer and it didn’t work at all. Just got a spinning pipe. I’ve run developer betas so long it didn’t cross my mind. Guess that means you need to pay $99 to side load. Still a good deal for many but definitely changes the conversation. Without much interest in further testing the hypothesis… I’ll submit to the initial results here. Apparently only developers can side load. Apple or non Apple sourced. > Of course it’s important I think we’re talking about two different things here that you have merged together. The first being the point of the article. Which is only as true as the immediate perception. Apple removed/blocked the ability of non-WebKit browsers from using Apple’s web app technology. Which is different than refusing to allow others to come up with their own solution. That happened after the EU ruling. The other being epic, Spotify, and alternative apps. > Don’t turn it into a straw man I wasn’t trying to. I looked at the recent right to repair laws, requiring a mandate of one year of service warranty. And worry that somehow this will come back to bite Apple. We’ve already seen rogue games become an issue for Apple. Treasure Hunter and epic’s in app billing. The public went to Apple for support on charges from these games. My personal hope is Apple blocks Apple Pay from non-app-store apps. And that would kill off responsibility. Though I fear that with which high polling for only using Apple pay, and such low support for outside payments, developers may come back and demand that Apple let them use it > Your opinions about epic don’t justify apple’s abusive control over the app market. No. But I don’t consider it abuse. I do like the idea of a third party store. As long as the governments don’t force Apple to make them cross-compatible with Apple property features. Looking at Android, third party stores don’t get direct access to Android pay or Google pay or Samsung pay. And Apple should absolutely not be forced to open its secure services to unknown parties. > they’re allowing the market to choose different payment platforms And outside app stores fixes that. See above. Reports at the time clearly showed that some, the percentage varied, users thought they were using Apple Pay on iOS. Even when they were not. Exercising your rights comes with risk. As long as Apple is left out of any aspect of requirements on the third party stores, all good. All too often there’s a government bleeding heart that ruins a good solution shortly thereafter. > Did anyone try to convince you that or is this a straw man https://www.imore.com/apple/epics-taking-its-apple-app-store-payments-complaint-to-the-supreme-court That was the whole point of all of this. Day one. You forgot, missed, or simply ignored the cause of the current situation. Epic didn’t like paying the fee. A fee that covered marketing, distribution, support, payment processing… …! They violated their contract with Apple to insert their own payment system, which did confuse some customers. Apple booted them for being sneaky and devious and causing the company grief. The end result, is good. If this is the absolute end of it, third party app stores. No access to Apple Pay without Apple’s express intent. No forced Apple support. But again, no antitrust legislation has ever helped the consumer in the end. Be it bad rulings or ignorance in the beginning or the ‘thousand cuts’ of new laws after. Hopefully this ends here with a few other jurisdictions cloning the ruling. App stores. Nothing more. This could be the first ever antitrust ruling that actually helped the public.

By: cgermann
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436532">cpcf</a>. I half heartedly agree with you Opensource projects yey, Multi national couperations that want aan inroad to complete the Engine monoculture of the web. no a million times no iOS should be open to opensource software only.

