531–540 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Fortnite isn't on the play store.
And it's not in apple appstore neither, so clearly the reason is not the fact that non-playstore apps can be installed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is literally just Apple because you can install apps outside the company store on other platforms. The inability to install outside the store is what makes disallowing outside payment an issue. The combination means that you can't sell to a customer without going through apple because they have used their control of the hardware to take the decision of whom to do business with from you in order to stand there with…
allowing sideloading instantly shreds user privacy because any sufficiently-large customer (f.ex facebook) will immediately demand their app be sideloaded to bypass app review, and given full permissions so they can scrape everything. Facebook for example has already gotten their hand slapped for doing exactly this using their developer credentials, and if it suddenly becomes viable to do this for the full user-base…
Nobody who doesn't opt in for privacy shredding will have their privacy shredded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it telling that you use AWS as an example because they are different than the apple model, while ignoring all the companies using the exact same model as apple, including how Epic charges developers to host content on the Epic store.
There's no device or platform for which the Epic Store is the only way to get apps, so it shouldn't be held to the same standard as Apple's App Store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope multiple App Stores don’t become a thing on iOS. The reason I like iPhone is that I am assured that apps I download from App Store are not shit and curated by Apple. Apple has vested interest to keep apps made available to be clean and not going to compromise iPhone. Android play store, in comparison, is full of crap and free for all, basically buyer (or downloader) beware. Phone is used by too broad of user g…
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.
Allowing third-party app stores effectively means providing a vector to bypass the official app-review process, which is the cornerstone on which the permissioning system rests. If you allow third-party app stores, then any sufficiently-popular app can create their own "app store" and demand that you give it full permissions, which they will turn around and use to scrape data. It will become a race to the bottom, permissioning systems cannot stand if the app-review process does not exist, and the app-review cannot exist if third-party stores exist as a mechanism to let anyone publish anything.
Facebook has already gotten their hands slapped for exploiting sideloading to mine user data, and if they could spread it to the general user-base then they will do so immediately.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
So your question about "how can an alternative app store affect the Apple app store" is a red herring, and not at all what OP said - what OP said was "allowing third-party app stores will degrade the experience of iOS users" and that is absolutely true, Facebook has already tried to do this before and this will allow them to take another turn at the ring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. It's a suit of convenience for everyone involved, nobody is making a principled stand for user freedoms here, they just want to pry open Apple's bank vault, and they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. That the software freedom argument just happen…
> Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things? > they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - AWS charge you on compute time, Apple don't charge you for ongoing use of their services beyond one initial charge for app submission Yes they do, the fee is yearly, and they make billions in revenue from this. Google charge one-time.
Who cares how much they make? If you’re unhappy, go to Google or petition Microsoft or Amazon to get back in the game. I’d also like a provider that allows other app stores and has high quality like Apple — one of those companies should do it. But it’s ridiculous to force apple to do it when you could go elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bull. Without apple the iOS ecosystem wouldn't exist.
Without Microsoft, the windows eco system wouldnt exist. Should MS get a cut of all windows applications?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic is a great example. Their own store lists alternative stores on the Epic store, like itch.io. But they don't take a cut of games bought from those stores. Once you launch itch, you're in itch.
This would be true if they listed "alternative store_s_", but what they actually did is add itch.io to their store in a token way once they started the lawsuit in order to say "Look, we have no problem working with other stores". It's a stunt for the lawsuit. Even the Itch founder who signed the deal said they basically found it bemusing and an effort to gain legal leverage without really doing anything else. It'd be…
After playing that game, I saw promotions for Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Uplay, and purchased it. I later went on to purchase many other games on Uplay.
In short, Epic allows Ubisoft to sell games on its store, for which they presumably pay a cut - for those sales. But Epic has no problems letting Ubisoft require their store be installed for those games, and if you buy something there - even though the Epic Launcher installed it - they don't get a cut.
This is more akin to the App Store installing Fortnite - which Apple could get a cut out of, but not getting a cut for purchases in the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft is a signatory to this suit and yet is explicitly arguing that they shouldn't have to open up their devices. Can't I agree with Microsoft on some things but disagree on other things? > they don't care if user privacy (permissioning/app review, etc) gets shredded in the process. I don't think there actually has to be a tradeoff between privacy and freedom, but if there were, I'd pick freedom every time.
Well, the dominant market player supports the approach you want. iOS controls about 15% of the global market, why should the force of law be used to extinguish an alternate user experience that some users want? Like, literally, you're trying to use the force of law to blot out an alternate user experience that you don't like, so that you can make a point about "user freedom". It's a pretty awful thing you're trying t…