181–190 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not FUD, it's historical fact. MS did exactly what I described, repeatedly. PG even commented about it in one of his essays years ago (his comment was that you could invest a lot in developing a third party Windows application and then find out you were just doing market research for Microsoft).
Then please post some source for your historical facts. Plus, Apple did the exact same things.
A huge problem is the DMA falls short in addressing a significant violation of property rights concerning the hardware. At the core of property ownership lies the right of exclusion – the ability to exclude or include something on one's personal property. This right is quite important and can even be used to derive most other property rights; please see the linked paper at the bottom. However, Apple's policies with i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That said, I really don't understand the issue with their cut, or insisting on handling payments. In the vast majority of cases, these are not your customers. These are apple's customers they have given you access to. This is not true at all. Netflix customers are Netflix customers, not Apple; the same goes for Amazon Kindle, Spotify, etc. Netflix literally cannot include a link to netflix.com in their app, otherwi…
> This is not true at all I think the trouble is that all of the above are true, but not universally true. The issue can be framed from multiple perspectives depending on which aspect of market dynamics are most impactful to a given app/service/situation. Some developers build for the Apple ecosystem because the ecosystem is large and enticing and provides better opportunities than the alternatives. Some developers a…
There is a clear answer, as you yourself just said: they're customers of both Apple (by virtue of having bought their hardware) and the app developer (by virtue of having bought their software). Those are distinct, separate relationships the customer has with two different companies. Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store! That's ridiculous.
Just wow. Good for Apple! I DO want IOS to remain a walled garden as such. Look how many clicks those pesky do good gov regulators have a cost the world with those annoying "Yes I accept your damn cookies and privacy policy" on every website I visit. Writing apps for IOS is a completely voluntary job where you know the terms before you start. Don't like it? Don't write it -or- just pass on the cost to the consumers.…
I agree, all these moves to open iOS are from some of the biggest pushers of enshittification. The walled garden is great for me, and all sideloading will do is open up new attack vectors for me (and more importantly, the tech ignorant people i care about). I understand the corporate actors pushing for this out of self interest, but all of the bystanders cheering this on annoy me. You already have android, linux phon…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With only difference being that you can buy non-apple device with different features, while Bell was pretty much the only option people had.
You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. The problem (and incentive for antitrust action) was Bell's business of charging users to connect to their proprietary and all-encompassing network. They created a situation where the only way to compete was to acquiesce with Bell's exploitative terms. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse monopoly power.
First, that is simply a lie. Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network.
Second, Apple has a smaller market share (especially in Europe!) than Android, so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly.
Third, Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone. If you don't like the walled garden, the gate is not locked. You can simply leave.
This is a rather misleading headline. The vast majority of developers are not in “open revolt” – just a handful of developers are making a lot of noise about it, while continuing to ship software (ie, not in revolt at all). Further, those developers making great noise are often close to “platform” designation themselves, making their appeal less righteous than a superficial reading might have you believe. It’s a stru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is not true at all I think the trouble is that all of the above are true, but not universally true. The issue can be framed from multiple perspectives depending on which aspect of market dynamics are most impactful to a given app/service/situation. Some developers build for the Apple ecosystem because the ecosystem is large and enticing and provides better opportunities than the alternatives. Some developers a…
> If a new app gains popularity primarily because of Apple, and eventually gets big enough that its origins are now immaterial to the ongoing success of the company, whose customers are they? There isn’t a clear answer to this question. Arguably both Apple’s and the app maker’s, and there’s an intrinsic codependency that can’t be easily separated. There is a clear answer, as you yourself just said: they're customers…
In the Netflix scenario, it’s clear that Apple wasn’t the primary source of customer acquisition. The scenario where an unknown app grows and gets big based on Apple’s network effect highlights the complexity of the situation.
> Apple doesn't own those customers now and for all time just because they originally found the service through Apple's app store!
I’m not saying that Apple owns those customers. The pertinent question is what is or is not reasonable for them to charge and/or what restrictions are reasonable. The benefits of publishing in the App Store extend beyond just customer reach, and also involve Apple making good on the promises they've made to their customers (With few exceptions, I personally won't spend money on apps that use their own subscription mechanism, because I have no interest in cancellation hell). In addition to this, the vig covers access to platform capabilities and services that are arguably just as important as access to customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. The problem (and incentive for antitrust action) was Bell's business of charging users to connect to their proprietary and all-encompassing network. They created a situation where the only way to compete was to acquiesce with Bell's exploitative terms. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, it's illegal to abuse monopoly power.
> You could buy non-Bell phones and even connect them to a functioning telephone network. First, that is simply a lie. Until the Carterfone decision it was, in fact, illegal to attach a non-Bell phone to the network. Second, Apple has a smaller market share (especially in Europe!) than Android, so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly. Third, Apple is doing nothing to…
...and the Carterfone decision was long overdue. The entire antitrust legislation against Ma Bell was protracted a half century because, much like Apple, they had armies of lobbyists stationed around the nation. Suffice to say we made the right call on Carterfone, and Bell made the wrong decision by resenting it.
> so it is very hard to see how someone could, in good faith, argue that Apple is a monopoly.
A natural monopoly, maybe. But the Wabash Case demonstrates that a privately-owned common carrier platform can be subject to antitrust law without owning the majority of the rail. The European DMA explicitly goes the extra mile to implicate Apple not as a monopoly, but as a "gatekeeper" with specific fair-play obligations. To them, it wouldn't even matter anyways.
> Apple is doing nothing to prevent you from buying an Android phone.
Ah, the "innovation" clause. This isn't about Android, because Android phones don't run Apple software. Apple has deliberately designed their ecosystem to funnel back into one exploitative internal market that they are solely responsible for. Android phones are an alternative, but irrelevant in a conversation about App Store alternatives.
Let's say a subscription costs $10. Why not charge $14.29 through app store and $10 through online registration? With both logins acceptable in the login form... If Apple users want to pay more for the privilege of paying through Apple, why not let them?
Apple does not allow different pricing
I don’t think app developers were allowed to show that it was x price in the app via Apple and x-fees via the developers own site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a real issue on Android, where this has been the status quo forever. Are there any reasons it would be different here or is it just FUD after all?
> This is not a real issue on Android What!? Yes it is. I've seen it first hand on numerous kids phones, that "have a bad battery" or "stopped working". Turns out downloading unlimited arbitrary binaries from in-app/in-youtube advertisements leads to a functionally bricked phone. I assume adults are too embarrassed, don't want to hand their phone over to someone and just buy a new one.