171–180 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So would everyone else. Part of the problem is that hey is still in invite-only, and everyone who is able would just pay $1 or $2 to get around the invitation list.
Wish there wasn't a stupid invite list so I can use it now instead of waiting :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were basecamp I’d be tempted to pull my apps over that passive aggressive bullshit.
I was thinking the cheeky thing to do is charge $100,000 for the in app version. It’s technically there but even if someone clicked it almost no cc would allow the charge through.
Finally a great breakdown of the issue and a fair look into what both sides, namely Apple, are trying to do here. > That, Apple said, is not what Hey is. Hey is a consumer app, paid for by users. And Apple takes issue with the idea that when one of those prospective users downloads the app, there's nothing they can do with it — they can't sign up, they can't pay, they have to go somewhere else before they can use the…
In a larger sense, Apple seems to be saying that, at least for consumer apps, they have an expected user flow from launch/beta through purchase. That flow makes Apple the primary channel and pipeline. If you have a multi-channel app (web + app, in this case), they want the main experience through the app regardless of business model or context. This makes the customer experience argument seem like misdirection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+ the hardware mandatory to build and submit Apps to the AppStore, right?
Yes. Apple forces you to buy their overpriced hardware if you want to develop for their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bell didn't owe rival companies use of their phone lines, either... Until the 1974 antitrust lawsuit [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T
But this case is not relevant, because Apple faces robust and significant competition from Android smartphones (though I would argue perhaps not in wearables).
- United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100 (1948)
There have been a number of bench decisions based on barriers to entry and market entrenchment to prohibit this sort of behavior by oligopolies, even if the Sherman act didn't specifically mention them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Apple forces you to buy their overpriced hardware if you want to develop for their platform.
Xcode comes with an iOS simulator so you don't need hardware, but it would be a bad idea not to test on an actual device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Apple forces you to buy their overpriced hardware if you want to develop for their platform.
Xcode comes with an iOS simulator so you don't need hardware, but it would be a bad idea not to test on an actual device.
a. Well, if Apple got their way when it came to Hackintoshes.
I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable. - I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs i…
Take a Gmail app. It is the same thing as Hey but Apple reviews it preferably on every submission.
Mind you, this is just a random coincidence and not a targeted discrimination.
> We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years. They literally have paid 8 years of Developer Program fees for supporting the AppS…
The apps have also augmented the iOS platform over those 8 years. An Apple device is better thanks to the apps on it, so they sell more devices. They are double dipping when they benefit from App Store revenues + Developer program fees.
Yeah, let's not forget Apple's famous "there's an app for that" ad campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bell didn't owe rival companies use of their phone lines, either... Until the 1974 antitrust lawsuit [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T
But this case is not relevant, because Apple faces robust and significant competition from Android smartphones (though I would argue perhaps not in wearables).
No? Looks a lot like a monopoly, in antitrust terms, then.
What are effectively independent, descriptively similar, side-by-side markets that people don't move between in response to pricing changes aren't the same market for antitrust purpose, even if conventional media coverage labels them the same market and talks about marketshare in the combined market.