321–330 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What capabilities would the streamed app have for deception that a website lacks?
None. That’s the point. Both can deceive you in ways that App Store Apps cannot. One reason people spend so much money in the App Store is because it is relatively safe to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why were 2, 3, 4, and 6 banned?
2 - driving traffic to apps (advertising), it was considered "manipulating the rankings" 3 - the apps for were too similar, we were kicked out for being "templated". eg two different hair salons stores had too similar functionality - but were aesthetically totally different 4 - the social network allowed people to post text, someone said something horrible on the network and reported it (with screenshot) to apple 6 -…
This was clearly exploitation of their power. Let's find some horrible comments on Reddit now and report to Apple with screenshots, huh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're working on a decentralized app platform that mechanically is unable to kick devs off. Its early and doesn't have a monetization layer yet, but it's our goal to provide developers and users alike with a home that will outlast the whims of a single corporation. https://siasky.net
Forgive me if this is a stupid question but if you’re unable to remove apps from the store how will you handle blatant issues of spam or, worse, viruses?
If a user doesn't like their moderation/filter, they can swap in a different one or disable it altogether.
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple. Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store (which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_ gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party (could be set up by the government…
> Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective? Stop buying iphones and macs.
Apple customers are funding this behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My sympathies. That's a really sad story. I don't know if it's any consolation that it was at least discussed among the executives. I don't know why you originally eschewed the web. I've developed on closed platforms in the past: Facebook (when Facebook games like Farmville and Mafia Wars were crazy hot), Silverlight, OpenSocial, Twitter, and now Google Apps Script. My work is always worthless in 2-3 years, and what…
Silverlight? What did you use it for? The only public Silerlight code I ever came across was Netflix’s client for Windows Internet Explorer around 2010-2012, then everyone switched to Widevine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they just aren't good enough. even on android, with google supposedly being the patron saint of PWA, native apps just offer a better experience.
OTOH more effort hasn't been put into PWAs (by developers and Google) precisely because these won't work properly in iOS.
It's funny Apple gets this bad rep, when on the UI front they've actually had some really good APIs much earlier than Chrome. CSS Snap Points, backdrop-filter, and position: sticky on iOS all have been really great at creating more native-like experiences on web.
But really, despite being a web developer, I just have very little experience in trying to compete with actual native apps which will always inherently be more capable and performant. This isn't really due to the platform being supposedly hindered by a particular company, but more down to the inherent free for all nature of the web where there's very little _authorised intent_ you can express.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the gov should not control what a private business could do unless it's against the laws? The debate is whether Apple is a monopoly, until we conclude that Apple should be able to run their store as they see fit. Personally I would say Apple is not a monopoly, but Apple + Google is a duopoly and maybe gov should do something about BOTH of them.
People are saying that what Apple is doing should be against the law. When talking about ethics and regulation, it’s not enough to simply say the status quo should be preserved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are saying that what Apple is doing should be against the law. When talking about ethics and regulation, it’s not enough to simply say the status quo should be preserved.
I'm simply replying to GP's point about the legality of Apple's action. Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is. Tim Cook talks a lot about ethics and whatnot but Apple's profit (and share price) always come first.
"How far can we go before we get fined?" is ethically dubious and isn't behaviour that should be rewarded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm simply replying to GP's point about the legality of Apple's action. Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is. Tim Cook talks a lot about ethics and whatnot but Apple's profit (and share price) always come first.
> Until a court found Apple's action is against the laws, or new laws are written to make it so, Apple is free to operate the store as is. "How far can we go before we get fined?" is ethically dubious and isn't behaviour that should be rewarded.