131–140 of 206 posts
My satellite TV provider has an app I can only use if signed up to them. Do they now need to offer TV subscription through their app? What about the 37signals Campfire clients? Do they now need to offer Campfire subs via inapp purchase too?
My satellite TV provider has an app I can only use if signed up to them. Do they now need to offer TV subscription through their app? What about the 37signals Campfire clients? Do they now need to offer Campfire subs via inapp purchase too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. The "global marketplace" is the one in which you can purchase a piece of hardware, install software of your choice on that hardware (albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort), possibly licensed from a third party (again, albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort). Apple sells a service - they make it easier to install certain…
Once you have purchased your hardware, and have purchased a catalogue of software titles, you are effectively 'locked in'. It's a bit naive to state that people have choice - because if you have a iOS based device, you (effectively) only have one place to make purchases. Jail-breaking and third-party software sources are beyond the reach of most consumers. For all intents, if you have an iOS based device, the AppStor…
If you think that's something most consumers would desire and are incapable of achieving, then go into business jailbreaking iPhones. You can install an app store while you're at it.
I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.
Again, they can't stop you. Open up a brick-and-mortar store where you jailbreak iPhones and put your own app store on the iPhone. Sell kits online.
I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace'
What does 'marketplace' even mean? If you're selling stock on the NYSE, someone's collecting vig. If you're selling consumer goods at a mall, someone's collecting rent. If you're selling something on Amazon, they're collecting vig. How does calling it a 'marketplace' support your argument when just about every privately owned 'marketplace' involves someone collecting vig?
- however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison?
Apple supporter? I am an Android phone owner who is keen to know why you don't buy an Android device, and write apps for it.
What this all boils down to is that consumers are perfectly capable of escaping lock-in and installing whatever software for which they can get a license. However, they both trust Apple's imprimatur enough and value individual apps lowly enough that they don't. Consumers don't want enough to venture outside of Apple's convenient payment and discovery service. You are attempting to disguise this reality by saying that Apple restricts the consumer's choice, but this is a canard. is simply not compelling enough for most consumers to jailbreak their phones, or buy Android, to get it.
Perhaps this will be the one that gets enough publicity to make Apple come to their senses and see the collateral damage being caused by their War on Amazon.
Maybe this will be the one that gets developers to realize this is not a sustainable game they are playing with Apple, by Apple's rules, in Apple's world.
> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial constru…
If I understand Readability's issue, it breaks down like this: What they want: For a $1 subscription fee, Readability keeps $0.30 and the publisher/writer of the articles viewed through that $1 sub get $0.70 What Apple requires: For a $1 subscription fee, Apple keeps $0.30, Readability then has the option of keeping $0.30 (30% of $1) or $0.21 (30% of the remainder after Apple's cut) and then the publisher/writer gets…
>Why does Readability feel they deserve $0.30 but Apple doesn't? If Apple doesn't deserve $0.30, shouldn't the publisher/writer get the full $1? Without the articles, Readability is worthless. Without Apple, Readability for iOS is worthless. This is an interesting question that deserves thought. Readability provides publishers/writers with an application and a new medium to distribute their efforts. And for their eff…
>So lets view the fairness arguments again. What would be fair for Apple to do so that they are paid a deserving portion of revenue for their efforts? They could mandate that 1. Any paid for App will not encumber additional subscription revenue share (tax), as long as they do not use Apple's streaming resources (is this 100% possible for subscription services?) 2. Any App which is distributed free, but is paid for by a subscription model, will have a revenue share agreement with Apple.
I'm not sure that's an accurate analysis. It appears you want to define Apple (and iOS) as simply a technical infrastructure service provider: bandwidth, disk space, etc. If that were true, iOS would be effectively identical to Android and no one would complain about this 30% because they'd just hop over to Android without a second thought.
