101–110 of 944 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me? I'm working to help people get elected to Congress to help regulate this mess.
Why would you want to give the government such power? That always amazes me... when there is an issue, people jump on "let's vote for government to regulate this", but then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
What are you going to do about it? Use Android?
I am so close to having raspberry pi phones but even rasp pi 's are getting expensive because of AI dammit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, that won't do much. How about convict Apple of monopoly practices.
Tim Cook hanging out with Trump at the White House a few days ago - not a good sign this will happen anytime soon.
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 mean...that's how SMS used to work? Or still works? Once upon a time it was expensive to send messages and now it's cheap.
I remember Verizon wireless at the time had a plan with unlimited nights and weekends for calls and texts, so my friends and I would message each other like crazy on the weekends when it was free. Got grounded when I got my first girlfriend in high school for racking up the phone bill from text messages and promptly got my phone taken away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the early days when every app was a single purchase and the prices were much higher it made more sense. A lot of people got rich from the App Store. So 30% wasn't a huge piece when you were seeing consistent growth every year in the user base. I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals. So it unfortunately…
> I think the most annoying thing is how unevenly the policy is applied. Some megacorps pay the 30% and others like Amazon get sweetheart deals. I agree, there were deals down to 15% I think (maybe lower) but I don't think that's still happening? I mean, Netflix finally gave up but only after increasing their IAP fee to cover the difference for many years. I might be behind the times on this but I didn't think they s…
Apple and the contracted company are very very unlikely to tell you they have a secret contract for lower prices in effect unless they are forced to under court disclosure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me? I'm working to help people get elected to Congress to help regulate this mess.
Why would you want to give the government such power? That always amazes me... when there is an issue, people jump on "let's vote for government to regulate this", but then they are surprised when a new government gets to power and uses this new regulation/capability against you.
Markets without competition degenerate. Markets are also artificial and always rely on government enforcement to exist - Apple sues people who try to get around its market manipulation. You just prefer that governments help enforce trusts and destroy competition that those trusts denote as unfair.
Apple has an impressive commitment to evil, similar to Oracle. They get better at it every year.
The tremendously, villainy evil of getting money for a service.
This would be an entirely different conversation if Patreon was still allowed to use other payment systems outside of Apple's IAP service. No, this is Apple forbidding competitors on their platform.
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.
Apple also sits on a board that approves new web technologies for standards formalization, so they can squash adoption of anything that might make web browser APIs as capable as a native application, so that they can force people to make native apps where they can extract a percentage from it (they can't do that with a web application). Rather than work out reasonable ways to support things other browsers allow, they just say "no thanks" and then there is no standard allowed to move forward.
It's extremely abusive and anti-competitive. I hope the DOJ continues to pursue litigation against Apple for this and many other things.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>I really don’t understand this attitude. 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…
Having a boycott against you is like being hated. Firms spend enormous sums on advertisements.
Even a tiny group boycotting you has a substantial influence on your popularity-- they will tell their friends, etc. and will lead to reduced popularity.