431–440 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Apple's TOS allow this? IIRC, Credit card companies used to disallow different pricing for cash and CC.
no. you can't even mention other payment methods
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
I don't think so. I'd say the mobile market is quite different. Look at Android and the Google Play Store which also has similar pricing stipulations. There are players offering separate app sources/stores (Amazon or Epic appstores for example), but I certainly wouldn't consider virtually every big player or even a large portion opting out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it. I agree. That's also why I think it's unfair/unethical/monopolistic that Apple won't allow anyone else to try.
They can try. They just shouldn't be allowed to force Apple to help them try, by forcing Apple to build them new APIs and open new vulnerability vectors to do it.
I'm of the opinion that they are not able to try because apple has blocked their ability to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix doesn't take payment in its iOS app as far as I can find. They are allowed to take payment on their website for a subscription, but so is any other developer.
the twitter thread/verge article are about how this is not true for fanhouse, at the very least.
I downloaded Fanhouse and tried to view some profiles. It says "Follow to see more" but there's no way to follow anyone in the iOS app. I can see this running afoul of some App Store guidelines since you're advertising a feature with no way to use it.
This could be Apple being unreasonable, but it could also just be a misunderstanding of how the App Store review process works. I don't know how long they've been going back and forth with Apple on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
brand and marketing power. Apple is the cool developer brand and devs with their sticker filled macbooks and consumers don't have a critical attitude when it comes to Apple. It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of…
Why are you comparing open and closed platforms when they aren’t comparable? Try now with Microsoft Xbox and iOs and your logic fails.
Why should "closed" platforms (i.e. ones where the user doesn't get to decide) even be allowed to exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation. I am "people" and I absolutely do not want app developers creating their own silo'd app stores. The last thing I want to do is download separate app stores for every major app vendor on my phone, to give them all my credit card info, to have per-store standards for warning me about privacy issues, to have different policies…
Having the ability to install non-Apple-approved applications doesn't remove your ability to install Apple-approved applications.
Suddenly the apps you had come to expect on the App Store are not there now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
brand and marketing power. Apple is the cool developer brand and devs with their sticker filled macbooks and consumers don't have a critical attitude when it comes to Apple. It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of…
Why are you comparing open and closed platforms when they aren’t comparable? Try now with Microsoft Xbox and iOs and your logic fails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Missing the point they the only way to install apps on an IPhone is the app store. If you had choice to freely download apps from the internet, this would not be a monopoly abuse issue. Then sure charge on the app store whatever you want, allow competing so stores that also offer reviewed software.
Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
If they did this, millions of iPhones would suddenly be filled with sandbox-breaking malware installed from websites, too. I believe Apple is ready to die on this anti-malware hill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 30% is absurd, but that would definitely change things for every user. I don't want to install Adobe's store because I need to use their PDF reader. I don't want to install Microsoft's store because I need to use Teams or Outlook for work. Other App Stores mean that companies get to make that decision--not end users. How could it be otherwise?
Why do you feel justified forcing Adobe to make a deal with Apple? You could decline to install Acrobat until it's in a store you like.