Apple is providing a service to iOS developers: access to the iOS eco-system. Developers are not required to develop an iOS app, they have numerous other options for distributing their application/service. If they want to leverage the iOS eco-system (installed user base, iOS advertising & marketing that Apple pays for, SDK that Apple has developed and maintains that is often considered rather efficient at enabling development of user-friendly applications, payment processing system that is extremely easy for end-users, etc), those developers must agree to Apple's terms of access. In return, Apple believes they can charge fees for various methods in which a developer may choose to use the wide range of features Apple has created in their iOS eco-system.
Readability is, as far as I can determine, nearly identical: they have developed a service that provides access to other people's creative work and Readability charges for that service. As an end user, I don't have to use Readability to access the original creative work. If Readability is "allowed" to charge the content owner 30% to give me that special Readability access, why can Apple "not" charge the developer 30% to give them access to that special Apple eco-system?
My entire point would be moot if Apple required 30% of all revenue from Readability regardless of whether the subscription originated from within the iOS app or from Readability's website - but Apple has not done that, which is exactly why Apple's fee is a fee to access the eco-system (not specifically to use Apple's bandwidth, Apple's storage space, etc).
edit: In fact, on further consideration, why is Readability's business model considered fair in and of itself? They provide a mechanism for a publisher to voluntarily sign up to receive the 70% Readability wants to give them - but does that mean Readability will not function on a publishers content if that publisher does not agree? I don't believe Readability is blocking access to content from publishers that have not signed up. Effectively, Readability is extorting publishers: give us 30% or we'll take everything. Apple on the other hand is simply saying: give us 30% or you can't use our service. The latter is blatantly more "fair" as it only exists with choice. The former requires publishers to actively use resources to block Readability (on a continuing basis) in order for the publisher to maintain their previously established business model. The publisher's choice has been eliminated. How can Readability justify that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, but said system would be unnatural and artificial. Real, yes - but artificial.
I think your use of the term artificial, while apt in the sense of "not existing in non-human nature," is really banking on a series of connotations of artificial that don't apply to the non-natural sense of artificial. Artificial, for example, connotes: unnecessary, inferior to the non-artificial, superfluous, inauthentic. Your point is really something along the lines of linking an ethical system of non-killing to…
Frankly, this has little to do with the original post - I just made my original comment in response to someone saying "don't kill" is an example of a natural contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are no natural contracts. Do not kill?
More than almost anything else, killing seems fundamental to nature as I understand nature. I would, in fact, say that "kill or be killed" is THE natural contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. I think it comes down to the potential loophole that could be exploited whereby an app is offered for free but the full version can only be activated by clicking a link and following a separate payment flow that deprives Apple of 30%. This could also pose a long term usability problem.
App Store reviewers can and should be able to tell the discriminate between an app like the one you're describing, and say Evernote of Flickr which are perfectly usable without a paid subscription.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are free to do whatever you want to your iPhone/iPad hardware. You can build a Linux distro and install it, there's already an Android distro for it, you can smash it, tear it apart, put it back together, wallpaper your room with them, etc. Nothing prevents you from doing those things. It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building a boot loader into the device, adding double sided tape on the back s…
> It's not Apple's duty to make it easier for you by building > a boot loader into the device [...]" Nobody said it was. In fact, I think for the most part nobody has ever said that it's Apple's duty to do anything. A bunch of folks have said it'd be nice if Apple did allow third-party distribution channels, and a handful of hackers went ahead and made one, but I don't think anyone's ever claimed that Apple had a res…
But all of those people already have that right. So the complaint is: Apple is required to do more to allow me to do things I can't manage on my own.
It is an implicit claim that Apple is duty bound to provide features that Apple has no interest in providing.
My toaster doesn't make ice, nor does it heat my living room. Simply because I own the toaster doesn't mean there is any logic in my complaining that the manufacturer didn't provide a means for me to do those things with my toaster. If the toaster manufacturer decides there is a market it wants to be in for a toaster that makes ice, it can build that toaster. It's not obligated to build that ice-making toaster even if there is a huge market for it.