171–180 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would fewer restrictions on publishing apps that pretend to be other apps somehow improve the situation?
It would be better than outright lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, these ads along with ones in News and Stocks are targeted ads based on a user targeting profile from your data. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27261273
Personalized ads can be disabled in Settings -> Privacy -> Apple ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores. Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse). McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling…
If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
This isn’t so much a call to action against Apple’s fees.
It’s pointing out something that I’ve felt building over the last couple of years out of Apple, which is an attitude of hubris, contempt, and a “taking for granted” of Apple’s developers.
The WWDC spiel of how much they value us has become trite and transparent.
They do produce some really nice tools and APIs. I can’t knock what they provide developers.
But often times the attitude beneath the veneer is a precursor of things to come, and it’s becoming noticeable that Apple’s culture seems to care less about its developers now than before.
You might say “sure, but so what? Developers are part of the means to an end of selling stuff”, and you’re not wrong.
But one of the things I loved about Apple circa 2009 was their respect for their user. It was palpable and magical, even.
Then, learning Cocoa and Interface Builder coming from Eclipse and Java, that same respect seemed to permeate their dev environment as well.
That seems lost. Following some of their tech leads on Twitter exposes some rather vitriolic feelings towards people in general.
Customers, be they users or devs, deserve respect. Apple used to be great at giving that respect. I fear it’s slipping away culturally, and is worth calling out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a campaign ran on Apple making products that a lot of people like enough to buy them at the price Apple is selling them.
Yes, and at some point it's possible consumers simply won't pay for some new technology down the road. Say for example, a very expensive health/bio sensor. However, Apple might feel that 1) it's good for the world to be able to monitor/improve health, 2) will give safe access to this sensor to 3rd party developers, so it's good Apple can draw on this revenue source from platform fees to make it happen, by killing mar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be better than outright lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, yes.
I’m not in favor of them lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, but I’m in favor of them resolving the discrepancy by protecting their customers rather than by retracting their claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but we aren't talking about Android phones. We're talking about platforms, since that's what Apple wants to sell. The barrier to entry for this platform is money, and many people cannot afford to use their platform, therefore it stands to reason that only people with a modest expendable income will buy an iPhone. It then also makes sense that those same users will also spend more money on the App Store, since t…
> It then also makes sense that those same users will also spend more money on the App Store, since they also had the expendable income to buy a "premium" product. Those users will also be more likely to spend on apps and accessories in order to justify or supplement the much bigger phone purchase. Someone who's got the same amount of expendable income but chooses a cheap android for frugality is also more likely to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It then also makes sense that those same users will also spend more money on the App Store, since they also had the expendable income to buy a "premium" product. Those users will also be more likely to spend on apps and accessories in order to justify or supplement the much bigger phone purchase. Someone who's got the same amount of expendable income but chooses a cheap android for frugality is also more likely to…
So, amid all of this, how would introducing third-party app stores on iOS somehow damage this status quo? What is the justification for refusing to allow it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not in favor of them lying to their customers by saying that they are protecting them, but I’m in favor of them resolving the discrepancy by protecting their customers rather than by retracting their claim.
It's hard to call it a "discrepancy" when imposter apps are the standard, not the exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust is supposed to be one of the things the AppStore provides, which is used as an argument against third-party stores. But since Apple is failing so miserably in this regard it’s not a good argument.
I agree that Apple is nowhere near restrictive enough with what makes it into the App Store, which is an argument that they ought to be more restrictive.