By: cgermann
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436425">Windows Sucks</a>. 100% garentee that it is google lodgeing the complaint apple's locked engine is the only thing stoping them from a 100% monopoly in the brouser space.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436576">lostinlodos</a>. lostinlodos, <blockquote>I suggest you check out iSH, xterm, And the like. iOS isn’t so much locked down as it is stored away from the general user. Homebrew takes effort, but works. Your information is outdated. iOS and macOS are parallel today.</blockquote> In the context of sideloading this is disingenuous when different restrictions are in effect. Frankly it's been very frustrating that you're forcing me to play 20 questions and guess the circumvention methods you are talking about. But now I'm guessing you are talking about developer mode and jailbreaking as documented here, right? https://iosnerds.com/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-iphone-with-ios-17/ <blockquote>Developer Mode unlocks additional tools, settings, and capabilities that developers need when building, testing, and debugging apps on an iPhone. When enabled, you get access to features like app debugging, log collection, simulated device testing, and more. It’s important for anyone interested in iOS development and app creation. Here are some of the key things you can do with Developer Mode enabled on your iPhone running iOS 17: Debug apps directly on your device using Xcode Access device logs for troubleshooting app issues Use simulated device testing to check app behavior across multiple device types Install unsigned/unreleased apps for testing purposes Enable deeper analytical app diagnostics and performance profiling The process to turn on Developer Mode is straightforward, but there are a few prerequisites you need: An iPhone running iOS 17 An Apple developer account Xcode developer tools installed on your Mac We’ll cover all the steps involved in getting Developer Mode up and running on your iPhone using iOS 17. Prerequisites Before you can enable Developer Mode, you need to ensure you have the following: Apple Developer Account You need to have a paid Apple Developer account in order to access Developer Mode as well as download and install beta releases of iOS. This gives you a Developer license that allows you to test pre-release software, install unsigned apps, and submit apps to the App Store. You can enroll in the Apple Developer Program directly on Apple’s website. The cost is $99 per year. ... </blockquote> Besides developer mode not being that friendly, there are further limitations that make it absolutely useless for real app store competitors without jailbreaking. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/73733701/how-to-enable-developer-mode-on-ios-16-0 https://www.idownloadblog.com/2022/04/12/nofreeapplimit/ <blockquote>The practice of sideloading apps on the iPhone and iPad has exploded in popularity over the years thanks to convenient sideloading platforms such as AltStore and Sideloady. Unfortunately, most people are using free Apple developer accounts to do this, which limits the number of apps these users can sideload and operate to just three at a time. ... As we just stated above, NoFreeAppLimit works under very specific circumstances – namely that you can bypass the three app limit as long as you’re sideloading apps while your iPhone or iPad is in a jailbroken state. </blockquote> If these are the mechanisms you are talking about, then sure I agree they exist. But...this is not the same as giving owners & competitors a real sideloading option for IOS!!!!!!!! <blockquote>It wasn’t important. My statement was Apple didn’t kill off anything. They just require the developer to make their own implementation—rather than Apple doing it for them. Or them botching the design via Apple’s implementation and thus causing a flood of Apple user support requests. </blockquote> Of course it's important, apple not blocking owner's from choosing alternatives is one of the primary motivators for these EU cases. <blockquote>I’ve never stood against alternative stores. I’ve stood against forcing Apple to support anything related to such use.</blockquote> Great, other stores do their own work and support. I've already agreed this isn't controversial. Don't turn it into a straw man when there's no one saying apple needs to provide support for 3rd party stores & software. Let's move on. <blockquote>The vast majority of users that are complaining are near completely in the epic camp of users. It’s closer to saying that 1% of the users are interested, on the higher end of what I’ve seen of the earlier epic install base. Hardly anything close to a blip on the user base… a rounding error.</blockquote> Antitrust is about giving consumers the right to make their own choices. Your opinions about epic don't justify apple's abusive control over the app market. <blockquote>I’m not arguing against that. though the actual issue is much smaller than you appear to make it. My concern is government stupidity in its “fix” Be it the US or EU. Forcing another payment platform into and on to the App Store is not a fix. It’s a security and safety nightmare. </blockquote> The EU isn't "forcing a new payment platform into it", they're allowing the market to choose different payment platforms. It's very ironic that you're real gripe is with the market having that choice. <blockquote>And I’ve some very rude words for epic’s crying over 30%. When epic was a mail distributor they charged over 90% in many cases. </blockquote> Having a healthy free market is big than just epic and ideally I'd like to see many alternatives competing - the way free markets are supposed to work. <blockquote>Nobody is ever going to convince me that there’s some evil in apple charging 30% or less.</blockquote> Did anyone try to convince you that or is this a straw man? As long as there is real competition apple can go charge 50% for all I care. The problem is that, rather than competing, apple are using DRM to control the market and block competition so that owners and developers have no choice.

