11–20 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
Apple users are used to lower quality products, making them visit a website should be no big deal.
These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle. I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field. It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
It's not a fair comparison if you're at a physical store since things are too different for an analogy. However, if I'm searching on their website and type in a specific brand so I can find which aisle it's in I would expect to get the brand I searched for, not a Great Value knockoff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
google?
>How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Developers of ios (and soon macOS) platform have no one to blame but themselves for situations like this. Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal. And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app. It i…
These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle. I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field. It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
Would that extend to grocery stores, where would you force walmart to put their own brands?
I think its not really an apt point for comparison.
These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle. I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field. It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
The Files app is bundled with the OS, but not installed by default. It's not exactly "sold" as it's free and isn't ad supported either.
It's hard to find a profit motive here.
Google, on the other hand, has long allowed you to bid on your competitor's product name so you will show up ahead of them in the search results.
They also have a history of scraping other people's content and then more highly rating that scraped content on their own sites in their search engine.
It's easy to find a profit motive there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
>You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? google? >How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps? By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
>By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
These are exactly the kinds of issues antitrust legislation needs to be updated to handle. I have no issue with a company running a store and selling its own products within, but it has to provide a level playing field. It's good they fixed it -- that the VP in question didn't know it had been done and then nixed it -- but this shouldn't even be legal in the first place.
>selling its own products The Files app is bundled with the OS, but not installed by default. It's not exactly "sold" as it's free and isn't ad supported either. It's hard to find a profit motive here. Google, on the other hand, has long allowed you to bid on your competitor's product name so you will show up ahead of them in the search results. They also have a history of scraping other people's content and then mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You mean the grocery stores that have many competitors who also sell groceries? google? >How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps? By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
We need to re-evaluate what "rights" mean in a digital age. Apple should not have a monopoly on digital stores on iOS. "Apple made it so they can do anything they want. Take it or leave it" - is not an acceptable position (in my opinion). >By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
Developers of ios (and soon macOS) platform have no one to blame but themselves for situations like this. Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple suddenly asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store", and treated it as something normal. And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app. It i…
> Alarm bells should have been raised among us developers when Apple asked everyone to shell out $99 for the "privilege" of making an app available on the "App Store". And later, more so, when Apple demanded a percentage cut too on every sale you make from your app. I'm 100% against the way the app store works right now, but I don't have a problem with the idea of those two things if they were implemented in a better…
With respect to the "$99" annual fee, the issue is that it isn't a good deal at all when a developer wants to offer the software for free - most open source developers don't even collect any donation, and it is doubtful if many of them can even raise $99 every year.
This is where regulation is definitely needed - big tech should not be able to force us to pay and use only their signing infrastructure, and government law should require any CA to stringently implement KYC (know your customer) norms, like banks do, before issuing certificates to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I would preferably like to see the end of such "App Store" nonsense, but would gladly compromise and accept it if there is no monopoly (with the caveat that side loading / direct installation of apps should not be restricted - nobody should be forced to use an "App Store" if they don't want to).
(App Store is so successful on ios only because side loading / direct installation is restricted on it).