11–20 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the big deal? Don't sell it on Apple's store.
If its not a big deal why doesn't apple just remove that requirement?
So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store.
Seems reasonable to me.
I was momentarily confused by the mismatch between the title and the article. The author means "de-evolution" (going backwards with respect to progress) not "devolution" (more power to the people).
de-evolution & deevolution aren't words https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de-evolution
> This was the standard way to compute in the 60s. But we have evolved. Nowadays, you buy a computer and nothing keeps you from doing anything with it. Depends on the specifics of "you," "nothing," and "anything." > Wake me up when Linux is ready for everyday phone use, because Google is a poor alternative. I have UBports (i.e. Ubuntu Touch) installed on an old Pixel for use as a remotely controlled camera, but I don…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its not a big deal why doesn't apple just remove that requirement?
Apple's concerned that developers will use the Apple App Store as simple lead gen for the "real" app in 3rd party store. App quality in Apple's store would fall which would be bad for Apple's store. So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store. Seems reasonable to me.
Apple can get away with this because it doesn't (directly) affect their users, only the developers. Even with all the racketeering, the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform and their racketeering ring means losing out on a huge user base and (potential) profits. At this stage it would take a "union" of sorts, a bunch of developers of big/popular apps and services to collectively…
Apple "gets away with it" because it is what users prefer. These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology. If the market had a better product Apple's users would flock to it. But the market doesn't. And we're left well meaning backseat drivers who insist on "fixing things".
> This was the standard way to compute in the 60s. But we have evolved. Nowadays, you buy a computer and nothing keeps you from doing anything with it. Depends on the specifics of "you," "nothing," and "anything." > Wake me up when Linux is ready for everyday phone use, because Google is a poor alternative. I have UBports (i.e. Ubuntu Touch) installed on an old Pixel for use as a remotely controlled camera, but I don…
Since Linux is a kernel, and Android runs off the Linux kernel, I am confused by that "Wake me up when..." final sentence. I know he probably means desktop Debian on a Pixel phone but it's very poor phrasing.
A little more about UBports...
It's not like you can use /dev/video to use the video camera on a Linuxified phone. Instead, the system is a Debian wrapper around Android, and Android is used to get access to the proprietary device drivers. Those capabilities are then exposed to the Qt-based SDK.
So, to take a picture with the camera every few minutes, instead of running a command on a cron job I had to write a whole [GUI app][1]. Either I manually start the app using the phone's touchscreen, or I think I can launch it in dev mode remotely using tools on my laptop, but the phone still has to be manually unlocked.
To top it all off, there's a memory leak in some camera-related Android service, so the app crashes after a few hours. The bug is allegedly in the Android code, so the UBports maintainers can't do much about it (maybe backport a patch onto the source from which the Android base image is built? Who has time for that?).
For all I know, it's a good phone, but for my hacking use case it's less than ideal.
Still, any old phone camera is way better than the webcams I have lying around.
[1]: https://github.com/dgoffredo/ubuntu-touch-intervalometer
Apple can get away with this because it doesn't (directly) affect their users, only the developers. Even with all the racketeering, the developers don't really have a choice; choosing to leave the Apple platform and their racketeering ring means losing out on a huge user base and (potential) profits. At this stage it would take a "union" of sorts, a bunch of developers of big/popular apps and services to collectively…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple "gets away with it" because it is what users prefer. These users are the same folks who prefer and pay a premium for Apple technology. If the market had a better product Apple's users would flock to it. But the market doesn't. And we're left well meaning backseat drivers who insist on "fixing things".
How do you know users would prefer the Apple store to a third party iOS store if no other stores on iOS exist?
But the consumer doesn't care. Consumers instead are choosing phones based on other features.
Now, what happens on iOS once the 3rd party stores get forced in? Who knows. It'll be fun to watch. Generally, consumers probably won't give a shit. After all, if they valued this feature, they'd purchase a phone with it.
The people who do care generally aren't consumers. It remains to be seen they can can shift consumer behavior.
That said, I think new genre's of apps might be able to provoke a change. Stuff like porn, hacker apps, apps that appeal to niche communities, all that Apple would never allow...If one of those apps becomes super popular, then the 3rd party stores will become interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's concerned that developers will use the Apple App Store as simple lead gen for the "real" app in 3rd party store. App quality in Apple's store would fall which would be bad for Apple's store. So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store. Seems reasonable to me.
The entire point of alternative app stores is to allow more features than Apple’s. If large Apps have to give up on adding new features for their alt store versions to avoid losing their existing business on Apple’s store then how are Alt stores supposed to compete? The only reason this strategy works for Apple is because they have a dominant position already. This is textbook anticompetitive behavior.
What's more likely to happen, is that those big apps will simply start to split into two apps. The basic one will remain at feature parity on both stores. Then app mfg will then make a new "Super" or "2.0" app that they'll launch only on the third party store. That'll probably satisfy Apple.
Stores choose what and what not to sell all the time. It's no more anticompetitive than LHVM stores choosing not to sell canned soup or Mercedes choosing to not sell Ford.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its not a big deal why doesn't apple just remove that requirement?
Apple's concerned that developers will use the Apple App Store as simple lead gen for the "real" app in 3rd party store. App quality in Apple's store would fall which would be bad for Apple's store. So publish the same app in both stores or don't publish in our store. Seems reasonable to me.
If they really are providing so little value, maybe they could invest in making their platform less shitty or offer better terms? Like, you know, compete.