891–900 of 1001 posts
I remember the days when Apple was pushing to break up Microsoft for including free software (Internet Explorer) in Windows operating systems. It's amazing how "principles" change depending on whom they are being applied to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A while ago, debit and visa payments often had minimal orders and additional fees.
But Apple is more than a payment processor here, they are closer to a regular online store in this regard
Online stores profit from the difference between buying at volumes and selling at a higher price.
They don't charge over the market price, they buy at a discount
Apple doesn't buy anything, doesn't have a warehouse, doesn't allow publishers to discuss the terms of the agreement, they take the same fee from everyone, in this regards it is very similar to a flat tax
Apple store is more similar to a market place, a mall in the physical world, in a mall businesses rent the space
They pay in proportion on how much space they rent and the quality of the space they rent
Apple (unfairly IMO) charges the same amount for everyone, even though some apps are promoted by the store and the vast majority of them is practically undiscoverable unless you already know what to look for.
If Apple was a store it would be a store that only place orders on your behalf, just because it's the only store in town and charges a fee on every order, even if they don't do much
If you had the phone number of the supplier you could place the order yourself, but Apple prohibits customers to even ask for it and if publishers try to contact customers directly, they sue them
In this imaginary town people supporting the Apple business say to people sick and tired of their way of doing it "change town"
I hoped we would be better than tribes in 2020
I don't think Epic is doing anything but trying to pocket more for themselves, yet I also think that the comments here overstate how "aware" average people are about Apple's restrictions, tax etc. I don't think most people would consider direct payment to reputable companies like Epic to be a particular security risk. I don't think most realize why they can't subscribe to Spotify from their iPhones, they think it's s…
> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly…
Apple has as much malware than Android
It just uses different channels
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple will do just fine arguing that their devices are no different from Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, Roku, Cable Boxes, Keurig, Vzw feature phones. I would be extremely surprised if the courts just up and anti-Tivo’d every device on the planet. You try to make a case about how phones are somehow special but they’re really not. You have millions of people who only have an Xbox and so you can’t reach them unless you con…
To me this is exactly where their argument falls apart. I don’t get what Epic wants exactly. Even with Android where they initially had users side load their apps they eventually gave up and put it on the Play Store after complaining that there’s too many warnings when users load third party APKs (how dare they include security warnings of un-reviewed apps!) It seems to me that Epic expects Apple and Google to offer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They shouldn't, but it's not about that. Apple can sell whatever they like or don't on the Apple Store, that's fine. The problem is that they sell consumers a "general computing" device, and then enforcing that every single transaction on said device goes through them. They are not only processing those transactions, not only taking a cut, but also deciding which ones are ok and which ones aren't. Meaning, that if yo…
So there should be a law that says any computing device must be free to load any software? So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction? (I’m not trying to be obtuse). I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook. And again—-going back to the Walmart/…
No, that's not what I said. I said general computing device. For a lot of people nowadays, their phone or tablet is the only computing device they have. The argument here is that Apple is stopping two sides from engaging in a fully legal business transaction. Epic wants to sell you their game, you want to buy that game. The fact that it's running on a device manufactured by Apple is only tangential here - Apple should have the freedom to run their app store however they see fit, but Epic's argument is that they shouldn't be a gatekeeper to allowing and purchasing applications on their devices, because that stifles competition and innovation on the market(which the government is trying to protect). I think it's really well explained here[0]
It's as if Nescafe tried to forbid anyone from making capsules that work in their machines - their argument could be the same, we made the machine, our capsules guarantee correct operation and quality standard, therefore our machines shouldn't work with anything else. And yet....it would be illegal for them to do so, just like it is illegal for a car manufacturer to forbid you from using 3rd party replacement parts. They can void your warranty, sure, but they legally cannot forbid you from fitting 3rd party replacements. But it's about freedom of choice - if you want to buy original Mercedes parts, you can. If you only want to buy apps vetted and approved by apple - you can.
>> I buy iPhone specifically for the walled garden. I don’t want to have to worry about malware etc like I do on my PCs/MacBook.
Literally no one wants to take this away from you. If you want to only install apps from the App Store that have gone through apple's approval process - please continue to do so.
>>So PS4 must play XBox games? Printers must accept any ink cartridge? Apple Watch should allow any android app? What’s the distinction?
The distinction isn't that everything should be compatible with everything. Just that anyone should be allowed to make software for anything, which the platform holders are trying to forbid. Apple is just the first one - but I'd hope that eventually the same argument will be made against Microsoft and Sony and yes, you will be allowed to make a game for PS4/Xbox without having to explicitly ask those companies for approval. The example with the printer is an interesting one, because like I mentioned earlier - manufacturers cannot forbid you from neither making replacement cartridges for their printers, nor from you using them. The ability to do so for hardware has been enshrined in law for a long time. Why not for software?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised this kind of topic inspires such discourse. I wonder what makes it different than other topics.
Tribalism, sunk-cost etc. If this discussion was on Reddit or similar is would probably more one-sided both due to the number of people who play games and the proportionally lower amount of people who have spent a lot of money on Apple products than on HN (accidental humblebraggging regarding your credit card bill seems relatively prevalent here)
Consider that instead we are professionals that need the best tool possible that works and is functional
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almos…
> What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers. Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the comments saying "just buy an Android" ignore the simple fact that you buying an Android does not change the fact that a significant portion of the market is elsewhere. All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Suddenly…
> All the comments saying “just allow side-loading apps/third-party stores and let people decide themselves” ignore the fact that by doing so then iOS will end up with the same virus/malware issues that you see on Windows and Android. Why? Who is forcing YOU to sideload? There's no reason why the default couldn't be status quo and you'd only opt in into sideloading, this way the users who want the walled garden still…
I may be capable of sticking to the App Store and not side-loading apps, but many of my friends, family and non-developer coworkers are not. They’ll click on random links in their mailbox, ads from apps and when browsing the web.. the end result is that they end up accidentally having their homepage, search engine and browser hijacked, they get redirected to spam websites, links on websites gets replaced with affiliate links, their sensitive information gets stolen, etc.
I’ve never had to help fix an iPhone and I don’t know anyone who’s been infected with malware (besides e.g. TikTok secretly copying clipboard and such), however for Windows and Android then I have people reach out to me on a monthly basis because they accidentally installed something that fucked up their computer/phone and they need help fixing it.
As for F-Droid, I hope you realize that their store is even more locked down than the App Store, and it’s as far as I’m aware the only secure third-party store on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wallmart choose their suppliers, and sets the markup, why can't Apple? But, at the end of the day, Walmart can't prevent customers from proceeding to Kroger down the street to get the products or deals they want. That's the market regulator of last resort in most circumstances. You say "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones or games". In the broad view, you may be right, but they've spent significant effort in cr…
Using cost of switching as an alternative would seemingly have ramifications that could be applied to almost everything from Fortnite skins to membership stores to video game consoles to state governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I bought a $1000 device, but somehow Apple gets to decide what I run on it? I just cannot see how that is a desireable situation.
I bought a $1000 device because Apple gets to decide what can run on it. I like iOS, and I like that Apple provides a great user experience on the device. I was not in any way coerced into buying said device, and there are a plethora of other options for substitute devices had I wanted more control of what runs on the device, which I do not.
There are ways to open up, they already do for Macs. The argument is weak.