121–130 of 474 posts
Then there's the "developer tax" too - Apple squeezes money from the developers too for the "privilege" of even making an app (for public distribution) for the ios platform. And you need to buy a Mac too ...
Luckily you can run macOS in VirtualBox, KVM, Qemu, ESXi, etc.
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
Free demo then buy is called iap. It exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Absolutely terrible search We have much more powerful CPU, In-Memory DB and SSD, Searching within a comparatively small dataset that is the App Store is a solved problem more than a decade ago and much more so now. Instead we got a appalling App Store search. It could simply mean one thing, Apple just doesn't care.
Why would they care, you don't have a choice. BTW,why is Google having issues with its store in Europe and not Apple? At least you can install an alternative store on Android which is strictly better for the consumer.
I wouldn't have complain if it was from any other companies. But it is Apple, they need to be better. Why do they need to do it? Steve gave an answer long ago, "Because we give a Damn!"
In my modest opinion, progressive app store fee would make much more sense: https://svedic.org/philosophy/why-app-stores-need-progressiv...
Now you don't even have the choice not to sell your subscription products on iOS...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free demo then buy is called iap. It exists.
The parent's point is that could be handled at the store level. With IAP, you have to decide to split your game and write a bunch of code to do A or do B. Apple could put a time (absolute or use) lock on a game and have it just not open after unless the user buys it. The game is exactly the same during the demo period and after purchase.
£15.99 per month. I could have sworn it was £11.99.....
I deleted my YouTube app, and signed up for £11.99. Reinstalled my YouTube app and it was Premium.
I am being told to "get the app as it is better" and yet evidence suggests that having the app cost me £48 a year in this situation.
That is ridiculous surely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steam does not sell me a locked down hardware platform preventing me from buying the software directly from the publisher. Nor does Steam force me to buy DLC through Steam, I am free to buy the DLC directly from the publisher. Steam gets a cut of what I buy from Steam and I am not locked into buying from Steam in order to make my PC useful. Apple sells me a locked down hardware platform that requires me to go through…
I would bet that Apple would probably rather you not have a relationship with Amazon Video at all, getting your TV and Movies from iTunes instead. But Apple doesn't have a majority of market share (by number of devices), so, in my opinion, antitrust regulators have completely discounted their behavior. On the other hand, the experience of using Apple Pay is miles beyond Google Checkout/Wallet/Pay/Android Pay/whatever…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are doing a ton that is useful: - Taking care of payment processing - Storing the user's credit card information - Providing a ton of pricing options - Providing analytics and crash monitoring tools - Providing deployment tools - Providing development tools (push notifications, regular updates to their platforms, market segmentation, beta releases, etc) - Providing distribution - Creating a market place for the…
At the scale Apple operate None of what you stated above is worth anywhere near 10%, let alone 30%. And for the last few points, they are covered by the Hardware cost which in Apple case cover the software as well. ( Where Windows and Android are covered by other means ) And I don't think you are actually disagreeing with your parents at all. Because all the services they provided and as you have listed are now consi…
It sounds like your expectation is that a company would not charge as much as the market will accept for a unique product. How much it costs to simply handle e.g. payment processing has relatively little to do with it.
The 30% cut would have been reasonable after all this time if the platforms were doing anything useful with the money. Instead, we got: - Store APIs that to this day are stupidly complex to get right in all cases, making you wonder why it’s so hard - No support for very common, decades-old pricing schemes like “free demo, then buy” (except through convoluted means) - Stagnant app store designs (esp. Mac, for YEARS) -…
In my opinion the 30% fee is reasonable because it provides access to Apple's user base. It's not as though they're specifically obligated to earmark that money to improve the app store itself. The things you're complaining about are valid criticisms, but I don't think the have anything to do with whether or not the fee is appropriate. In return for 30%, Apple develops and maintains a centralized software distributio…
Well, the counter to this is that it is not Apple's userbase. Apple doesn't own those phones. Consumers do, because those consumers paid for them.
The alternative isn't "don't build for this market". The alternative is doing exactly what these companies are doing, and building their own marketplace/appstore/distributing on their own website like Fortnite does.
People have the right to install whatever they want of phones that they own.