141–147 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy a non Apple device if you don't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
I did. I'm using a Galaxy Note 9. Apple device owners shouldn't have to abandon their favorite phones though. They should have software freedom and choice.
They have the freedom to buy a different brand, as you did. They shouldn't have the "freedom" to dictate what Apple does with the devices they sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's their devices, they can add or remove features as they see fit imo. If they make enough choices that negatively impact user experience, there will be a vacuum for a better offering.
No offense but that's not at all how competition law works. There is a reason regulators in the world are investigating Apple right now and it's not because they are a model citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.
There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Plenty of people chose only to rent movies at Blockbuster Video because it was a bright and clean store with no porn. That didn't require Blockbuster to make their own special VHS or DVD player that only played the movies they offered. > I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience I'm sure th…
Agreed. I, as a consumer, would like this option the best. If a free and open competitor to Apple made better devices and better software, I would jump ship immediately. I lament Apple's increasingly poor decisions, but have no better alternative currently, because competitors just aren't as good at what they do. The answer isn't to strong arm Apple into changing the way they do business on their own platform, the answer is to build better alternatives. (IMHO)
> I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.
I know you gave this as an absurd gotcha, but yeah I have no problem with that. For the sake of argument:
- Town A wants to segregate, everyone in A would be happier with racial segregation. - Country X does not want segregation, the people have spoken and decided that segregation is immoral. - Town A should be free segregate to their hearts content, just not in Country A.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good on you, I find it hard to be without Google and Facebook however. I instead choose to give my data to both governments of opposing values. Kill the competitive value of my data.
Are you seriously claiming to hold moral high ground while siding with Google and Facebook? If you think it's okay to use them but not Apple, the most benign of the major companies, that people only interact with when they CHOOSE to, your bizarre crusade kind of loses its edge. Even if one NEVER explicitly uses any Google or Facebook service, they would still be feeding their day to them just by visiting completely u…
And yes, I think that Google is still better compared to Apple as far as the web is concerned. I can freely block their trackers if I want to. Google's interests align with the future of the web. Apple's interests are a complete walled garden. As a consumer, for as long as the web thrives, most people benefit. When a wall garden happens, that is when consumers lose in the longer term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. I don't understand how expecting a computer to just run software became entitlement. Why should anyone need Apple's permission to do anything?
Buy a non Apple device if you don't want to jump through Apple's hoops.
If you could choose between a fee decrease to 15% or the ability to sideload apps bypassing the store, which is more important? To me, the only reason I avoid iOS is specifically because I cannot install my own apps without using the store.
I think capping fees would make it even worse, it would entrench the practice as acceptable. Allow sideloading and the price should move towards the equilibrium price. Which very well might be 30%, since Google manages this despite allowing sideloading. The tricky question I would say is the accessibility of the alternative stores. First there is the default/non-default install thing, we've seen how it worked out for…
I think Apple is providing more value than PayPal, but less value than a two-way marketplace.
For me, 30% is extortionate and predatory. 5% is too low for the value they provide. 15% is quite high, but it can be justified given the value adds (advertising, content delivery, reviews, last resort QA, security etc).