191–200 of 206 posts
This is a calculated move on Apple's part to make sure that when they deploys Safari Reader for the iPhone it is /their/ idea and not the folks at Readability.
Shame, shame, shame. I know you're name.
This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?
I simply like the platform. The hardware is nice, Objective-C is a pleasant language for me to write in, the library is very well thought out. And it certainly does not hurt that we can keep the company afloat by developing for iOS -- we simply could not do that on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only channel possible on iPhones without jailbreak is Apple's. Users own the iPhones bought. Therefore Apple should either let users subscribe to third-party channels, or release their channel in the hands of users (i.e. let them approve or ban apps). Otherwise, if there will ever come a day when Apple will have a monopoly on his hands, a big lawsuit will also happen. And really, I can see why Apple wants to cont…
Imagine a phone without third-party apps / any kind of app-store. Does your manufacturer have to provide some kind of software channel for your phone? No. It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it. The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".
iOS is a platform for third-party apps. That's how it's now sold (right on their website: "The world’s largest collection of mobile apps").
That's a lock-in mechanism. Switching between phones with no third-party apps is a lot cheaper that switching between the iPhone and a Blackberry.
They could do this if they wouldn't have allowed any third-party apps at all; if the popularity of the platform for third-party apps wouldn't be one of the reasons iPhones are selling like crazy.
And I also don't get this apologetic behavior from people in regards to Apple's actions. Do you miss the 90s when all you could use and target was Microsoft's OS? Do you miss the whims of Microsoft and the iron grip they had on the industry?
What, do you feel too much freedom of choice now? You think it's unhealthy or something?
I think Apple may have decided to enforce an untenable rule, simply so it can be used as a reasonably large concession when the antitrust machinery slides into gear. If you are going to be required to give up ground - you might as well grab all the ground you can prior to any punitive action.
That sounds like the man who beat his head against the wall; because it felt so good when he quit.
If they honestly think they can get away with it, I think this might be a signal that they're losing touch with their community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a phone without third-party apps / any kind of app-store. Does your manufacturer have to provide some kind of software channel for your phone? No. It's just another service, separate from the phone, you're free to use it, or not use it. The answer to your why's is probably "because they can".
That's not what's happening here. iOS is a platform for third-party apps. That's how it's now sold (right on their website: " The world’s largest collection of mobile apps "). That's a lock-in mechanism. Switching between phones with no third-party apps is a lot cheaper that switching between the iPhone and a Blackberry. They could do this if they wouldn't have allowed any third-party apps at all; if the popularity o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...
I'm not sure what you mean. "Windows", to me, refers to the desktop OS, which is certainly licensed, and has no corresponding hardware component available from Microsoft directly. Microsoft definitely has their own crazy and draconian licensing and "ownership" issues, but I can't tell from your comment which one of the thousands of possible example cases you're referring to. If you have a well-reasoned counterpoint,…
If I understand correctly, you argue that users don't "own" the device because Apple sells it as a whole stack or because they write the iOS and license it to users. My point is that even with licensed OS users should be free to do whatever they want on the device. When I buy an iPhone, the iOS is already installed so I assume I have also bought the right to use it (like Mac OS?). It doesn't matter whether the OS that comes with the device is written by the hardware manufacturer or not; hence the Microsoft analogy and that's why i disagree with you.
Now when it comes to the subject of App Store, someone has pointed out correctly that App Store is a distribution channel and Windows or iOS is an operating system. It was not my comparison. Here I do agree that Apple has every right to charge developers for any amount they want, or the right to deny any app they don't see fit in the App Store. However Apple don't allow any other channels on their system. That is still in their right to do so, but it will raise some issues when the iPhone/iPod Touch reaches a certain market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And you could argue that civilization has been one long exercise in striving to replace the contracts of nature with something better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not a great comparison. Windows is an OS, the App Store is a channel. It is a pretty good comparison as long as App Store is the only way to install anything on iOS
For somebody new to the whole iTunes Store ecosystem it is neither faster nor less mentally challenging to set up a new ITS account than it is to jailbreak their new device. It may strike you as obviously false, and it may well have been so two years ago, but when I got my new iPad after moving to another country I've spent about twice as much time getting iTunes to let me pay for apps in foreign App Store than I've…
From my experience, it turns older iPhones into a stuttering laggy mess and breaks visual voicemail, and makes you paranoid about every iTunes update.
The reason this doesn't work is because Apple had to pick a number - 30%. For some businesses, that makes perfect sense. for others 1% or maybe 70% might make sense. But rigidly adhering to 30% (no doubt because of the massive complexity of the alternative) is going to cut lots of business out just because it doesn't make sense. Apple needs to rethink this - it's clumsy.
They have to pick 30% because in-app purchases are charged at 30%. You can't have two variations of the same thing (one that auto-renews and one that doesn't) charged differently. Let's say the subscription cut was 10%. Everyone would release their apps as free, and charge for everything as a "subscription" because it's less than the 30% cut for app sales or non-auto renewable in-app purchases. Basically, there is no…
It's not much different than if Google were to decide that all AdWords clicks are now $3.
The thing is that nobody cared when it was a one time fee for their $1.99 app. When Apple starts talking about subscriptions that may cost 10's or 100's of times that each month, Apple starts to look like their overreaching - and it could be damaging to long term adoption of the platform.
One might even hypothesize that these ham fisted policies are defining the very nature of the offerings in the app store - it explains the preference for fart apps over sophisticated (expensive) products.
Apple is just coming off as if they didn't think this through.
I posted this to my blog a few days ago, but I think it's worth repeating here because it applies directly to this open letter: While apps and content are just break even businesses for Apple, they are instrumental to the company's financial success. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are each technology platforms that bring together consumers, apps, and content. The value of each platform (iPod, iPhone, and iPad) to consume…