121–130 of 333 posts
On the gradient of human needs this falls to about the lowest rung. The word 'monopoly' thrown around here has been made vague enough to be weaponized -- when in reality the ingredient to an actual monopoly is that the buyer has no viable alternative in the marketplace... which you all know otherwise.
Think about this critically: commodities in general are marked up at 30%. The 'mom and pop' liquor store down your street sells bottles at least that. Is it a monopoly because they're the only store in a ten block radius?
Don't conflate your laziness and desire for the highest status-signalling pocket computer for lack of actual marketplace choice. The good folks at Basecamp, or really anyone here complaining, who owns an iPhone, are hypocrites in self denial.
Among the various morally-questionable actions Apple does for growth, this isn't some atrocity.
Don't @me
Ok, how about we instead tear down this idea that it's legally OK for a company to sell you a computer, and then prevent you from installing whatever software you want on it? Doesn't sound like we have any bad precedents then! And, apple can keep their app store if they want, and pitch it as a curated, safe walled garden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many products evolve because of user-feedback. And regulation. See GDPR and CCPA.
Yes, but those two examples don't have a particularly great track record. Regulation tends to be a very blunt hammer that might only partially address the problem while introducing a bunch of others (e.g. cookie banners).
Nooooo!!!! I am sustained by Apple hatred. It is an essential part of my balanced diet. Every time someone complains about how expensive Apple is I grow a centimeter and every time someone bitches about their App Store policies I gain a month of lifespan. I am now 40km tall and will live for 50,000 years but ultimately a lack of whining about Apple would see me wither away and die.
Apple's position sucks for those who rely on their customers (and yes, it is THEIR customers) for a living. No matter how much we complain, they developed their ecosystem.
Searching for spreadsheet patents returns a lot of really banal concepts [1]. Maybe they wouldn’t hold up in court, but having been served before, it’s a very terrifying experience.
Or, if you create a successful competing product, you’ll probably just get bought out (whatsapp, keybase, instagram).
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadshe...
"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining. This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as. And this point from the article needs to be…
Agreed. There's a false dichotomy here. You can use a product, and as a stakeholder demand change. Refraining from using the product entirely is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way. Many products evolve because of user-feedback.
The hubris and contempt for democracy emanating from tech bros is astounding. It's not going to be fashionable forever.
Unpopular opinion: the 30% that Apple charges includes customer acquisition cost. As a thought experiment, if Hey adds In-App Purchase for subscriptions, but everyone who downloads the app has first signed up for their service due to their marketing methods (an increasing likelihood considering this controversy), then nobody will use the In App Purchase, and Hey will send $0.00 to Apple. If someone discovers the App…
In my experience, you will likely either pay for search results or do marketing on your own using other channels. Both are paid and Apple doesn't do anything for it.
There's really no good case for taking 30% as long as there's no real marketing benefit from the App Store.