231–240 of 639 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support that anti-Apple folks should get Android, Jolla, Purism,... Apparently voting with the wallet means buying status and then complaining about what one has bought.
I support that anti-Microsoft folks in the 90s should use Linux, Macintosh or an abacus. Plenty of choices. Vote with your wallet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can suggest that you run your app business on another platform... Did you miss the part where I said that 50% of my customers use an iPhone? To be clear: 50% of the general population in the United States uses an iPhone. 90% of the youth market uses an iPhone. That doesn't leave much of a choice for developers at all. You simply cannot have a successful app business in the US without being on Apple's app store. M…
For some definition of "app business", sure. But there are plenty of companies making plenty of money in software without touching any app store. To be sure, Apple's popularity puts them in a really good negotiating position with respect to developers who want to sell certain kinds of software.
And no harm would come to consumers by giving them that choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but do we agree that Epic getting what they want would result in a more open platform than what we currently have? Because the alternative to what Epic want (so the current situation) isn't a completely open platform but one where Apple is the only boss and can do almost whatever they want. Having more bosses in competition for parts of the market is an improvement toward a more open system.
We've seen on Android that the practical effects of competing app stores are basically zero. There's too much advantage to controlling the OS and being the default. Epic getting a store on iOS is likely to be a moral victory at best. The effective solution is stopping dominance in one area from spilling over into another. Can't use iOS control to gain control of app sales and you can't use control of app sales to gai…
Using that reasoning, they are in the best position to actually open to competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that particular app was essential to modern day life for a huge portion of the general population then yes, absolutely.
What it it's essential to the life of a relatively small group of users? It seems like the rights of smaller groups like that are the ones that most need collectively bargained, as they'll be in a relatively poor position to negotiate with the organization compelling them to use the app?
This is about giving users and developers a choice outside of Apple's app store. If you like freedom and choices, you should get on the right side of this debate.
If some relatively small group of users had a choice, they would always be able to choose Apple's protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on. “We’ll remove your license if you keep misbehaving” is in no way similar to “we’ll go after your users and remove their license”. It’s a threat in the long term, if Epic and Apple cannot negotiate something satisfying (which they will eventually, there’s just too much to lose for both of them), but let’s keep some perspective.
It's a chain of events. If Epic can't develop on iOS or MacOS, they can't continue to work on Unreal, which makes it effectively an abandoned product for others. Yes, they can still use it, but it would be basically EOL. That was the point in threatening to revoke Epic's license to develop on the platform, and the danger in the increasing monoculture inside Apple. You can only use these specific ordained tools, and t…
The OP was not about a constructive discussion of the consequences of that, it was about Apple going after other developers. Which is factually wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't like Apple, buy Android, Jolla, Purism, KaiOS, whatever. And in the process get a law book.
> And in the process get a law book. You're the one who thinks that you need a world-wide monopoly for it to matter to courts in the US. > Don't like Apple, buy Android, Jolla, Purism, KaiOS, whatever. That's advice for a user, not a developer. As a developer, I'm forced to go where my customers are and in the US 50% of the users have an iPhone. If only 10% of the users in the US used an iPhone, we wouldn't be having…
You're thinking like a company that cold calls people on the do-not-call registry or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you just look at the PC ecosystem and you can see the nightmare. Like others,I prefer Apple to have a tightly controlled App Store and believe that the benefits far outweigh the ability to install software from a 3rd party App Store. For example, Apple requiring Sign In with Apple (when signin with Google/Facebook are implemented) where you can hide your email address. That’s not possible with multiple app stor…
Here are just some reasons why android isn’t an alternative: Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.) Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.) Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. > Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen. That's the core of the discussion here: you seem to think that's in the interest of the user to have Apple taking all those decisions for themselves. I firmly disagree, I'm a happy user of an iOS device and do release…
Yea, I definitely think it's in my interest and the interest of the vast majority of iPhone users to have Apple make these decisions. I'd rather every developer leave the App Store than switch away from the current model. I'd just use Apple's built-in apps.
But who's to say that Apple has your interests in mind, and not their own, and makes a choice for you that is actually detrimental to you and beneficial to them? Let's say, by locking you in, and preventing any competition.
How would you feel if every other company you buy from did the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple will have those in their App Store, but users will make the trade off with privacy to play Fortnite or download a new social media app. > Apple makes it so that trade off doesn’t have to happen. That's the core of the discussion here: you seem to think that's in the interest of the user to have Apple taking all those decisions for themselves. I firmly disagree, I'm a happy user of an iOS device and do release…
Yea, I definitely think it's in my interest and the interest of the vast majority of iPhone users to have Apple make these decisions. I'd rather every developer leave the App Store than switch away from the current model. I'd just use Apple's built-in apps.
Mac apps do just fine with other install options while most still choose the App Store for ease and security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we don’t want control over our Nintendo switch or iPhone.
But why? What is the benefit of giving up that control?