541–550 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think anyone is surprised? Do you think anger or frustration requires surprise?
Why would anyone be angry or frustrated that "Apple designed their rules so most of the key businesses in this world don't pay an insane 30% of their revenue to Apple"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone be angry or frustrated that "Apple designed their rules so most of the key businesses in this world don't pay an insane 30% of their revenue to Apple"?
Maybe because of the word "insane"?
Not to say that Apple applies their rules fairly (I wouldn’t really know, but I’m willing to trust there are issues). Just that each communication I see from Hey feels entitled and self-dramatizing. It doesn’t feel like they’re helping their own case...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By definition market failures can't be fixed by market dynamics. That's why I put "market failure" in quotes. If you think anything fixable by users changing their preferences isn't a "market failure" by your definition, fine, then the Apple situation is not a market failure by your definition. > That is why state does tons of interventions/regulations to make it work. No, the government does tons of interventions/…
> Throwing around buzzwords proves nothing These are technical terms, not buzzwords and calling them so doesn't make much of a counter-argument. > That's the essence of a free market No it is not. You seem to equate free market with unregulated market which is not always true. Markets fail to self-regulate in the absence of open competition, which is what precisely the App Store on iPhone is. Nearly half of the mobil…
The technical definitions of these terms don't support the claims you are making using them, so you're not using them as technical terms, you're using them as buzzwords.
> You seem to equate free market with unregulated market
Not at all. A free market is regulated by the voluntary choices of market participants.
> Markets fail to self-regulate in the absence of open competition
So your definition of "open competition" is "Apple can't choose the terms on which it is going to provide products and services that it built itself". By that definition, "open competition" has nothing whatever to do with "free market", since in a free market every market participant gets to choose the terms on which it is going to provide goods and services that it built itself. Forcing market participants to provide goods and services on terms they would not choose for themselves is not a free market.
> Imagine instead Apple owned half of the roads in the US and stipulated what businesses could use those roads
Roads are not the same as smartphones or apps; roads are exclusive in a way that smartphones and apps are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lack of reduction in observable demand doesn't imply an absence of cost. Waving your hands and throwing random numbers around doesn't imply a presence of cost. > That is appeal to tradition. It is no such thing. I'm just trying to figure out what your actual position is. > monopolistic nature of tech combined with vertical integration is a large unsolved problem Which makes it clearer what your position is: you t…
> Waving your hands and throwing random numbers around doesn't imply a presence of cost. Come on, let's not go in circles. I posited there is a cost to user in being locked into a single app store. You claimed if there was such cost, we necessarily would have seen decrease in user demand. My handwaving numbers were to demonstrate that it doesn't have to be true, there can be substantial user costs without any decreas…
And the person to judge that question is the user, not two people having an argument on an Internet site. And not app developers either.
> You claimed if there was such cost, we necessarily would have seen decrease in user demand.
I said that if there is no discernible change in user demand, that means the users, who are the ones in a position to judge, evidently don't see a significant enough cost to change their behavior. Any change in the cost-benefit relationship will change the behavior of some users. Sure, they won't all switch from iPhones to something else, but some percentage of them will.
> Being able to give away things for free come from the giant profits accumulated through monopolistic vertical integration.
No, it comes from having some other source of revenue besides the users of the thing that is being given away for free. "Monopolistic vertical integration" might help in getting other sources of revenue, but it's not the root problem. The root problem is that the actual users of the service are not the paying customers, someone else is, so the incentives of the provider are skewed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s a little like the Mafia The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built. Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.
But they also prevent other stores from being built. And they prevent sideloading. It's their store or nothing. They created a marketplace and ban other marketplaces. wtf?
They do no such thing. They just prevent other stores from providing apps for their own product. Which they are within their rights to do, since it's their product.
I don’t think anything will change unless a strong class action and/or monopoly suit is brought against Apple and I often wonder why we haven’t seen one yet.
They also doesn't support free VP9 video coded because they are part of competitive FFMPEG.
I didn't like Apple due to this gatekeeper/walled garden but I started to hate it more after watching "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine" documentary. Such a big company and still they did illegal option backdating, avoiding tax in Ireland, etc.
It needs more time for people to realize their mistake of supporting this company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not as though a statistic about how frequently mobile users access mail via a website is a measurement of some universal value. If that's the only way for iOS users to use Hey, then would find some users who are willing to do that. What's wrong with this being put forward? I would go so far to say that this is one of the four main things that happen when an app is rejected from an app store. 1. Change the app. 2…
Apple intentionally doesn't support many the functionality required by PWA's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
part of the app store rules is you can't do that. you have to offer it for the same price. somehow spotify seem to have gotten away with not doing this.
That’s not true. In fact Spotify did charge more for in app subscriptions v
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple intentionally doesn't support many the functionality required by PWA's.
PWAs are supported well by iOS 13 and you can add a shortcut to the home screen since the beginning - see https://love2dev.com/pwa/ios/
The web browsers that meets the PWA requirements are Chrome, Edge, Firefox (to a large extent), Brave, Vivaldi, all available on Windows, Linux, Mac, Android.
Not Safari. And all browsers including Chrome and Firefox are just Safari under the hood (on iOS) so no completion for Apple. Apple does not even allow a competing browser engine.
I wouldn't call this "PWA support".
When I talk to friends at Google that work at Chrome, and tell them to convince Apple to support many of the features, they tell me that they have given up on them, and I can go talk to Apple if I want. They told me they're gonna keep progressing the web even if Apple wants to stay behind, they won't stop.
I've talked to people at Apple about this, they don't care. They always have a far fetched excuse. I know it's not the engineers fault, they are ordered by the upper management.
Instead of giving the money to Apple, we could easily reinvest it to grow.