201–210 of 1001 posts
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
2020 is really an interesting year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
Fuck AMP. The fact that there is no way to turn it off is one of the main reasons I don't use Google on my phone. DDG often has slightly poorer results, but I often find answers to my questions in Reddit threads and Reddit has a horrible mobile experience. Between AMP and them throwing 15 different popups at me to get their app (why would I want their single tab app?!?!), it's borderline unusable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be the case if AMP grows dominant; given the market share of Google Search, it could be enough to create a controlled (er, "curated") web in a similar spirit.
Fuck AMP. The fact that there is no way to turn it off is one of the main reasons I don't use Google on my phone. DDG often has slightly poorer results, but I often find answers to my questions in Reddit threads and Reddit has a horrible mobile experience. Between AMP and them throwing 15 different popups at me to get their app (why would I want their single tab app?!?!), it's borderline unusable.
I think I’m completely fine with Apple doing this. It’s a clear violation of the TOS and Epic clearly knows that. They likely also knew well before making the update and perhaps thought Apple would bluff and only threaten a take down. Platforms aren’t free.
Why would Epic have a heavily produced video and lawsuit ready if they thought Apple would bluff?
Imagine if Microsoft did this on PCs. a) prohibiting the installation of non-windows store software (sideloading) and b) insisting that all purchases done via apps give them a 30% cut. I think this is a ridiculous practice on the behalf of Apple.
Valve is anticipating such move in a near future and investing in gaming on Linux.
What happened to the days where everyone controlled their own domains/IP addresses/servers? Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? I trust ICANN more than I trust Apple and ${CLOUD_PROVIDER}
In this case they have no choice. If you want to sell applications that run on Apple devices, you must sell them on Apple's store. Doesn't matter where they host their software and servers. There is no historical mainstream analog since desktop/laptop OS software has never been so locked-down that it was impossible to install software without 1st-party permission. Even early videogame consoles had unlicensed games ru…
A large and growing ecosystem of applications and services grew around the network which this American company controlled, and the network became central to the American economy [1]. Other businesses had to connect to this company's network, so that they could reach the company's many end users. But the company jealously guarded its end users, inflicting onerous burdens on competitors, or disconnecting them entirely [2].
That company, the American Telephone and Telegraph company, was eventually dissolved by the US Department of Justice due to charges filed under the Sherman Antitrust Act [3].
Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, right, there aren't any historical analogs to the App Store. Apple is a bastion of innovation and an important defender of privacy rights, and I can't imagine that its management would ever recklessly endanger that by running afoul of antitrust law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107525656002865...
I'm not even sure I know exactly where I come down on the issue as I can see reasonable arguments on both sides. But I do think it deserves being tested.
(Note: obviously it IS a monopoly and does have huge negative effects. The question is whether the courts will find that it technically violates specific anti-trust definitions sufficiently to be successfully prosecuted.