581–590 of 958 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google Pixel works well and is easy to use but still lets you install custom ROMs.
Sounds to me like the invisible hand of the free market economy. Use that phone, then. A given company is not obligated to serve all of your specific needs and desires.
> permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app. This sounds like the same agre…
Apple's concession didn't apply to games; only "reader apps". Apple's concession also limited to one link, whereas this refers to links in the plural, and also metadata (eg app store descriptions).
Personally, I am surprised at all the anti-competitive actions Apple has been able to get away with over the years: Bundling the OS with hardware Enforcing an App store Dictating/Castrating Browser on mobile And the list goes on. I'm not saying this as a ding on Apple products, because I genuinely appreciate them, but I think at the same time Apple has resorted to creating roadblocks rather than innovating.
> Bundling the OS with hardware Is this really an issue? I agree Apple has been pretty shady but this is a facet of any hardware you buy today from any manufacturer. Now, preventing/obfuscating the install of _other_ OS software, I agree, total bullshit.
You could, maybe, make the argument that what Apple does is anticompetitive, but in the laptop space they are the ones being hurt by a monopoly, not the ones who benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How easy is it to migrate from Google’s Messages app to iMessage?
Is your argument that Google doesn't try to engage in lock-in? Or is your argument that lock-in is good for users? Either way, when there are literal emails in the company saying that the reason iMessage isn't on Android is because otherwise it would be too easy for Apple users to switch to Android -- then that's what lock-in is. I don't get the whataboutism here. It's lock-in. Google is also a crappy company, but th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"purchasing mechanisms" is what's interesting... it's not just information.
But it doesn't force them to allow other purchasing mechanisms, just that they cannot bar "calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms". My read on that is that Apple is still allowed to force Apple-only IAP, but they cannot bar CTAs to external purchasing mechanisms.
> [Apple] are hereby permanently restrained [..] from prohibiting developers from including in their apps [..] buttons [,..] that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms [..]
I'm not sure how exactly to interpret that but it seems reasonable to interpret that has being able to put a button in your app that takes someone to a checkout page.
Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S. Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue. 1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account, say at $5,000 a year. The thing is no customer wants to use any c…
> The thing is no customer wants to use any company's half-assed bug-riddled purchase or subscription system. Every iOS and macOS user will prefer to use the Apple system. The first sentence is true but incomplete, making the second wrong. For example, the Amazon app is highly likely to have people using their existing Amazon payment method. Companies like Stripe are going to offer their own SDKs just like they do fo…
Let's say you want to sell your original product on Amazon, but you also have your own fulfillment center and a storefront on your website. What if Amazon removed you from their store, because your instruction manual included a URL to your website, and it was against the rules to tell your customers that you accepted payment outside of Amazon's ecosystem in any way.
That's what Apple did with software, though suspiciously they left the largest, most litigious companies like Amazon alone, because they've been free to use their own payment systems for in-app purchases of physical products for years now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not financially (we wouldn't lower prices), but I would immediately start to hire 4 more developers if they went from 30% down to 5%. Lowering prices increases the number of jobs available, and the only cost is that Apple loses some amount of it's astronomical profits.
How many developers do you have already, that 35% more money would let you hire 4 more? Back-of-the-envelope calculation says you've got 7, does that match up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would really pay a 30% premium on all your digital purchases just to be warned about a subscription expiring next year? You might be an edge case.
I mean everyone's assuming that non-IAP subscriptions are going to be 30% cheaper but I don't really buy it. If the market has proven that someone will pay $10 for a thing, suddenly offering it for $7 seems like a bad business move.
The mobile app payment market hasn't been competitive for a decade, so Apple has never had to compete with companies that are more efficient than they are, and can offer the same or better service for less than a 30% cut.
I wonder if Apple is allowed to put warnings on apps that contain directions to non-app store payments. Something like "This app may direct you to a payment method not reviewed by or governed by the App Store's strict security guidelines. Use at your own discretion. Apple is not responsible for any issues related to this non-Apple payment method."