201–210 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn’t take a cut of transactions I make in my iPhones browser.
This is why Apple holds back important APIs from their browser, years after they are available in other browsers: fast 3D graphics, offline storage and compute, push notifications, to name a few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average iPhone user would not be able to tell the difference between an official App Store and a sophisticated copy.
Even though one of them is preloaded on the device and the other one has to be separately added?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counter-argument runs like this: Third party developers want to get their apps onto the iPhone, because the platform has a lot of users, and there's a lot of money to be made. However, they will be forced to play by Apple's rules, which (according to the argument) is good for the customer, as the custodian of the platform has a vested interest in keeping them happy. Now, if 3rd party stores were allowed, Apple's…
Counter-argument to what? As Android shows, allowing 3rd party appstores has 0 effect on the main appstore offering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this argument. How can an alternative app Store affect the quality of the Apple app Store ? The alternate app Store is not gonna come installed by default. No one is gonna mistake the alternative app Store for the apple one. Apple is gonna make sure of that. Apple can even put up loads of warnings and dark UI stuff when installing an alternate app Store to dissuade the "noob" users.
Suppose you install a messaging app to talk to your friend. How do you know they installed their copy from the good App Store and not the bad one?
This is especially weird because your username is 0xEFF which initially made me think Electronic Frontier Foundation but it's definitely not that.
Other news on this has quotes from Tim Cook saying that they'd have to find a way to track purchases on IOS and bill developers so that Apple still gets their cut when using other payment processors. For me, this is way over the line. If they want to charge developers to be on their store, fine. I don't have a problem with that. And charging for using them as a payment processor makes sense. Charging for using Apple…
Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether. Remember when eBay charged a commission on the sale price but not shipping? Suddenly $50 items became $1 with $49 shipping -- so eBay had to charge the commission on the shipping too even though it didn't seem "fair". Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge t…
Users should be given the option of using Apple's system if they want to.
After all, It's Apples' argument that their payment system is light-years better for consumers. If true, then users will naturally gravitate towards Apples' payment system. Right? This would result in a cycle where Apple (and other payment systems) are incentivised to continuously improve. What's wrong with that? Why not let the consumers decide what is best?
Let Apple's payment system compete on its actual merits. Apple says it's a much better system after all. I say - let them prove it. They should "put up or shut up", so to speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because my grandma is clueless and I give her an iPhone so she doesn’t install malware like she managed to on her Android phone
And Apple protecting her from that is the only solution? I don't think so... With just a tiny bit of imagination I'm sure we can come up with something which will work. Here's an idea: Let Apple sell Apple-locked and unlocked iPhones. It can work just like carrier locking. Buy one unlocked, maybe pay a little extra, and you can have 3rd party app stores. That took me a minute to come up with. I am absolutely positive…
But that won't work for Epic, or for any competitor. Epic wants access to every iPhone customer, not just the ones who paid extra to add third party app stores. Heck, you don't even have to pay extra to sideload apps on Android, but they still lost a ton of people when Google kicked them out of the Play Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen this time after time, that when the question of Apple store comes up, a top-rated comment always makes a comparison with game consoles to argue it is all fair. I don't personally believe the comparison makes sense, but many on HN do. So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? If the game consoles still 'own' the device after you have bought it, e.g. when PS disabled Linux installation f…
Are consoles sold as general computing devices?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, Apple has to maintain this rule because otherwise developers will implement workarounds to avoid charging in the App Store altogether. Remember when eBay charged a commission on the sale price but not shipping? Suddenly $50 items became $1 with $49 shipping -- so eBay had to charge the commission on the shipping too even though it didn't seem "fair". Same here -- every app would turn free, and charge t…
Is your argument that Apple shouldn't themselves bear the responsibility of choosing an unsustainable/immoral/illegal business model?
immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral
illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whether this is illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything. How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode? “Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.
Apple already charges developers for the privilege of developing on/for its platform. And notably, Android seems to do fine both a) letting devs use the Android ecosystem for free, and b) allowing sideloading apps outside the Play Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is someone taking the App Store from you? Does adding alternative options somehow corrupt the original App Store?
There could be an argument that allowing alternative stores would just mean every app would switch to those and be able to work around Apple's rules and act against consumers' best interests. However, the fact that Apple only enforces the rules when it benefits them as opposed to consumers (so they are happy to turn a blind eye to spyware, but will crack down immediately on alternative payment options) means that in…
Which is a ridiculous argument as the network effects and default preference status of the App Store mean it'll still be pretty much a requirement to publish there if you want any users.