281–290 of 635 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a terrible idea. How would they have any control over that. I think you are way overestimating the amount of iOS users that want to use software from outside the App Store.
That really depends on the store. If Value made a Steam store, or Nintendo made a Nintendo store with Nintendo exclusives I'd expect millions of installs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are adept at malicious compliance. They just got fined 500 millions for failure to comply so I'm not sure adept is the adjective I would use.
How much additional profit have they made based on their malicious compliance? I bet it dwarfs this fine.
So the question is: Would more convincing compliance have cost Apple more than single digit percentage decreases in Appstore sales? Comparing the F-Droid vs Playstore situation, this seems unlikely to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not hold my breath. They are adept at malicious compliance. Cook will do a cost/benefit assessment and will come up with another workaround.
> They are adept at malicious compliance. They just got fined 500 millions for failure to comply so I'm not sure adept is the adjective I would use.
Would looove to distribute an app without it having to be in the App Store, and not paying the App Store fee (direct download of signed binary). Happy to pay a yearly fee or fee per update to cover code review if it’s crucial. But 30% of revenue for doing bugger all… cmon, they’re squeezing the lemon a bit too hard.
The barrier of entry for me is having to pay $99/year just to notarize and sign my macOS applications that me and maybe three other people use. Just a lot easier to link to instructions on how to bypass Gatekeeper or make them compile it themselves from source. Although I think my go-to instructions at https://disable-gatekeeper.github.io/ are not being kept up to date?
[flagged]
The Digital Markets Act is not about a user's right to sideload. It's about 100s of thousands of businesses' right to reach billions of users without Apple in the middle. That's why it's called the Digital Markets Act, not the Phone User Rights Act
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s my worst nightmare. On my iPhone I want the equivalent of Spotify, not Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Max, etc.
It's a bit of a false comparison, since you wouldn't have to pay monthly subscriptions to others stores as you have to for streaming services.
Ah, they said the T-word, presumably to invoke some political fire support from across the Atlantic. I wonder how that will go. Of course, this is not a tariff, for two reasons: firstly, it does not involve money (the UK's digital services tax does, but that's not this), and secondly, the same rules would apply to EU native competitors .. if there were any. It's what's knows as a "non tariff trade barrier". Of course…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much additional profit have they made based on their malicious compliance? I bet it dwarfs this fine.
That is not so clear. Appstore revenue is ~ $100 billion/y, but Apple makes less than 30% from that. So the question is: Would more convincing compliance have cost Apple more than single digit percentage decreases in Appstore sales? Comparing the F-Droid vs Playstore situation, this seems unlikely to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What is ugly or uncivil about noting someone's biases? The "your small businesses would fail without Meta" line is from the official lobbyist arm of Meta, and it's usually a pretty good tell that someone is a Meta employee and is thus likely to have a very rose coloured, idealized version of the org.
Like, you may not want to hear this, but lots of SMBs get value from targeted ads, and this has lead to lots and lots of successful businesses.
I encourage my wife to use these kinds of ads (mostly on TikTok and IG these days) for her business, and they work reasonably well.
That's not to say that Facebook hasn't had a bunch of bad impacts on the world (Myanmar and other poorer countries come to mind), but the OP's point is a good one, and lots of people who don't work at Meta believe this.
Ultimately, Facebook provide a service that it appears lots of people like (I do use Whatsapp but not really the rest of them) and it's not up to you to determine whether or not they've been good or bad for society.
As I keep bringing up in these discussions, should we ban radios for their role in the Rwandan genocide?
Changing forms of communication are always going to cause societal changes, and we're currently living through the biggest one since the invention of the printing press.
I'm not sure one can blame just one company for all of this, and honestly if you had to pick one I'd probably pick Google for making it profitable to write garbage and monetise through ads (but as I said, the Internet and computer mediated communication are a huge change and it's basically impossible to say what actually drove the changes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are adept at malicious compliance. They just got fined 500 millions for failure to comply so I'm not sure adept is the adjective I would use.
Perhaps "compliance" is the wrong term, but surely such a tiny fine will do little to convince them to comply.