Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are you people defending Apple?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 228 posts

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#71

Post by elehack »

cfontes wrote: post #46

Apple is just like a religion or sport team to some ppl... no matter what happens they stay on their side, I hate ppl that take things as a religion. BUT... I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.

They own the infrastructure, but they do not own the device. The customer does. They bought it.

Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services, but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#72

Post by cubicle67 »

Bossman wrote: post #52
cletus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the article actually says is: > Not to mention the fact that users have built up libraries of dozens of applications and DRM-laden content that won’t transfer between devices. What you say is (emphasis added): > The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music , movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other d…

I get what you mean, but it still locks you into Apple's devices. Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.

Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.

I'm not sure I see your point

Apple music = Amazon music = DRM free

Apple iBooks = Amazon Kindle books = incl DRM

Apple movies = Netflix = everyone else = incl DRM

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#73

Post by [deleted] »

Bossman wrote: post #2

And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes. The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could inc…

[deleted]

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#74

Post by Bossman »

Pooter wrote: post #67
Bossman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you mean, but it still locks you into Apple's devices. Also, Amazon is able to produce content without DRM. Mp3 format music, etc.

1) You're not locked into Apple's devices. ITunes is standard mp4 audio and plays on a variety of platforms; the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too. 2) Amazon's VOD service provides DRMed video, too. Then what's the issue?

> the DRMed video plays through itunes on windows too

That's the problem. The DRM locks it to Apple only software and/or hardware.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#75

Post by Pooter »

statictype wrote: post #68
Pooter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, it's a way to get content providers to sell through Apple. If there's a 30% premium to get on iOS through Amazon, a way around that is to just sell through iBooks. We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff.

We'll see how it shakes out. Maybe it'll be like the "nothing but objective-c" thing. People freak out too much about this kind of stuff. I think part of the reason they rescinded on that is because people freaked out about it :)

And because they realized that it ruled out large swaths of application classes that they don't have an issue with (games, for example).

Mostly, it was about keeping crappy flash apps of iOS. And from a platform perspective, that did actually make a lot of sense.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#76

Post by jkincaid »

neutronicus wrote: post #6

"And finally, there’s the related notion that anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s rules can pick up and move to another platform, like Android. Which is ridiculous." What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous. Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.

I did suck it up and switched to Android. It isn't painless. I now like Android better than iOS, but you need to change your muscle memory and learn where various options are. And all of the apps and content you purchased on iOS are no longer accessible, which is the real pain-point.

These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is probably more likely to "just switch" to iBooks as opposed to a different platform that supports Kindle. Which is apparently what Apple is counting on.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#77

Post by Bossman »

darren_ wrote: post #37
Bossman wrote: post #2

And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes. The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could inc…

> all their music, movies, apps, etc are in Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices. Music on iOS devices isn't DRMed and hasn't been for some time. If your new device can't play m4a files this is a separate issue and you can transcode them just like if you had a pile of drm-free WMAs. Apps are DRMed but even if they weren't it'd be irrelevant unless a WINE-analogue for iOS came about (and consider the…

Valid points. You're right. Maybe I went a bit overboard. But you can't deny that Apple is continuously trying to prevent people from using anything but their services and goods. I don't blame them for that. What I blame them for is pushing everyone else out just because they control enough of the market to do so.

> I suppose it could be your alarms, preferred weather cities and stocks app choices. Or your SMS database, which I bet most people don't even consider as something that should easily transfer from phone to phone (though obviously it should).

Absolutely. However, those things aren't huge. Different platforms have equivelants anyway. If I go from iOS to Android (or the other way around), I have plenty to take the place of those. Setting them up again may take a little time, but not much.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#78

Post by halostatue »

whatusername wrote: post #54
rauljara wrote: post #41

If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging. If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscri…

To me the issue is the fact that if you have any form of subscription service -- then you MUST use the IOS service and you MUST pay apple their 30%. Apple's service looks worthwhile and valid for certain use cases. But to insist that it must be used for any IOS Native app that has a monthly fee is a draconian change. Reasonably Serious Case: I've been looking at building an app for my wife to offer to her fitness boo…

I suspect that your analysis is completely wrong. IANAL, and all.

1. Apple disallows in-app purchases for physical goods; presumably this would include services that are provided in the physical world instead of wholly electronically.

2. Apps have to be (minimally) useful to people without requiring a for-pay subscription.

3. These new rules would only kick in if you offered content (or possibly services; this is the SaaS question still unanswered, but it probably only applies to content as delivered content—that is, it seems to me to not apply to rental content, e.g., Netflix or Hulu) to people that is dependent on a subscription fee or a one-time fee.

As an example, let's say your wife's app were to have two news feeds about her fitness bootcamps (regular and premium). If all of her fitness bootcamp clients (the people who pay $200) are given access codes to the premium feed subscription, she may be required to offer in-app purchase of access to the premium news feed to people who are not or cannot be her physical customer at a price equivalent to or less than what she charges for the physical customers to have access to that feed.

All you'd have to do to comply is provide access to the premium news feed as an in-app purchase for $200 or less and let Apple take 30% of that. They're not getting anything for her fitness bootcamp services.

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#79

Post by mryall »

statictype wrote: post #56
rauljara wrote: post #41

If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely. They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what they're charging. If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscri…

Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service. Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in addition to the existing rules. The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any subscription service out…

Yeah, this confused me a lot. The press release [1] says quite clearly:

> Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

It's that last clause which clearly states that apps like the the current Kindle app, which includes a "Buy Books" link at the top, will no longer be allowed.

This will be a massive shock to the nascent content-based app market on iOS. I can see only two possibilities for developers of these existing apps: primary producers of content who can afford to wear the extra 30% will just lose on their margin; or apps reduce the price of content on iOS so the Apple cut isn't as big. Neither option will be particularly palatable to most producers. Many might avoid the platform entirely.

But over the long term, I suspect this will have a positive disruptive effect in the iOS content market. Smaller producers who can build a business model around the 30% cut by Apple (similar to app developers) will have a better chance at maintaining a healthy margin.

[1] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html

Re: Why are you people defending Apple?

#80

Post by Bossman »

chc wrote: post #33
coffeedrinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the subscription world can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in HTML.

If you're talking desktop, I agree, since the browser has become so pre-eminent there. But for mobile, Web apps are distinctly second-tier citizens. Just installing one on your home screen is voodoo beyond the ken of most iPhone users.

It's not so bad on Android. And Google is very good at Web Apps. Try viewing the web app versions of gmail and such on your phone. They're not as full featured as the dedicated apps, but they work damn well. The big thing is making them look like real apps to the end user. No one wants to have to remember a bunch of web addresses. Something like what Chrome does on the PC is good...instead of a classic link shortcut for your desktop, it makes an "app" out of it. Giving it its own icon and name like any other program on the computer.
Post reply on HN