By: lostinlodos
I suggest you check out iSH, xterm, And the like. iOS isn’t so much locked down as it is stored away from the general user. Homebrew takes effort, but works. Your information is outdated. iOS and macOS are parallel today. The older issue was with architecture. Use the AArm package. Git also works as do others. https://dev.to/cookrdan/using-git-on-ios-1l1n Much of cirp is paywalled but you can check them out at https://www.cirp.net They have multiple substack offerings as . There’s not much I can do about Apple’s own reports. You’re a stocker holder or not. > I don’t understand why you’re only saying this just now It wasn’t important. My statement was Apple didn’t kill off anything. They just require the developer to make their own implementation—rather than Apple doing it for them. Or them botching the design via Apple’s implementation and thus causing a flood of Apple user support requests. I’ve never stood against alternative stores. I’ve stood against forcing Apple to support anything related to such use. I’m strongly against a company being forced to fix user stupidity at cost. I’m also very very much against any requirement that forces Apple to allow third party payment in its own App Store. In fact, that’s one prime reason I support other stores. Again, keeping that stuff out of the general apple supplied offerings. > new “problem” No, but a quick internet search shows the majority of android payments go through google. Just like most apple payments use Apple Pay. Again, if such an option is to be forced on the public, it should be through a third party store and not through the App Store. > But logically the fact that The vast majority of users that are complaining are near completely in the epic camp of users. It’s closer to saying that 1% of the users are interested, on the higher end of what I’ve seen of the earlier epic install base. Hardly anything close to a blip on the user base… a rounding error. > it’s quite obvious how apple’s restrictions are detrimental to competition. I’m not arguing against that. though the actual issue is much smaller than you appear to make it. My concern is government stupidity in its “fix” Be it the US or EU. Forcing another payment platform into and on to the App Store is not a fix. It’s a security and safety nightmare. And I’ve some very rude words for epic’s crying over 30%. When epic was a mail distributor they charged over 90% in many cases. 30% is the world wide norm for service and access. If you buy a book online the retailer gets 10-30% If you have a credit card the bank gets 10-30% Or you take out an auto loan you pay 10-30% If you hire a service to sell your belongings, they take 10-30% Nobody is ever going to convince me that there’s some evil in apple charging 30% or less.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436542">Alfman</a>. lostinlodos, <blockquote>Homebrew. A package manager. Cryo. A crypto wallet. NeoRestore a rolling clone backup.and CSh. A terminal emulator. (Along with dependent libraries). </blockquote> Are you talking about ios or macos?? You were specifically talking about the iphone but if you are talking about installing software on macos it's not relevant to the IOS restrictions we are talking about. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/352632/is-there-any-way-to-install-homebrew-on-ios-jailbroken <blockquote> Q. Is there any way to install homebrew on iOS (jailbroken) A. No, this isn't possible. Homebrew is designed for use on macOS systems. It is not intended for use on iOS, and the packages it downloads will not run on an iOS system. It cannot compile packages for iOS either, as the Xcode toolchain is not available for iOS. Attempting to install Homebrew will be futile, and may render your device unusable.</blockquote> Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I'd still ask that you provide links so that we can be on the same page. <blockquote>I agree. I’ve always agreed here. And I partly lean on supporting third party stores for that reason. Keeping Apple’s App Store clean of disruptive software. Allowing that stuff to be installed by the few who want it.</blockquote> I don't understand why you're only saying this just now. Still, I'm glad we agree that apple shouldn't be blocking owners from using competing stores. <blockquote>The issue is creating a new mess for support. Currently all support for apps comes from Apple, first. Especially purchasing and billing. Other payments is going to create quite the mess in the short term, if not longer.