761–770 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you buy a Camry and then become an Uber driver, should you have to give Toyota a cut of your earnings?
Depends, If I'm the buyer I don't want it but if I'm Toyota and if I can get a way with it while making more money then its no brainer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
facebook literally already got their hand slapped for abusing the very limited sideloading mechanisms that Apple already provided. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-... This would generalize that and allow them to sideload for everyone. They straight-up would pull out of the app store, block Safari users from the website, and force everyone to sideload a tracker build on day 1.
> and allow them to sideload for everyone. They straight-up would pull out of the app store, block Safari users from the website, and force everyone to sideload a tracker build on day 1. I don't understand how people can come up with these crazy hypotheticals when Android has allowed side-loading since forever.
I'm not saying the hypothetical is likely to happen, but your argument makes absolutely no sense in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Apple really considers this a store. If we compare to Walmart, I’d say 2 out of 3 are obviously the way it works. When selling in Walmart, they won’t let you advertise that you can buy the same product cheaper elsewhere. They also want their distribution deal with you a secret. You don’t go post your terms of engagement with Walmart on your corporate blog if you expect to keep selling stuff in Walmart. The pr…
This Walmart store analogy often over simplifies the problem that is not accurate in the grand scheme of things. Everything about the Walmart as a "store" in the above are correct. Except iOS is also a "State", and this State only accept one "store". While in the Walmart example, which is a real world example, one could always expect you to open a Store next to Walmart selling exactly the same thing with a lower pric…
You want to use a Visa, you find a Sam’s Club. Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This Walmart store analogy often over simplifies the problem that is not accurate in the grand scheme of things. Everything about the Walmart as a "store" in the above are correct. Except iOS is also a "State", and this State only accept one "store". While in the Walmart example, which is a real world example, one could always expect you to open a Store next to Walmart selling exactly the same thing with a lower pric…
Perhaps it’s more like Costco’s decade(s) of “you can only pay with Amex”. Visa card holders could not shop there. You want to use a Visa, you find a Sam’s Club. Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
>Don’t like state of iOS, travel to territory of Android.
Except the "State" of iOS currently holds close to 70% of Smartphone user in US with close to 80% of the spending. You are basically telling business to either comply with the "State" or go else where. Which is why something "above" the state has to come in.
I am not arguing for or against opening or side loading App Store. But there are no competition on each of those different levels. Which Apple likes to lump it all together as one thing. And this idea shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You act like it’s the developers fault that they hitched their wagon to apple. They knew going in with eyes wide open what the deal is. They can always leave en masse to Android if they feel the deal is not fair.
Yes, they knew going in how unfair Apple is, but they knew the alternative, being shut out from half of their customers, was worse. And are you really suggesting that all app developers need to form a cartel to level the playing field with Apple? If not, how do you suppose they all leave en masse, rather than some staying behind to steal the market share the others left behind?
Yes, I’m suggesting that people leave if they are unhappy with Apple. Go to Google; or maybe MS or Amazon will see how hated apple is and start a new phone division. That’s how markets work.
Companies that have seemed on top and undefeatable before have fallen due to customer unhappiness, and can fall quite quickly, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they tell you going then won’t buy that Camry. Get a Honda.
I don't quite understand your first sentence, but by your second one it sounds like your answer is basically "yes". That seems like a rather extreme position to take. Are you also opposed to the First Sale Doctrine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure what standard you are appealing to? Who cares if Apple only lets whatever they want on their own store? It’s their store. I hope Microsoft or Amazon would get back in the phone game and allow alternate stores.
> It’s their store. But once you buy a phone from them, it's your phone, not theirs. You shouldn't have to use their store exclusively on your phone, but since you do, it should be subject to way stricter rules regarding anticompetitiveness and unfairness than non-exclusive stores that other platforms have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone should be held to the same standard of respecting private property. You know what you are getting into when going onto apples store; if you don’t like it then encourage all your clients to use Android.
Respecting private property? Whose property is an iPhone? Apple's or the end user's? Whose (intellectual) property is the Epic Store? Apple's or Epic's? Apple wants to use the only thing that's theirs in the equation (the App Store) to restrict an interaction between both of the other things that aren't theirs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends, If I'm the buyer I don't want it but if I'm Toyota and if I can get a way with it while making more money then its no brainer.
I think you misunderstood my question. I'm asking whether you think the law should let Toyota get away with it.
The only aspect of the Apple App Store that strikes me as truly anticompetitive is their prohibition on adjusting prices to include Apple’s fees, or even to tell the user what they are. I can accept that Apple can demand a 30% fee for billing customers on their devices. And I can accept that they would prohibit installation/sales of software any other way. But I should be allowed to mark up the price by 30% and then…
Dystopian is the word for it. It's fucking insane that you can't talk about why it's priced that way. Of course, if you include the fee explicitly then people will think to look elsewhere and realize they can avoid it. But that's fine, taking a cut is stupid anyway. Really just seems like the app should be paying more to Apple (like a physical store paying rent on real estate) up front and getting the full price of t…