91–100 of 944 posts
Patiently waiting for a mandatory 30% fee on every transaction made with iOS banking software. Maybe that'll put a definitive stop to forcing mobile "apps" with jailbreak detection on customers and have banks think twice before crippling the functionality of their websites. Please Apple, make this happen.
Never. Popular apps have been exempt from these rules since the beginning of time - not that I agree with this.
What are you going to do about it? Use Android?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A nickel for each iMessage…
Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.
I miss the old school monopolies, where MS was a bad guy because they dared to include browser. And yes, I do legalese details of that are much more complex. But it just makes no common sense.
Like try to break the internet and the java programming language? The former being most successful for years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.
I think that spammers would happily pay that rate.
Like my point is that atleast for amazon/yt, these bots usually cost this much ~$0.03 to buy once.
Then we probably see a scammer buy many of these accounts and then (rent it?) on their own website/telegram groups to promtoe views/ratings etc./ comment with the porn ridden bots that we saw on youtube who will copy any previous comment and paste it and so on.
So technically these still cost 3 cents & scammers are happily paying the rate.
Apple has an impressive commitment to evil, similar to Oracle. They get better at it every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A nickel for each iMessage…
Honestly… if we implemented $0.01 charge on every message, post and etc. the world would become an amazing place.
2. The costs for this would be ridiculous. I have probably sent over a million public messages on Discord in the decade I've been using it. $10,000 is a pretty steep fee to do some chatting.
3. This is essentially a digital ID scheme with extra steps, and requires ceding privacy completely to communicate on the internet.
I understand your comment was probably an off-hand joke and not to be taken seriously but if you think about it for very long it becomes apparent that it would actually make the problem worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Patreon not popular?
If their app didn’t exist on iOS, would it be weird/embarrassing for Apple? That’s what “popular” means, in this context. That’s how they make their decisions.
But Patreon does have a web version but I am not sure how many people prefer web sites in Apple ecosystem especially on Ios so I do find the whole thing to be a bit weird because this ~30% cut essentially seems to rip off of creators in some sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, that won't do much. How about convict Apple of monopoly practices.
I really don’t understand this attitude. Of course it will. If enough people do it. This is how corporations change not through protest and we’re certainly not going to get any antimonopoly anything going on soon. They make literally about 40% of their profit off of Apple services. Do you really think if people on mass stopped buying Apple TV, Apple Pay, Apple Music, an iCloud, they wouldn’t care? https://www.apple.c…
It's not an attitude, it's an observation. Corporations almost never change their behaviors because of protests and people bitching about them. It's one of the least effective ways of implementing change, especially when said company holds a locked in/monopoly position.
The thing is the end consumer is mostly hidden from the problems of Apples over charging, it deeply affects the companies selling services on the Apple platforms. What would affect Apple far more is not consumers not buying, but a huge part of the people offering on Apples market pulling out. But, Apple has that game rigged to. Particular suppliers get special deals with far lower costs. The competitors to those suppliers are now screwed. Apple will not offer them lower costs (again, Apple hides these contracts until they eventually get disclosed in court), every other company ends up paying a huge Apple tax because pulling out hand the competitor a huge market.
Honestly I'm fine with Apple charging whatever it wants for on its store. I am not fine with Apple selling you what should be a general purpose device and saying only its store can be used. Competitive stores on the device would quickly break Apple of it's monopoly behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like try to break the internet and the java programming language? The former being most successful for years
You mean the web right? Or did Microsoft ever roll its own BGP code?