</blockquote> This is hardly a new "problem", consumers have been dealing with multiple payment options for half a century, apple users can figure it out. <blockquote>Supercharge shows only 14 percent would switch completely to a different App Store, principally in parts of Europe. Apple’s last quarterly call stated (less reliably) that internal research shows a roughly 5% show a high interest in using another payment system. Cirp has shown similar results. Safari macOS usage over 96%. A low interest in 3rd party payment systems. They do show a higher interest in 3rd party apps though. As high as 46% depending on wording.</blockquote> I was asking for links, IMHO it's always important.to provide them. <blockquote>I excluded gaming, because it’s quite clear epic has a large base. And they are the primary drive for all of this legislation.</blockquote> But logically the fact that users show a large interest an alternative game stores is exactly why they need to be included. It's like saying "99% of people aren't interested in alternative energy sources (excluding solar)." Citing a figure to demonstrate disinterest becomes meaningless if you exclude data where people have shown interest. <blockquote>I believe we can all agree that courts don’t always get it right. And I’ll simply skip over this beyond saying what I always say about antitrust: antitrust decisions rarely work to the benefits of the consumer. </blockquote> In this case they got it right though, it's quite obvious how apple's restrictions are detrimental to competition. <blockquote>The moment another App Store is allowed, Apple must have zero liability in what is hosted in them.</blockquote> I don't think you'll find anybody here who disagrees with that.

By: lostinlodos
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436542">Alfman</a>. Homebrew. A package manager. Cryo. A crypto wallet. NeoRestore a rolling clone backup.and CSh. A terminal emulator. (Along with dependent libraries). I installed DOSBox with homebrew as well but that can’t count because I believe it’s in the App Store. > Owners should have the right to chose the browser they want to use I agree. I’ve always agreed here. And I partly lean on supporting third party stores for that reason. Keeping Apple’s App Store clean of disruptive software. Allowing that stuff to be installed by the few who want it. > You go do that The issue is creating a new mess for support. Currently all support for apps comes from Apple, first. Especially purchasing and billing. Other payments is going to create quite the mess in the short term, if not longer. First, people will continue to use the Apple support app for non -Apple payments. Leading to Apple being unable to help and angry users. Second, who manages and secures payments. Currently using the Apple wallet your payment details remain in a secure encrypted enclave. Is Apple going to be expected to decrease security for interaction or are these companies going to host their own payment system. > insist on citing Supercharge shows only 14 percent would switch completely to a different App Store, principally in parts of Europe. Apple’s last quarterly call stated (less reliably) that internal research shows a roughly 5% show a high interest in using another payment system. Cirp has shown similar results. Safari macOS usage over 96%. A low interest in 3rd party payment systems. They do show a higher interest in 3rd party apps though. As high as 46% depending on wording. I excluded gaming, because it’s quite clear epic has a large base. And they are the primary drive for all of this legislation. > Countless courts I believe we can all agree that courts don’t always get it right. And I’ll simply skip over this beyond saying what I always say about antitrust: antitrust decisions rarely work to the benefits of the consumer. My concern isn’t allowing other stuff in. I tentatively support the idea. I share here my concerns in right to repair. It’s not the ability I’m against. It’s the faulty laws that would keep companies on the hook for user stupidity. That! Is a big problem. Be it malware you download and side load or a tiny ribbon cable you break swapping your screen. The companies need to be indemnified. One need only look at the garbage suite against Amazon over prime fees to see how our legal system fails fast. The moment third party payments are allowed, Apple must share zero liability in how others handle payment. The moment another App Store is allowed, Apple must have zero liability in what is hosted in them.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436491">Parodper</a>. Parodper, <blockquote>But it is. Governments are investing all the time on critical enterprises. Mobile computing shouldn’t be different.</blockquote> Do you really see yourself buying a government built mobile computing device? Personally I feel there would be a conflict of interest. I for one don't trust governments to respect privacy. While I appreciate that private companies do violate trust as well, at least they can be sued. The government and it's officers are prone to operating above the law.