61–70 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or Fortnite, for that matter? Why should I be forced to buy skins with Epic’s in-game currency instead of loading my own?
Fortnite is a free game, I pay to own my iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is room for 3rd party app stores. The "Apple Tax" pays for the maintenance of the Apple ecosystem. Epic wants access to this amazing ecosystem, but resents having to help pay to support it. Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way; or they'll fail to support the ecosystem, in which case Apple will be forced to turn to…
> Either "third party" app stores will also pay to support this ecosystem, in which case Epic will be paying the same amount either way how did you work out that the amount apple gets paid (30%) is the "correct" amount? The only way to find out is via competition. But due to the monopolistic powers of apple, there cannot be competition on their platform. Thus, we do not know the true cost of maintaining this platform…
The "correct" amount is the amount that everybody is happy to pay. If Epic doesn't want to pay 30%, then 30% is too high for them. That's OK -- nobody is forcing them to pay it.
The competition you're describing isn't the cost of running the app store; it's the cost of maintaining the entire Apple ecosystem, including iOS, new iPhone hardware, etc.
> Adding an extra option can't possibly hurt you.
Yes it can, and I just explained how. But let me try to spell it out.
1. New iOS "app store" starts up, but only charges 0.1%. This is possible because they don't write the OS or any of the infrastructure; they're a simple indexer
2. Everyone moves over to this app store because the fees are cheaper.
3. Apple's revenue drops precipitously
4. In order to maintain the OS, Apple either a) raises the prices of iPhones b) starts selling my information c) invests less in the iPhone and iOS.
All three of those possibilities hurt me; so yes, a new app store does hurt me.
> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The walled garden is a selling point, a feature - I don't care about sideloading at all. You want to sideload? Grab and Android.
Some people do at the moment, but that's not completely the point.
This legislation should be about tail risk - protecting the people who increasingly only have an iPhone or iPad as their main computer from either forced obsolescence or restrictions on their behaviours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing What about platforms like Playstation or the computers built into Teslas etc, should we allow sideloading on those? How do you define a platform?
Or Fortnite, for that matter? Why should I be forced to buy skins with Epic’s in-game currency instead of loading my own?
It feels a bit hypocritical when Apple laughs at FB for complaining about their new tracking pop-up yet when the shoe's on the other foot and Apple may actually have to compete on its own platform they double down and defend their right to be judge, jury and executioner. Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other st…
> It's more disappointing it takes 10 years for regulators to step-in To be fair, until it was limited to a small section of the population, it wasn't a big deal. So rich people want to live in walled gardens, so what? But when you start talking about 20% or 30% of the whole population, then it's a significant problem. It took a bit for Apple to reach that level but they are definitely there now, and since they don't…
They can strangle creativity and keep us prisoners in their walled gardens for decades, subjecting us to high prices and tarrifs, lack of choice, missed technological opportunities, biased filtering and ranking, whimsical deplatforming of users and blocking of apps, stifling the development of competing and innovative businesses, or buying them outright to keep the risk away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right t…
What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General purpose computing. A game console or Tesla computer is not made for general programs, they have specific purposes. It's also a case of "you know it when you see it", iPhone wasn't a big platform when it launched but now it's the primary platform for many peoples computer needs, it should not be exclusively run by a private company.
> it should not be exclusively run by a private company. Why? If you don't like the iPhone there are other general purpose computers that you can use, ranging from a laptop to a Pixel smart phone... > General purpose computing. If you want to call it a general purpose computer, then you also have to include tablets, laptops, desktop computers, and Android phones. All of a sudden there is quite a bit of choice for cus…
Your list of manufacturers does not take the platforms into consideration. None of those are allowed to use apples platform unless they follow their strict rules.
There isnt't a competitive market unless ther's free movement and perfect information and the two smart phone platforms have large lock-in effects today so it hardly qualifies. The portion of the market that is android or windows are competitive markets, it's easy to switch from a samsung phone to a lg phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on) How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right t…
What if consumers like it like that: one sandbox curated by Apple?
> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The walled garden is a selling point, a feature - I don't care about sideloading at all. You want to sideload? Grab and Android.
If you don't care about sideloading? Don't sideload, just use the Apple Store. Users like you have zero skin in the game. Nothing in your workflow will change, other than you might get cheaper applications.
> Apple competing with third party app stores on iOS is going to be amazing. No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing. The walled garden is a selling point, a feature - I don't care about sideloading at all. You want to sideload? Grab and Android.