Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. The "browser is a mini-OS" metaphor has proven to be an absolutely terrible experience for both developers and end-users. Time to find another way.
Let the market decide? If it's so obviously terrible it will fail.
Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
261–270 of 851 posts
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#262Earlier 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?
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
Analogy to drug safety makes no sense - FDA regulates drug safety and 'fake' generic drugs are very much allowed, so customers may choose generic drugs without needing to distinguish safe/unsafe themselves.
Counter to your point, pretend Apple is the FDA and the drugs are apps. Now pretend the government wants to get rid of Apple/FDA.
Exactly the problem
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#264Earlier 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…
> The popularity of the latter might suggest that quite a few people are reasonably happy with the status quo. People haven't thought it through at all. If they've even considered this aspect of it, I'd be surprised. iPhone popularity is due to a mix of very good engineering, presentation, marketing and network effects. Smartphones are also very, very new for people. Give them time and they'll rebel against a single…
It's the reason why I don't even really give a toss: there's nothing on iOS that you can't get on Android.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is bull. Apple deserves a "rent", and not a "cut". They are providing infrastructure and services, and they deserve a minimum rent for these, which they already take. But Apple should not take cut on every purchases made through the app. It makes no sense. AWS does not take a "cut" on every Netflix subscription bought. They just charge for the storage and traffic. This is how App Store should function.
AWS pricing is extremely thorough and not at all comparable with Apple's App Store: - AWS charge you on bandwidth used, Apple don't charge developers for the number of downloads - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission - AWS charge you for storage, Apple don't charge you for storing your app I'm not a fan of Apple's App Sto…
Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#266Earlier 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…
This is bull. Apple deserves a "rent", and not a "cut". They are providing infrastructure and services, and they deserve a minimum rent for these, which they already take. But Apple should not take cut on every purchases made through the app. It makes no sense. AWS does not take a "cut" on every Netflix subscription bought. They just charge for the storage and traffic. This is how App Store should function.
That’s the real magic of AWS and is the reason S3 was the mother service. Pre-AWS, colo at scale meant circuits and high friction networking. With the modern cloud providers, there’s less friction, but a tollbooth.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#267Earlier 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?
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
PWAs and web based push notifications only benefit Google?
Yes. Google's strategy is simple: 1. The web should be able to control everything (i.e. PWA features not normally found in a browser). 2. Google should control the web (they can index it, track, monetize it, but it has to be on the web). 3. Profit. Do you think Apple users are super excited at the prospect of most apps turning into battery-draining non-native shitty experiences, instead of using the iOS frameworks? N…
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So I am going to ask, how is this different from PS/Xbox/etc? Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). Phones are general purpose computing devices: they are use to do practically anything that a computer can do; check email, look up navigation, buy things online, check bank balance, create and edit photos/videos.…
I'm not necessarily in favour of Apple here, but I do not find this to be a compelling argument. "General-purpose" is an artificial distinction. The idea of "general-purpose" devices do not exist in any legal sense. >Game consoles are specific-purpose computing devices: they play video games with a secondary use of running other entertainment apps (netflix). This is a circular argument. Game consoles are "specific-pu…
The law, as you said, makes no distinction between these devices because they are all computers, and all computers are theoretically capable of running code from anywhere unless effort is taken to restrict that. Nor, in my opinion, should the law try to make a distinction because that would quickly become arbitrary or very messy as companies tried to qualify as non-general-purpose.
Re: Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developers have no leverage because there are no alternatives. What can they do, take their apps and leave the store?
Release on Android only.