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436442">Windows Sucks</a>. Windows Sucks, <blockquote>Windows and Mac are 40 years old, there were no app stores 40 years ago and its to late now to try and change that.</blockquote> There were literal brick and mortar stores for software in those days. And neither apple nor MS had DRM stopping people from using the store of their choice.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436441">Windows Sucks</a>. Windows Sucks, <blockquote>Apple never blocked them,</blockquote> They do though. <blockquote>Apple never made a way for you to sideload, you had to hack your phone to do it</blockquote> This is the problem. <blockquote> and even then it was never that popular</blockquote> Cydia had millions of users and they're the ones who showed apple just how popular the 3rd party app market was with users. I don't have a problem with apple copying and improving on cydia's idea...innovation isn't a one way street. Regardless of how we got here though, the main takeaway should be that competition ought to be allowed and owners ought be free to make their own choices. <blockquote>Wait this same government invests in things like AirBus and that is fine but no not tech companies. Hummmmm. Ok. </blockquote> I have a bad taste for public taxpayer dollars funding private companies & projects because, at least here in the US, taxpayers often get a raw deal I had to lookup the details about airbus, according to this link, it's mostly private american shareholders these days. https://simpleflying.com/europes-manufacturing-juggernaut-who-owns-airbus/ <blockquote>And again the law in the EU did not come from consumer complaints it came from other rich companies that compete with Apple like Microsoft (Mad that Windows phone sucked and they lost) and Epic who don’t want to pay fees but still charge customers the same (They wouldn’t be passing on “Savings” to customers) </blockquote> We've been complaining about the google/android duopoly for at least a decade. Most governments outside of the EU fail to represent consumer interests even though it's supposed to be their job. <blockquote>And people made Apps for the best systems Android and iOS. And you can’t say its because Apple had more money than Microsoft because at the time iOS came out MS was almost twice as valuable as Apple. Microsoft just flopped.</blockquote> IMHO there were lots of good alternative mobile platforms, but even users like me who liked them quickly learned that if we wanted apps we were stuck in the android and IOS duopoly and I'm pretty sure this is the #1 reason people gave up on alternatives. I know this is a really hard problem to fix now that we're here. But for a start, it seems logical to open up the app market to competing app stores who aren't incentivized to lock down the app market to their hardware platform. IMHO a multiplatform mobile app store could not only be a boon in it's own right but with a bit of help enable brand new mobile platforms having access to apps necessary to achieve viability. I for one don't wish to stay trapped in the IOS/android duopoly.

By: Alfman
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436545">CaptainN-</a>. CaptainN-, <blockquote>...The real story here, is how those types of uninformed opinions propagate across so many “news” sites.</blockquote> I'm not sure why you brought this up in context of my post specifically, but I will point out that I qualified my opinions "if apple blocks other browsers from implementing PWAs" "as long as apple doesn’t interfere with others implementing PWAs in competing browsers". The EU product is still in beta and I know things can change before release,but I stand by my post, as long as apple continues to impose artificial restrictions on competitors, then it's still a problem.

By: CaptainN-
In reply to <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/138605/apple-intentionally-kills-web-applications-for-eu-users-in-ios-17-4-onward-to-spite-its-eu-users/#comment-10436544">CaptainN--</a>. It looks like what they actually changed isn't a nerf to PWA at all. They have always allowed you to add website shortcuts as a launcher to your home screen, and that has always launched Safari (regardless of your default browser setting). Microsoft does this now, in Windows - more things open in Edge than should, or at least that's what the blogosphere says, collectively (I don't really use Windows any more). So what Apple did, was change it so that non-PWA launchers don't open Safari any more, and instead open your selected default browser. Then the entire motivated reasoning brigade, who probably didn't test the feature, offered uninformed, knee jerk opinions they got directly from someone else, on all their blogs. The real story here, is how those types of uninformed opinions propagate across so many "news" sites.