251–260 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought an iPhone despite the App Store, so I don't think that logic really holds.
I don’t know if what you’re saying holds generally. I don’t know if people buy it for the AppStore, but I strongly suspect that most people don’t buy it despite the App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. And, likewise, Apple, as the platform owner, should be able to deny access whatever software they want. You can of course, jailbreak your iphone, or install PWA's that work.
Wait till your microwave oven doesn't want to cook the food you want and paid for.
This is a very bad look on Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of their agreements, the sense of entitlement that underlies Apple’s position is shocking. The claim that Epic has “lined [its] pockets at Apple’s expense” implies that Apple deserves to sit in the middle of every transaction that happens on their devices and take a margin. This is the world’s most valuable company we’re talking about here; assertions…
> Maybe next Toyota will decide that they deserve a percentage of Uber’s revenue because Toyota's cars help facilitate Uber’s business? There are many car manufacturers that Uber could choose from in just the same way that there are many platforms that developers can develop for. Stop trying to spread the idea that the ability to make apps for the iPhone is an inalienable right.
Yes, but neither should Apple have the right to prevent users from using alternative app stores and applications on their own iPhones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought an iPhone despite the App Store, so I don't think that logic really holds.
I don’t know if what you’re saying holds generally. I don’t know if people buy it for the AppStore, but I strongly suspect that most people don’t buy it despite the App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…
>> This license is free to use and incurs 5% royalties when you monetize your game or other interactive off-the-shelf product and your lifetime gross revenues from that product exceed $1,000,000 USD. > And Epic doesn't even provide quality control, a discovery mechanism, or payment processing. Apple takes 30% off all purchases upfront, and maybe they'll cut you a deal if you're Netflix-size. On top of that, Apple's "…
Netflix, like Kindle & Spotify are "Reader" Apps which pay 0% Royalty.
[1] https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~...
Apple writes in their court filing: “Epic sought to enjoy all of the benefits of Apple’s iOS platform and related services while its ‘hotfix’ lined Epic’s pockets at Apple’s expense.” It seems that Apple has forgotten that each iPhone user already paid Apple hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars for the iPhone itself. It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, jus…
> It is reasonable to charge developers for development tools, but if that's what you want to do, just charge them for development tools. This isn't how the software development eco-system works. There are tonnes of examples of providing free development tools with restrictions on use and revenue sharing agreements. For example, there's this little known company called Epic Games which provides the Unreal Engine for…
Which is just _one_ of _many_ licensing terms available for that product. You can just buy a license outright and avoid the royalty fee if you so choose.
The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. This will have far reaching consequence for many devices like consoles, home assistants etc. I believe we are simply giving control of the devices we own for no…
> The perfect outcome according to me will be that you could be required to pay apple tax if you use app store to distribute the app, but the user should have a way to install any app outside the store and apple has to provide user a way to let them install it. Isn't that the current situation on Android, and Epic still sued them?
“There is nothing anticompetitive about charging a commission for others to use one’s service,” Apple said in the filing. What about forcing someone or some company to use a service (apple's payment systems)?
Such a weird argument too, as if there was a different service Epic could use to reach > 50% of the US mobile market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Unity and Unreal Engine disappeared from iOS you'd probably lose at least 50% of the games on that platform, if not more. Likely almost all of the top revenue-generating titles. People use middleware like UE and Unity to compensate for how difficult it is to ship games on Apple's platforms (along with others) instead of building for Apple's SDK. The citadel demo is the tip of the iceberg.
> to compensate for how difficult it is to ship games on Apple's platforms (along with others) instead of building for Apple's SDK. Apple's SDK doesn't contain a game engine.