Doesn't look so secret to me. The ad shows the address as apple.com.
Apple is relying on the subscribers' not knowing of this money grab...
21–30 of 231 posts
Doesn't look so secret to me. The ad shows the address as apple.com.
Apple is relying on the subscribers' not knowing of this money grab...
This isn't terrible since it's possible that many apps providers can't afford the ads. But i think it's unacceptable unless the app owner is given a choice, and a clear cut choice with obvious opt in and opt out buttons. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it clear to the consumer that Apple is paying for the ad.
We obviously know why Apple is doing it and why the apps in question don't like it.
But a couple things occurred to me:
You could view this like Amazon giving away your book or android app in a promotion. As I understand it, they still pay the author as if it were a sale, so the author seemingly has nothong to complain about. Even that still seems wrong to me but that's the argument Amazon uses. That is essentially, no, litterally, Amazon advertizing your product for their own purposes.
Another argument Apple and Apple devotees and general "invisible hand" worshippers may try to use is: Any sales generated by the ads would not have existed without the ad, and so it's not taking anything from the app developer.
I don't really buy either theory, but it does take some thinking to describe a mechanism by which they cause harm and should be considered invalid.
They hold enough water to convince a lot of people who want to be convinced, and the arguments against just sound kind of weak and whiny.
> Apple is trying maximize the money they’re making … And that is the problem with our modern companies. The only morals is making money. What a pitiful excuse.
It only becomes a problem when there’s no regulation, which is exactly what’s happening here. Apple has too much market power, and the government is doing nothing to regulate them. The only way Apple will stop doing evil and harmful things like this is if A) government steps in or B) Apple decides to stop trying to grow. B will never happen (it’s basically impossible for a publicly traded company)
The same is true for the other tech giants.
Either we need one big action (break them up), or a lot of small actions (force them to change specific business practices)
> Apple is trying maximize the money they’re making … And that is the problem with our modern companies. The only morals is making money. What a pitiful excuse.
can you explain to me this attitude, which i see a lot? Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to make money why should we expect anything else? Also this is true for every company in history. Of course we must demand companies meet minimum moral standards such as not using slaves (which would be unthinkable today in 2021 cough ) but those must be imposed on them by law. This is a genuine question p…
That is not actually true. Corporations are a tradeoff for society: a corporation fulfills some societal need in exchange for investors receiving limited liability and a chance to profit. We have every right to question whether or not this arrangement is beneficial or harmful to society, and every so often a corporation will be broken up when society's needs are not being met.
Don't think that profit, limited liability, or anything about the current arrangement is a given or a natural right or anything like that. It is a system we use to accomplish certain shared goals, nothing more.
How's this different than googling for a Lenovo laptop and seeing ads for Lenovo's website versus Amazon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can you explain to me this attitude, which i see a lot? Obviously the entire reason for a companys' existence is to make money why should we expect anything else? Also this is true for every company in history. Of course we must demand companies meet minimum moral standards such as not using slaves (which would be unthinkable today in 2021 cough ) but those must be imposed on them by law. This is a genuine question p…
Money corrupts everything, it replaces the original motivation. If companies didn't have to maximize x% of the profit made on the investor's money per quarter/year, they will be able to focus on product/service, customer and employees more. It may result in less profit but it will be better for the society as a whole. We can see this happening when some company is acquired solely for sucking money out of it. Sometime…
BS. One of the only things Ayn Rand got right was her view of money: it is one of the greatest forces for good humans have ever invented. Money allows us to settle our disputes without violence; money is what enables peaceful trade; money is how we moved beyond palace economies.
Sure, money can corrupt some things, but on the whole money has likely saved many lives and in all likelihood the free societies we have today could never have existed without a monetary system.