I'm not an Apple user and don't really care, but I guess it then comes down to the definition of "unused". If people miss it I can only assume it was used sometimes. So is there an official definition for "unused" (days, weeks, etc.) that they stick to consistently, or is anything removed from the app store automatically marked as "unused" for everyone? Or to put it another way, if you use that app every day and do an update that needs free space, does it still get removed? The article is not clear.

Also IMO that is a crappy non-selective way to free up space in the first place, but just reinforces why I am not an Apple user.

Do the absolute bare minimum and click those links I gifted your lazy ass. Those apps are available for anybody because, as mentioned above, this isn't a problem that affects Android users.

To spell it out for the slow kids like you, Google doesn't have a walled garden. Put the dunce cap back on, NoMoreACs.

Copyright lasting forever is already unfair. People/corporations shouldn't get a government enforced monopoly basically forever, that doesn't encourage new creation.

Corporations hate the idea of competition and the public domain so they push gullible people to believe that committing copyright infringement is like stealing a car

I did it a with a few apps with my wife. We've never been on Family Plan (that sounds wrong!). I think we stopped when she got her iPhone 11 because it didn't work with my very old late 2007 MBP. Up until then I was backing our phones up to the laptop. I had iTunes configured with two different libraries in the same local account and was downloading the apps in iTunes. I would then copy paid apps between our libraries (or dragged them from Finder to iTunes? I don't remember now). After that, whenever an app from the other person needed to be updated, you'd be prompted for their Apple ID and password.

Actually, the courts are still deciding if the app infringes or not. If the court finds that Musi is not infringing, Apple may have liability as well. Had they maintained status quo and looked to the courts for direction, they would have less liability.

"Some Musi fans only learned that Apple booted Musi after they updated their phones, and the app got offloaded with no option to re-download."

Perhaps they have an app for reading comprehension.

You could even copy apps from somebody elseâ(TM)s phone to your own phone this way (side loading?).

Stealing implies something is taken, this is just copyright infringement

> But Musi does not have permission and is bypassing the Youtube interface

You don't need permission from the copyright holder to stream from youtube. And youtube itself is giving implicate permission to stream from them by serving up the stream. "If you continue using this service" TOS shrink wraps are not valid.

> violating the copyright holder's claim to be able to control the streaming of the data?

They signed over this control when they allowed it to be streamed on youtube. If the copyright holders have a grievance, it's with youtube.

Or..

You bought an appliance (that technically happens to be implemented as a personal computer) with the knowledge that what you can do with it is governed by rules

If something you've been doing with that appliance turns out to not abide by those rules, you simply get on with your life, as it's really not that important.

App store guidelines:

If your apps uses another service and violates the terms of that service, no App Store for you.

Further to that, to make to abundantly clear:

Downloading audio or video from YouTube without explicit authorization is prohibited.

It's not "Musi Fans" it's Apple's software and hardware customers who have paid for their hardware and software...
"Who refuse to upgrade" meaning that if I buy something I HAVE TO upgarade it even if the upgrade DEGRADES what I bought it for? Hell no.

There's a big problem on how this is being put.

The issue isnt with "Musi Fans" at all. It's with Apple REQUIRING their prepaid customers to DOWNGRADE the software so they CAN NO LONGER [newly] USE IT AT ALL EVER AGAIN."

Who's the bag guy here, genius?

FAPPLE.

There's a dog cock that needs sucking. Get back to work.

So before litigation on this matter is concluded, you have decided Musi is streaming music illegally from YouTube?

I must have missed the part where there was a finding of guilt. Can you help me out by pointing to where I can find it?

So, let me get this straight. Musi streaming music illegally from YouTube, files a lawsuit to demand Apple allow them to continue their illegal behavior in Apples backyard because Apple stopped them on behalf of the actual legal content owner?

Since when is Blatantly Fucking Stealing a reasonable corporate charter? The hell exactly are we calling a legitimate business these days? Is Musi Too Big To Fail or some shit? Taxpayers didn’t get the memo on that one.

Meanwhile, Grandma still has a record from back in her Metalli-Napster days..