261–270 of 492 posts
Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed. We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way. We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressur…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey is not a reader app, so the rule for reader apps does not apply.
Completely arbitrary rule btw. A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted. Just because they can.
Everything else is the same: the fees are the same, the prohibition to use and/or advertise payment methods outside AppStore is the same etc.
> We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it. This line makes my blood boil. Futhermore, later they define disallowed sexual content as: > 1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s Dictionary as "explici…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing "secret". Everybody can roll their own payment in the web. They cannot advertise alternative payment methods in the app . See Spotify as an example.
The double standard is Netflix is able to provide an app that does nothing out of the box until you register elsewhere. Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere.
> Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere.
No. "Reader apps" get an exception to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely arbitrary rule btw. A segment gets free pass for lower fees because it is too big to get kicked from iOS while others get shafted. Just because they can.
That segment doesn't get a free pass lower fees. They get the same fees. The only difference: they can provide a log in without ability to sign up. Everything else is the same: the fees are the same, the prohibition to use and/or advertise payment methods outside AppStore is the same etc.
> Apple on Wednesday confirmed the existence of a program for streaming video providers that allows those platforms to bypass its standard 30 percent App Store fee when selling individual purchases, like movie downloads and TV show rentals. The program first became public earlier today when Amazon updated its Prime Video iOS and Apple TV apps to allow in-app purchases for the first time. It is not clear how long the program has existed, but there are at least two other providers, Altice One and Canal+, currently participating, Apple confirmed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The double standard is Netflix is able to provide an app that does nothing out of the box until you register elsewhere. Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere.
Other apps like Spotify, Kindle, all the music streaming and audiobook etc.? Oh wait, they are not booted. > Other apps would get booted because they don't work without navigating elsewhere. No. "Reader apps" get an exception to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To begin with, I think they made it to accommodate Tencent, who once threatened to pull Wechat from App Store if they don't let them use their own payments. First, they used them for transfers only, but later came games, and etc.
Because it is not about fairness or rules. It is about extracting as much values as possible from app developers. That made sense when the Apple store was a small kind of start up enterprise. Nowadays, it should be regulated so all developers can use the platform in a level field where competition is real and it is not just a game for big corporations.
The problem is that they restrict the user from using any other app store. So then when they get it wrong there is nothing anybody can do. And then they have less incentive not to get it wrong, because it's much harder for them to lose users to a competitor, so then they prohibit things the user actually wants more often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stores buy products wholesale and sell them on, and accept the risk of the products not selling. Apple act as a middleman and and add on their fees, with absolutely no risk to themselves. They're very different business models.
That's not how IP publishing works. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remaindered_book https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-out_(recording_industry)
Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed. We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way. We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressur…
> Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience. Spamming the store may lead to your removal from the Developer Program.
I totally agree that there's enough of these types of apps, but you'll need to convince a reviewer that your "special" if you want to compete in that space. I'm torn between agreeing with Apple and being disgusted at the anti-competitive nature communicated. I just wonder if Apple uses this to say "oh, there's already enough find-my type apps" "oh, there's already enough music apps" "oh, there's already enough word processor apps" and you're left holding the bag of software you've spent the last year writing.